340 réponses à ce sujet

[Kilkia123]

I'll take a shot at this. I am okay with the current ending to the game. I will not disagree that there were indeed plot holes and a sense of ambiguity in the current ending; as such, I will not deny that I was somewhat disappointed with the presentation of the ending. However, as some of you oddly believe that justifying one's own opinion (an opinion, mind you) is a necessity, I'll give a few reasons to support my opinion.

When I completed the game with the Destroy option, I disliked the aforementioned aspects but was rather fond of the idea that Shepard could still be alive, even after everything that had happened. After all the hardships along the way, after all the deaths of those around him, Shepard could still pull through and win the day, even if doing so would cost him or her his or her life.

I thought the ending fit in with the overall darker tone of Mass Effect 3 while still providing a sense of accomplishment or that, "It's finally over. We did it." feeling. There is no "best" ending because something or someone somewhere is sacrificed in each ending, whether that be Shepard or the synthetics or even Earth should one's EMS be low enough. There is some sense of loss with each choice. There doesn't necessarily have to be a happy, Disney ending for me to be satisfied.

Taking a look at the final three choices, I saw them to be radically different from one another; they actually offer quite the interesting possibilities regarding how future Mass Effect titles may play out. If I chose for Shepard to synthesize biology with technology, how will this affect the portrayal and anatomy of different races in future games set after the events of Mass Effect 3? If I chose to destroy the Reapers but also wipe out all synthetics in the process, how will this affect life in future times? And if I chose to control the Reapers, does Shepard actually succeed? What becomes of the Reapers? Was this all a trick by the Reapers to lull Shepard into thinking that he or she is taking the Paragon action?

And this all ties in to what the writers wanted from the endings, "speculation for all." While it's clear that the endings did not spoon feed us and in my opinion do not have to do so at all, perhaps the result of its endings was not as BioWare had intended. And as I had mentioned earlier, this is why it is in its presentation in which the ending ultimately fails, not necessarily the content within or meaning behind it.

BioWare is attempting to address concerns over this aspect of the endings by providing more clarity, closure, and consequence of player choice through the Extended Cut. I say give the people at BioWare a chance to do what they've been doing for the past decade: actually making and then improving upon the games we've all come to enjoy. If we did not care so much for BioWare games and the quality of said games, we would not be having this incessant bickering over who is right or wrong when ultimately, everyone has his or her own opinion on the matter. To each his own.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

There's no law against liking plot-broken endings. Just like there's no law against liking bad movies. Some movies are so bad that they're actually really good.

But that doesn't make the ending any less plot-broken... or a movie any less bad.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 14 avril 2012 - 06:41 .

[Kuari999]

Actually, unexplained is the definition of plot hole. If its related to the plot and its unexplained, its a plot hole until its explained. On that note, I will say that having some plot hole initially in a story is ok, they just generally need to be explained later in some sort of sensible way. Given they didn't do that with any of the ending and the ending heavily relates to the fates of Shepard's crew AND the actions they are taking among many other things, its a failing to wrap up their story. Wrapping up the story of the current events does not close off sequels if they wish to do them, but if you make the claim that the ending won't leave more questions and it leaves nothing BUT questions when you get right down to it? Something was done wrong. They are fixing that aspect now, yes. Its just the quality of the explanations that I'll likely come to question. Frankly, that's my view on the extended cut. They are turning a badly flawed ending into a miss poor and contrived ending that only serves to put things where they want them to go rather than accurately representing the characters. That I can accept as coming down to opinion though.

[Father_Jerusalem]

You guys just SERIOUSLY cannot stand to see someone actually enjoy something you've put so much effort into despising, can you?

It'd almost be funny, if it weren't so damned pathetic.

[AJRimmsey]

Kilkia123 wrote...

I'll take a shot at this. I am okay with the current ending to the game. I will not disagree that there were indeed plot holes and a sense of ambiguity in the current ending; as such, I will not deny that I was somewhat disappointed with the presentation of the ending. However, as some of you oddly believe that justifying one's own opinion (an opinion, mind you) is a necessity, I'll give a few reasons to support my opinion.

