713 réponses à ce sujet

[kbct]

Kuari999 wrote...

The way of the internet: If everyone is against you, try to attack their evidence rather than provide some of your own!  Its become the clearest indicator of a side not having a reasonable argument, get something else.  You don't like the evidence, come up with counter evidence.  Prove that what you state is even viable or just drop it.

True, I wish Gigamantis would provide evidence of his own instead of constantly dismissing all evidence that shows that ME3 created a major sh!tstorm.

[NaastyNZL]

Hellbound555 wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...
-snip-
People got angry when DA2 came out because it wasn't DAO.
People got angry when ME2 came out because it wasn't ME1.

you should think on that some more.

Alot of people enjoyed ME2 more than ME1 and DA2 brought alot of new fans to the series. So where are you going with this?

[Gigamantis]

Kuari999 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Ugh, you don't even know it was 4chan and I know members who claim it wasn't.  The forums I frequent are ones for all Blizzard games (WoW, SC2, DiabloIII) Skyrim and ME3 and both DA games.  Every time there's bad news it's ALL the forums are about for months.  You're purposely blinding yourself to it because you want this ME3 incident to be special, probably because you're so deeply invested in it.  

Now DA2 was supposedly terrible (the whole game, not just the ending) and that wasn't reflected in ME3's sales.  What makes you think it's going to be different if they don't fix the ending?  Deny it if you want, but this isn't the first time a lot of people complained about a game online.  

Finally, the Normandy escape wasn't a plothole, it was just implied rather than being shown.  Also, there was no character betrayal.  Shepard was stuck, had no other options, and instead of holding his breath and stomping his feet like a toddler elected to make a choice and save what he could of the galaxy.  You're really upset over absolutely nothing. 

Oh really?  Implied huh?  What was implied about the scene?  Also, no, I'm not blinding myself to anything.  I've accepted having unpopular opinions in the past, in fact, I'm damned used to it, I'm basing this off of facts.  You?  You just assume that all the facts are tainted.  You can't DO that without any sort of proof with any sort of legitimacy.  Also frankly I've been to all those forums.  Even during the worst incidents in Warcraft, finding other topics that didn't get bogged down was damned easy.  Not so here.  I'm not buying into that bull****.  Don't expect me to buy into your crap when you're spreading garbage like that that is flat out false.  That's the most insulting thing about this crap.  The way of the internet: If everyone is against you, try to attack their evidence rather than provide some of your own!  Its become the clearest indicator of a side not having a reasonable argument, get something else.  You don't like the evidence, come up with counter evidence.  Prove that what you state is even viable or just drop it.

And before you try to say that I have nothing, no, I have damned plenty, there's damned plenty all around, but instead of making counter points, you attack the evidence with baseless bull****.  Get some damned counterpoints.

Yes, it's implied by them showing the Normandy retreating through a relay as it blows.  Also, you have no facts, you have arbitrary numbers and no idea what they represent.  The troll movement that started before this game released, that spread to every opinion site it could find, was real.  That occurance is why you need strict scientific standards applied to an online poll before it has any kind of informative merit.  Without strict standards online polls are meaningless, there's no way around it. 

There's complaints around, especially on the forums, and they probably number in the 100's if we break them down into the individuals posting them.  The only thing they're evidence of is that 100's of people are angry.  Your poorly constructed, extremely vulnerable polls need to be verifiable before they're accepted as fact.  Until that happens they're nothing. 

[Gigamantis]

kbct wrote...

Kuari999 wrote...

The way of the internet: If everyone is against you, try to attack their evidence rather than provide some of your own!  Its become the clearest indicator of a side not having a reasonable argument, get something else.  You don't like the evidence, come up with counter evidence.  Prove that what you state is even viable or just drop it.

True, I wish Gigamantis would provide evidence of his own instead of constantly dismissing all evidence that shows that ME3 created a major sh!tstorm.

I'm not presenting evidence because there's no evidence for or against this point anywhere.  The only thing I feel it's necessary to do is shoot down the foolish people who don't seem to know what evidence looks like.  Here's a hint; a statistically broken polling method isn't evidence that the majority of millions of people hated the ending, and seeing a lot of topics created on a forum isn't either. 

[DigitalAvatar]

Gigamantis wrote...
There's nothing problematic about introducing a new character if his existance doesn't contradict anything established in the lore, and IT DOESN'T.  His introduction is called a plot-twist [...]

