299 réponses à ce sujet

[HenchxNarf]

Militarized wrote...

Technically you could call it objectively bad. They failed at writing 101, literally, the storyboard rises in the climax arc but does not descend into the resolution arc. How you fail to do that, I have no idea... it is an objective reason why so many people feel confused and abandoned at the ending however. 

That's not even getting into the dropping of narrative coherence, and many other objectionable issues with the ending. 

This is where opinions come in. This is your opinion, this is not fact. Some see the writing as fine, some don't. Those are opinions. To say it's "objectively bad" isn't a fact.

[lillitheris]

Cazlee wrote...
Calling the ending "objectively" bad implies that any other opinion of the ending is invalid though. 

Almost, but not quite. It requires that sufficient evidence is presented in favour of whichever claim is made.

I claim that, objectively[1], there have been more points presented to support the claim that the ending is bad. I'm not even claiming that there are more such points (even if I think that it is so), just that the counterpoints have not been presented.


[1] The statistics can be compiled, if necessary.

Modifié par lillitheris, 01 avril 2012 - 10:36 .

[Cazlee]

Torrible wrote...

Not surprising that most people can only remember insults coming from the other side. It's called cognitive bias.

Are you assuming which side everyone is on based on their arguments? 

[Joolazoo]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Militarized wrote...

Technically you could call it objectively bad. They failed at writing 101, literally, the storyboard rises in the climax arc but does not descend into the resolution arc. How you fail to do that, I have no idea... it is an objective reason why so many people feel confused and abandoned at the ending however. 

That's not even getting into the dropping of narrative coherence, and many other objectionable issues with the ending. 

This is where opinions come in. This is your opinion, this is not fact. Some see the writing as fine, some don't. Those are opinions. To say it's "objectively bad" isn't a fact.

You either don't know the definition of objective or are a reletavist. It is not an opinion that the story doesn't follow the proper structure that has been known for god knows how long, that is a fact.

Modifié par Joolazoo, 01 avril 2012 - 10:38 .

[HenchxNarf]

Cazlee wrote...

Torrible wrote...

Not surprising that most people can only remember insults coming from the other side. It's called cognitive bias.

Are you assuming which side everyone is on based on their arguments? 

It's not hard to guess lol

[Militarized]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Militarized wrote...

Technically you could call it objectively bad. They failed at writing 101, literally, the storyboard rises in the climax arc but does not descend into the resolution arc. How you fail to do that, I have no idea... it is an objective reason why so many people feel confused and abandoned at the ending however. 

That's not even getting into the dropping of narrative coherence, and many other objectionable issues with the ending. 

This is where opinions come in. This is your opinion, this is not fact. Some see the writing as fine, some don't. Those are opinions. To say it's "objectively bad" isn't a fact.

No... it's not an opinion to fail the basic concepts of writing. Your teacher would give an F, hopefully a D since the rest pretty well written if you just stopped the story arc at the climax. That isn't a trick or some form of "neat" writing, it's completely blowing off a step of the writing format that is essential to a good story. 

This leads me to believe they were so rushed they couldn't come up with a resolution or they are holding the real resolution back. I prefer to be an otpimist and hope for the full resolution, I don't see how a acredited writer can fail so miserably at the BASICS of writing. 

Again, that's not really opinion... opinion would be whether the starchild makes sense or nor. 

[Torrible]

Cazlee wrote...

Torrible wrote...

Not surprising that most people can only remember insults coming from the other side. It's called cognitive bias.

Are you assuming which side everyone is on based on their arguments? 

Sometimes it's clear, sometimes not. The human tendency is to regard arguments that support your stance as objective/reasonable/correct and vice versa. 

[xsdob]

So nobodys seen the real reason yet? its quite simple.

both sides feel the other is actively trying to undermine and surpress their veins, making any retaliation seem fair and just.

the major problem is that the ones who launch attacks are never reigned in by their own side regardless of their alligence or how offensive their post is, I've seen only one instance when an attacker was called out by his own side, everyone else seems to encourage attacks.

reign in the attackers and this place would be a lot better for it.