When I completed the game with the Destroy option, I disliked the aforementioned aspects but was rather fond of the idea that Shepard could still be alive, even after everything that had happened. After all the hardships along the way, after all the deaths of those around him, Shepard could still pull through and win the day, even if doing so would cost him or her his or her life.

I thought the ending fit in with the overall darker tone of Mass Effect 3 while still providing a sense of accomplishment or that, "It's finally over. We did it." feeling. There is no "best" ending because something or someone somewhere is sacrificed in each ending, whether that be Shepard or the synthetics or even Earth should one's EMS be low enough. There is some sense of loss with each choice. There doesn't necessarily have to be a happy, Disney ending for me to be satisfied.

Taking a look at the final three choices, I saw them to be radically different from one another; they actually offer quite the interesting possibilities regarding how future Mass Effect titles may play out. If I chose for Shepard to synthesize biology with technology, how will this affect the portrayal and anatomy of different races in future games set after the events of Mass Effect 3? If I chose to destroy the Reapers but also wipe out all synthetics in the process, how will this affect life in future times? And if I chose to control the Reapers, does Shepard actually succeed? What becomes of the Reapers? Was this all a trick by the Reapers to lull Shepard into thinking that he or she is taking the Paragon action?

And this all ties in to what the writers wanted from the endings, "speculation for all." While it's clear that the endings did not spoon feed us and in my opinion do not have to do so at all, perhaps the result of its endings was not as BioWare had intended. And as I had mentioned earlier, this is why it is in its presentation in which the ending ultimately fails, not necessarily the content within or meaning behind it.

BioWare is attempting to address concerns over this aspect of the endings by providing more clarity, closure, and consequence of player choice through the Extended Cut. I say give the people at BioWare a chance to do what they've been doing for the past decade: actually making and then improving upon the games we've all come to enjoy. If we did not care so much for BioWare games and the quality of said games, we would not be having this incessant bickering over who is right or wrong when ultimately, everyone has his or her own opinion on the matter. To each his own.

nicely put

and without the feeling as if a prison rapist had just tried ramming something down my throat

i know..i lack your eloquence.

[BiancoAngelo7]

2papercuts wrote...

AJRimmsey wrote...

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...

Threads like these always baffle me. People always say "I liked it" or "it was good" and then offer absolutely ZERO explanation to the horde of plot holes, inconsistencies, lackluster cinematics and obliteration of the entire goal and purpose of fighting the reapers since day one.

But hey. It was "epic" and "satisfying".

yeah ok....sure.

i get just as baffled when someone demands another to explain themselves,as if they should.

and then proceed to be rude and obnoxious when they dont.


especially when they simply started a thread to say they liked the game.


people are weird

making a thread that just says "hey you guys i liked the game" and offers nothing more to the point seems a little pointless to me. I expected at least some reasons as to what they found appealing to redeem the ending's writing (or if they just liked the writing)

Exactly.

Ajrimsey, you have missed the entire point of the forums. You don't get to say "The ending that everyone hated is good" and then go "kthxbai".

People will expect a MINIMUM of explanation as to why, and I was simply pointing out how NO ONE ever offers even the MINIMUM of explanation as to why.

Your empty and passively aggressive response  that says nothing except criticizing me personally is another perfect example.

[JBONE27]

AJRimmsey wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

I've got a few more plot holes.
1.  How are you communicating with Anderson and Hackett without any kind of working radio?
2.  How did Anderson reach the control room before you, when there was absolutely no sign of any "the dark hallway," that he mentioned.
3.  How did the Keeper and all of the Equipment Survive.
4.  How did TIM appear out of no where?
5.  Why didn't Anderson push the button instead of reasoning with you?
6.  How did TIM get the ability to control people?
7.  Why am I shooting at the pipe?
8.  Why am I walking towards the explosion?
9.  Why did the Reapers not destroy the Citidel when security was laxed?
10.  Why move the Citidel to Earth instead of to the dark zone?
11.  How did the Mass Relay Explosion not kill everything?
12.  Why do all of the endings look the same with different colors?
13.  Why introduce a new character 5 mintues before the ending when every writting class, every good writer, and every single expert on writing says that's a terrible idea?
14.  Why had a deus ex machina when a giant fight between the forces you've gathered and the Reapers would be so much more satisfying for most people?
15.  Why do Shepard's eyes turn into those blue bullseye things like TIM's unless you choose destruction?