Yes, there is something wrong with that. It is an extremely poor plot device demonstrating inept and incohesive writing. If it was forshadowed and built up to this climax maybe it would work, but Casper is completely disconnected from the entire rest of the trilogy. A proper, well-constructed plot twist is done in such a way that the reader/viewer/player can look back and see the signs were unnoticed at first pass, but obvious in hindsight.

Gigamantis wrote...
[...] whether YOU FELT the catalysts logical assertions were right or wrong, Shepard had no choice but to accept his situation and make a choice. 
Saying the true Shepard would've stomped his feet and held his breath until the catalyst gave him his way is childish and asinine.

No, Shepard would not have accepted any of those choices without question. Did he waver in the face of Saren, or TIM? Hell no, Shepard would have given Casper an epic "Shut up, Hannibal!"
The fact that the options Casper gives are not logically sound and inadequetely explained is a failure of writing quality. It is not well written in any conceivable way, shape, or form.

Modifié par DigitalAvatar, 13 avril 2012 - 02:14 .

[Kuari999]

Gigamantis wrote...

Yes, it's implied by them showing the Normandy retreating through a relay as it blows.  Also, you have no facts, you have arbitrary numbers and no idea what they represent.  The troll movement that started before this game released, that spread to every opinion site it could find, was real.  That occurance is why you need strict scientific standards applied to an online poll before it has any kind of informative merit.  Without strict standards online polls are meaningless, there's no way around it. 

There's complaints around, especially on the forums, and they probably number in the 100's if we break them down into the individuals posting them.  The only thing they're evidence of is that 100's of people are angry.  Your poorly constructed, extremely vulnerable polls need to be verifiable before they're accepted as fact.  Until that happens they're nothing. 

So you're telling me that the Normandy got to Earth from a relay in less than 5 seconds when the explosion would have already struck them and NO warning.  No reason to believe it was dangerous to them.  In otherwords, Joker chickened out in an out of character fashion?  Yeah, that's a bit of an issue.

It was a pathetically small movement until people started beating the game, seriously.  There was nothing to indicate it had any size until about a week after the game.  Just, quit spreading that crap.  It was there, yeah, but pretending it had any real scale is just...  *sigh*.  Seriously, ignoring information just because one little thing can go wrong with it is not sensible or logical in any sense.  You take it with a grain of salt, but you don't ignore it.  When there is that large a margin though, typically you can expect a pretty hefty margin consistantly no matter what sort of polling you do.  Most of the most misleading polls ask one question and the answer is used to refer to something not quite related.  That really isn't the case here.

Gigamantis wrote...

I'm not presenting evidence because there's no
evidence for or against this point anywhere.  The only thing I feel
it's necessary to do is shoot down the foolish people who don't seem to
know what evidence looks like.  Here's a hint; a statistically broken
polling method isn't evidence that the majority of millions of people
hated the ending, and seeing a lot of topics created on a forum isn't
either. 

If a sample size of about 3-4% isn't good enough, a sample size far larger than standard for polling, wtf is good enough for you?

Modifié par Kuari999, 13 avril 2012 - 02:16 .

[kbct]

Gigamantis wrote...

I'm not presenting evidence because there's no evidence for or against this point anywhere. 

I guess I have to let others go back a few pages and look at the evidence and decide for themselves.

[Gigamantis]

DigitalAvatar wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...
There's nothing problematic about introducing a new character if his existance doesn't contradict anything established in the lore, and IT DOESN'T.  His introduction is called a plot-twist [...]

Yes, there is something wrong with that. It is an extremely poor plot device demonstrating inept and incohesive writing. If it was forshadowed and built up to this climax maybe it would work, but Casper is completely disconnected from the entire rest of the trilogy. A proper, well-constructed plot twist is done in such a way that the reader/viewer/player can look back and see the signs were unnoticed at first pass, but obvious in hindsight.

Gigamantis wrote...
[...] whether YOU FELT the catalysts logical assertions were right or wrong, Shepard had no choice but to accept his situation and make a choice. 
Saying the true Shepard would've stomped his feet and held his breath until the catalyst gave him his way is childish and asinine.

No, Shepard would not have accepted any of those choices without question. Did he waver in the face of Saren, or TIM? Hell no, Shepard would have given Casper an epic "Shut up, Hannibal!"
The fact that the options Casper gives are not logically sound and inadequetely explained is a failure of writing quality. It is not well written in any conceivable way, shape, or form.

