227 réponses à ce sujet

[Navywife64]

He did an incredible job explaining exactly why the ending does not work for so many people. Thank you.

[Dragoonlordz]

Hexley UK wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

2papercuts wrote...

Ignoring it's own universal rules > All rules are set by the writers, further writing explains those rules if they change or new ones are added.

But the ending already contridicts itself, are they going to contridict themselves again to explain the ending? what are you saying? doesn't that make it lazy or bad writing?

With all games they wish to extend the life of the product regarding investment, the most viable way to do so is by additional content that is linked, relates or specifically expands on elements of the core title and additional exposition is one of such means.

That was complete gibberish and doesn't even answer the man's question.

Yes it does. google the word exposition which explains and expands on the content seen prior, the elements left unexplained and contradictory due to being unknown or not understood how 'x' is possible; changes to the rules and results of actions or new situations/possiblities.

LOL your just pasting stuff from google docs now....ok i'm done your not worth the bother.

LOL

You asked how it related to the original point made and asked. I explained how.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 01 avril 2012 - 04:21 .

[Penumbra Panda]

Man, the guy in this video really thinks he's Plinkett from Red Letter Media, doesn't he?

[2papercuts]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

2papercuts wrote...

Ignoring it's own universal rules > All rules are set by the writers, further writing explains those rules if they change or new ones are added.

But the ending already contridicts itself, are they going to contridict themselves again to explain the ending? what are you saying? doesn't that make it lazy or bad writing?

With all games they wish to extend the life of the product regarding investment, the most viable way to do so is by additional content that is linked, relates or specifically expands on elements of the core title and additional exposition is one of such means.

wait real quick lets clarify here
your saying to keep a franchize relavent, the best way is to make more spin offs or sequels, which allows them to explain more presumably?

thats not the problem with the ending, it already contridicts itself on several levels. now you could argue that this was done on purpose to help the plot or create SPECULATION but either way, when you contridict yourself its still bad or lazy writing the way i see it.

[Iconoclaste]

Noatz wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Noatz wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Noatz wrote...

Oh look its Dragoonlordz the pro ending troll.

Its fine to ignore him everyone, if someone can be satisfied with objectively derided literary tropes defining their storytelling then power to them I guess.

You do not know what that word means. {smilie}

This is not the kind of reply to make if you don't want to be seen as a troll, fyi.

Why? Because stating your use of a word in a method to discredit another persons view does not work due to your not understanding what the word means?

No, its because you are posting impudence designed purely to bait a response. Indeed you appear to have succeeded in that so I might as well elaborate on why you fit this trait.

I'm probably one of the few that has actually troubled to read your rambling diatribe on why you love the endings, so I know that all of your reasons hinge on an emotional rather than logical basis. Throughout the whole piece you fail to provide one example of why the ending is actually appropriate for the series beyond your own personal (mis)interpretation of various elements.

Finding the endings emotionally satisfying is fine mind you, but thats not really the kind of implied basis you argue from when you come into other threads in this fashion. But because you have no logic foundations on which to base your critiques of other people's ideas on, you simply resort to posting inflammatory comments and swiftly retreating behind the "my opinion is as valid as yours" curtain when they respond with the silver bullet (to you) of cold hard facts.

"My opinion is as valid as yours" is a legitimate point of course, but you are using it in the wrong arena. You can't use emotion to fight logic.

Your entire posting history can be summed up with "I am rubber, you are glue", and that is why no one should pay any further attention to you. Good night.

That sums it up.

Good nite.

[Barict78]

THis is making my head swim goodnight

[Dreogan]

Keep the troll going. He keeps this thread bumped.

[Dragoonlordz]

2papercuts wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

2papercuts wrote...

Ignoring it's own universal rules > All rules are set by the writers, further writing explains those rules if they change or new ones are added.

But the ending already contridicts itself, are they going to contridict themselves again to explain the ending? what are you saying? doesn't that make it lazy or bad writing?

With all games they wish to extend the life of the product regarding investment, the most viable way to do so is by additional content that is linked, relates or specifically expands on elements of the core title and additional exposition is one of such means.

wait real quick lets clarify here
your saying to keep a franchize relavent, the best way is to make more spin offs or sequels, which allows them to explain more presumably?

thats not the problem with the ending, it already contridicts itself on several levels. now you could argue that this was done on purpose to help the plot or create SPECULATION but either way, when you contridict yourself its still bad or lazy writing the way i see it.

I believe that was exactly why it was done. The difference is I do not consider speculation, imagination and thinking to be negative or offensive in relation to leaving an ending open to interpretation.

[afarkas1]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

2papercuts wrote...

