Caz Tirin wrote...
*grabs fishing pole* GONNA CATCH ME SOME RED HERRING!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.
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.
Velocithon 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.
Oh look. One of THESE guys.
*cracks knuckles*
Video games are not art. Video games follow a storyline. That storyline can be flawed. The ending to ME3 is flawed. Art, as in paintings, doesn't have this. They can be neither right nor wrong and are MEANT to be viewed from multiple perspectives. Get that through your thick skull. Go it? Ok good.
The Angry One is dead on. What happened in the ending is bad. It contradicts EVERYTHING prior to that point. There's no two ways about this. This is a FACT. Not opinion. FACT.
Stop trying to be "cool" by going against the flow.
Quietness wrote...
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.
Dava Flava wrote...
Cheers, Bioware!
You've been getting a lot of horrible feedback about the ME3 ending, and I just wanted to say thank you for crafting an amazing conclusion to such a sweeping narrative. I'm not even being sarcastic or anything. I've finished the game three times now, and I have to say I was very satisfied with how the entire series played out, including the ending and, especially, the stargazer finale. I don't even buy into that "indoctrination theory" stuff, either; I think the ending stands tall on its own. You should be proud of crafting some of the best material in recent Canadian literature (because that's what it is).
Anyways, I just thought you'd like to hear that not everyone missed the point of your conclusion to Shepard's story. I'm excited to see you're eager to please the disappointed fans, and I, too, can't wait to see whatever alternative you develop.
Keep up the good work!
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.
The Angry One wrote...
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.
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.
Well, something here : zealotry is allowed if it relates to stand by the rules of logic and argumentation. Anyone who would like to "discuss" without justifying their opinions, whatever they might be, is lying.Reverse Centaur wrote...
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.
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.
Tazzmission wrote...
Quietness wrote...
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.
but in the end it was skipped regardless was it not?
you dont even hear dark energy in me3 at all
Yup we have a winner here folks.Dartbeast54q wrote...
I've seen some people here say they feel they are giving Bioware "positive feedback" by saying they like the endings. They dont go into detail about why they liked the ending, but just say they do.
Its fine if someone does or does not like the endings, its at the end of day an opinion of the person playing. Everyone has different views and view things different. Anyway, just saying you liked something w/o giving any details is not really constructive feedback,. At the same time, simply saying you hated the ending cause it made you want to throw your puppy out the 2nd story window is not constructive feedback either.
Example: You go to a new steakhouse, get a steak. The chef comes out and asks, "What did you think of the steak?" If the chef has any sense of their job, they would get alot more out of it if you say " I liked how I asked for a medium and it was a medium cook, i liked the fat/lack of fat, how easy to cut, etc etc" Then just saying, "Oh it was good. "
While everyone has different tastes, the best chef will make a note of this, and for the rest of the day/week/w.e people who order the steak, when they ask the customer what they thought, if many people give similar explanations, then they can take that and run with it.
The same applies here. Everyone ripping the ending but detailing the specifics of the things they did not like, are the ones giving the most "positive" constructive feedback. Likewise, those that did like the ending and detail what specific parts they liked are giving positive constructive feedback.
The Angry One wrote...
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.
It invalidates them as fine art.
It means they are not immune to criticism.
It means their quality is not subjective.
Evil Minion wrote...
No, it's an "opinion."
Your "opinion" that video games are not "art" is an opinion.
Just because you feel strongly about a subject does not make your "opinions" into "facts." Constantly repeating that your "opinions" are really "facts" does not make them "facts." That most dogs have fur is a fact. That the Mona Lisa was the greatest painting ever is an opinion.
Nothing you've said above counts as a "fact." I do not agree that the endings "contradict everything," but I respect that you have come to that conclusion, and I do not believe you are stupid or misinformed for believing such.
Good luck on your new ending.
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.
Dava Flava wrote...
Let me try to explain something that applies to both the ME3 endings and how people interact on forums like this....
Communication, in any form, whether it's spoken, written, or otherwise, is only successful when the speaker/author's intended meaning is interpreted correctly by the listener/audience. If communication is not successful, then some sort of miscommunication has occurred. When someone doesn't "get it," that likely means that either the author's intention was not communicated effectively or that the audience misinterpreted the author's intention... or both.
That's the real issue here with the ME3 ending (and with the miscommunication around what "get it" could mean). And, it's probably a bit of both. While I enjoy the endings and think Bioware crafted a sound and fulfilling open-ended conclusion, it's clear many fans didn't see it that way.
I'm not trying to discredit their opinions, but if the anti-enders need some sort of explanation why the endings are adequate, all I can really offer as a solution is play through it again but try to keep an open mind. Ask yourself, "What if the endings don't suck?" I don't think hearing someone else's reasons for enjoying the ending will convince anyone that it was even ok.
Velocithon wrote...
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.
Modifié par Evil Minion, 31 mars 2012 - 07:20 .
To be honest, that's the very reason why most people who disliked the endings are offended with the possibility of being served "explanations" by Bioware, simply put. That equates to the "they don't get it".Dava Flava wrote...
I'm not trying to discredit their opinions, but if the anti-enders need some sort of explanation why the endings are adequate, all I can really offer as a solution is play through it again but try to keep an open mind. Ask yourself, "What if the endings don't suck?" I don't think hearing someone else's reasons for enjoying the ending will convince anyone that it was even ok.
Dava Flava wrote...
Let me try to explain something that applies to both the ME3 endings and how people interact on forums like this....
Communication, in any form, whether it's spoken, written, or otherwise, is only successful when the speaker/author's intended meaning is interpreted correctly by the listener/audience. If communication is not successful, then some sort of miscommunication has occurred. When someone doesn't "get it," that likely means that either the author's intention was not communicated effectively or that the audience misinterpreted the author's intention... or both.
That's the real issue here with the ME3 ending (and with the miscommunication around what "get it" could mean). And, it's probably a bit of both. While I enjoy the endings and think Bioware crafted a sound and fulfilling open-ended conclusion, it's clear many fans didn't see it that way.
I'm not trying to discredit their opinions, but if the anti-enders need some sort of explanation why the endings are adequate, all I can really offer as a solution is play through it again but try to keep an open mind. Ask yourself, "What if the endings don't suck?" I don't think hearing someone else's reasons for enjoying the ending will convince anyone that it was even ok.
Retour en haut