[Cazlee]

lillitheris wrote...

Cazlee wrote...
Calling the ending "objectively" bad implies that any other opinion of the ending is invalid though. 

Almost, but not quite. It requires that sufficient evidence is presented in favour of whichever claim is made.

I claim that, objectively[1], there have been more points presented to support the claim that the ending is bad. I'm not even claiming that there are more such points (even if I think that it is so), just that the counterpoints have not been presented.


[1] The statistics can be compiled, if necessary.

But who can truly claim to be 100% objective?

Modifié par Cazlee, 01 avril 2012 - 10:40 .

[Militarized]

To put this into perspective, since I'm a history major, it would be as if I was writing a thesis on the architecture of Rome and the Arch's signifigence in showing Roman architectural dominance.

I write the entire paper about how that's true and then during the conclusion when I am to tie all the threads/paragraphs/information I've coalesced into that conclusion... I drop it and throw in a paragraph about how the Patricians abused their power against the Plebians and the gap between rich and poor was the reason the Empire fell(while technically true, it had nothing to do with my paper).

Or, for the story arc issue... I just ignore a conclusion all together.

[Torrible]

Joolazoo wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

Militarized wrote...

Technically you could call it objectively bad. They failed at writing 101, literally, the storyboard rises in the climax arc but does not descend into the resolution arc. How you fail to do that, I have no idea... it is an objective reason why so many people feel confused and abandoned at the ending however. 

That's not even getting into the dropping of narrative coherence, and many other objectionable issues with the ending. 

This is where opinions come in. This is your opinion, this is not fact. Some see the writing as fine, some don't. Those are opinions. To say it's "objectively bad" isn't a fact.

You either don't know the definition of objective or are a reletavist. It is not an opinion that the story doesn't follow the proper structure that has been known for god knows how long, that is a fact.

This doesn't even come close to being objective. The so called plotholes are merely unexplained inconsistencies. Even if the plotholes cannot be explained away, it is not an objective fact that the ending is bad. Objectivity implies that no debate is needed or possible. Countless threads over BSN and other gaming forums prove otherwise. Yet again, Opinion =/= fact.

[Cazlee]

About the ending, and I hope this does not tun into an argument.

I feel that the logic is not flawed, it's just we weren't given enough pieces of the puzzle.
I feel the catalyst has played an important role since the first ME.
Other issues like the Normandy crash scene - well let's hope for a full redo.
The three end choices tie in with the mystery of the crucible. Once we understand the crucible and its origins the endings should make sense. Hopefully there is some explanation for the "space magic" though.
I don't think the ending is objectively bad, but it has some flaws that Bioware are trying to fix.

[Yokokorama]

Because pro-enders literally have nothing to lose if an alternate DLC ending comes out, which makes them come off as selfish. If they liked the old ending, they simply don't download the new one. Why protest against an alternate new ending when it won't have any effect on their story whatsoever? It just makes anti-enders happy to get a new ending; it won't effect the pro-enders games at all if they don't want it to.

I think thats where all of this comes from. If pro-enders realize that any DLC regarding the ending is released is not obligatory for them to download, then maybe it'll help cool things down.

Modifié par Yokokorama, 01 avril 2012 - 10:49 .

[Cazlee]

Yokokorama wrote...

Because pro-enders literally have nothing to lose if an alternate DLC ending comes out, which makes them come off as selfish. If they liked the old ending, they simply don't download the new one. Why protest against an alternate new ending when it won't have any effect on their story whatsoever? It just makes anti-enders happy to get a new ending; it won't effect the pro-enders games at all if they don't want it to.

I think thats where all of this comes from. If pro-enders realize that any DLC regarding the ending is released is not obligatory for them to download, then maybe it'll help cool things down.

