858 réponses à ce sujet

[WandererRTF]

Read the whole text - not that it changes anything.

I think no one denies that Bioware has right to write a bad ending or so esoteric ending that no one apart from the writers and select few other individual can perceive as making sense.

Point is that at least i won't be buying more from them after seeing this. I don't really care how artistic the ending was or how it on some other philosophical level makes sense, it was extremely disappointing - and i sorta do not want to be disappointed again, after all there are other gaming companies and games available - Bioware's loss.

[dmonorato]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

MattFini wrote...

When you have to start referencing the work/theories of astrobiologists as a means of suggesting this was ALWAYS the intended direction of the series, you have absolutely failed.

Why?  Its a game about space faring civilizations and galactic cycles of evolution and extinction.  Astrobiology seems relevant.

So using that logic, if I want to play say Total War:Shogun I won't be able to fully understand or appreciate it unless i research japanese culture and understand Bushido and the Samuri way of life. Um.. no thanks, although I do find these subjects extremely intresting I am not going to research the subject of a game just so I can make sense of what the writers were trying to say. Its a game not life or college, I play it to escape that crap.

Thats not to say I don't think that games should not make you think, just that they should not require research outside of the game to attempt to make sense of complete writer failure.

OP I appreciate the thought, but no amount of help,  or explanations from outside sources are going to erase the fail that is the existing endings. First 90% of ME3 was 10 out of 10, last 10% 1 out of 10...

Modifié par dmonorato, 19 avril 2012 - 05:32 .

[Nauks]

I read it, but no, it doesn't do much for me. (if anything)

These concepts, with their wonderful explanations and what not, are all really interesting, but if this was the case, the game utterly fails to deliver, we're left with a de-railing mess of an ending, however you slice it, and no ammount of reflecting will magically make it better.

And just a side note, the Indoctrination Theory does not suggest that the ending was "just a dream" it's fairly more intricate than that.

[Sean]

Dannycni wrote...

The article does make a good point about what this means for big games in the future coming up with endings, and will we only see safe, non daring endings because companies will be worried about upsetting the fan base?

That is another problem that I have with the article's writer.

That doesn't mean that, in fact that should just mean that the ending works with the game's universe. Which the current ending doesn't. Bioware got so lazy that they didn't even make the ending, they just copy/pasted from Deus Ex (including the colors). Bioware didn't take risks, they just got lazy.

[Mylia Stenetch]

LucasShark wrote...

Why throw positive light on something which IS objectively badly written and poorly concieved?  It should be ridiculed as such, and then either improved or abandoned.

To spark conversations with people on various merits on what could be salvagable or not. Instead of contantly agreeing on every point. There is always two sides to every coin. He put one up there. I read it, it is an interesting read where he does show displearure on how the ending was done and goes into other parts of theories fans have. He does not call people stupid, talks down to them. He plays a rational third-party looking at this. I enjoyed the read.

[johnbonhamatron]

You have to love the way the article's author assumes we don't know what the Kardashev Scale is, too. Well, if that's where he wants to go with it, then let me pose this question: if current civilisations are Type I, if the Reapers are a Type II, and if the Crucible is Type III technology, then where, precisely, is the Type III civilisation who originally designed it?

Oh, wait, no, he's seriously suggesting that a selection of Type I civilisations could design something that's beyond even the Reapers' capabilities?

Sorry, but that makes no sense...

[optimistickied]

I'm beginning to love this fandom. It isn't just the insular attitudes or the active ostracism against people who express a different viewpoint, but the reliance on each other as a substitute for meaningful self-expression. It's an environment where discussion becomes subversive, and dismissal and rejection are responses to a healthy exchange of ideas, and anybody who tries to challenge what is enforced by the community is met with censure and derision.

[Titan_HQ]

That article changes nothing.
It is much more complex, fits significantly less with the overriding themes of ME and replies on significantly more speculation and outside interference than, for example, Indoc Theory. Which is, at least in the version I subscribe to, entirely contained within ME lore.

What is it you pro-enders like to throw about? Oh yes, Occam's Razor;
"It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect."
Which in this case would be indoc theory.

I believe I win, based on BSN logic?

[sp0ck 06]

balance5050 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Why throw positive light on something which IS objectively badly written and poorly concieved?  It should be ridiculed as such, and then either improved or abandoned.

THIS^

Because I think there's a lot to like about the ending and want to try to be positive about it.  They aren't going to change it no matter how many rage threads are started.  So you can either be angry about it or try and like it.

[Dannycni]

RX_Sean_XI wrote...

Dannycni wrote...

The article does make a good point about what this means for big games in the future coming up with endings, and will we only see safe, non daring endings because companies will be worried about upsetting the fan base?

That is another problem that I have with the article's writer.

That doesn't mean that, in fact that should just mean that the ending works with the game's universe. Which the current ending doesn't. Bioware got so lazy that they didn't even make the ending, they just copy/pasted from Deus Ex (including the colors). Bioware didn't take risks, they just got lazy.

I'm not sure you can say they just got lazy but I do get where you're coming from that the ending did feel a bit rushed and so alot of things weren't fully explained.

But if Shepard had survived and walked away into the sunset with his LI would alot of people be happier simply cause it would be a happy ending instead of a relatively sad and emotional one?

[balance5050]

johnbonhamatron wrote...

You have to love the way the article's author assumes we don't know what the Kardashev Scale is, too. Well, if that's where he wants to go with it, then let me pose this question: if current civilisations are Type I, if the Reapers are a Type II, and if the Crucible is Type III technology, then where, precisely, is the Type III civilisation who originally designed it?

Oh, wait, no, he's seriously suggesting that a selection of Type I civilisations could design something that's beyond even the Reapers' capabilities?

