395 réponses à ce sujet

[MaverickPerry]

Anastassia wrote...

I'm sorry that the ending upset you so, it's never fun to feel like you didn't get your money's worth. However, that analogy to LOTR is both ridiculous and unfair. No one dressed in drag, and there was certainly no clown sex or Nyan Cat.

It was an analogy. Not a parellel example. The point was that the end of the game made no sense, new characters came out of nowhere, and people you had been following for a trilogy suddenly acted wildly out of character. Hence the analogy. 

I bought the game on the promise that it was the end of Shepard's story, and it delivered. I never assumed the Mass Relays blew up the galaxy, and I was right. I didn't much care for the Normandy scene, but they've already agreed to extend the ending to provide closure and context. They're doing what they should be doing, and continuing to berate them for the ending not being what you wanted it to be is selfish and uncalled for. There is no consensus in your own movement about what the ending should be. People want a darker ending, people want the Catalyst retconned out, others want a happy ending, others want tne extension, others don't even want it to end. They can't please all of you.

Ah, but there is a consesus within the movement: Logic. 

For the millionth time (not hyperbole, considering the popularity of the issues and the internet), the largest complaint about the ending by a wide, wide margin is that it did not make sense. There are massive, massive plot holes, oversights, and events that are completely unexplained (something defenders of the ending like to blame others for not interpreting enough). Most people expected Shepard to die. Few people expected a happy ending of Shepard sipping margaritas on a beach with Liara and blue children running around while a maskless Tali in a bikini makes out with Garrus by the waves at sunset. But when a trilogy which has prided itself - and at times heavily leaned on - explaining everything in great detail suddenly goes vague, illogical, out of character and assumes the player will assume what the writers assumed, that's a very terrible (and lazy) ending. 

[cavs25]

Only way to explain plot holes is with blind leaps of logic.
With what you are presented in the game there is no proof for your explanations. They all consist of you might do this when hit by that...
and he might have felt this way.....
is all speculation and no concrete proof. Thing is the ending still sucked, because of many things. You can like the ending, but there is no denying that it was a failure when it comes to story telling.

[Pandaman102]

Hm.

So how exactly is an ending with oversights and fails to provide closure (edit: when closure was promised, mind you) considered "good"?

Not trying to be argumentative, but there's a difference between "like vs. dislike" and "good vs. bad". People can like bad endings and dislike good endings. I won't dissuade you from liking the ending, but you liking it doesn't make it objectively good - on the same note people simply disliking the endings doesn't make it bad, however there are many objective arguments as to why the ending is bad.

Modifié par Pandaman102, 10 avril 2012 - 12:54 .

[MaverickPerry]

Starts off with:

lx_theo wrote...

Yes, I said it. The ending was good.

But then immediately follows it up with:

lx_theo wrote...

It wasn't great. It wasn't amazing. It wasn't the quality the series deserved to end on after such a great run.

There are a few that seem like oversights, like the sudden appearance of certain characters in ending scenes.

the greatest failing was that it didn't provide enough closure. The universe had many ways it could develop afterwards based on how things turned out on many different fronts throughout the game. The problem with the ending is that it doesn't reference these and specify what happens to provide said closure.

So it's "good" except for the part where it's not great or amazing, has multiple oversights, lack of closure, no answers, and, to quote you, "wasn't the quality the series deserved".

But other than that, it was good? That's like saying Hitler was a nice guy except for that whole global war, genocide, N@zi thing for a few years. But other than that, he was nice, and all the hate towards him is ridiculous.

I hope you're trolling, otherwise you're just absolutely, mind-numbingly retarded.

[Kanon777]

MaverickPerry wrote...

You're generalizing. Immensely. You're taking the exaggerated and extreme minortiy and painting across everyone who doesn't like the ending. 99% of us are very logical, very calm, and very, very intelligent. All the exampled you bulleted are hypocritical, considering you're acting the exact same way, just on the other side of the line. In fact, it could be said that fans like you, who blindly accept anything without a critical eye or passion to want a better product, are the worst fans of all. A lemming of lemmings. At least anger means you care. Apathy is worse.

 
I am not generalizing i am saying this community has a problem and i want to speak up about it.

BTW If you want to counter this banner just make a similar one saying "Real Fans Criticize" or something similar, i wont be bothered by this because im not targeting the normal "critics", im targeting the zealots... 

