340 réponses à ce sujet

[Father_Jerusalem]

YayCookies wrote...

uh i played the control ending accidently(I am sure that is spelled wrong). I still kinda have many questions

Well, okay, because you seem to be reasonable, I'll break my no-spoilers policy and try to answer any questions you may have.

[Sangheili_1337]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Sangheili_1337 wrote...

But the space magic doesnt harm him and the Normandys crew. Even on destroy, people had EDI come out of the ship. How does Anderson get past the Reaper ground forces when Hammer was unable? Since when was it stated that the Reapers are capable of reading Shepard's mind in order to have the catalyst take the form of the child? You are just guessing in order to fill the holes. That is what I mean.

No, I'm not. I'm actually, you know, paying attention to everything that has been happening over the game.

He crash landed, so it's safe to say it 'harmed' him because the ship couldn't fly. Joker's the best pilot the alliance has, it's pretty reasonable that he could crash land safely.

You should reread what I posted. Im not sure if you are trolling or your reading comprehension really is that bad.

[Noelemahc]

xsdob wrote...
That's the problem with trying to do this kind of thing in a sci-fi action adventure, fans don't expect it so when it comes up it's a complete reversal of the events taken for literal value alone and all the plotholes creep in. The endings end up sucking because they weren't meant to be taken as 100% rational or literal, but a mix of actual events and symbolc imagrey.

I'm all for symbolism. I really am. But there's an underlying problem. Symbolism for the sake of symbolism sucks, because it drastically limits the amount of people who:
A) Will get it
Will agree with it
C) Will enjoy it
D) Will understand why a narrative that previously seamlessly melded symbolism and pragmatism suddenly decides to ignore the pragmatic altogether

For example, the device you see David Archer in in Overlord? Laden with symbolism AND makes sense in the plot.
Shepard's leap of faith at the end of ME2? Surviving or dying depending on if ther's someone to catch your hand (both literally and figuratively) out there? Both symbolism and sense.

Ending of ME3? Symbolism, yes; plot, no. Yes, Adam and Eve (provided the survival of EDI in the Red Ending is not a bug, of course -- even among BioWare employees posting on these boards the opinions seem divided), yes, a new dawn, yes, cleansing fire, yes, "write our names in the stars".
No, what about the holocaust? No, what about the economic and social breakdown? No, what about Rannoch? No, what about the fauna of the planet the Normandy crashed on? No, did or did not Liara do the mindmeld to get Shepard's baby as some sort of legacy for the future? (easy plot hook for ME4, right there, admit it)

The problem is that BioWare did the "definitive ending" very well BEFORE. This ending is anything but. Sorry to blow my own horn, but see the Farscape link in my sig -- the metaplot of Farscape ends in a similar situation as ME3, yet, within the course of a few pages' worth of comics, they deliver OODLES of closure without breaking the potential for sequels, something that ME3 somewhy decided not to do in any shape, way or form. (Granted, they cheated just like Battlestar Galactica did, by killing off many characters so ther would be less closure to be made -- but so did ME3, if you think about it).

[Sangheili_1337]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Sangheili_1337 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Sangheili_1337 wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

Sangheili_1337 wrote...


Concession accepted. There is a reason a extended cut is being made. Bioware is trying to make a ending that makes sense.

It actually did make sense. They're explaining it for those that didn't understand it. You realize the difference, right?

Ok some plot hole examples. Why is Joker flying away? How did your squadmates teleport to the Normandy? How did Anderson get to the beacon before Shepard? Why does the starchild take the form of the kid from the beginning of the game? In the control ending, who is controlling the Reapers if Shepard is dead? You cant just make random speculation and handwave these questions away. You might as well write your own fanfiction. I can just rationalize the first question as Joker doesnt like the color red, must get away. 
 

Did you actually play the Control ending, because I don't think that you did.

Oh, and Starchild takes the form of the kid because it's a familiar form to Shepard. Just, you know, since you asked.

What about the control ending? The catalyst states that Shepard will die when taking the control option. How is the starchild supposed to know about the kid who died?

So, you haven't actually played the Control ending. I would explain to you the key facts that you're missing, but I do TRY to respect the no spoilers policy - well, okay, I'm trying to be better about it. 

As for the kid.... because the starchild is a 37+ million year old Elder God who created the Reapers, who are experts at mind control and influencing. I'm pretty sure it's picked up a trick or two in all that time.

So in other words, you made it up. At no point was it stated Reapers are shown to be capable of mind reading. Shepard wasn't even indoctrinated.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Sangheili_1337 wrote...

So, you haven't actually played the Control ending. I would explain to you the key facts that you're missing, but I do TRY to respect the no spoilers policy - well, okay, I'm trying to be better about it. 