these are JUST my opinions

1 - arm biotic tool
2 - beamed to 2 different locations his was closer
3 - it was on the citadel in a location shielded
4 - he got there first
5 - pointless to go there if he did,no closure
6 - he was indoctrinated/semi huskified
7 - to cause a critical failure
8 - heros do that
9 - why not destroy it in ME 1
10 - ME 3 save the earth
11 - wasnt powerful enough
12 - they dont to me
13 - writers perogative
14 - a FPS not a rts
15 - control theory

Do you mind if I point out the flaws in your answers?

1.  If you mean an Omni-tool, then it appears when activated, and didn't appear to Shepard.
2.  That doesn't explain the second part.  How come there was no sign of it?
3.  That wouldn't work because the Keeper was around all the dead bodies, and the equipment was out in the open.
4.  Then where did he hide?
5.  It actually wouldn't have been pointless to go there.  Shepard didn't know Anderson was in the control room until (s)he got there.  It's like buying someone a 360 for their birthday, and finding out at their party that someone else bought them one as well.  You still had the reason to go up there, and maybe we could have tried fighting off TIM while Anderson activated the weapon.  That would have been a hell of a lot better than what we got.
6.  That would give him less control over himself, not more control over others.
7.  That would be counter productive to what I'm trying to do.  It's like, if you want your computer to work you throw it repeatedly against the wall.
8.  I will turn my answer into a music video... Cool Guys Don't Look At Explosions - YouTube
9.  Sovregn needed to use it to let the Reapers in.  After Mass Effect that plan would have been completely scrapped, therefore the Citidel would no longer have been nessisary.
10.  Okay, I'll give you that one... Especially because the Reapers lack logic.
11.  So, a giant rock causing an explosion is powerful enough to destroy an entire system, but a giant laser cannon isn't?
12.  Other than the color pallet, what is the difference when taken at face value.
13.  So, the writers that worked on the ending were just terrible writers.  Okay I'll agree to that.
14.  Wrong, It's an RPG, and that doesn't preclude giant space battles, look at the first game if you don't believe me.
15.  If you mean indoctronation theory, then yes that would be a logical explaination, but by all indication given by Bioware, that theory is false.

[DaylaLayne]

Should I explain why i dislike the ending so I am not breaking some sacred thing in these forums?

[NickelToe]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

I actually was more confused by the ending than anything. Then I came online to try to get some answers...and upon realizing that all the endings were basically the same, I started to get mad.

Then when BioWare and IGN and other media sites started ACTIVELY INSULTING me for not falling in love with their vision, I became LIVID. ABSOLUTELY absurd...Casey Hudson should be forced to make a public apology...not for the ending, but for his statement that we're all to dense to understand their artistic vision...like we're some kind of simpletons who don't realize they threw this together during the final months of production, rather than spending 5 years planning it out like they claim.

In short...the ending wasn't really what made me upset...it was BioWare's response to the criticism.

Dont forget that if don't like the ending then you are "Entitled" which is a bad word on the interwebz.  Even though you actually are entitled to be critical of a product you spent money.

Also if you criticise any part of the ending then you must be pushed out because showing that you are disloyal to Bioware means you opinion is nothing.  People defending the company are absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong.  These people don't realize that while they will defend a Fortune 500 company that said company will never do the same for them.  Its great for the company when people are at eachother, we don't have time then to watch out for eachother or watch out for them.

The OP liked it, great.  The people who don't should not have to, especially looking at what was promised, what was delivered and the "Extended Cut" fiasco that comes off as...