[Kanon777]

AIR MOORE wrote...
Cool story bro.

I believe all the people who spent $60-$80 on this game deserve a coherent ending that meshes well with the rest of their journey that they spent an extra (few) hundred on... as well as reflecting statements made by BioWare and its agents.

I never said you deserve or dont deserve anything, im saying that youre not a good "fan" if do any of the things i said. If you are not one those then im not talking about you

[Cucobr]

realize that the topic author knows nothing about nothing from story


Anyway, I will not waste my time here.

Modifié par Cucobr, 10 avril 2012 - 01:04 .

[omphaloskepsis]

DannyGloverfromPredator2 wrote...

 @ Amioran
I'm going to keep this brief and try to be clear:

• The Order vs. Chaos theme is not a major established theme of the series from a gameplay/actions of the gamer perspective. It is introduced exclusively as the logic behind the principle antagonists. A good story should not at the last possible second pull the rug out from a reader/participant and tell them "everything you've been fighting for is wrong - the logic of the bad guys is actually correct" - the logic of villians is something to be questioned and proved wrong, not something adopted by the writers as the major theme at the climax.
• Bringing Joyce and Milton to the table in the context of evaluating the ending of ME3 is ridiculous. Joyce is obtuse throughout the entirety of Ulysses. He designed the novel to be an extraordinarily heavy read with allusions to music, literature, religion, mythology, etc. etc. weaved into the intricately and deliberately complicated narrative; many find the book to be more of an exercise in intellectual arrogance than really enjoyable. Paradise Lost is a Biblical epic written in the 17th century. Therefore, it builds upon and alludes to much of Christian mythology and western tradition - these allusions require a fair amount of background reading/understanding to fully grasp, but are clearly evident throughout the poem.  The Mass Effect Series, however...
• ...are a collection of video games. They tell a story, which has some solid depth to it, particularly in the realm of character development and user (gamer) participation via choices made through the series. The games include many archetypal characters (and villains), but don't contain significant literary/cultural allusion at any point. The story is meant to be straight forward and build upon the universe created within, not indirectly and obscurely refer to other works (literature, other games, music, etc.).  The medium, narrative structure, reader/gamer involvement, goals of the writer, and necessary background knowledge are completely different between this series of video games and the works of Joyce and Milton.
• The gamer participation and importance conveyed throughout the series on the importance of YOUR actions as Shepard is undone if Order vs. Chaos is really the big theme we're all supposed to buy into. That undermines hundreds of hours of engagement, and because of the interactive nature of video games, comes across to many as a betrayal.
• Repeatedly asserting that many people are basically too stupid or not well read enough to get the theme does not make you correct about either: a) Order vs. Chaos being THE theme or many people being ignorant.

This.  I could add more, but I'll just say:  you can try to create a connection between the ME3 ending (or any other story) and an entirely separate artistic or philosophic work that actually succeeded, but that doesn't make it true. 

There was another thread that desperately tried to argue that the ending was great because it fit with Hegelian Dialectics. which didn't work because there was no significant, consistent thematic match until the last 5 minutes.

This is, IMO, no different in approach than the Indoctrination Theory, but IT wins IMO, because it's a better fit with the actual content of the 3 games.  I'm not saying that I want IT, or that the devs intended IT, just that it's the only "alternative spin" on the ending that I've seen that doesn't completely crumble under scrutiny.

[TheMerchantMan]

tobito113 wrote...

TheMerchantMan wrote...

Most plot holes are not plot holes, just very poorly thought out aspects and elements of the ending, what are plotholes are such things as EDI surviving the Red Beam blast. The Normandy crash, the Relays not going supernova, and Shepard waking up in what appears to be London not the Citadel. These contradict what we were told and what we knew about the universe before, rather than simply being implications of the endings, they are very simply elements contrary to the narrative of this story.

EDI survives : The red beam causes less damage to nonreapers the more EMS you have, this is why Shep can surivve even tho much of his body is made of synthetics (i even heard that cerberus used reaper tech to remake Shep during the lazarus project-need to confirm this)

Plausible. Yet, again not established in canon. What we see is a contradiction, we can naturally think up new explanations, but what we see is a contradiction. This is what makes it a plot hole.

Further EDI surviving the Normandy crash has seemingly has occurred regardless of whether Shepard survives, it's not being treated as a bug, but rather a scripted but seemingly contradictory scene.