The catalyst was only introduced in the final game and didn't need to be hinted at previously to work in this context.  What your argument here boils down to is "I don't like surprises!"  That's not literary critique, that's just personal taste.  There are a lot of ways to introduce a plot-twist; not just the "everyone can see it coming" method. 

Also, there's nothing in Shepard's past that would indicate he would argue when it's ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS to do so.  Add the fact that he's probably minutes away from bleeding to death, and he's pretty much accepted the crucible was the galaxies only way out, and you have a reasonable decision to act rather than converse. 

[Gigamantis]

Kuari999 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Yes, it's implied by them showing the Normandy retreating through a relay as it blows.  Also, you have no facts, you have arbitrary numbers and no idea what they represent.  The troll movement that started before this game released, that spread to every opinion site it could find, was real.  That occurance is why you need strict scientific standards applied to an online poll before it has any kind of informative merit.  Without strict standards online polls are meaningless, there's no way around it. 

There's complaints around, especially on the forums, and they probably number in the 100's if we break them down into the individuals posting them.  The only thing they're evidence of is that 100's of people are angry.  Your poorly constructed, extremely vulnerable polls need to be verifiable before they're accepted as fact.  Until that happens they're nothing. 

So you're telling me that the Normandy got to Earth from a relay in less than 5 seconds when the explosion would have already struck them and NO warning.  No reason to believe it was dangerous to them.  In otherwords, Joker chickened out in an out of character fashion?  Yeah, that's a bit of an issue.

It was a pathetically small movement until people started beating the game, seriously.  There was nothing to indicate it had any size until about a week after the game.  Just, quit spreading that crap.  It was there, yeah, but pretending it had any real scale is just...  *sigh*.  Seriously, ignoring information just because one little thing can go wrong with it is not sensible or logical in any sense.  You take it with a grain of salt, but you don't ignore it.  When there is that large a margin though, typically you can expect a pretty hefty margin consistantly no matter what sort of polling you do.  Most of the most misleading polls ask one question and the answer is used to refer to something not quite related.  That really isn't the case here.

Gigamantis wrote...

I'm not presenting evidence because there's no
evidence for or against this point anywhere.  The only thing I feel
it's necessary to do is shoot down the foolish people who don't seem to
know what evidence looks like.  Here's a hint; a statistically broken
polling method isn't evidence that the majority of millions of people
hated the ending, and seeing a lot of topics created on a forum isn't
either. 

If a sample size of about 3-4% isn't good enough, a sample size far larger than standard for polling, wtf is good enough for you?

First, you don't know that was earth.  Second, the scene cut to the crashed Normandy after the relay caught them; the rest was implied and you have no idea how much time passed.  Joker thought Shepard was dead/gone and wanted to get the rest of the team to safety.  Not out of character at all. 

The movement itself was big when it first started and it's what started everything.  It's obviously gotten bigger but that's hardly the point.  This thing was started by trolls and perpetuated by trolls.  Evidence that's very susceptible to being tainted isn't evidence unless you can prove it's clean; it's really that simple.  You can't present evidence if you can't prove it's valid.  This isn't something you can negotiate; no one in their right mind would take that horrible evidence as fact. 

The sample size doesn't matter to me; what would be good enough is a poll that was conducted properly. 

[Kuari999]

Gigamantis wrote...

The catalyst was only introduced in
the final game and didn't need to be hinted at previously to work in
this context.  What your argument here boils down to is "I don't like
surprises!"  That's not literary critique, that's just personal taste.
 There are a lot of ways to introduce a plot-twist; not just the
"everyone can see it coming" method. 

Also, there's nothing in
Shepard's past that would indicate he would argue when it's
ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS to do so.  Add the fact that he's probably minutes
away from bleeding to death, and he's pretty much accepted the crucible
was the galaxies only way out, and you have a reasonable decision to act
rather than converse. 

He's always made a point
of trying to change the minds of those dead set on their positions
before when it was wrong..  Illusive Man, Saren, etc.  Why wouldn't he
try again?  You don't know something is pointless until you try and
there wasn't even an attempt here.  I have no issue with Starchild
itself, but there's a lot of little things about it that deserve
explanation.  Explanation that we're hopefully getting and will
hopefully make sense.