Ignoring it's own universal rules > All rules are set by the writers, further writing explains those rules if they change or new ones are added.

But the ending already contridicts itself, are they going to contridict themselves again to explain the ending? what are you saying? doesn't that make it lazy or bad writing?

With all games they wish to extend the life of the product regarding investment, the most viable way to do so is by additional content that is linked, relates or specifically expands on elements of the core title and additional exposition is one of such means.

That was complete gibberish and doesn't even answer the man's question.

Yes it does. google the word exposition which explains and expands on the content seen prior, the elements left unexplained and contradictory due to being unknown or not understood how 'x' is possible; changes to the rules and results of actions or new situations/possiblities.

Right... you are aware that "exposition" goes at the begining of the story, and not the end (or more accurately, post-end) of the story, right? If there's exposition at the end of a story, that's a pretty big problem with the narrative.

[Dragoonlordz]

afarkas1 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

2papercuts wrote...

Ignoring it's own universal rules > All rules are set by the writers, further writing explains those rules if they change or new ones are added.

But the ending already contridicts itself, are they going to contridict themselves again to explain the ending? what are you saying? doesn't that make it lazy or bad writing?

With all games they wish to extend the life of the product regarding investment, the most viable way to do so is by additional content that is linked, relates or specifically expands on elements of the core title and additional exposition is one of such means.

That was complete gibberish and doesn't even answer the man's question.

Yes it does. google the word exposition which explains and expands on the content seen prior, the elements left unexplained and contradictory due to being unknown or not understood how 'x' is possible; changes to the rules and results of actions or new situations/possiblities.

Right... you are aware that "exposition" goes at the begining of the story, and not the end (or more accurately, post-end) of the story, right? If there's exposition at the end of a story, that's a pretty big problem with the narrative.

I used the word as merely in the sense of explanatory. But you are right I should of used elucidation.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 01 avril 2012 - 04:29 .

[afarkas1]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

afarkas1 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

2papercuts wrote...

Ignoring it's own universal rules > All rules are set by the writers, further writing explains those rules if they change or new ones are added.

But the ending already contridicts itself, are they going to contridict themselves again to explain the ending? what are you saying? doesn't that make it lazy or bad writing?

With all games they wish to extend the life of the product regarding investment, the most viable way to do so is by additional content that is linked, relates or specifically expands on elements of the core title and additional exposition is one of such means.

That was complete gibberish and doesn't even answer the man's question.

Yes it does. google the word exposition which explains and expands on the content seen prior, the elements left unexplained and contradictory due to being unknown or not understood how 'x' is possible; changes to the rules and results of actions or new situations/possiblities.

Right... you are aware that "exposition" goes at the begining of the story, and not the end (or more accurately, post-end) of the story, right? If there's exposition at the end of a story, that's a pretty big problem with the narrative.

I used the word as merely in the sense of explanatory.

You mean you used the wrong word. Because you don't know what you're talking about. 

Or maybe you do- in that case, get to work editing the wikipedia page for exposition, because it is pretty specific:

"At the beginning of a narrative, the exposition is the author's providing of some background information to the audience about the plot, characters' histories, setting, and theme."

[Dreogan]

To be fair, exposition can occur anywhere in a narrative. There's the exposition at the start, which traditionally sets the "definition" of the story, but it's possible to have further exposition later on to help define a new concept.

Overuse is poor storytelling. Underuse breaks the suspension of disbelief.

Modifié par Dreogan, 01 avril 2012 - 04:34 .

[Dragoonlordz]

afarkas1 wrote...

-snip

Read the edit that I did prior to your response being shown on here.

But you are right I should of used elucidation.

[Dragoonlordz]

Dreogan wrote...

To be fair, exposition can occur anywhere in a narrative.

While I consider that true, I also consider him right in the specific element of that I could of used a better more fitting word to describe what I meant. Much in how I thought a more fitting word should of been used in relation to this thread, the whole 'broken' element which sparked all these attacks on myself.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 01 avril 2012 - 04:38 .

[brbvideotapes]

I've watched this so many times, this guy's great.

[Dreogan]

As for this: Ignoring it's own universal rules > All rules are set by the writers, further writing explains those rules if they change or new ones are added.

The author can paint themselves into a corner by changing or adding new rules. The issue with the rule-changing in relation to the ending is they change it at the last minute and fail to sell it to the majority of their vocal audience. It is possible to break the suspension of disbelief with a poor definition or a contrary implementation.

While it may be possible to explain this away, the fact remains that they failed to sell it. This is the storytelling failure: the execution. Their intention, their planning, means nothing if their execution does not support them.