Normandy Crash : .... derp, i have no clue about that.

Yep. No one does. It's a through and through plot hole. There really isn't any excuse for this one. Even stretching your imagination, you have to break character, break canon, and twist logic just to come up with a plausible reason for them to leave.

Relay not going supernovae : The release of energy on each of the epxlosion was diferent in Arrival. In the DLC the internal energy of the relay crashes with the astoroid and causes the explosion we saw. In the ending you can clearly see most of the energy jumping out of the relay before the relay explode, so we have 2 diferent types of explosions going on. The ME3 one dosent have to cause the same damage as the Arrival one 

It doesn't have to, but the story did not establish that it did not. This is a problem, and a plothole. It doesn't mean that the Relays should have gone supernova, it doesn't mean that we should assume they did, indeed for the ending to mean anything we must assume they did not.

However it is a plot hole because it breaks away from the canon that we are given up until that point. That a Mass Relay will explode in a supernova like burst. Obviously, we assume it did not for the sake of the story. Yet, when something occurs that seemingly violates the canon of the game and it is not addressed, it is a plothole.

Shep waking up: he survived and took the reverse path of the conduit, going back to where he was before. OR the synthetic parts of his body gave him extra endurance to survive a fall that was just as bad as the one in the begining of ME2

Creative solutions to a plothole. It remains however a plothole. We are given to understand that Shepard was aboard the citadel, he wakes up in what appears to be London. There is no apparent explanation for how that is possible without abusing the canon of the story.

The planet that Shepard falls down onto in ME2 did not have a thick atmosphere, and his body apparently landed in water, even with all of that, he was all but paste when they found him.

In ME3, Shepard falls down to Earth in no armour, not even covering his face through an Atmosphere that brings down most Reapers' shields. And lands in the middle of London.

Elsewise he walked back to the conduit after surviving a danger-close explosion (twice) covered in clearly damaging wounds to a conduit that by all appearances was one-way, unto London and then, rather than being picked up by an Alliance soldier, instead just decided to fall into a heap of rubble. Die and then *breathe*.

Again it's not that I am saying, when I call these things "plotholes" that no concievable explanation can be made for them. (That realm is relegated solely to the logic of the catalyst.) What I am saying is that these things cannot be explained without leaps of logic that do not have a basis in the story.

You can think of a logical way that it happened, but that does not excuse that the event does not conform with the rest of the story.

[MaverickPerry]

tobito113 wrote...

I am not generalizing i am saying this community has a problem and i want to speak up about it.

BTW If you want to counter this banner just make a similar one saying "Real Fans Criticize" or something similar, i wont be bothered by this because im not targeting the normal "critics", im targeting the zealots... 

Every community has the same problem. No community (real life or video game fans) is perfect. Everywhere you go there will be people who love and hate a product. Your exact words were:

tobito113 wrote... 

I dont give a crap if you hate the endings, as long as the anti-ending crowd behaves like this i will proudly use this banner

You just grouped us all together. That's generalizing. And like I said, the examples you mentioned are very select few; Nothing even remotely close to representing the "anti-ending crowd" as you so put it.

Modifié par MaverickPerry, 10 avril 2012 - 01:08 .

[Mria]

lx_theo wrote...

 *Readies Omni-Shield of Invulnerability*

Yes, I said it. The ending was good. It wasn't great. It wasn't amazing. It wasn't the quality the series deserved to end on after such a great run. But it was good.

Many of the so called "plotholes" can easily be explained relatively easily without creating a whole conspiracy around it. There are a few that seem like oversights, like the sudden appearance of certain characters in ending scenes.

The whole Indoctrination Theory is just silly, and while it would be cool, it would also make no sense for Bioware to do without having actual content afterwards in the released title. Not to mention much of this "proof" is nothing of the sort, and a lot of it is non sequitur even when together.

Other than that, the greatest failing was that it didn't provide enough closure. The universe had many ways it could develop afterwards based on how things turned out on many different fronts throughout the game. The problem with the ending is that it doesn't reference these and specify what happens to provide said closure. Bioware is doing the smart thing is offering an ending that gives more closure.

So, the ending was good. All this hate for it is absolutely ridiculous.