Actually, here's the biggest flaw in your argument: while there are limitations, Shepard was supposed to be "our" Shepard.  In EVERY single other scenario up to this point, we were allowed to at least put voice to our views, even if we couldn't make someone act on them always.  In the final moment, that's gone.  For some, that's ok, they would have brushed it off anyways, that's the way they are, but this is the one moment where BioWare assumed that everyone would feel the same, and at the same time, the one moment where they were dead wrong to assume.

Gigamantis wrote...

First,
you don't know that was earth.  Second, the scene cut to the crashed
Normandy after the relay caught them; the rest was implied and you have
no idea how much time passed.  Joker thought Shepard was dead/gone and
wanted to get the rest of the team to safety.  Not out of character at
all. 

The movement itself was big when it first started and it's
what started everything.  It's obviously gotten bigger but that's
hardly the point.  This thing was started by trolls and perpetuated by
trolls.  Evidence that's very susceptible to being tainted isn't
evidence unless you can prove it's clean; it's really that simple.  You
can't present evidence if you can't prove it's valid.  This isn't
something you can negotiate; no one in their right mind would take that
horrible evidence as fact. 

The sample size doesn't matter to me; what would be good enough is a poll that was conducted properly. 

The poll WAS conducted properly in in almost every conceivable way.  Location, the question, the answers, all of it was ok.  There is the recent issue of people being able to vote again after a few days, but that wasn't an issue at the beginning.  You aren't getting a better location for a gaming poll other than a gaming website.  Also I misspoke, I meant FROM Earth to the relay in less than 5 seconds.  Not to mention EVERYONE knew this was the last ditch effort.  You REALLY think the crew would have let Joker run?  Really?  When they were always ready to fight to the death before?  Really?

Modifié par Kuari999, 13 avril 2012 - 02:41 .

[Gigamantis]

Kuari999 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

The catalyst was only introduced in
the final game and didn't need to be hinted at previously to work in
this context.  What your argument here boils down to is "I don't like
surprises!"  That's not literary critique, that's just personal taste.
 There are a lot of ways to introduce a plot-twist; not just the
"everyone can see it coming" method. 

Also, there's nothing in
Shepard's past that would indicate he would argue when it's
ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS to do so.  Add the fact that he's probably minutes
away from bleeding to death, and he's pretty much accepted the crucible
was the galaxies only way out, and you have a reasonable decision to act
rather than converse. 

He's always made a point
of trying to change the minds of those dead set on their positions
before when it was wrong..  Illusive Man, Saren, etc.  Why wouldn't he
try again?  You don't know something is pointless until you try and
there wasn't even an attempt here.  I have no issue with Starchild
itself, but there's a lot of little things about it that deserve
explanation.  Explanation that we're hopefully getting and will
hopefully make sense.

Actually, here's the biggest flaw in your argument: while there are limitations, Shepard was supposed to be "our" Shepard.  In EVERY single other scenario up to this point, we were allowed to at least put voice to our views, even if we couldn't make someone act on them always.  In the final moment, that's gone.  For some, that's ok, they would have brushed it off anyways, that's the way they are, but this is the one moment where BioWare assumed that everyone would feel the same, and at the same time, the one moment where they were dead wrong to assume.

You wanting Shepard to talk doesn't mean that's what was appropriate in that situation.  It isn't a literary failing or a poorly conceived plot device, it's just your personal taste.  You wanted Shepard to argue, but he was limited to the choices in front of him because the situation was hopeless.  Be disappointed if you wanted different but don't try to turn it into "bad writing" because you're mad. 

[Kuari999]

Gigamantis wrote...

You wanting Shepard to talk doesn't mean that's what was appropriate in that situation.  It isn't a literary failing or a poorly conceived plot device, it's just your personal taste.  You wanted Shepard to argue, but he was limited to the choices in front of him because the situation was hopeless.  Be disappointed if you wanted different but don't try to turn it into "bad writing" because you're mad. 

The bad writing was the plot holes.  That was the betrayal of the series I was speaking of previously.  Quit assuming what explanation it is for what problem like that.  There are a lot of different problems, which each are going to have different reasons.  Seriously, is trying to pick apart every little statement all you can do?

[Gigamantis]

Kuari999 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

You wanting Shepard to talk doesn't mean that's what was appropriate in that situation.  It isn't a literary failing or a poorly conceived plot device, it's just your personal taste.  You wanted Shepard to argue, but he was limited to the choices in front of him because the situation was hopeless.  Be disappointed if you wanted different but don't try to turn it into "bad writing" because you're mad. 

