494 réponses à ce sujet

[Valo_Soren]

Yes, I love the endings too but I think a bit more clarity and closure to them will also be fun. A little more in depth explanation from the Catalyst and some more info on what happens to our squad mates would go a long way.

[Iconoclaste]

Quietness wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

I think there is an "artistic" way to kill people that actually make it a "good thing". That's my opinion, but don't ask me to justify it because I have no obligation to do so.

Hahaha.

Nah thats cool its your opinon, while i may disagree you are entitled to it. Its when we are told opion = fact or i get it you dont is when backing up is required.

Well, in my view, just because someone says "it's my opinion" does not make it a sacred thing. The point is not about an opinion being just "an opinion", it's about the facts underlying there, like you say.

So, if anyone says he likes molesting children, of course the "it's my sacred opinion" will not stand for long. That's why the "they don't get it" is insulting : a vast portion of the forums recently assessed the huge plot holes and inconsistencies, yet one comes here, opens a thread to attract attention to the opposite by saying obviously provocative stuff, then try to "close" the argument with "sacred, untouchable opinions that need no explanation".

[Hexley UK]

Evil Minion wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

The ending was not "objectively bad."

There are no "facts" when interpretting art.

Art is subjective. Your opinions are just that: opinions. You may think your opinions are facts because you feel strongly about them, but it still doesn't make them facts.

If there's anything you don't "get," it's apparently the difference between "subjective" and "objective" thought.

No. It's bad. It violates fundamental rules of literature, including introducing a new character with new exposition in the final segment of the story. It is bad.
Do not play the art card, art is objectively bad or good. Scribbling on a piece of paper and calling it "art" is the defence of hipstersand artistes.

Art is not "objectively bad" or "objectively good."

The ME3 endings were not "objectively bad" or "objectively good."

There are no "rules of literature."

You've given me absolutely no reason to accept your interpretation of the endings beyond yelling that I'm a "hipster" if I disagree with you while simultaneously complaining about people "talking down to you."

That the Earth revoles around the sun has an objective, scientific metric by which we can measure it. It holds true in every culture. Whether the ME3 endings were "good" or "bad" do not have an objective metric; therefore, it is subjective. If the ME3 endings ae "objectively bad," then you should be able to point me towards the empirical, physical, repeatable principle that demonstrates it.

I'll wait.

But it's not art so your argument is void...I'll wait.

Modifié par Hexley UK, 31 mars 2012 - 07:07 .

[tiger-tron]

I'm thinking this is an early April fool's...maybe Bioware made an early April fool's with the ending?

[Talogrungi]

My feelings on the "art" debate are pretty simple; you can't justify the ending with "artistic integrity" when you sacrifice that integrity to meet publisher deadlines.

[The Angry One]

Evil Minion wrote...

Art is not "objectively bad" or "objectively good."

The ME3 endings were not "objectively bad" or "objectively good."

There are no "rules of literature."

You've given me absolutely no reason to accept your interpretation of the endings beyond yelling that I'm a "hipster" if I disagree with you while simultaneously complaining about people "talking down to you."

That the Earth revoles around the sun has an objective, scientific metric by which we can measure it. It holds true in every culture. Whether the ME3 endings were "good" or "bad" do not have an objective metric; therefore, it is subjective. If the ME3 endings ae "objectively bad," then you should be able to point me towards the empirical, physical, repeatable principle that demonstrates it.

I'll wait.

Stop playing the art card, I have explained numerous times that you are talking about fine art, and videogames are not fine art. They WILL be held to account if they do not follow basic rules.
If you want fine art, go to an art gallery and view an unmade bed somebody's put up as an exhibit to make a statement. Videogames are not about artsy statements, they are about providing a satisfying experience to the player.

[Hexley UK]

Valo_Soren wrote...

Yes, I love the endings too but I think a bit more clarity and closure to them will also be fun. A little more in depth explanation from the Catalyst and some more info on what happens to our squad mates would go a long way.

You can't polish a turd...and this is a big stinking bowl clogger.

[sHELLYEA]

Evil Minion wrote...

Dava Flava wrote...

Clearly, if I liked the ending and others don't, then they didn't get it like I did. That's not passive aggressive; that's factual.

I'm not sure it's helpful to imply people who didn't like it didn't "get it."

The impression I get is the "anti-enders" are more annoyed by the presentation.

This ...and you sir are coming across very condescending as a matter of fact it is the very nature of the word.

con·de·scend·ing[/i]/ˌkändəˈsendiNG/Adjective:Acting in a way that betrays a feeling of patronizing superiority.(of an action) Demonstrating such an attitude.

[MassiveEffects]

Talogrungi wrote...

My feelings on the "art" debate are pretty simple; you can't justify the ending with "artistic integrity" when you sacrifice that integrity to meet publisher deadlines.

