299 réponses à ce sujet

[Joolazoo]

Torrible wrote...

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. 

This explains what I meant although it more concerns morality

I would disagree that the best evidence anti-enders have is popular opinion, and would actually say that's the worst evidence since mobs are usually wrong. If we go into objective beauty, goodness, justice, etc, this discussion will require much more length and go far beyond the topic. It Suffices to say I entirely disagree with you. I would cite thinkers and philosophers who have addressed the issue, but I don't know if either us wants to go that deep into this on a message board. Not to say you don't have a point, as the fact that all of our senses are mediated to us has been a key aspect of debate for centuries concerning objective truths.

Modifié par Joolazoo, 01 avril 2012 - 11:17 .

[Clayless]

It's going to get worse once they add clarification to the endings, EVERYONE who thinks they're going to change the ending/make the Indoctrination theory canon are going to go rabid when they realise Bioware hasn't done that.

Modifié par Our_Last_Scene, 01 avril 2012 - 11:18 .

[HenchxNarf]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

It's going to get worse once they add clarification to the endings, EVERYONE who thinks they're going to change the ending/make the Indoctrination theory canon are going to go rabid when they realise Bioware hasn't done that.

I know, right? lol

[iamthedave3]

HenchxNarf wrote...

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.

The corridor of light the Normandy is travelling through is consistent with relay travel as it's depicted in the rest of the games. That, plus the fact it is being 'chased' by the colour of ending you chose and we know said ending is transmitted through the relays, seems to be a fairly strong indicator that the Normandy is travelling through the relay at the time.

[Gwtheyrn]

Oh... where to begin picking this apart? The beginning usually works pretty well.

xsdob wrote...

FRom a neutral about the ending stance, i have a sense of hope that civilizations will recover and maybe surpass current technology.

You use "we" later in your post when referring to those who approve of the ending. This is not coming from a neutral stance (at least I think that's what you were claiming.) since you identify with one side of a debate over the other.

When Rome fell it set all but the most isolated civilizations into the darkage for over 1000 years, back than they thought they had reached the peak of scientific discovery and innovations and stopped inventing new things like the current galactic civilization did.

There's a current galactic civilization? How come I have not been informed of this?

we surpassed Rome though, and i feel the same will happen on a galactic scale again, this fact gives me faith in the future.

Didn't even really take all that long to do. Rome was surpassed with the dawn of the Iron Age.

Renders are constantly accused of not giving reasons for liking the ending, when we do give a reason are reasons are dismissed as stupid.

Renders? The "reasons" you refer to get dismissed as stupid because every one I've seen has either been a) Grasping at straws (e.g. Indoctrination) or stupid (artistic integrity).

This gives the impression of a loaded question or a rigid system where we can't win no matter what.

Oh, sweet, sweet irony. I shouldn't have to explain why that sentence makes me laugh.

Also, Antienders tend to accuse us of things other people have said when we criticize unfair criticism against us.

What? Let me get this straight, please. You're upset at people arguing at your arguments against their arguments towards your own arguments? M.C. Escher, eat your heart out.

And we ate always bilittled for liking the endings while no on tries to reign in those who take their comments to far.

Can I assume then (not "than") that your (not "you're") poor English (note proper capitalization) and typing skills are (not "ate") fair game for belittling?

All in all, it feels like the majority picking and trying to suppress the minority for having another opinion and this has a negative effect on proenders and makes attacking hates seem like a good idea.

i really hope posting this isn't a bad idea.

Wait, did someone who approves of the ending just admit that they're the minority? This deviates greatly from accepted dogma. The rest, though, is incomprehensible and I don't know what you're trying to say. Even trying to figure it out makes my head hurt.

[HenchxNarf]

iamthedave3 wrote...

The corridor of light the Normandy is travelling through is consistent with relay travel as it's depicted in the rest of the games. That, plus the fact it is being 'chased' by the colour of ending you chose and we know said ending is transmitted through the relays, seems to be a fairly strong indicator that the Normandy is travelling through the relay at the time.

Again, when the relays exploded, it reflected the ending. So that would include them being 'chased' by the explosion. It doesn't mean they went through the mass relay.