EDIT: Here is me addressing the issue of "plotholes"
http://social.biowar...3404/4#11197542

No, the community dont want just more clousere in the end they want a real ending not that poorly made ''artistic view'' from the developers we want a real final battle.

we want plotholes fixed,yes of course but we want options as well we dont want to go to the same your dead evry time you choose a ending option and we want something more worthy to the game as well 

Short awnser: we want a new ending not a slideshow 

you the one being ridicules about it cause althought i agree the ending wasn't 100% bad it isn't right...its out of place...makes no sense.

thats what bioware needs to see not to keep trying to smash their fists into the wall cause ppl will still complain about it ! 

fewer ppl complaining ? yes, possibly, but there will be still ppl wanting to keep trying to get what they've paid for.

Modifié par Mria, 10 avril 2012 - 01:10 .

[omphaloskepsis]

TheMerchantMan wrote...
Creative solutions to a plothole. It remains however a plothole. We are given to understand that Shepard was aboard the citadel, he wakes up in what appears to be London. There is no apparent explanation for how that is possible without abusing the canon of the story.

The planet that Shepard falls down onto in ME2 did not have a thick atmosphere, and his body apparently landed in water, even with all of that, he was all but paste when they found him.

In ME3, Shepard falls down to Earth in no armour, not even covering his face through an Atmosphere that brings down most Reapers' shields. And lands in the middle of London.

Elsewise he walked back to the conduit after surviving a danger-close explosion (twice) covered in clearly damaging wounds to a conduit that by all appearances was one-way, unto London and then, rather than being picked up by an Alliance soldier, instead just decided to fall into a heap of rubble. Die and then *breathe*.

Again it's not that I am saying, when I call these things "plotholes" that no concievable explanation can be made for them. (That realm is relegated solely to the logic of the catalyst.) What I am saying is that these things cannot be explained without leaps of logic that do not have a basis in the story.

You can think of a logical way that it happened, but that does not excuse that the event does not conform with the rest of the story.

Completely agree with your previous post except for the above part.  I can't possibly "fill in the holes" of Shepard surviving atmospheric reentry.  Except maybe space fairies or teleportation (which also conveniently solves some of the problems with the Normandy cinematics).

BW could solve so many issues/ramifications with the ending if the starchild just gets an extra line of dialog that explains that its space magic also bestows teleportation to everyone.  I guess I'm just too stupid to assume something so obvious.

[daecath]

lx_theo wrote...

 *Readies Omni-Shield of Invulnerability*

Yes, I said it. The ending was good. It wasn't great. It wasn't amazing. It wasn't the quality the series deserved to end on after such a great run. But it was good.

It wasn't even close to good. You can say you like it, You can it moved you, that it was the best ending you've ever seen, that you will construct statues in the honor of the writers. But it wasn't good. It violated every rule of literature.

lx_theo wrote...
Many of the so called "plotholes" can easily be explained relatively easily without creating a whole conspiracy around it. There are a few that seem like oversights, like the sudden appearance of certain characters in ending scenes.

Yes, they can be easily explained - bad writing. If you have to explain your story, it wasn't written well.

lx_theo wrote...
The whole Indoctrination Theory is just silly, and while it would be cool, it would also make no sense for Bioware to do without having actual content afterwards in the released title. Not to mention much of this "proof" is nothing of the sort, and a lot of it is non sequitur even when together.

Indoctrination Theory is a brilliant attempt by the fans to make sense of the mess that is the ending. I agree that there's no way it's true. But it's pretty clever, certainly more clever than anything in the ending.

lx_theo wrote...
Other than that, the greatest failing was that it didn't provide enough closure.

No, the biggest failing is that it betrays the fans, it betrays the character, it betrays the story, and it betrays BioWare.

By introducing a character in the last 5 minutes of over 100 hours of gameplay, you have committed a cardinal sin in terms of literature. That right there is enough to condem the ending. However, it gets worse.

They toss out the entire plot of the series in those last 5 minutes, and replace it with a flawed premise that the galaxy needs saved from the ongoing conflict between synthetics and organics. It's no longer about stopping the Reapers, it's about resolving this situation between synthetics and organics, which the rest of the story has already disproven.

But the worst is that the stopping of the Reaper threat has nothing to do with Shepard. It is the decision of the starbrat to stop the cycle. It is the starbrat who comes up with the possibilities for how to end it. That means in the last 5 minutes of the game, the protagonist of the game is no longer Shepard. Shepard is nothing more than a plot device. The starbrat could have flipped a coin, and the result would have been the same.

