86 réponses à ce sujet

[wolfwarp]

 I have invested 50 hours on my first ME3 play through.  I have heard many people complain about the ending.  And said things like ME3 is 99% great but the ending sucks.  Because of such awareness, I would say that my 50 hours journey is somewhat dampened, knowing well that however much time I put into ME3, I would be disappointed.

Now that I have seen the endings (plural), I say BioWare has taken a huge risk in writing the final episode of one of the sci-fi greatest franchise.  If everyone was to get it at first, it would not have worked.  The first time I saw the ending, I did not get it.  I still like it, because it is different.  I pondered upon it and felt something is missing.  So read what others think and have another go with the ending again.

So, to those who are still progressing with the game, don't let what other say about the ME3 ending affects your play through (or affects your decision to purchase).  Have an open mind and do some online research thereafter.  Not here to defend the ending, or anything really.

PS. For those who think I am a BioWare fanboy, I am actually not.  I am still upset that DA:O patch 1.04 took forever to arrrive, and it did not fix the problem.  Or that DA2 game.  Or the fact that I have missed Arrival DLC and hence missing a crucial link between ME2 to ME3.  And Day 1 DLC ... and more.

Spoiler alert, this link explains -> 
 

Modifié par wolfwarp, 10 avril 2012 - 12:16 .

[cotheer]

*eagerly awaiting for explanation for us, artistically un-enlightened*

[knight5923]

it's a piece of something, alright:whistle:

[Nightwriter]

Yes yes, blah blah. Its nonsensical inconclusive ending was really just a thought-provoking and sophisticated masterpiece in disguise. Praise and criticism and argument and counterargument and -- look, cheesecake!



Mmmmmm cheesecake.

[Aramiss Ducati]

knight5923 wrote...

it's a piece of something, alright:whistle:

[BillsVengenace]

I didn't realize making something with the expressed intention of "[ripping off] the end of first Matrix" was considered art by any definition.

[Artemis_Entrari]

So for us troglodytes in the community, would the OP care to explain exactly what made the ending so artistic? What, exactly, was all of that supposed to mean?

[MaxMcKay]

knight5923 wrote...

it's a piece of something, alright:whistle:

about says it all....

[wolfwarp]

cotheer wrote...

*eagerly awaiting for explanation for us, artistically un-enlightened*

Spoiler alert, try this one -> 
 

[FlashedMyDrive]

wolfwarp wrote...

cotheer wrote...

*eagerly awaiting for explanation for us, artistically un-enlightened*

Spoiler alert, try this one -> 
 

You realize the IT theory is just a fanmade theory based on vague assumption and an unwillingness to accept that Bioware screwed the pooch, right?

Modifié par FlashedMyDrive, 10 avril 2012 - 12:18 .

[kbct]

IT theory? Really?

[RyuujinZERO]

cotheer wrote...

*eagerly awaiting for explanation for us, artistically un-enlightened*

They never explain it... I've asked every single one of them and they skirt the issue...



C'mon. Riddle me this: What the hell is the Normandy scene about... how did they get there, why did all my party break character and flee a battle they know they must fight or die in, why was the scene nessecary at all besides a ham fisted biblical reference?

[wolfwarp]

You realize the IT theory is just a fanmade theory based on vague assumption and an unwillingness to accept that Bioware screwed the pooch, right?

I would not expect BioWare to create a video and explain to us how the ending works.  Like I said, I am not a fan.  But if the ending is not to fool us, it would not have worked.  I like the theory and that explains a lot.

Still in denial friend?

Modifié par wolfwarp, 10 avril 2012 - 12:20 .

[FlashedMyDrive]

wolfwarp wrote...

You realize the IT theory is just a fanmade theory based on vague assumption and an unwillingness to accept that Bioware screwed the pooch, right?

I would not expect BioWare to create a video and explain to us how the ending works.  Like I said, I am not a fan.  But if the ending is not to fool us, it would not have worked.  I like the theory and that explains a lot.

Still in denial friend?

Are...are you serious? You have to be trolling, there is no way that you aren't.

Modifié par FlashedMyDrive, 10 avril 2012 - 12:24 .

[PurePareidolia]

No, it's really really not. To say so invalidates the entire trilogy before it. The ending can't be art on its own, you have to look at the entire game and how it communicates the themes of the series, which it doesn't. If the ending was art you'd be able to explain where it fit in terms of the previous game/s and the ideas behind them - ie, the Quarian conflict is about organics rising up to destroy synthetics out of paranoia and the struggle to find peace between the two, the ending is about the opposite sequence of events with the conclusion war is inevitable. The fact it tries to portray them as the same thing is thematically incoherent, so in terms of the artistic vision and integrity of the series, the ending still sucks. In fact, it especially sucks in those terms because it's flawed at a fundamental, elementary level.

As for indoctrination theory, dont' confuse your own fanfiction for what was intended. If Bioware wanted that to be the ending, we would've kept playing after the red ending and gotten the real one then. That would be clever, waiting over a month before releasing what really happened was not, if only in terms of the worst pacing decision this side of Metal Gear Solid 4.There is absolutely no reason that a month of non-communication and anger is justified in terms of an artistic statement, versus pulling back the curtain once the deception is complete.

Modifié par PurePareidolia, 10 avril 2012 - 12:30 .

[BillsVengenace]

I don't see why anyone would crammer for the IT to be true. "It was all a dream" is a much worse ending that what we got (which is saying a lot).

[Il Divo]

Glad you liked it, OP. Wish I could join you in that.

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 avril 2012 - 12:31 .

[Artemis_Entrari]

wolfwarp wrote...

I would not expect BioWare to create a video and explain to us how the ending works.  Like I said, I am not a fan.  But if the ending is not to fool us, it would not have worked.  I like the theory and that explains a lot.

Still in denial friend?

So the entire reason you think the ending is a piece of art is because you're convinced the IT theory is correct?

Okay then, what if after this ending DLC BioWare is releasing in the summer, it's blatantly clear the IT theory is not correct?  Is it still a piece of art?  Does it still make sense to you?

Modifié par Artemis_Entrari, 10 avril 2012 - 12:36 .

[someone else]

ah yes, this thread again...

[hero-of-konoha]

knight5923 wrote...

it's a piece of something, alright:whistle:

[RyuujinZERO]

someone else wrote...

ah yes, this thread again...

Yeah, and once again the IT believer is skirting the issue of the Normandy; none of them will ever tell me what that scene is about (pro-tip: because it makes no god-damn sense, either in the IT hypothesis or literally)

[FlashedMyDrive]

RyuujinZERO wrote...

someone else wrote...

ah yes, this thread again...

Yeah, and once again the IT believer is skirting the issue of the Normandy; none of them will ever tell me what that scene is about (pro-tip: because it makes no god-damn sense, either in the IT hypothesis or literally)

The Normandy scene is a symbolic representation of the uplifting freedom of breaking free from indoctrination as well as the subsequent crash back to reality.

Duh.

Modifié par FlashedMyDrive, 10 avril 2012 - 12:36 .