The bad writing was the plot holes.  That was the betrayal of the series I was speaking of previously.  Quit assuming what explanation it is for what problem like that.  There are a lot of different problems, which each are going to have different reasons.  Seriously, is trying to pick apart every little statement all you can do?

I honestly haven't heard one legitimate plot-hole from anyone on these forums.  The ending implied some things it could've shown us, but that's as bad as it gets for any of it. 

[Kuari999]

Gigamantis wrote...

Kuari999 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

You wanting Shepard to talk doesn't mean that's what was appropriate in that situation.  It isn't a literary failing or a poorly conceived plot device, it's just your personal taste.  You wanted Shepard to argue, but he was limited to the choices in front of him because the situation was hopeless.  Be disappointed if you wanted different but don't try to turn it into "bad writing" because you're mad. 

The bad writing was the plot holes.  That was the betrayal of the series I was speaking of previously.  Quit assuming what explanation it is for what problem like that.  There are a lot of different problems, which each are going to have different reasons.  Seriously, is trying to pick apart every little statement all you can do?

I honestly haven't heard one legitimate plot-hole from anyone on these forums.  The ending implied some things it could've shown us, but that's as bad as it gets for any of it. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_hole

I hate using wiki, but that's the definition of a plot hole.  Without context, its a plot hole, pure and simple.  You can say what you THINK was the reason, but without it actually being there, it is the definition of a plot hole.

Modifié par Kuari999, 13 avril 2012 - 02:45 .

[Gigamantis]

Kuari999 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

The catalyst was only introduced in
the final game and didn't need to be hinted at previously to work in
this context.  What your argument here boils down to is "I don't like
surprises!"  That's not literary critique, that's just personal taste.
 There are a lot of ways to introduce a plot-twist; not just the
"everyone can see it coming" method. 

Also, there's nothing in
Shepard's past that would indicate he would argue when it's
ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS to do so.  Add the fact that he's probably minutes
away from bleeding to death, and he's pretty much accepted the crucible
was the galaxies only way out, and you have a reasonable decision to act
rather than converse. 

He's always made a point
of trying to change the minds of those dead set on their positions
before when it was wrong..  Illusive Man, Saren, etc.  Why wouldn't he
try again?  You don't know something is pointless until you try and
there wasn't even an attempt here.  I have no issue with Starchild
itself, but there's a lot of little things about it that deserve
explanation.  Explanation that we're hopefully getting and will
hopefully make sense.

Actually, here's the biggest flaw in your argument: while there are limitations, Shepard was supposed to be "our" Shepard.  In EVERY single other scenario up to this point, we were allowed to at least put voice to our views, even if we couldn't make someone act on them always.  In the final moment, that's gone.  For some, that's ok, they would have brushed it off anyways, that's the way they are, but this is the one moment where BioWare assumed that everyone would feel the same, and at the same time, the one moment where they were dead wrong to assume.

Gigamantis wrote...

First,
you don't know that was earth.  Second, the scene cut to the crashed
Normandy after the relay caught them; the rest was implied and you have
no idea how much time passed.  Joker thought Shepard was dead/gone and
wanted to get the rest of the team to safety.  Not out of character at
all. 

The movement itself was big when it first started and it's
what started everything.  It's obviously gotten bigger but that's
hardly the point.  This thing was started by trolls and perpetuated by
trolls.  Evidence that's very susceptible to being tainted isn't
evidence unless you can prove it's clean; it's really that simple.  You
can't present evidence if you can't prove it's valid.  This isn't
something you can negotiate; no one in their right mind would take that
horrible evidence as fact. 

The sample size doesn't matter to me; what would be good enough is a poll that was conducted properly. 

The poll WAS conducted properly in in almost every conceivable way.  Location, the question, the answers, all of it was ok.  There is the recent issue of people being able to vote again after a few days, but that wasn't an issue at the beginning.  You aren't getting a better location for a gaming poll other than a gaming website.  Also I misspoke, I meant FROM Earth to the relay in less than 5 seconds.  Not to mention EVERYONE knew this was the last ditch effort.  You REALLY think the crew would have let Joker run?  Really?  When they were always ready to fight to the death before?  Really?

They already ran from Earth, and it may have been a grudging retreat but they didn't show it.  Not a plot-hole. 