From a game mechanics standpoint, it's true that there is no difference between this decision and any other you've made in any of the game. However, in the terms of the story, it is completely different. Every other decision in the game has been shown as coming from Shepard. S/he takes an infinite number of possibilities, makes a determination, and then narrows it down to three - the three you're presented with. In the case of starbrat, it's no longer Shepard's decision. If I lock you into a Jigsaw style deathtrap, and offer you the choice of cutting off your arm, cutting off your leg, or breaking your back, is that still your choice? No, and these three options aren't Shepard's. Shepard is just a convenient plot device that allows starbrat to make HIS decision.

That right there is the most condemning point of the entire ending debacle. Forget the logical fallacies that starbrat's argument is full of. Forget the plot holes that arise from the fact that the entire plot was thrown out in favor of something that has no relation to any of the rest of the plot. It is the fact that you aren't even the hero of your own story anymore that I think is the worst element of this ending.

[guru666]

Guess I'll toss in my two credit chit...

The provided endings to ME3 are a functional ending to a canon storyline.

The problem is:
1: We do not have conclusive proof of what the canon storyline is. Guides spell out what some decisions are by default but that's about it.
2: The statistical probability that we, the players, followed a canon storyline are slim to nil; heck, PS3 owners can never follow it as we lack ME1. Overall, this makes the canon endings fit less into the individual's story. Bear witness to the problem of interactive storytelling!

From an artistic standpoint (since Bioware keeps bringing it up), the endings are cliche at worst; pretentious at best. Shepard already died in the series, another death (no matter how noble) lacks emotional impact. Really, he/she's about 2 deaths away from his/her deaths becoming a drinking game. The stranded Normandy and the destruction of the Mass relays have technical oversights that seemed to have been overlooked to make a "dramatic" ending.

The only major problem I have is that the endings is that it feels as though this was the ending were initially conceived at the beginning of ME1. As an interactive storyteller (I am currently running a tabletop ME game), I understand that my players' personalities and decisions will effect the story progression and, ultimately, the ending. Bioware seems to have neglected this in the endings.

Regardless of the ending, my concern is that Bioware just went pulled a George Lucas to what could be the be the next truly great science fiction series. For those wanting a explanation to this; Lucas neglected the Star Wars franchise for years and a lot of side content was made (the Expanded Universe). When Lucas made the prequels, instead of finding a nice balance to fit his new stories into, he did whatever he wanted and altered to ruined content that had been used for years by the fans. There was some fallout from this. For Bioware, this can mean the loss of a ton of potential revenue from untapped products.

By Bioware favoring the artistic ending and not providing a more in depth ending to the universe that captivated its fanbase, they sell themselves short and can alienate the fanbase. I hope for their sake, the DLC's promise of a compromising ending is true.

[R_Bond]

lx_theo wrote...

Udalango wrote...

But then you are still stuck with the lil walking contradiction machine star brat.  His logic is ridiculous it contradicts things the Reapers told you which only makes sense if the Reapers didnt know about Star brat which is totally lame, it makes ME1 pointless...Why did Sovereign have to do everything he did if star brat was in the Citadel the whole time
Adding a new main antagonist in the last 5 mins and only giving him 14 lines of dialouge was so incredibly dumb.  I cant think of any other awesome movie book or game that has ever done that.  Id assume cause it isnt a fun thing to read/play/watch.  Why make me hate something/one if they arent even what I should be hating?
I really wanted to just be against Harby.  Cause he was an established bad guy and he is the "Oldest Reaper" so he would make sense

His logic is fine. Did you try thinking about it from his point of view. it makes plenty of sense that way.

Can I come back to this for a second?

You say that looking at the Calalyst's logic from his point of view would help it make sense.  That's fine, but by doing so, you're just ignoring the player's point of view.

From the kid's point of view, it may make perfect sense.  The Catalyst may have only the most noble of intentions, but he's not the protagonist.  From Shepard's perspective, depending on his/her actions, s/he my have seen the Quarians and the Geth begin a new age of co-existence and helped EDI and Joker form a relationship.  From his/her point of view, peace between organics and synthetics isn't just possible, but already happening.

This is where my biggest grievance with the ending lies.  Both points of view, with their unique perspectives, are just as logical.  Neither one is more correct than the other.  However, you have to take into account that Shepard, controlled by the player, is the driving force of the narrative.  In the end, Shepard's, and by extention, the player's belief is the most important of the two.  To ignore the player in favor of the antagonist is a grave error, and unfortunately is seems that both Bioware and you have done just that.