While we at Bioware think you are either wrong or too ignorant to understand the ending, we will add more to our ending rather than more endings to show we think we can correct the obvious deficieny with you.  Our artistic integrity does not allow us to come through on pre-advertisement hype, videos, interviews and loyal sites with which we advertise.  We are sorry you do not understand our ending and we never would have thought you wanted clarity on any characters or plot lines you may have interacted with during your time playing through the trilogy, but dont worry this clarity of our artistic vision is free of charge so we are not the bad guys, you are.

/sarcasm on... Being insulting and talking down to your customers demands the highest loyalty. /sarcasm off

Modifié par NickelToe, 14 avril 2012 - 06:55 .

[AJRimmsey]

JBONE27 wrote...

AJRimmsey wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

I've got a few more plot holes.
1.  How are you communicating with Anderson and Hackett without any kind of working radio?
2.  How did Anderson reach the control room before you, when there was absolutely no sign of any "the dark hallway," that he mentioned.
3.  How did the Keeper and all of the Equipment Survive.
4.  How did TIM appear out of no where?
5.  Why didn't Anderson push the button instead of reasoning with you?
6.  How did TIM get the ability to control people?
7.  Why am I shooting at the pipe?
8.  Why am I walking towards the explosion?
9.  Why did the Reapers not destroy the Citidel when security was laxed?
10.  Why move the Citidel to Earth instead of to the dark zone?
11.  How did the Mass Relay Explosion not kill everything?
12.  Why do all of the endings look the same with different colors?
13.  Why introduce a new character 5 mintues before the ending when every writting class, every good writer, and every single expert on writing says that's a terrible idea?
14.  Why had a deus ex machina when a giant fight between the forces you've gathered and the Reapers would be so much more satisfying for most people?
15.  Why do Shepard's eyes turn into those blue bullseye things like TIM's unless you choose destruction?

these are JUST my opinions

1 - arm biotic tool
2 - beamed to 2 different locations his was closer
3 - it was on the citadel in a location shielded
4 - he got there first
5 - pointless to go there if he did,no closure
6 - he was indoctrinated/semi huskified
7 - to cause a critical failure
8 - heros do that
9 - why not destroy it in ME 1
10 - ME 3 save the earth
11 - wasnt powerful enough
12 - they dont to me
13 - writers perogative
14 - a FPS not a rts
15 - control theory

Do you mind if I point out the flaws in your answers?

1.  If you mean an Omni-tool, then it appears when activated, and didn't appear to Shepard.
2.  That doesn't explain the second part.  How come there was no sign of it?
3.  That wouldn't work because the Keeper was around all the dead bodies, and the equipment was out in the open.
4.  Then where did he hide?
5.  It actually wouldn't have been pointless to go there.  Shepard didn't know Anderson was in the control room until (s)he got there.  It's like buying someone a 360 for their birthday, and finding out at their party that someone else bought them one as well.  You still had the reason to go up there, and maybe we could have tried fighting off TIM while Anderson activated the weapon.  That would have been a hell of a lot better than what we got.
6.  That would give him less control over himself, not more control over others.
7.  That would be counter productive to what I'm trying to do.  It's like, if you want your computer to work you throw it repeatedly against the wall.
8.  I will turn my answer into a music video... Cool Guys Don't Look At Explosions - YouTube
9.  Sovregn needed to use it to let the Reapers in.  After Mass Effect that plan would have been completely scrapped, therefore the Citidel would no longer have been nessisary.
10.  Okay, I'll give you that one... Especially because the Reapers lack logic.
11.  So, a giant rock causing an explosion is powerful enough to destroy an entire system, but a giant laser cannon isn't?
12.  Other than the color pallet, what is the difference when taken at face value.
13.  So, the writers that worked on the ending were just terrible writers.  Okay I'll agree to that.
14.  Wrong, It's an RPG, and that doesn't preclude giant space battles, look at the first game if you don't believe me.
15.  If you mean indoctronation theory, then yes that would be a logical explaination, but by all indication given by Bioware, that theory is false.

no worrys

for me it shows imagination at work and thats great,
games should get the synapses firing,
and great games will always get more firing than the usual point and shoot type stuff.

i personally think the devs are looking at this and saying the same thing.

[Kuari999]

Kilkia123 wrote...