The poll wasn't conducted properly because it wasn't conducted in a safe environment.  There likely is no way to properly conduct a poll for gamers if forums online are the only thing that can be attempted. 

[DigitalAvatar]

Gigamantis wrote...
The catalyst was only introduced in the final game and didn't need to be hinted at previously to work in this context. What your argument here boils down to is "I don't like surprises!" That's not literary critique, that's just personal taste. There are a lot of ways to introduce a plot-twist; not just the "everyone can see it coming" method

You're making excuses for what is plainly and simply bad writing. Surprises are fine; asspulls are not.
I guess you're earning your EA paycheck by defending the indefensible.

Gigamantis wrote...
First, you don't know that was earth. Second, the scene cut to the crashed Normandy after the relay caught them; the rest was implied and you have no idea how much time passed. Joker thought Shepard was dead/gone and wanted to get the rest of the team to safety. Not out of character at all.

Regarding the Normandy:
01) My crew were with me on Earth. They would not leave me or abandon the mission.
02) Opening the Citadel was the last hope. It wouldn't be abandoned.
03) The area around the conduit was very hostile territory, not suitable for insertion or extraction by air.
04) Last I heard shuttles were still getting shot out of the sky; how wouold they have left Earth?
05) Joker was engaged with Sword in the space battle. He would not have left.
06) Even if Joker could have picked them up, my crew were more useful on the ground.
07) Joker still wouldn't have been leaving the last-hope battle, he'd have rammed the Normandy into Harbinger if he had to.
08) Why was Joker running?
09) Why did the space magic destroy the Normandy's engines?
10) Did the engines of every other spacecraft get destroyed?
11) What other technology was destroyed? Why?
12) Where did the Normandy crash?
13) Did the Normandy make it to the end of their relay jump, or were they knocked out of FTL during transit?
14) Is the food on the garden world suitable for humans? If not, they all die.
15) If the food is nutritous to humans, then Garrus and Tali are going to starve to death.
16) Interstellar travel is ruined. No hope of rescue for several years, if ever.

[Gigamantis]

Kuari999 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Kuari999 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

You wanting Shepard to talk doesn't mean that's what was appropriate in that situation.  It isn't a literary failing or a poorly conceived plot device, it's just your personal taste.  You wanted Shepard to argue, but he was limited to the choices in front of him because the situation was hopeless.  Be disappointed if you wanted different but don't try to turn it into "bad writing" because you're mad. 

The bad writing was the plot holes.  That was the betrayal of the series I was speaking of previously.  Quit assuming what explanation it is for what problem like that.  There are a lot of different problems, which each are going to have different reasons.  Seriously, is trying to pick apart every little statement all you can do?

I honestly haven't heard one legitimate plot-hole from anyone on these forums.  The ending implied some things it could've shown us, but that's as bad as it gets for any of it. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_hole

I hate using wiki, but that's the definition of a plot hole.  Without context, its a plot hole, pure and simple.  You can say what you THINK was the reason, but without it actually being there, it is the definition of a plot hole.

There is context, they just didn't show extensive details.  In context it was obvious that they retreated and why they retreated.  Filmed narratives imply things they don't show all the time.  You can't be absolutely everywhere when you're offered limited perspective in a story, and you don't have to be.  It's not a plot hole. 

[Kuari999]

Gigamantis wrote...

There is context, they just didn't show extensive details.  In context it was obvious that they retreated and why they retreated.  Filmed narratives imply things they don't show all the time.  You can't be absolutely everywhere when you're offered limited perspective in a story, and you don't have to be.  It's not a plot hole. 

And yet the Normandy was the only ship shown running and if you looked outside the Crucible, they were still fighting.  No indication of retreat...  sounds less like they were implying something and more like you're assuming, especially after all the shouts of "NO RETREAT!  THIS IS OUR ONLY SHOT!"  I'm done talking to you...  I'll just thank god you're not a writer if you think this is good practice.

Modifié par Kuari999, 13 avril 2012 - 02:51 .

[Gigamantis]

DigitalAvatar wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...
The catalyst was only introduced in the final game and didn't need to be hinted at previously to work in this context. What your argument here boils down to is "I don't like surprises!" That's not literary critique, that's just personal taste. There are a lot of ways to introduce a plot-twist; not just the "everyone can see it coming" method

You're making excuses for what is plainly and simply bad writing. Surprises are fine; asspulls are not.
I guess you're earning your EA paycheck by defending the indefensible.