It's not hard to understand that people that liked the ending do not want their endings to be invalidated.
At the same time, there are enough disappointed fans that I feel bioware is doing the right thing by changing the ending for them.

[Joolazoo]

Torrible wrote...

Joolazoo wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

Militarized wrote...

Technically you could call it objectively bad. They failed at writing 101, literally, the storyboard rises in the climax arc but does not descend into the resolution arc. How you fail to do that, I have no idea... it is an objective reason why so many people feel confused and abandoned at the ending however. 

That's not even getting into the dropping of narrative coherence, and many other objectionable issues with the ending. 

This is where opinions come in. This is your opinion, this is not fact. Some see the writing as fine, some don't. Those are opinions. To say it's "objectively bad" isn't a fact.

You either don't know the definition of objective or are a reletavist. It is not an opinion that the story doesn't follow the proper structure that has been known for god knows how long, that is a fact.

This doesn't even come close to being objective. The so called plotholes are merely unexplained inconsistencies. Even if the plotholes cannot be explained away, it is not an objective fact that the ending is bad. Objectivity implies that no debate is needed or possible. Countless threads over BSN and other gaming forums prove otherwise. Yet again, Opinion =/= fact.

I can debate a 4 year old on whether or not the sun exists, but that doesn't change whether or not is it a fact......objectivity only implies that something is factual. Whether or not a couple of people decide to debate something has no relevance with whether or not something is actually objective.

[Dridengx]

SaleemRa wrote...

I dont get all the insults? K so you like/dont like the ending or how it was written, good for you. Anti enders call pro enders hipster etc, pro enders keep saying you dont "get it", for what? Everyone has different tastes. Some ppl like curry others dont life's like that.

Instead of ragging on someones opinion, post lots on why you like/dont like it. All these "questions" to the pro enders are really the Anti's trying to show off perceived "intelectual superiority" as well since your literally calling the Pro's out to verbally spar with them. Your being just as "hipster" or whatever as the the guys who said you dont "get it".

To the Pro's - enough already with the "you dont get it" jabs. Internet forums are not a good communication tool, ppl cant really guage what your saying since there is no body language etc. You know the Anti's dont like it so stop already, just say you like it and what you like about it and be done.

Personally I like the endings but I dont think that there is anything to "get". I like them because of the reasons I mentioned in this thread (pg 20 btw). If Bioware keeps the endings I'll be fine with it - not the end of the world. If they change it great, another reason to play again. Either way I spent a lot of money on this game so I WILL get my money's worth out of it and be entertained.

The end of the day YOU and only YOU can control how much you enjoy something - its the reason why some ppl can enjoy crap movies or poorly written pulp fiction. Everybody stop getting your knickers in a twist!

I tell anti-enders to read, play the game again, listen to the story. there is many clues to helping them figure out the ending. The ending just didn't come out of nowhere like they claim.  Just because they don't understand something isn't space magic or a plothole.

I don't insult people for their opinion, I just point out flaws in their comments or bring facts to disprove their claims. There is many times I'm not even saying anything and I have replies to me flamebating or trolling me all because they still have hate for me from a previous thread lol.

I've been called hipster, so what. Better than being apart of a dumb group or not able to think for myself right? And, for the record, I'm not a pro ender, I don't represent any group. I represent myself, my love for Bioware and Mass Effect 3.

People have problems with pro enders because they think if enough of them post, Bioware will get the message that nothing is wrong and their ending won't be fixed. So they attack them, troll them off the boards and constantly report them to have them banned. I've been reported for defending bioware, for using someone's bandwidth (lol yeah), and reported for defending myself. I've been called many things but funny thing is, those making those names are the ones carrying the hate and foul mood. hurt over a video game ending, hurt over an internet forum opinion. 

If I'm not allowed to post my opinion then this isn't a Bioware Discussion forum, it's Bioware's cry me a river forum.

[Yokokorama]

Cazlee wrote...

Yokokorama wrote...