Modifié par HenchxNarf, 01 avril 2012 - 11:21 .

[Cazlee]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

It's going to get worse once they add clarification to the endings, EVERYONE who thinks they're going to change the ending/make the Indoctrination theory canon are going to go rabid when they realise Bioware hasn't done that.

I know, right? lol

I'm sure bioware will put in an easter egg or two for them to keep them happy.

[Yokokorama]

While I'd prefer a new ending altogether, if they clarify the ending and actually make it coherent and not a bunch of muddled, nonsensical events, then I'd be fine with it.

My ideal scenario was always to beat the Reapers conventionally, though, rather than through an insta-win button. IMO the Crucible could have been a better plot device if it just weakened the Reapers enough for your fleet to beat it. For example, it could control asteroids and send them down towards the Reapers (like in 'The Arrival') or it could disable their shields or something like that. Then your fleet can probably take them down normally (and that fleet was GIGANTIC and had tons of dreadnaughts in it, so I think it would have been pretty believable).

That way, it makes you feel like everything you did actually counts.  The way it is now, War Assets and EMS don't really matter since you still have that insta-win button in the end anyway, which bothered me a bit.  

Modifié par Yokokorama, 01 avril 2012 - 11:25 .

[iamthedave3]

HenchxNarf wrote...

iamthedave3 wrote...

The corridor of light the Normandy is travelling through is consistent with relay travel as it's depicted in the rest of the games. That, plus the fact it is being 'chased' by the colour of ending you chose and we know said ending is transmitted through the relays, seems to be a fairly strong indicator that the Normandy is travelling through the relay at the time.

Again, when the relays exploded, it reflected the ending. So that would include them being 'chased' by the explosion. It doesn't mean they went through the mass relay.

Have you actually watched the endings? The Normandy is clearly travelling through a specific corridor of light which is being 'eaten up' by the chasing ending light.

It's clearly shown that in-system, the light expresses as an expanding spherical wave. The light which catches the Normandy is not an expanding wave, it's a direct line chasing them up the tunnel. Again, consistent with relay travel.

[supremo0]

I've looked at both arguments for and against the Indoc Theory. I support it, but has since realised it's not to full proof. I'm trying to prepare myself for the changed bioware are coming up with, and i just hope they pull something amazing. My biggest complaints about the endings are that there's not much clarification (why was joker escaping), there's not really a "good" ending. and it doesn't show the long term (or even the short term) effects of your choice. And that fact that they all add up to the same thing. However, there are some things i liked. I really enjoyed the atmosphere of the final choice. the music and drama was nice, seeing the battle of earth happen all around you as you make the choice that (apparently) affects the entire galaxy.

[Torrible]

iamthedave3 wrote...

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.

Strictly speaking yes. We can all agree that a piece of literature is a masterpiece but we can't call it a fact. Narrative consistency can be used to judge a novel but in the end it is all opinion.

[Gwtheyrn]

HenchxNarf wrote...

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.

Because the last I knew, there were no planets in the Sol system with tropical vegetation and multiple moons, nor any large moons orbiting gas giants which fit this description. Ergo, the Normandy was outside of the Sol system when it miraculously crashed on a world teeming with life and an breathable atmosphere.

[Dragoni89]

Dridengx wrote...

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.

This is why I hate pro-enders, their posts get dumber by the minute.

Telling anti- enders to replay the game and search for clues? What am I searching for? You can't tell me cause you don't know yourself? Can't be more detailed? Don't say pointless crap that just makes you look dumb. If you can't be bothered to read the so many articles that list out all the reasons why the ending in someway or form is not what bioware promise and not a good ending.

Yes BSN is for disccusstion but I am sorry the current popular topics are why the ending was so bad or How do we improve the endings.
And if want to post a thread on why the ending was good, please first try to logically argue against an obvious plot hole. In stead of stating the "you don't get the ending" or "replay on the game, search for clues" or "stop whinning". Apart from this ending likers can't really be more detailed other than a single line. If thats all your gonna say than please STFU.