As for the kid.... because the starchild is a 37+ million year old Elder God who created the Reapers, who are experts at mind control and influencing. I'm pretty sure it's picked up a trick or two in all that time.

So in other words, you made it up. At no point was it stated Reapers are shown to be capable of mind reading. Shepard wasn't even indoctrinated.

Please point out to me where I said mind reading. I'll wait.

Modifié par Father_Jerusalem, 14 avril 2012 - 08:12 .

[Kuari999]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Please point out to me where I said mind reading. I'll wait.

You didn't say it specifically, but you did mention something about a form familiar to Shepard earlier..  and yet how would Starchild have known without reading his mind?  How would he have known that the form haunted him in some way?

[xsdob]

Kuari999 wrote...

xsdob wrote...
But now I'm thinking of resigning. Too much hate in this movement, I can tell from the way some of the fans talk about bioware and ea, like their actual battlefeild enemies or something. Plus I've never gotten over that tweaking that the guy did to my original ideas, even if he kept most of it intact. 

You can hardly blame people for hating EA...  A company joining EA has always been followed by that company's founding principles slowly being twisted.  I've watched a lot of my favorite companies slowly die under EA that yeah, I would love to see them fall.  I think the gaming industry NEEDS to see them fall.  I honestly believe it'd breath a lot of new life into the industry over time...  sort of like cutting down an old rotting tree and planting a new one.  Its similar to how I wouldn't care if BioWare fell if certain aspects don't go back to what they once were.  I don't think the company will truely die even if it fell, I think it'd just be remade under a different name, which I'd be ok with.

I can see your point, and the inflamed rhetoric doesn't get to me as much as the way my words were treated. Call me a sissy or spoiled for feeling this way, but I was really happy with what I wrote, it seemed to strike the right balnce between being firm with bioware and ea for the day one dlc and the underwhelming endings, but being understanding of the hardship that comes with creating this product and that sometimes mistakes do get made.

I felt real pride in that post, 5 paragraphs is a lot to write, and a lot to keep consistenant with another message. But the guy ddin't even ask me to change things with what I wrote, he went and altered what I wrote down by himself, without even pming me about it.

I didn't even know he was going to use my stuff, or that it had been changed, until he posted it onto the frontpage of the thread. It's gone now, I don't know where too, but it made me feel sad to see my words changed. I can empathize a little with bioware, but I can see why it was done, accpet it, push back my feelings for a while and move on.

Modifié par xsdob, 14 avril 2012 - 08:19 .

[Sangheili_1337]

[quote]Father_Jerusalem wrote...

[quote]Sangheili_1337 wrote...


So, you haven't actually played the Control ending. I would explain to you the key facts that you're missing, but I do TRY to respect the no spoilers policy - well, okay, I'm trying to be better about it. 

As for the kid.... because the starchild is a 37+ million year old Elder God who created the Reapers, who are experts at mind control and influencing. I'm pretty sure it's picked up a trick or two in all that time.

[/quote]

So in other words, you made it up. At no point was it stated Reapers are shown to be capable of mind reading. Shepard wasn't even indoctrinated.

[/quote]

Please point out to me where I said mind reading or indoctrination. I'll wait.

[/quote] The original question was how did the catalyst know to take the form of the child that died in the beginning of the game. Being "experts at mind control and influencing" doesnt explain anything. How does being old or your inserted elder god label have to do with anything is beyond me. Everyone who said they understand the ending actually does not. They just put their own theories to explain it that differs from another person's given rationalization. Speculation doesnt equate with understanding.

[Sangheili_1337]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Sangheili_1337 wrote...

So, you haven't actually played the Control ending. I would explain to you the key facts that you're missing, but I do TRY to respect the no spoilers policy - well, okay, I'm trying to be better about it. 

As for the kid.... because the starchild is a 37+ million year old Elder God who created the Reapers, who are experts at mind control and influencing. I'm pretty sure it's picked up a trick or two in all that time.

So in other words, you made it up. At no point was it stated Reapers are shown to be capable of mind reading. Shepard wasn't even indoctrinated.

Please point out to me where I said mind reading. I'll wait.

The original question was how did the catalyst know to take the form of
the child that died in the beginning of the game. Being "experts at mind
control and influencing" doesnt explain anything. How does being old or
your inserted elder god label have to do with anything is beyond me.
Everyone who said they understand the ending actually does not. They
just put their own theories to explain it that differs from another
person's given rationalization. Speculation doesnt equate with
understanding.

[Rockstarblunt]

Reading these posts are hilarious.. How are people trying to explain plot holes with no real evidence?

They make things up to fill in the gaps to pretend its not a real plot hole.

Um isn't that a plot hole?

[HenchxNarf]

Sangheili_1337 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Sangheili_1337 wrote...


So, you haven't actually played the Control ending. I would explain to you the key facts that you're missing, but I do TRY to respect the no spoilers policy - well, okay, I'm trying to be better about it. 