Sorry, but that makes no sense...

The article is a lot of fluff with little substance.

[Ji99saw]

There is no reasoning with these people they have evolved from concerned fans to full TROLL the metamorphoses was slow but it is now permanent, notice how they can't argue anymore so they respond with hate and immediate dismissal of anyone's OPINION. Thanks OP for the article

Modifié par Ji99saw, 19 avril 2012 - 05:40 .

[crappyjazzy]

sp0ck 06 you don't actually believe the majority of respondents actually read that article even if they say they did?

My friends who have all enjoyed the game and loved the ending are all doctors, well read, they love science and science fiction. Maybe that played a part.

Perhaps Bioware thought they had that kind of audience (in my experience, they do) but it obviously wasn't for everyone.

At any rate, not knowing something whether it's considered esoteric or not does not make someone stupid.

[sp0ck 06]

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Why throw positive light on something which IS objectively badly written and poorly concieved?  It should be ridiculed as such, and then either improved or abandoned.

To spark conversations with people on various merits on what could be salvagable or not. Instead of contantly agreeing on every point. There is always two sides to every coin. He put one up there. I read it, it is an interesting read where he does show displearure on how the ending was done and goes into other parts of theories fans have. He does not call people stupid, talks down to them. He plays a rational third-party looking at this. I enjoyed the read.

Thank you for that comment said it better than I did.

[hopeisreal]

VERY lazy.

It was such a cop-out I found it very funny

[balance5050]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Why throw positive light on something which IS objectively badly written and poorly concieved?  It should be ridiculed as such, and then either improved or abandoned.

THIS^

Because I think there's a lot to like about the ending and want to try to be positive about it.  They aren't going to change it no matter how many rage threads are started.  So you can either be angry about it or try and like it.

Sorry, but we already have I.T. for that. It has boat loads of foreshadowing and meshes with the story better.

[Bill Casey]

People speak of the charity as a huge success. It isn’t. It’s the ugly side of consumerism in plain sight. Contributing to a cause as a vehicle for getting something you want is one thing; associating one rather frivolous cause to a much more serious one in order to paint yourself righteous and garner support for the former frivolous cause is a new class of unethical behavior.

Oh **** right off with that bull****...

[sp0ck 06]

balance5050 wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Why throw positive light on something which IS objectively badly written and poorly concieved?  It should be ridiculed as such, and then either improved or abandoned.

THIS^

Because I think there's a lot to like about the ending and want to try to be positive about it.  They aren't going to change it no matter how many rage threads are started.  So you can either be angry about it or try and like it.

Sorry, but we already have I.T. for that. It has boat loads of foreshadowing and meshes with the story better.

IT is one way of looking at it.  I disagree with it, but I think its great how people have constructed it and it certainly makes a lot of compelling arguments.

[Muhvitus]

it was the same BS as indoctrination theory. Stop inventing the endings, lets just wait out what DLC brings out. No one can no what they meant as we don't have facts, people are just guessing their brains out.

[Skvindt]

Bill Casey wrote...

People speak of the charity as a huge success. It isn’t. It’s the ugly side of consumerism in plain sight. Contributing to a cause as a vehicle for getting something you want is one thing; associating one rather frivolous cause to a much more serious one in order to paint yourself righteous and garner support for the former frivolous cause is a new class of unethical behavior.

Oh **** right off with that bull****...

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

[Sean]

Dannycni wrote...

RX_Sean_XI wrote...

Dannycni wrote...

The article does make a good point about what this means for big games in the future coming up with endings, and will we only see safe, non daring endings because companies will be worried about upsetting the fan base?

That is another problem that I have with the article's writer.

That doesn't mean that, in fact that should just mean that the ending works with the game's universe. Which the current ending doesn't. Bioware got so lazy that they didn't even make the ending, they just copy/pasted from Deus Ex (including the colors). Bioware didn't take risks, they just got lazy.

I'm not sure you can say they just got lazy but I do get where you're coming from that the ending did feel a bit rushed and so alot of things weren't fully explained.

But if Shepard had survived and walked away into the sunset with his LI would alot of people be happier simply cause it would be a happy ending instead of a relatively sad and emotional one?

I think it would have made people happy if it was an option.
Not one easy to get but requires careful choices and a high amount of war assets (maybe 10,000, I only hit about 7700)

Similar to ME2's ending where Shep and/or his squadmates could die depending on what you did.

The current ending to ME3 doesn't invlove any choices from previous games (despite what was said by Bioware employees only weeks before release so the game was gold at that time) and they also are basically the same, even the ideas between each are similar.

[Brockxz]

read the article and you know what, that doesn't make me3 ending any better. Why? Because all that wasn't covered in the game in the first place.

[johnbonhamatron]

balance5050 wrote...

johnbonhamatron wrote...

You have to love the way the article's author assumes we don't know what the Kardashev Scale is, too. Well, if that's where he wants to go with it, then let me pose this question: if current civilisations are Type I, if the Reapers are a Type II, and if the Crucible is Type III technology, then where, precisely, is the Type III civilisation who originally designed it?

Oh, wait, no, he's seriously suggesting that a selection of Type I civilisations could design something that's beyond even the Reapers' capabilities?

Sorry, but that makes no sense...

The article is a lot of fluff with little substance.

Yup, I have to agree with ye, there.

[Orumon]

Hnh, nope, doesn't fit with my OWN goals for the universe. Sadly the reapers vision for the universe cannot factor into my own vision and my vision must take precedence.

See, there's my reason with about as much explanation and the reapers ever actually provided.

[Bill Casey]

SRX wrote...

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

It's not the truth...
Raising money for charities is the best form of protest I have ever seen...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 19 avril 2012 - 05:43 .