I see why anti-enders hate pro-ender posts like this one, cause you talk crap. You bring nothing on to the table to discuss about the ending cause you can not find anything realistically good about the ending. So instead talk about thing that happened before like the geth/quarain and krogan affiar. But sadly the ending invalidate that "journery" because the universe is royally ****ed thanks to shepard.


Back to the Original Poster: Pro-enders can't saying anything other than they liked the ending and think they deserve new threads cause they do. They can't argue against the plot holes or flawed logic or unexplained momments of the ending scene. Why talk in the first place if all your gonna say are empty words with no meaning? If your gonna post to current BSN community with is around 85-95% dislike of the ending, than obviously anti-enders are gonna talk and tell you why your wrong for liking the ending unless your dumb.If you can't post somehting solid for why the ending is good, then be expected to be cometely oblierated by the ending hate and you derseve it for making a pointless thread with the line "you don't get the ending" or "replay on the game, search for clues" or "stop whinning".

[Cazlee]

Gwtheyrn wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

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.

Because the last I knew, there were no planets in the Sol system with tropical vegetation and multiple moons, nor any large moons orbiting gas giants which fit this description. Ergo, the Normandy was outside of the Sol system when it miraculously crashed on a world teeming with life and an breathable atmosphere.

THB there is no defending the normandy crash... or does someone actually like that end for their crewmates? 
Your LI and best friend responsible for repopulating a planet...just great.

Modifié par Cazlee, 01 avril 2012 - 11:33 .

[HenchxNarf]

Dragoni89 wrote...

Back to the Original Poster: Pro-enders can't saying anything other than they liked the ending and think they deserve new threads cause they do. They can't argue against the plot holes or flawed logic or unexplained momments of the ending scene. Why talk in the first place if all your gonna say are empty words with no meaning? If your gonna post to current BSN community with is around 85-95% dislike of the ending, than obviously anti-enders are gonna talk and tell you why your wrong for liking the ending unless your dumb.If you can't post somehting solid for why the ending is good, then be expected to be cometely oblierated by the ending hate and you derseve it for making a pointless thread with the line "you don't get the ending" or "replay on the game, search for clues" or "stop whinning".

And you are the type of people I dislike. We shouldn't have to argue our opinions, just like you shouldn't have to argue yours.

BSN is a mecca for the anti-enders, yes, but as Jessica said, you are only 9% of the total fanbase.

The answers are in the game, I hate to say it. 

Plot holes are subjective, I don't think you understand what the word means. Because inconsistancies do not equal plot holes.

No one should be told they are wrong for stating their opinion. Pro enders have just as much right as anti-enders to state how they feel about the game without having to fight the sea of trolls, because in the end, no matter what they say they'll be laughed at.

Even if pro-enders do explain why, which some do when they make their threads, they get trolled so bad that they never want to post here again. Which is why not many pro ending people post.

Modifié par HenchxNarf, 01 avril 2012 - 11:40 .

[iamthedave3]

Torrible wrote...

iamthedave3 wrote...

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.

Strictly speaking yes. We can all agree that a piece of literature is a masterpiece but we can't call it a fact. Narrative consistency can be used to judge a novel but in the end it is all opinion.

Okay, I think that better defines what you're talking about.

Labelling it as 'opinion' is misleading though. I hope I'm not wrong in saying you're not a writer, you certainly don't talk like any writer I've spoken with or worked with. You're right in that there are no observable, scientific facts with writing or literary criticism, but there are techniques which work and techniques which don't. ME 3's ending isn't unique, there are many endings which introduce 11th hour characters or plot devices, and only a handful pull it off. When they do, it's easy to tell the different between them and the ones which fail.

Literary criticism is based on masses of analysis of those techniques, and the subjective responses of hundreds of thousands if not millions of readers coming to broadly similar conclusions.

While you're not 'wrong' I think that at the same time you're not right either. When people write those long literary analysis of why ME 3's endings suck, they're not just using clever words to voice their displeasure, they're using well established and valid critical thinking that's evolved from the basic way that human beings process and make sense of sensory input (in fact that's what literary construction is based on; making sense of information on the page, and writers working out the best ways to get the readers to process that information).

[Cazlee]

Dragoni89 wrote...