Gigamantis wrote...
First, you don't know that was earth. Second, the scene cut to the crashed Normandy after the relay caught them; the rest was implied and you have no idea how much time passed. Joker thought Shepard was dead/gone and wanted to get the rest of the team to safety. Not out of character at all.

Regarding the Normandy:
01) My crew were with me on Earth. They would not leave me or abandon the mission.
02) Opening the Citadel was the last hope. It wouldn't be abandoned.
03) The area around the conduit was very hostile territory, not suitable for insertion or extraction by air.
04) Last I heard shuttles were still getting shot out of the sky; how wouold they have left Earth?
05) Joker was engaged with Sword in the space battle. He would not have left.
06) Even if Joker could have picked them up, my crew were more useful on the ground.
07) Joker still wouldn't have been leaving the last-hope battle, he'd have rammed the Normandy into Harbinger if he had to.
08) Why was Joker running?
09) Why did the space magic destroy the Normandy's engines?
10) Did the engines of every other spacecraft get destroyed?
11) What other technology was destroyed? Why?
12) Where did the Normandy crash?
13) Did the Normandy make it to the end of their relay jump, or were they knocked out of FTL during transit?
14) Is the food on the garden world suitable for humans? If not, they all die.
15) If the food is nutritous to humans, then Garrus and Tali are going to starve to death.
16) Interstellar travel is ruined. No hope of rescue for several years, if ever.

You're just reaching because you're angry.  You don't know what bad writing is and how to identify it.

1) If they thought you were dead there's no reason they wouldn't try to regroup and come up with something else.
2) Abandoning temporarily to regroup when it seems it was obviously a failure isn't impossible.
3) Speculation, and stupid at that.  You were picked up in hostile earth territory by the Normandy in the beginning.
4) Same thing was happening on earth, the Normandy escaped.  It's quite a ship.
5) Why not? If the team looked like they needed extraction why wouldn't that take priority?  Joker was just a diversion anyways.
6) Mission seemed a failure.  Regroup and try again or die somewhere peaceful.
7) Again, stupid speculation
8) Regrouping, ascertain other options.  Lost hope with Shepard seemingly dead.  Pick one.
9) They were trapped in an exploding relay.  Big boom hurt Normandy.  Duh.
10) If they were near a collapsing relay, probably.
11) Mainly just the relays and anything caught in their destruction.
12) You're not supposed to know.
13) It obviously made it but took enough damage to be forced to crash land.
14) Maybe they all die.  You're not supposed to know what happens to them.  That's the point.
15) See 14
16) The planet they landed on may be habitable or they may be screwed.  Again, you're not supposed to know.

[Gigamantis]

Kuari999 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

There is context, they just didn't show extensive details.  In context it was obvious that they retreated and why they retreated.  Filmed narratives imply things they don't show all the time.  You can't be absolutely everywhere when you're offered limited perspective in a story, and you don't have to be.  It's not a plot hole. 

And yet the Normandy was the only ship shown running and if you looked outside the Crucible, they were still fighting.  No indication of retreat...  sounds less like they were implying something and more like you're assuming, especially after all the shouts of "NO RETREAT!  THIS IS OUR ONLY SHOT!"  I'm done talking to you...  I'll just thank god you're not a writer if you think this is good practice.

There was a long sequence in the crucible where they were likely forced to retreat where you couldn't see or know.  They didn't want to retreat but they did.  Sorry if characters changing with their situations scares and confuses you, but it's pretty common in writing and reality to portray people like that.  You're just being pissy and irrational.  You clearly know nothing about writing. 

[Kuari999]

Gigamantis wrote...

There was a long sequence in the crucible where they were likely forced to retreat where you couldn't see or know.  They didn't want to retreat but they did.  Sorry if characters changing with their situations scares and confuses you, but it's pretty common in writing and reality to portray people like that.  You're just being pissy and irrational.  You clearly know nothing about writing. 

No, it doesn't scare and confuse me.  Going blatantly against a character's established personality without explaining it is a plot hole even if there's a reasonable explanation.  That's what a plot hole is.  Situations change, but a good writer makes you experience it, not simply BAM!, wait, wtf are they doing?  Is this going to be explained?  There's a reason people like you are in the minority here.  This right here?  What you're doing?  Is why.  A rational person doesn't assume someone's personal issues are the reason they think a certain way.

