Read the first half, stopped, because it was riddled with arrogance and arguments that are ultimately fallacies. To quote,
"The ending is very strongly foreshadowed throughout the whole series, but to see it, you need to be aware of the some of the rather esoteric theories and hypotheses in astrobiology being discussed in the past few years by the likes of Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking. Bioware may have been able to make the ending more poignant and emotional if it had elaborated on the concepts for the people who aren’t aware of them.
This is all information that can be gleaned from documentaries such as Morgan Freeman’s Into the Wormhole, Stephen Hawking’s Into the Universe, Carl Sagan’s Cosmos, and Michio Kaku’s Visions of the Future. Incidentally, Kaku talks a bit about Mass Effect here.
With all of the following in mind, there was no contrived plot twist in the end; it was the most logical conclusion to the story, maybe even the only logical conclusion. In fact, the only reason I felt the ending was decent and not great is because there were no surprises the way there were in a game like Portal."
That was his whole bullet point for that section. He doesn't bother to explain HOW starchild was foreshadowed, HOW circular logic is the "only logical conclusion" to Mass Effect (which is so wrong, I... I don't even) He just gives a stupid, hipster answer. "Dude, you're wrong, you just didn't understand, and maybe you didn't understand it because you didn't know this totally obscure underground science stuff, man. Totally. No, I'm not going to explain how it's so simple. Duh. I'm better than you." The author is an a**hat.
I challenge those who hate the ending to read this
Débuté par
sp0ck 06
, avril 19 2012 04:04
Retour en haut
#177
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:43
LucasShark
-
- Members
- 3 894 messages
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.
Explain what there is to like in an ending which outright destroys everything you'd been working towards?
So "try and like" that they are actively selling me sewage and claiming it's fine wine, and if I disagree I'm stupid? If you honestly buy that, then you are a truly weak willed person.
Why would you honestly try to like someone ripping you off? That's just sad, almost stockholm syndrome-like in effect.
Companies shouldn't get to dictate that we should buy or like whatever they produce: respect is not something just dolled out, it must be earned.
#178
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:43
Muhvitus
-
- Members
- 102 messages
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...
I thought about the same thing. No logic there, but he was yanking those things from his hat anyway, so why bother!
#179
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:43
balance5050
-
- Members
- 5 245 messages
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****...
Yeah, didn't you hear? Raising money for kids is a "new class of unethical behavior."
#180
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:45
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 187 messages
The article is very interesting. I would even say it's required reading for the ending debate on both sides. I hate the ending, but I still agree with almost everything he says, except in chapter 5 where he goes off the deep end.
The Catalyst scene:
Note that his opinion of the Catalyst scene is nuanced: he likes it and can make sense of it, but agrees it's written poorly and that the underlying concepts are not explained sufficiently to make sense of it without background knowledge. The conclusion he fails to make is this: since most players cannot be expected to have that background knowledge, it is a failing of the game that it does not provide more exposition.
That is, if that background knowledge he bases his interpretation on was what the endings were supposed to based upon in the first place. The problem is: it's all speculation, actual evidence is nil. Nothing of this has been explained in the game. And phenomena as complex as conclusions drawn from the Drake Equation or the Kardashev scale need to be explained. The simple assertion "Without us to prevent it, synthetics would destroy all organics" does not make sense without background knowledge, but the ending needs to make sense as it is, or it won't work.
My personal take on the Catalyst scene is indeed that it provides insufficient exposition to make an informed decision. I hate that the Catalyst takes the form of the child - someone I've never connected with, but that in itself is not a fatal failing on Bioware's part. Should the Extended Cut provide that much needed exposition, then my opinion will change, but until then I maintain: the Catalyst scene could've been great, but it was actually crap.
The ending sequences after the Catalyst scene:
He agrees that the ending sequences after the Catalyst leave much to be desired and are partly incoherent.
Refutation of common objections:
I agree with almost all of this (chapter 3), most notably with his opinion that the indoctrination hypothesis is crap and would devalue the complete story if true. I disagree with his refutation of "lack of closure", because he didn't consider that the endings *destroy* closure already achieved by playing the game.