And if want to post a thread on why the ending was good, please first try to logically argue against an obvious plot hole. In stead of stating the "you don't get the ending" or "replay on the game, search for clues" or "stop whinning". Apart from this ending likers can't really be more detailed other than a single line. If thats all your gonna say than please STFU.

I see why anti-enders hate pro-ender posts like this one, cause you talk crap. You bring nothing on to the table to discuss about the ending cause you can not find anything realistically good about the ending. So instead talk about thing that happened before like the geth/quarain and krogan affiar. But sadly the ending invalidate that "journery" because the universe is royally ****ed thanks to shepard.

repost.

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 liked the ending, but it has some flaws that Bioware are trying to fix.

Modifié par Cazlee, 01 avril 2012 - 11:41 .

[Iconoclaste]

Just answering to OP, but I can see the subject has drifted towards conventional explanations about plot holes and such.

I just think it's a question of carefully choosing words before posting, instead of writing under the impulsion, leaving doors opened to interpretation. They did just that with the "endings", we can see the results of rushing things. Anyone who has to address public, either on forums or television or media, usually has a text prepared and reviewed by a team just to make sure it follows certain rules to avoid backlash. OP, even in your opening statement there were hooks for a fight, but when the things are posted it's too late. So, just a little bit of empathy in the writing will get the point through, without irritating the public. It's not so easy to do, communication is an art in itself, we should not expect people to take "easy comments" to face value, even the best written statement will find someone interpreting it and turning it against the author.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 01 avril 2012 - 11:42 .

[weltraumhamster89]

GlassElephant wrote...

I just stay out of it. That's my general rule when it comes to internet flame wars- they're not worth it. I hate the ending, but if someone else likes it I'm not going to give them a hard time about it. I'm happy that there are people who enjoy the ending. I wish that I could have too.

[iamthedave3]

HenchxNarf wrote...

The answers are in the game, I hate to say it. 

Plot holes are subjective, I don't think you understand what the word means. Because inconsistancies do not equal plot holes.

No, no they're not. It's true that some people say that things are plot holes when they aren't, but there's a pretty clear definition of what constitutes a plot hole. If something matches up to that description, it constitutes a plot hole whether or not you're willing to acknowledge it.

On the flip side, if you misunderstand the definition, something does not constitute a plot hole even if you think it is one.

[Gwtheyrn]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Dragoni89 wrote...

Back to the Original Poster: Pro-enders can't saying anything other than they liked the ending and think they deserve new threads cause they do. They can't argue against the plot holes or flawed logic or unexplained momments of the ending scene. Why talk in the first place if all your gonna say are empty words with no meaning? If your gonna post to current BSN community with is around 85-95% dislike of the ending, than obviously anti-enders are gonna talk and tell you why your wrong for liking the ending unless your dumb.If you can't post somehting solid for why the ending is good, then be expected to be cometely oblierated by the ending hate and you derseve it for making a pointless thread with the line "you don't get the ending" or "replay on the game, search for clues" or "stop whinning".

And you are the type of people I dislike. We shouldn't have to argue our opinions, just like you shouldn't have to argue yours.

BSN is a mecca for the anti-enders, yes, but as Jessica said, you are only 9% of the total fanbase.

The answers are in the game, I hate to say it. 

Plot holes are subjective, I don't think you understand what the word means. Because inconsistancies do not equal plot holes.

Definition of "Plot Hole" from Wikipedia:
     A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot,
or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the
plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of
characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no
apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in
the storyline.

Try again, Chief.

No one should be told they are wrong for stating their opinion. Pro
enders have just as much right as anti-enders to state how they feel
about the game without having to fight the sea of trolls, because in the
end, no matter what they say they'll be laughed at.

You can be told that you're wrong for stating your opinion when your opinion is wrong. This makes you wrong twice. :innocent:

[Joccaren]

Well, basically because they are fighting for opposite things.
A number of pro enders feel that a new ending will illegitimise the current endings they like, and will hurt Bioware's artistic integrity, whilst setting a precedent for mobs to rule over creative works.
Anti-Enders generally believe that the endings illegitimised their Shepards, have hurt their consumer rights, and will lead to a precedent where companies can release whatever they want and have people buy it - resulting in no good or original games because it would hurt artistic integrity to force Devs to do that.