Because pro-enders literally have nothing to lose if an alternate DLC ending comes out, which makes them come off as selfish. If they liked the old ending, they simply don't download the new one. Why protest against an alternate new ending when it won't have any effect on their story whatsoever? It just makes anti-enders happy to get a new ending; it won't effect the pro-enders games at all if they don't want it to.

I think thats where all of this comes from. If pro-enders realize that any DLC regarding the ending is released is not obligatory for them to download, then maybe it'll help cool things down.

It's not hard to understand that people that liked the ending do not want their endings to be invalidated.
At the same time, there are enough disappointed fans that I feel bioware is doing the right thing by changing the ending for them.

It doesn't invalidate anything unless they want it to.  Mass Effect has always been about choice.  It was even advertised as a game that allows people to reach different conclusions based on the choices they make.  The fact that they bought the game shows that they accepted that label, so I'm not sure why they would have an issue with it now.  They knew the game was supposed to have numerous different endings, but that didn't stop them from buying it.

I'm pretty sure my Mass Effect 1 and 2 choices were different than yours.  Does that mean your experience invalidates mine? Of course not.  Nobody should feel their game is invalidated because someone else had a different ending, especially in a choice-driven RPG game.

Modifié par Yokokorama, 01 avril 2012 - 10:59 .

[HenchxNarf]

Yokokorama wrote...

Cazlee wrote...

Yokokorama wrote...

Because pro-enders literally have nothing to lose if an alternate DLC ending comes out, which makes them come off as selfish. If they liked the old ending, they simply don't download the new one. Why protest against an alternate new ending when it won't have any effect on their story whatsoever? It just makes anti-enders happy to get a new ending; it won't effect the pro-enders games at all if they don't want it to.

I think thats where all of this comes from. If pro-enders realize that any DLC regarding the ending is released is not obligatory for them to download, then maybe it'll help cool things down.

It's not hard to understand that people that liked the ending do not want their endings to be invalidated.
At the same time, there are enough disappointed fans that I feel bioware is doing the right thing by changing the ending for them.

It doesn't invalidate anything unless they want it to.  Mass Effect has always been about choice.  It was even advertised as a game that allows people to reach different conclusions based on the choices they make.  The fact that they bought the game shows that they accepted that label, so I'm not sure why they would have an issue with it now.  They knew the game was supposed to have numerous different endings, but that didn't stop them from buying it.

It does, actually. Because there is a cannon ending, and giving new ending/s would change that. But that's besides the point. Bioware said they are going to clarify and explain the endings.

[Yokokorama]

HenchxNarf wrote...

It does, actually. Because there is a cannon ending, and giving new ending/s would change that. But that's besides the point. Bioware said they are going to clarify and explain the endings.

Not at all.  Mass Effect 3 was advertised as a game that had 16 different endings.  They bought a game knowing very well that their ending was not supposed to be the ONLY ending.  Furthermore, IIRC, Casey Hudson said something about the Mass Effect series not even having canon, and that the canon is whatever the player does.  Canon is relative to whoever is experiencing it, basically.  Especially in a choice driven RPG.

[Cazlee]

Yokokorama wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

It does, actually. Because there is a cannon ending, and giving new ending/s would change that. But that's besides the point. Bioware said they are going to clarify and explain the endings.

Not at all.  Mass Effect 3 was advertised as a game that had 16 different endings.  They bought a game knowing very well that their ending was not supposed to be the ONLY ending.  Furthermore, IIRC, Casey Hudson said something about the Mass Effect series not even having canon, and that the canon is whatever the player does.  Canon is relative to whoever is experiencing it, basically.  Especially in a choice driven RPG.

I'm sure an expansion of the ending choices would be fine. It's if the blue choice suddenly turns into a "you lose" scenario instead of a heroic sacrifice. A change like that would invalidate their ending.

Modifié par Cazlee, 01 avril 2012 - 11:09 .

[Torrible]

Joolazoo wrote...

Torrible wrote...

Joolazoo wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

Militarized wrote...