I'll take a shot at this. I am okay with the current ending to the game. I will not disagree that there were indeed plot holes and a sense of ambiguity in the current ending; as such, I will not deny that I was somewhat disappointed with the presentation of the ending. However, as some of you oddly believe that justifying one's own opinion (an opinion, mind you) is a necessity, I'll give a few reasons to support my opinion.

When I completed the game with the Destroy option, I disliked the aforementioned aspects but was rather fond of the idea that Shepard could still be alive, even after everything that had happened. After all the hardships along the way, after all the deaths of those around him, Shepard could still pull through and win the day, even if doing so would cost him or her his or her life.

I thought the ending fit in with the overall darker tone of Mass Effect 3 while still providing a sense of accomplishment or that, "It's finally over. We did it." feeling. There is no "best" ending because something or someone somewhere is sacrificed in each ending, whether that be Shepard or the synthetics or even Earth should one's EMS be low enough. There is some sense of loss with each choice. There doesn't necessarily have to be a happy, Disney ending for me to be satisfied.

Taking a look at the final three choices, I saw them to be radically different from one another; they actually offer quite the interesting possibilities regarding how future Mass Effect titles may play out. If I chose for Shepard to synthesize biology with technology, how will this affect the portrayal and anatomy of different races in future games set after the events of Mass Effect 3? If I chose to destroy the Reapers but also wipe out all synthetics in the process, how will this affect life in future times? And if I chose to control the Reapers, does Shepard actually succeed? What becomes of the Reapers? Was this all a trick by the Reapers to lull Shepard into thinking that he or she is taking the Paragon action?

And this all ties in to what the writers wanted from the endings, "speculation for all." While it's clear that the endings did not spoon feed us and in my opinion do not have to do so at all, perhaps the result of its endings was not as BioWare had intended. And as I had mentioned earlier, this is why it is in its presentation in which the ending ultimately fails, not necessarily the content within or meaning behind it.

BioWare is attempting to address concerns over this aspect of the endings by providing more clarity, closure, and consequence of player choice through the Extended Cut. I say give the people at BioWare a chance to do what they've been doing for the past decade: actually making and then improving upon the games we've all come to enjoy. If we did not care so much for BioWare games and the quality of said games, we would not be having this incessant bickering over who is right or wrong when ultimately, everyone has his or her own opinion on the matter. To each his own.

OK, see, in all seriousness.  This..  THIS is a counterargument, not resorting to insults and claims that going against someone's opinions is forcing it down their throat.  I'm looking at you, AJ and Father.

Anyways, more to the point, speculation for all is an ok concept...  but when they constantly state up until a month before release that people will get DEFINITIVE answers rather than speculation, it does raise a few brows that there's a sudden 180 post-release from definitely not being forced to speculate to it being all we CAN do with the ending.  What changed and why did it change in such a short amount of time?

Could it have been done right?  Yeah, easily.  Presentation is one factor.  Discussing some of the possibilities in depth and leaving it open to there being more by talking about it in game is another.  This is something that the most successful stories that use this concept capitalize on.  You have to trigger people's thought processes, not just BAM!  Throw it out there straight out of nowhere.

The other issue is this...  it doesn't work in a game like Mass Effect.  For five years we were told to expect an ending that took all our actions and finally gave us detailed outcomes...  they succeeded in some of this with the gameplay, but a speculative ending calls it all into question.  It calls into question how much these things actually affected the future of the universe, and that was something we were supposed to see to some extent.  They purposely and directly created expectations that go completely the opposite way of what they did in the end.  Sure you can blame the customer, but it wouldn't be a good idea.  BioWare was unusually specific in a lot of things, and while some things can get a pass on technicalities, technicalities don't help a PR ****storm.

The biggest thing I can't excuse though is the Normandy escape.  Pure and simple, that was out of left field.  You don't twist the actions of your characters to make symbolism.  That is not good writing.  Good symbolism flows naturally.  Its not supposed to be thrown right in your face.  Its very blatantly forced and quite frankly, simply dropping that scene would bring VAST improvements to the flow.


EDIT: But again, bravo for being the first pro-ender I've run into that puts some thought into their discussion.