Modifié par Dreogan, 01 avril 2012 - 04:37 .

[IndridColdx]

Favorited. Very, VERY well done video. Been almost a month since I've beat ME3 now and I'm still upset of about how it ended...

[Dreogan]

IndridColdx wrote...

Favorited. Very, VERY well done video. Been almost a month since I've beat ME3 now and I'm still upset of about how it ended...

Spread the word. We need to get that video up to 100k views at least.

[luchozuca]

Impressive video, i am amazed on how many people got into putting forward the flaws of the ME3 ending without giving a chance to anyone of saying "you're only a spoiled brat that wants a happy all riding into the sunshine ending".
I really hope Bioware and EA take some time to look into these videos/articles and see what they've done.

[Dreogan]

luchozuca wrote...

Impressive video, i am amazed on how many people got into putting forward the flaws of the ME3 ending without giving a chance to anyone of saying "you're only a spoiled brat that wants a happy all riding into the sunshine ending".
I really hope Bioware and EA take some time to look into these videos/articles and see what they've done.

Or failed to do, depending on how you look at it!

[afarkas1]

Dreogan wrote...

To be fair, exposition can occur anywhere in a narrative. There's the exposition at the start, which traditionally sets the "definition" of the story, but it's possible to have further exposition later on to help define a new concept.

Overuse is poor storytelling. Underuse breaks the suspension of disbelief.

'
I will grant that not all exposition needs to happen in the first hour of the story, but now we're talking about exposition that is necessary to understand the sequence of events of the game, not just occuring at the very end, but in content released after the game has shipped. 

I'll say that again. Expostion not just at the end of the story, but after it.  You are defending this?

Modifié par afarkas1, 01 avril 2012 - 04:43 .

[thefallen2far]

Dragoonlordz wrote...


I believe that was exactly why it was done. The difference is I do not consider speculation, imagination and thinking to be negative or offensive in relation to leaving an ending open to interpretation.

My interpretation was that I wasted hundreds of hours going though the first 2 games with multiple character creations and conversation and hundreds of dollars on games, minigames, novelizations, graphic novels and merchendizing.... was this what they were going for?  If so, they were successful

[2papercuts]

Dragoonlordz wrote...
I believe that was exactly why it was done. The difference is I do not consider speculation, imagination and thinking to be negative or offensive in relation to leaving an ending open to interpretation.

They contridicted themselves on purpose to make their fans speculate. If that is true, That quite possibly might be the worst way to tell a story, because makes it apparent that they lack artistic vision. 

Let me make it clear, open endings that make logical sense I am for the most part a fan of, especially those that require interpretation. But when an ending lacks thematic consistency then it is garbage, especially when it is done just fOr the sake of ambiguity

I have to go now. PM me your response if you want a reply but whatever

Modifié par 2papercuts, 01 avril 2012 - 04:51 .

[Dreogan]

afarkas1 wrote...

Dreogan wrote...

To be fair, exposition can occur anywhere in a narrative. There's the exposition at the start, which traditionally sets the "definition" of the story, but it's possible to have further exposition later on to help define a new concept.

Overuse is poor storytelling. Underuse breaks the suspension of disbelief.

'
I will grant that not all exposition needs to happen in the first hour of the story, but now we're talking about exposition that is necessary to understand the sequence of events of the game, not just occuring at the very end, but in content released after the game has shipped. 

I'll say that again. Expostion not just at the end of the story, but after it.  You are defending this?

Oh, I'm just saying where exposition can occur. It can only occur within the narrative, though. I have no intention of defending anyone, just the term. Nor am I saying Bioware did a good job-- judging by the vocal response, they fell flat completely with the suspension of disbelief.

Of course, I only half-pay attention to Golden Boy's postings. If I seem to have missed something, feel free to fill me in.

Modifié par Dreogan, 01 avril 2012 - 04:53 .

[Dreogan]

thefallen2far wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...


I believe that was exactly why it was done. The difference is I do not consider speculation, imagination and thinking to be negative or offensive in relation to leaving an ending open to interpretation.

My interpretation was that I wasted hundreds of hours going though the first 2 games with multiple character creations and conversation and hundreds of dollars on games, minigames, novelizations, graphic novels and merchendizing.... was this what they were going for?  If so, they were successful

Yes, if they play with the suspension of disbelief to make their audience "speculate," they are very much playing with fire. The typical reaction to this in a novel is to throw the book across the room, never to pick it up again. I wonder what happens when this is done to a multimedia trilogy? Why pick up that book when the game failed to resolve the central conflict? Why care about the movie when the final resolution falls flat on its face?