Well put.

[The Angry One]

Valo_Soren wrote...

Yes, I love the endings too but I think a bit more clarity and closure to them will also be fun. A little more in depth explanation from the Catalyst and some more info on what happens to our squad mates would go a long way.

They all die of radiation poisoning, according to lore. Perhaps this went "over your head".

[molecularman]

It could have been OK for the mediocre scifi game, but for a series as epic as this it just is flat and lacks all imagination. Yeah, we got rid of the reapers, I somehow guessed that already.

Modifié par molecularman, 31 mars 2012 - 07:11 .

[Reverse Centaur]

The Angry One wrote...

Reverse Centaur wrote...

It's OK that you still can't understand why some people might feel differently. It's probably the same reason a lot of meaning went right over your head.

Are you trying to be ironic? Because you just said exactly what I predicted someone would say.
If the meaning went "over our heads", why don't you explain it? Hm?

What's the point? It's not like you would be rational enough to listen, and I wouldn't be telling you anything you haven't already heard. The problem is you, and many others, seem to think your opinion is more valid or factual than the people who disagree with the zealotry on these forums.

[Tazzmission]

The Angry One wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

and like i always say we wont know anything till pax friday

so hopefully the multiple ending threads can stop until then

You do realise that Klencory counts as terrible foreshadowing either way?
It's entirely skippable. It's vague. It's never followed up on. You do not get to point to that and say "AHAH!", it's the very definition of grasping at emergency induction ports.

same can be said for the dark energy ending

hell same can be said for the indoctrination theory also

im not against the indoc theory at all and imo i really do think thats where the game was heading because i think they just cut the ending out and left everything else in leading up to it

the catalyst never bothers me because i have some theories on that maybe he is either a trickster or maybe he really couldnt controll the reapers

when he tells shapard the crucible changed him and shepard is the only organic to make it this far  that one line alone is what makes me think what are his true motives? is the catalyst really a helping hand?

Modifié par Tazzmission, 31 mars 2012 - 07:11 .

[Bigdoser]

Talogrungi wrote...

My feelings on the "art" debate are pretty simple; you can't justify the ending with "artistic integrity" when you sacrifice that integrity to meet publisher deadlines.

Exactly thats why a kitten dies whenever someone says that bioware should not change the ending because of artistic intergrity. 

[Quietness]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Quietness wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

I think there is an "artistic" way to kill people that actually make it a "good thing". That's my opinion, but don't ask me to justify it because I have no obligation to do so.

Hahaha.

Nah thats cool its your opinon, while i may disagree you are entitled to it. Its when we are told opion = fact or i get it you dont is when backing up is required.

Well, in my view, just because someone says "it's my opinion" does not make it a sacred thing. The point is not about an opinion being just "an opinion", it's about the facts underlying there, like you say.

So, if anyone says he likes molesting children, of course the "it's my sacred opinion" will not stand for long. That's why the "they don't get it" is insulting : a vast portion of the forums recently assessed the huge plot holes and inconsistencies, yet one comes here, opens a thread to attract attention to the opposite by saying obviously provocative stuff, then try to "close" the argument with "sacred, untouchable opinions that need no explanation".

Yup , its trolling in the truest definetion of the word.

[Generic Name]

Hexley UK wrote...

Valo_Soren wrote...

Yes, I love the endings too but I think a bit more clarity and closure to them will also be fun. A little more in depth explanation from the Catalyst and some more info on what happens to our squad mates would go a long way.

You can't polish a turd...and this is a big stinking bowl clogger.

Actually I'm pretty sure on Mythbusters they did polish turds.

[Velocithon]

Evil Minion wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

The ending was not "objectively bad."

There are no "facts" when interpretting art.

Art is subjective. Your opinions are just that: opinions. You may think your opinions are facts because you feel strongly about them, but it still doesn't make them facts.

If there's anything you don't "get," it's apparently the difference between "subjective" and "objective" thought.

No. It's bad. It violates fundamental rules of literature, including introducing a new character with new exposition in the final segment of the story. It is bad.
Do not play the art card, art is objectively bad or good. Scribbling on a piece of paper and calling it "art" is the defence of hipstersand artistes.

Art is not "objectively bad" or "objectively good."

The ME3 endings were not "objectively bad" or "objectively good."

There are no "rules of literature."

You've given me absolutely no reason to accept your interpretation of the endings beyond yelling that I'm a "hipster" if I disagree with you while simultaneously complaining about people "talking down to you."

That the Earth revoles around the sun has an objective, scientific metric by which we can measure it. It holds true in every culture. Whether the ME3 endings were "good" or "bad" do not have an objective metric; therefore, it is subjective. If the ME3 endings ae "objectively bad," then you should be able to point me towards the empirical, physical, repeatable principle that demonstrates it.