Modifié par Kuari999, 14 avril 2012 - 07:04 .

[AJRimmsey]

YayCookies wrote...

Should I explain why i dislike the ending so I am not breaking some sacred thing in these forums?

just be mindful of who you are replying to.
some simply want you to type for an hour and then just start calling you out on anything.

and that always ends up with stalkers following you around

but there are people who just like to exchange ideas and opinions.

[Ponendus]

I'm with the OP I really liked the ending. I don't want anything clarified as my Shepherd wont benefit from any clarity so why should I? I say leave it. I enjoy the mystery and wonder.

[Dridengx]

Stonetwister wrote...

Wow, I have to be in a SERIOUS minority here.  I heard so much bad stuff about the ending that I was braced for something horrible, but I really liked it!  I chose the "synthesis" ending and it seemed very epic and very final.  Sure, a big party on board the Normandy with Shepard and a suitless Tali holding hands would have been better, but it was still very epic and satisfying.  To be honest, now that I have experienced it, I am not sure what all the hate is about. I have been playing video games since Atari and the Mass Effect trilogy is without a question my favorite game of all time.  My hat is off to the finest development crew out there.

Exactly. Congrats on finishing ME trilogy and I'm glad to hear you enjoyed it.

[DaylaLayne]

[quote]Kuari999 wrote...

[quote]Kilkia123 wrote...



The biggest thing I can't excuse though is the Normandy escape.  Pure and simple, that was out of left field.  You don't twist the actions of your characters to make symbolism.  That is not good writing.  Good symbolism flows naturally.

[/quote]


This I totally agree with this It make no sense at all even my husband(tried so hard to understand everything) said "Joker would never leave for any reason, ever"


I feel like i need a spell check

Modifié par YayCookies, 14 avril 2012 - 07:05 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

YayCookies wrote...

Should I explain why i dislike the ending so I am not breaking some sacred thing in these forums?

If you want to, go right ahead. We always encourage open discussion here, what we discourage is *rabblerabbleWEHATETHEENDINGSrabblerabble* and *rabblerabbleYOUDISAGREESOYOUMUSTBEPAIDTROLLrabblerabble*

That kind of thing is mocked and ignored.

[Kuari999]

You could also use some quote fixing there, Yay...

[DaylaLayne]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

YayCookies wrote...

Should I explain why i dislike the ending so I am not breaking some sacred thing in these forums?

If you want to, go right ahead. We always encourage open discussion here, what we discourage is *rabblerabbleWEHATETHEENDINGSrabblerabble* and *rabblerabbleYOUDISAGREESOYOUMUSTBEPAIDTROLLrabblerabble*

That kind of thing is mocked and ignored.

I feel like if I do I will be stealing this thread and I hate when people do that. I guess maybe someday I may start a thread and discuss why I dislike it otherwise PM and I will explain.

[HenchxNarf]

Stonetwister wrote...

Wow, I have to be in a SERIOUS minority here.  I heard so much bad stuff about the ending that I was braced for something horrible, but I really liked it!  I chose the "synthesis" ending and it seemed very epic and very final.  Sure, a big party on board the Normandy with Shepard and a suitless Tali holding hands would have been better, but it was still very epic and satisfying.  To be honest, now that I have experienced it, I am not sure what all the hate is about.  I have been playing video games since Atari and the Mass Effect trilogy is without a question my favorite game of all time.  My hat is off to the finest development crew out there.

Yay! I'm glad you enjoyed it, and you're not in the minority. I picked Synthesis too.

And I love all the people trying to tear down your opinion. Like it physically pains them to let someone enjoy the game without ruining it for them or trying to prove that you're wrong for liking it.

[Father_Jerusalem]

YayCookies wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

YayCookies wrote...

Should I explain why i dislike the ending so I am not breaking some sacred thing in these forums?

If you want to, go right ahead. We always encourage open discussion here, what we discourage is *rabblerabbleWEHATETHEENDINGSrabblerabble* and *rabblerabbleYOUDISAGREESOYOUMUSTBEPAIDTROLLrabblerabble*

That kind of thing is mocked and ignored.