Technically you could call it objectively bad. They failed at writing 101, literally, the storyboard rises in the climax arc but does not descend into the resolution arc. How you fail to do that, I have no idea... it is an objective reason why so many people feel confused and abandoned at the ending however. 

That's not even getting into the dropping of narrative coherence, and many other objectionable issues with the ending. 

This is where opinions come in. This is your opinion, this is not fact. Some see the writing as fine, some don't. Those are opinions. To say it's "objectively bad" isn't a fact.

You either don't know the definition of objective or are a reletavist. It is not an opinion that the story doesn't follow the proper structure that has been known for god knows how long, that is a fact.

This doesn't even come close to being objective. The so called plotholes are merely unexplained inconsistencies. Even if the plotholes cannot be explained away, it is not an objective fact that the ending is bad. Objectivity implies that no debate is needed or possible. Countless threads over BSN and other gaming forums prove otherwise. Yet again, Opinion =/= fact.

I can debate a 4 year old on whether or not the sun exists, but that doesn't change whether or not is it a fact......objectivity only implies that something is factual. Whether or not a couple of people decide to debate something has no relevance with whether or not something is actually objective.

True. That was not a good argument. Flat-earth theorists comes to mind. 

Let me try again. Objectivity implies falsifiabilitiy. A fact must be possible to prove. 

The best evidence the anti-enders have is popular opinion. People can be collectively wrong about things. 99.99% of the people in the world thought the earth was flat long ago, and if you ask them, they would proclaim it to be an objective fact. Unlike the roundness of earth, whether an ending is good or bad cannot be proven. You can argue that concepts like beauty and ugliness can be objective. It's not. It's still subjective because our views come from a limited human perspective. 

Modifié par Torrible, 01 avril 2012 - 11:11 .

[iamthedave3]

Dridengx wrote...



I tell anti-enders to read, play the game again, listen to the story. there is many clues to helping them figure out the ending. The ending just didn't come out of nowhere like they claim.  Just because they don't understand something isn't space magic or a plothole.

Where are the clues in the game explaining how the Normandy gets to be travelling through a relay as it explodes?

[iamthedave3]

Torrible wrote...

True. That was not a good argument. Flat-earth theorists comes to mind. 

Let me try again. Objectivity implies falsifiabilitiy. A fact must be possible to prove. 

The best evidence the anti-enders have is popular opinion. People can be collectively wrong about things. 99.99% of the people in the world thought the earth was flat long ago, and if you ask them, they would proclaim it to be an objective fact. Unlike the roundness of earth, whether an ending is good or bad cannot be proven. You can argue that concepts like beauty and ugliness can be objective. It's not. It's still subjective because our views come from a limited human perspective. 

This explains what I meant although it more concerns morality
http://www.youtube.c...bvK8SIgMY#t=72s

So what you're saying is that the entire field of literary criticism is invalid and nothing more than opinion, and that there is no such thing as narrative causality at work in a story.

[Yokokorama]

Cazlee wrote...

I'm sure an expansion of the ending choices would be fine. It's if the blue choice suddenly turns into a "you lose" scenario instead of a heroic sacrifice. A change like that would invalidate their ending.

Yeah, I'll be fine with an expansion to (as long as it makes sense). 

But my issue is this; the fact that they bought Mass Effect 3 in the first place, a game heavily ADVERTISED to have 16 different endings and can change based on player choice, is a testament that they would not feel invalidated if someone else got a different ending than them.  So I'm not sure why they suddenly feel invalidated now when they weren't before.

[HenchxNarf]

iamthedave3 wrote...

Dridengx wrote...



I tell anti-enders to read, play the game again, listen to the story. there is many clues to helping them figure out the ending. The ending just didn't come out of nowhere like they claim.  Just because they don't understand something isn't space magic or a plothole.

Where are the clues in the game explaining how the Normandy gets to be travelling through a relay as it explodes?

Who says it was going through the relay? It could have been close to one as it exploded.