As for the kid.... because the starchild is a 37+ million year old Elder God who created the Reapers, who are experts at mind control and influencing. I'm pretty sure it's picked up a trick or two in all that time.

So in other words, you made it up. At no point was it stated Reapers are shown to be capable of mind reading. Shepard wasn't even indoctrinated.

Please point out to me where I said mind reading or indoctrination. I'll wait.

I think you need to fix your quotes.

Modifié par HenchxNarf, 14 avril 2012 - 08:18 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

Kuari999 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Please point out to me where I said mind reading. I'll wait.

You didn't say it specifically, but you did mention something about a form familiar to Shepard earlier..  and yet how would Starchild have known without reading his mind?  How would he have known that the form haunted him in some way?

One of the early theories that came out after footage from the demo showing the boy in the vent was that it was all a hallucination, one caused by the Reapers to screw with Shepard or guide him/her on a path that the Reapers were trying to set out for him. If you watch the cutscenes of the boy on Earth, for instance, you can see nobody else interacting with him, save Shepard.

Do I subscribe to this theory? Not necessarily. It could be as simple as Shepard writing about his/her dreams in a dream journal, and someone on-board the Normandy being indoctrinted and passing all that kind of information on up the chain. 

But it makes more sense than Indoctrination Theory.

[DaylaLayne]

Ok I know this was not adressed to me but in my mind must normal humans would be more likely to at least listen to a child than they would some random AI. but hmmm who knows

[Sangheili_1337]

Rockstarblunt wrote...

Reading these posts are hilarious.. How are people trying to explain plot holes with no real evidence?

They make things up to fill in the gaps to pretend its not a real plot hole.

Um isn't that a plot hole?

Couldn't have said it any better.

[Kuari999]

xsdob wrote...

I can see your point, and the inflamed rhetoric doesn't get to me as much as the way my words were treated. Call me a sissy or spoiled for feeling this way, but I was really happy with what I wrote, it seemed to strike the right balnce between being firm with bioware and ea for the day one dlc and the underwhelming endings, but being understanding of the hardship that comes with creating this product and that sometimes mistakes do get made.

I felt real pride in that post, 5 paragraphs is a lot to write, and a lot to keep consistenant with another message. But the guy ddin't even ask me to change things with what I wrote, he went and altered what I wrote down by himself, without even pming me about it.

I didn't even know he was going to use my stuff, or that it had been changed, until he posted it onto the frontpage of the thread. It's gone now, I don't know where too, but it made me feel sad to see my words changed. I can empathize a little with bioware, but I can see what it was done, accpet it, push back my feelings for a while and move on.

Yeah, stuff like that can ruin anyone's day.  In any case, in forums, its something that happens on both sides.  There are going to be extreme examples of immaturity, because really?  Most people have no sense of empathy when online, nor do they try to.  It gets ugly real fast.  Had I any control over any of the groups involved in this fiasco, I would suggest a letter campaign.  Everyone writes a detailed letter and mails it along with a wallet photo of themselves and their Shepard.  Written letters are taken more seriously than forum posts and e-mail, and the pictures would destroy any impression of a faceless mass.  Sadly, getting campaigns like that going these days isn't as easy as it should be.

[Noelemahc]

Ok I know this was not adressed to me but in my mind must normal humans would be more likely to at least listen to a child than they would some random AI. but hmmm who knows

Not a creepy holographic Reaper whatever-he-is shaped like a child. That set of conditions automagically screams "HOLY FRAK, IT'S RESIDENT EVIL ALL OVER AGAIN, WHERE'S MY BFG?!" at the top of its lungs at your common sense.

Reading these posts are hilarious.. How are people trying to explain plot holes with no real evidence?

They make things up to fill in the gaps to pretend its not a real plot hole.

Um isn't that a plot hole?

The general set of reasons for this is that most people who liked the ending, liked it because they enjoyed whatever sense of ending it gave them. Unlike us anti-enders, they don't have to justify why they liked it precisely because they'd have to find reasons not to like it and then debunk them. We, on the other hand, as the offended party, have to prove the offense happened.

I do, however, reiterate that this also leads to the fact that anti-ender posts (at least those not laced with profanity) are all about dissecting the ending to highlight what is wrong with it. Not every pro-ender can express why those things didn't trouble them by anything more complex than "it didn't trouble me" precisely BECAUSE IT DIDN'T TROUBLE THEM. I'm afraid this comes off as glaringly primitive, but it does make sense if you look at it attentively. They don't have to prove anything to us, they should be happy they can enjoy the game as it is while we cannot.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 14 avril 2012 - 08:31 .

[HenchxNarf]

Noelemahc wrote...