I feel like if I do I will be stealing this thread and I hate when people do that. I guess maybe someday I may start a thread and discuss why I dislike it otherwise PM and I will explain.

Oh this thread has ALREADY been derailed (sup, Kuari), so a little more won't really hurt anything. But yeah, as long as you're just talking in a rational manner, instead of screaming at anyone who disagrees with you, discussions are always welcome.

[Kuari999]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
instead of screaming at anyone who disagrees with you, discussions are always welcome.

While I agree that discussions, especially ones that go into detail are welcome, I do have to raise my brow at how this is coming from someone who pretty much makes it a point to insult people virtually every post they make.  That isn't really discussing and quite frankly is usually a trigger for people screaming right on back.  Not that you'll probably change anything with my mentioning it.

[HenchxNarf]

Kuari999 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
instead of screaming at anyone who disagrees with you, discussions are always welcome.

While I agree that discussions, especially ones that go into detail are welcome, I do have to raise my brow at how this is coming from someone who pretty much makes it a point to insult people virtually every post they make.  That isn't really discussing and quite frankly is usually a trigger for people screaming right on back.  Not that you'll probably change anything with my mentioning it.

I haven't seen him insulting anyone, actually. He usually gets insulted first and then fires back.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Kuari999 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
instead of screaming at anyone who disagrees with you, discussions are always welcome.

While I agree that discussions, especially ones that go into detail are welcome, I do have to raise my brow at how this is coming from someone who pretty much makes it a point to insult people virtually every post they make.  That isn't really discussing and quite frankly is usually a trigger for people screaming right on back.  Not that you'll probably change anything with my mentioning it.

You mean like someone tearing into someone for liking the ending and trying to browbeat them with why they're wrong and you're right? Is that a kind of discussion? Because in my book, it's not. It's just as insulting and demeaning as anything else, and you're NOT trying to encourage discussion. You're trying to force someone to conform to the idea that YOU believe. 

Not that you'll probably change anything with my mentioning it.

Crap. I responded to you. I promised myself I wouldn't let you drag me down to your level again. That's on me.

Modifié par Father_Jerusalem, 14 avril 2012 - 07:21 .

[AJRimmsey]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Kuari999 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
instead of screaming at anyone who disagrees with you, discussions are always welcome.

While I agree that discussions, especially ones that go into detail are welcome, I do have to raise my brow at how this is coming from someone who pretty much makes it a point to insult people virtually every post they make.  That isn't really discussing and quite frankly is usually a trigger for people screaming right on back.  Not that you'll probably change anything with my mentioning it.

I haven't seen him insulting anyone, actually. He usually gets insulted first and then fires back.

this

[Kuari999]

HenchxNarf wrote...

I haven't seen him insulting anyone, actually. He usually gets insulted first and then fires back.

Which in turn causes others to fire against him, and it ultimately becomes a pretty ugly cycle...  one I'll admit to falling into at times to an extent.  Wouldn't call him a troll, especially not a PR one.  Seriously, if they were going to hire someone, they would be like a steal wall and really be a lot more structured and professional.  More along the lines of Woo at minimum...  someone who I frankly find locks any thread he participates in after a time, which is annoying and infuriating.  Either way, to be blunt, he indeed fired the first shot here with his very first post in this topic.

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
You mean like someone tearing into
someone for liking the ending and trying to browbeat them with why
they're wrong and you're right? Is that a kind of discussion? Because in
my book, it's not. It's just as insulting and demeaning as anything
else, and you're NOT trying to encourage discussion. You're trying to
force someone to conform to the idea that YOU believe. 

Not that you'll probably change anything with my mentioning it.

Crap. I responded to you. I promised myself I wouldn't let you drag me down to your level again. That's on me.

And yet there is a pro-ender here who in one post, actually earned my respect.  Whose opinion I'm ok with though I don't fully agree with it.  Maybe you should take a moment and think about that rather than jump to conclusions.  Maybe you should consider actually discussing the points rather than attacking the person, hmm?

Modifié par Kuari999, 14 avril 2012 - 07:26 .