I'll wait.

According to what you're saying, during the last ten minutes of ME3, Fluttershy could've showed up and started killing Reapers while Justin Bieber and Rebecca Black starting singing the US national anthem. You're saying that it would not be objectively bad, that it would not be violating rules of literature.

You can stop waiting now.

[Caz Tirin]

Reverse Centaur wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Reverse Centaur wrote...

It's OK that you still can't understand why some people might feel differently. It's probably the same reason a lot of meaning went right over your head.

Are you trying to be ironic? Because you just said exactly what I predicted someone would say.
If the meaning went "over our heads", why don't you explain it? Hm?

What's the point? It's not like you would be rational enough to listen, and I wouldn't be telling you anything you haven't already heard. The problem is you, and many others, seem to think your opinion is more valid or factual than the people who disagree with the zealotry on these forums.

Yet again a direct question is asked, then evaded.  Troll on, playa.

[Bone3ater]

I suggest reading this, and watching this, if you like the ending, or think it's good.

Not to cram something down your throat, just suggesting to understand us.

*dives out of this thread again*

[The Angry One]

Tazzmission wrote...

same can be said for the dark energy ending

Dark energy had foreshadowing in entire missions. Klencory has one vague planet description.
I'm not entirely fond of dark energy either, I am in the camp that says that the Reapers required no explanation for their actions.

hell same can be said for the indoctrination theory also

Dude. That's my point.

im not against the indoc theory at all and imo i really do think thats where the game was heading because i think they just cut the ending out and left everything else in leading up to it

the catalyst nenver bothers me becaus ei have some theories on that maybe he is either a trickster or maybe he really couldnt controll the reapers

when he tells shapard the crucible changed him that one line alone is what makes me think what are his true motives? is the catalyst really a helping hand?

These things need to be explained and *properly* foreshadowed. As it stands, the Catalyst (the character) is an out of the blue last minute addition. This violates basic storytelling rules.

[Quietness]

Tazzmission wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

and like i always say we wont know anything till pax friday

so hopefully the multiple ending threads can stop until then

You do realise that Klencory counts as terrible foreshadowing either way?
It's entirely skippable. It's vague. It's never followed up on. You do not get to point to that and say "AHAH!", it's the very definition of grasping at emergency induction ports.

same can be said for the dark energy ending

hell same can be said for the indoctrination theory also

im not against the indoc theory at all and imo i really do think thats where the game was heading because i think they just cut the ending out and left everything else in leading up to it

the catalyst never bothers me because i have some theories on that maybe he is either a trickster or maybe he really couldnt controll the reapers

when he tells shapard the crucible changed him and shepard is the only organic to make it this far  that one line alone is what makes me think what are his true motives? is the catalyst really a helping hand?

Please play ME2 again.

[Reverse Centaur]

MassiveEffects wrote...

Talogrungi wrote...

My feelings on the "art" debate are pretty simple; you can't justify the ending with "artistic integrity" when you sacrifice that integrity to meet publisher deadlines.

Well put.

Right...because all other forms of media such as books and movies don't have deadlines. I guess that invalidates those mediums too.

[Hexley UK]

Generic Name wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Valo_Soren wrote...

Yes, I love the endings too but I think a bit more clarity and closure to them will also be fun. A little more in depth explanation from the Catalyst and some more info on what happens to our squad mates would go a long way.

You can't polish a turd...and this is a big stinking bowl clogger.

Actually I'm pretty sure on Mythbusters they did polish turds.

Oh ok.....a polished turd is still a turd though....

[The Angry One]

Reverse Centaur wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Reverse Centaur wrote...

It's OK that you still can't understand why some people might feel differently. It's probably the same reason a lot of meaning went right over your head.

Are you trying to be ironic? Because you just said exactly what I predicted someone would say.
If the meaning went "over our heads", why don't you explain it? Hm?

What's the point? It's not like you would be rational enough to listen, and I wouldn't be telling you anything you haven't already heard. The problem is you, and many others, seem to think your opinion is more valid or factual than the people who disagree with the zealotry on these forums.

Another evasion! Really, if it's so simple to you, why don't you just tell us? Who cares if we all listen or not?
I think you can't. I think you're just pretending. Prove me wrong.

[Caz Tirin]

Reverse Centaur wrote...

MassiveEffects wrote...

Talogrungi wrote...

My feelings on the "art" debate are pretty simple; you can't justify the ending with "artistic integrity" when you sacrifice that integrity to meet publisher deadlines.

Well put.

Right...because all other forms of media such as books and movies don't have deadlines. I guess that invalidates those mediums too.

*grabs fishing pole*  GONNA CATCH ME SOME RED HERRING!