Basically, each thinks the other is mutually exclusive of their own goals, and thus tries to illegitimise the other any way they can. Sadly, this is usually by insults. In all reality, neither are truly mutually exclusive.
The ending will be DLC, likely that you have to pay for. Anti-enders keep their endings, and don't install the DLC, whilst pro enders buy the DLC and get their ending.
This will set no overall precedent as ME3 is a very specific case: The end of a trilogy that has player choice as a key factor in its gameplay and that made very specific promises pre release - some of which were not kept. This isn't comparable to most games out there, and it is certainly not comparable in the slightest to music or movies - they are entirely non interactive. Likewise, ignoring the fans wouldn't be anything new. These days a lot of stuff is being made for the 'lowest common denominator' thanks to publisher wants, and ignoring the wants of the hardcore fanbase that liked the originals, but find the new installations lacking the depth they are used to so that they can appeal to the general shooter crowd.
Artistic Integrity says that the artist has the final say in what happens to their work - and even if they change the endings, this is as true as it was at the start of the project; It was Bioware's choice to do that. Well, actually some of that choice goes to EA, as it did throughout the entire development process, so artistic integrity is somewhat harmed - but not by the Retake people. Likewise, whether this actually infringes on consumer rights with False Advertising or if its just puffery is an argument to be had in the FTC, and whatever they say will hold. Thus far it seems they'll just label it puffery, but W/E.

[JPR1964]

KingKhan03 wrote...

Man i just want a better ending....

Me too, that's all...

And I never created a new thread just to tell how I disliked the ending, like every pro-ender seems to do...

And besides, every time I read a pro-ender thread, it's like the OP feel interesting to put some disguised insult in it...

Nice people...

JPR out!

PS : I almost forgot : HOLD THE LINE! 

[Dragoni89]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Dragoni89 wrote...

Back to the Original Poster: Pro-enders can't saying anything other than they liked the ending and think they deserve new threads cause they do. They can't argue against the plot holes or flawed logic or unexplained momments of the ending scene. Why talk in the first place if all your gonna say are empty words with no meaning? If your gonna post to current BSN community with is around 85-95% dislike of the ending, than obviously anti-enders are gonna talk and tell you why your wrong for liking the ending unless your dumb.If you can't post somehting solid for why the ending is good, then be expected to be cometely oblierated by the ending hate and you derseve it for making a pointless thread with the line "you don't get the ending" or "replay on the game, search for clues" or "stop whinning".

And you are the type of people I dislike. We shouldn't have to argue our opinions, just like you shouldn't have to argue yours.

BSN is a mecca for the anti-enders, yes, but as Jessica said, you are only 9% of the total fanbase.

The answers are in the game, I hate to say it. 

Plot holes are subjective, I don't think you understand what the word means. Because inconsistancies do not equal plot holes.

No one should be told they are wrong for stating their opinion. Pro enders have just as much right as anti-enders to state how they feel about the game without having to fight the sea of trolls, because in the end, no matter what they say they'll be laughed at.

What ideas all you stated in you like the ending cause you get it? What is there to get? Suprising no follow up. Sadly we already explained why the answers ARE NOT IN THE GAME.
And even rarely when some one does try, the person ignores the plot holes and yes they are plot holes.
Definition of WHAT A PLOT HOLE IS:

A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot,
or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the
plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of
characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no
apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in
the storyline.
(PAWNED?) I don't think you understand anything, which is obvious what you can't even google the definition of a plot hole.


Do we need to go over what events that happened at the ending are plot holes? So now STFU cause your embarrassing yourself. Your opinion are wrong not because we say they are, but due to the logic and evidence presented by the game.

Modifié par Dragoni89, 01 avril 2012 - 11:48 .

[HenchxNarf]

Gwtheyrn wrote...

You can be told that you're wrong for stating your opinion when your opinion is wrong. This makes you wrong twice. :innocent:

An opinion isn't wrong. It's someone's opinion..not yours. I'm sorry, but saying someone's opinion is right or wrong is ridiculous.