Modifié par Kuari999, 13 avril 2012 - 03:08 .

[DigitalAvatar]

Gigamantis wrote...

You're just reaching because you're angry.  You don't know what bad writing is and how to identify it.

1) If they thought you were dead there's no reason they wouldn't try to regroup and come up with something else. [Speculation]
2) Abandoning temporarily to regroup when it seems it was obviously a failure isn't impossible. [Speculation]
3) Speculation, and stupid at that.  You were picked up in hostile earth territory by the Normandy in the beginning. [Speculation]
4) Same thing was happening on earth, the Normandy escaped.  It's quite a ship. [Speculation]
5) Why not? If the team looked like they needed extraction why wouldn't that take priority?  Joker was just a diversion anyways. [Speculation]
6) Mission seemed a failure.  Regroup and try again or die somewhere peaceful. [Speculation]
7) Again, stupid speculation [Speculation]
8) Regrouping, ascertain other options.  Lost hope with Shepard seemingly dead.  Pick one. [Speculation]
9) They were trapped in an exploding relay.  Big boom hurt Normandy.  Duh. [Speculation, but I'll give you this one.]
10) If they were near a collapsing relay, probably. [Speculation]
11) Mainly just the relays and anything caught in their destruction. [Speculation]
12) You're not supposed to know.
13) It obviously made it but took enough damage to be forced to crash land.
14) Maybe they all die.  You're not supposed to know what happens to them.  That's the point.
15) See 14
16) The planet they landed on may be habitable or they may be screwed.  Again, you're not supposed to know.

You're right: This is all just speculation from any of us. All I have is speculation, all you have is speculation, because all the game gives us a bunch of unexplained plotholes. Yes, they ARE plot holes, they do not logically follow the narrative and all any of us have are endless attempts to try and make sense of things.
This is precisely WHY the ending is a complete failure.

I for one do not accept that my crew would have left. Garrus and Tali, my Shepard's best mate and love interest respectively, were right next to me on Earth during the final run. Shepard was lying in the open. Neither of them would have left him there.
I do not accept that the Normandy could have swept in and picked them up - if it was that easy then Shepard's team would have been dropped right outside the conduit. Or the Normandy would've at least dropped them on Earth directly instead of risking the shuttle.
These things do not make sense, regardless of how many speculative justifications you or I can come up with. The plot fails to convey any of it.
And yeah, call it personal preference, but I don't get a lot of satisfaction from an ending which involves my best friends and love interest starving and dying on a random planet somewhere.

If that's your thing, great.

Modifié par DigitalAvatar, 13 avril 2012 - 03:34 .

[KotorEffect3]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Mere weeks before ME3 came out, if this board was any indication, ME2 was the worst game of all time and had effectively ruined the Mass Effect franchise.

Now ME1 and 2 are both brilliant, and ME3 is the retarded stepchild. And so it goes.

That is because nostaliga elitists like to hate on newer stuff while they praise older stuff.  5 years from now when bioware releases some new game these very forums will praise ME 3 while they diss whatever new game just came out.

[AndroLeonidas]

I think Gigamantis is actually Casey Hudson's alter ego account and this is where he defends his debacle of an ending. lol!

I don't think I've seen  anyone try so hard to rationalize and explain away the plotholes and endings and do such a horrible job at it. It has to be Casey. lol!

Modifié par AndroLeonidas, 13 avril 2012 - 05:22 .

[Mole267]

Gigamantis wrote...

Kuari999 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

There is context, they just didn't show extensive details.  In context it was obvious that they retreated and why they retreated.  Filmed narratives imply things they don't show all the time.  You can't be absolutely everywhere when you're offered limited perspective in a story, and you don't have to be.  It's not a plot hole. 

And yet the Normandy was the only ship shown running and if you looked outside the Crucible, they were still fighting.  No indication of retreat...  sounds less like they were implying something and more like you're assuming, especially after all the shouts of "NO RETREAT!  THIS IS OUR ONLY SHOT!"  I'm done talking to you...  I'll just thank god you're not a writer if you think this is good practice.

There was a long sequence in the crucible where they were likely forced to retreat where you couldn't see or know.  They didn't want to retreat but they did.  Sorry if characters changing with their situations scares and confuses you, but it's pretty common in writing and reality to portray people like that.  You're just being pissy and irrational.  You clearly know nothing about artistic integrity.

Fixed.