Telling someone to change their perspective and beliefs in order to agree with another set of beliefs is unfair and disrespectful to what that person believes in.  While not every player has the same point of view, Shepard and the Catalyst naturally come from two different mindsets.  If the players have to ignore their own experiences to understand and appreciate the ending's logic, then the writers failed to deliver a coherent narrative.

Modifié par R_Bond, 10 avril 2012 - 03:33 .

[Wolven_Soul]

Glad you like it and all, but you do not seem to actually explain away any of these plotholes that you say are so easily explainable.  Sorry, but it was not good.

[Wolven_Soul]

floppypig wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

 *Readies Omni-Shield of Invulnerability*

Yes, I said it. The ending was good. It wasn't great. It wasn't amazing. It wasn't the quality the series deserved to end on after such a great run. But it was good.

Many of the so called "plotholes" can easily be explained relatively easily without creating a whole conspiracy around it. There are a few that seem like oversights, like the sudden appearance of certain characters in ending scenes.

The whole Indoctrination Theory is just silly, and while it would be cool, it would also make no sense for Bioware to do without having actual content afterwards in the released title. Not to mention much of this "proof" is nothing of the sort, and a lot of it is non sequitur even when together.

Other than that, the greatest failing was that it didn't provide enough closure. The universe had many ways it could develop afterwards based on how things turned out on many different fronts throughout the game. The problem with the ending is that it doesn't reference these and specify what happens to provide said closure. Bioware is doing the smart thing is offering an ending that gives more closure.

So, the ending was good. All this hate for it is absolutely ridiculous.

100% Agree. And it looks like the extended cut should give us that closure. 

Also, mostof the plotholes can be answered with just a little bit of imagination - it really isn't that difficult. 

It's the end of a trilogy, we should not have to use our imagination.

[RiouHotaru]

Well done OP. It's nice to see someone willing to go through that god-awful list and point out what is and isn't an actual "plot-hole".

Smudboy and Zulu all too readily tossed that term about during ME2's debut over the smallest and most childish things, and I fully believe well over half the BSN uses "plothole" without fully understanding exactly what that term stands for.

I do believe the presentation could use improvement, and context could be added (aka, the EC), but otherwise, I believe it was a solid conclusion.

[XqctaX]

the ending was not good, the ending was this "NARRATIVE INCOHERENCE"

and to all the defending of the ending and explinations fo plothole theories.
IF ITS NOT IN THE GAME IT DOES NOT EXIST. your imagination does not explain my plotholes.

good day and goodbye.

[Psychlonus]

lx_theo wrote...

 *Readies Omni-Shield of Invulnerability*

Yes, I said it. The ending was good. It wasn't great. It wasn't amazing. It wasn't the quality the series deserved to end on after such a great run. But it was good.

Many of the so called "plotholes" can easily be explained relatively easily without creating a whole conspiracy around it. There are a few that seem like oversights, like the sudden appearance of certain characters in ending scenes.

The whole Indoctrination Theory is just silly, and while it would be cool, it would also make no sense for Bioware to do without having actual content afterwards in the released title. Not to mention much of this "proof" is nothing of the sort, and a lot of it is non sequitur even when together.

Other than that, the greatest failing was that it didn't provide enough closure. The universe had many ways it could develop afterwards based on how things turned out on many different fronts throughout the game. The problem with the ending is that it doesn't reference these and specify what happens to provide said closure. Bioware is doing the smart thing is offering an ending that gives more closure.

So, the ending was good. All this hate for it is absolutely ridiculous.

EDIT: Here is me addressing the issue of "plotholes"
http://social.biowar...3404/4#11197542

No it wasn't good, and here is the basic reason why:
Whenever an author goes for a twist in the ending, he has to make sure that all along the way he showed subtle or not-so-subtle things that will make you "KICK YOURSEF" when you read/watch/play it again after you know the end. You're supposed to giggle and say "ah...there you go. I can see it coming..."  Things make even more sense the second time around. The Mass Effect trilogy is the only major work that I know of that doesn't do that. When you play it again all you see is FAIL...a failure of twistology, because the ending twist was not pre-planned.

Modifié par Psychlonus, 10 avril 2012 - 06:40 .