Ok I know this was not adressed to me but in my mind must normal humans would be more likely to at least listen to a child than they would some random AI. but hmmm who knows

Not a creepy holographic Reaper whatever-he-is shaped like a child. That set of conditions automagically screams "HOLY FRAK, IT'S RESIDENT EVIL ALL OVER AGAIN, WHERE'S MY BFG?!" at the top of its lungs at your common sense.

*british accent* You're all going to die down here...

[AJRimmsey]

Rockstarblunt wrote...

Reading these posts are hilarious.. How are people trying to explain plot holes with no real evidence?

They make things up to fill in the gaps to pretend its not a real plot hole.

Um isn't that a plot hole?

depends how you approach it.

some need it explained,others dont.
some want it explained,others dont
others dont actually care either way

its a wide and varied world where we can make our own minds up in any way we feel like.

the problems only start when someone wants to ram thier opinion down everyones throat.

[Sangheili_1337]

Juromaro wrote...

Sangheili_1337 wrote...

Rockstarblunt wrote...

Reading these posts are hilarious.. How are people trying to explain plot holes with no real evidence?

They make things up to fill in the gaps to pretend its not a real plot hole.

Um isn't that a plot hole?

Couldn't have said it any better.

What is a plothole but something that cannot be explained? All the plotholes have been explained by people other than Bioware, so unless Bioware comes out and says something about these so called plotholes it's all just a topic for arguements.

You ask for an explaination and when you get one you dismiss it. So unless your waiting for it to come from Bioware why ask for one from a public forum if you aren't willing to accept it?

Dismissing a explanation is perfectly fine if it doesnt make sense. I gave reasonings behind why a given explanation was not acceptable. What you are asking me to do is accept the plot hole.

[Kuari999]

Juromaro wrote...

What is a plothole but something that cannot be explained? All the plotholes have been explained by people other than Bioware, so unless Bioware comes out and says something about these so called plotholes it's all just a topic for arguements.

You ask for an explaination and when you get one you dismiss it. So unless your waiting for it to come from Bioware why ask for one from a public forum if you aren't willing to accept it?

Plot holes can have possible explanations.  It being impossible to explain is not a requirement for a plot hole.  Its something plot related that ISN'T explained by the STORY or related material.  Not something that CAN'T be explained and certainly not something that has dozens of different explanations from the fans.  That's the definition of the term.  People seem to misunderstand the definition in the sense that if there's a possible logical explanation, it isn't a plot hole.  Frankly that belief ignores the actual definition.  Look it up if you don't believe me, the words "can't be explained" won't be used alone.

[Sangheili_1337]

AJRimmsey wrote...

Rockstarblunt wrote...

Reading these posts are hilarious.. How are people trying to explain plot holes with no real evidence?

They make things up to fill in the gaps to pretend its not a real plot hole.

Um isn't that a plot hole?

depends how you approach it.

some need it explained,others dont.
some want it explained,others dont
others dont actually care either way

its a wide and varied world where we can make our own minds up in any way we feel like.

the problems only start when someone wants to ram thier opinion down everyones throat.

I already said its fine if a person likes the endings, however that doesnt mean the endings is not filled with plot holes which is a fact. People started attacking me for stating this fact.

[Noelemahc]

*british accent* You're all going to die down here...

My point eggsacktly.

depends how you approach it.

some need it explained,others dont.
some want it explained,others dont
others dont actually care either way

its a wide and varied world where we can make our own minds up in any way we feel like.

the problems only start when someone wants to ram thier opinion down everyones throat.

That's the idea I tried to convey in that post somewhere on this page page which everyone ignored because you're too busy arguing =)

Except that you really gotta let that throat line go, it's starting to sound like you have an unhealthy fixation on oral sex. While I agree that oral sex is awesome, it sounds like you don't usually enjoy it, maybe you should read a self-help guide, find out what you're doing wrong? No offence, I'm just worried.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 14 avril 2012 - 08:31 .

[AJRimmsey]

Sangheili_1337 wrote...

Juromaro wrote...

Sangheili_1337 wrote...

Rockstarblunt wrote...

Reading these posts are hilarious.. How are people trying to explain plot holes with no real evidence?

They make things up to fill in the gaps to pretend its not a real plot hole.

Um isn't that a plot hole?

Couldn't have said it any better.

What is a plothole but something that cannot be explained? All the plotholes have been explained by people other than Bioware, so unless Bioware comes out and says something about these so called plotholes it's all just a topic for arguements.

You ask for an explaination and when you get one you dismiss it. So unless your waiting for it to come from Bioware why ask for one from a public forum if you aren't willing to accept it?

Dismissing a explanation is perfectly fine if it doesnt make sense. I gave reasonings behind why a given explanation was not acceptable. What you are asking me to do is accept the plot hole.

why not save the arguing and just tell us what the explaination to your "plotholes" is ?

[vertigo72]

You are not alone