Closing thoughts
Here's where he's dead wrong. I don't quite see how can agree that the ending is inadequate (which he does) and not understand that players want one that makes more sense and campaign for it. He also doesn't touch upon the emotional punch-in-the-gut delivered by Bioware in form of an ending that destroys the galactic civilization we set out to save and were lured into believing we could save and the unbearable feeling of betrayal this destruction of everything we care about brings with it, the heavy-handed attempt to re-target our emotional investment into some abstract notion of "intelligent life in the galaxy 10000 years from now", which was doomed to failure from the start because the games made us care about the existing characters, the existing species and the existing universe, the impression that the writers wanted to destroy their toys so that nobody else can play with them. With the exception of the lack of exposition in the Catalyst scene, these emotional factors lie at the base of the discontent, everything else is a symptom, not the cause.
The Catalyst scene:
Note that his opinion of the Catalyst scene is nuanced: he likes it and can make sense of it, but agrees it's written poorly and that the underlying concepts are not explained sufficiently to make sense of it without background knowledge. The conclusion he fails to make is this: since most players cannot be expected to have that background knowledge, it is a failing of the game that it does not provide more exposition.
That is, if that background knowledge he bases his interpretation on was what the endings were supposed to based upon in the first place. The problem is: it's all speculation, actual evidence is nil. Nothing of this has been explained in the game. And phenomena as complex as conclusions drawn from the Drake Equation or the Kardashev scale need to be explained. The simple assertion "Without us to prevent it, synthetics would destroy all organics" does not make sense without background knowledge, but the ending needs to make sense as it is, or it won't work.
My personal take on the Catalyst scene is indeed that it provides insufficient exposition to make an informed decision. I hate that the Catalyst takes the form of the child - someone I've never connected with, but that in itself is not a fatal failing on Bioware's part. Should the Extended Cut provide that much needed exposition, then my opinion will change, but until then I maintain: the Catalyst scene could've been great, but it was actually crap.
The ending sequences after the Catalyst scene:
He agrees that the ending sequences after the Catalyst leave much to be desired and are partly incoherent.
Refutation of common objections:
I agree with almost all of this (chapter 3), most notably with his opinion that the indoctrination hypothesis is crap and would devalue the complete story if true. I disagree with his refutation of "lack of closure", because he didn't consider that the endings *destroy* closure already achieved by playing the game.
Closing thoughts
Here's where he's dead wrong. I don't quite see how can agree that the ending is inadequate (which he does) and not understand that players want one that makes more sense and campaign for it. He also doesn't touch upon the emotional punch-in-the-gut delivered by Bioware in form of an ending that destroys the galactic civilization we set out to save and were lured into believing we could save and the unbearable feeling of betrayal this destruction of everything we care about brings with it, the heavy-handed attempt to re-target our emotional investment into some abstract notion of "intelligent life in the galaxy 10000 years from now", which was doomed to failure from the start because the games made us care about the existing characters, the existing species and the existing universe, the impression that the writers wanted to destroy their toys so that nobody else can play with them. With the exception of the lack of exposition in the Catalyst scene, these emotional factors lie at the base of the discontent, everything else is a symptom, not the cause.
Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 avril 2012 - 05:46 .
#181
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:46
Mcfly616
-
- Members
- 8 988 messages
To put it simply....if you have to explain to the majority of your fans(Yes, the Majority), why your ending doesn't suck, Then IT SUCKS lol....just stating facts
#182
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:46
RShara
-
- Members
- 2 440 messages
The article was interesting, and I agree that might have been what BW was trying to do with it, but I have some problems with the article.
1. A lot of his arguments are based on "speculation" because we have no hard proof of them in game. Not enough data is not enough data. Having to guess to fill in the blanks is bad.
2. The astrobiology and all is a cool reference, but none of this was relevant to the core themes of the trilogy, i.e. self-determination, victory through united diversity, and so forth.
3. Even the article agrees that the presentation was poor
4. It doesn't explain my teleporting crew members, or Joker's inexplicable fleeing.
1. A lot of his arguments are based on "speculation" because we have no hard proof of them in game. Not enough data is not enough data. Having to guess to fill in the blanks is bad.
2. The astrobiology and all is a cool reference, but none of this was relevant to the core themes of the trilogy, i.e. self-determination, victory through united diversity, and so forth.
3. Even the article agrees that the presentation was poor
4. It doesn't explain my teleporting crew members, or Joker's inexplicable fleeing.
#183
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:47
im commander shep
-
- Members
- 551 messages
He still accepts that there are loads of plot holes, that people hate.
End of story
End of story
#184
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:48
ChickenMan77
-
- Members
- 263 messages
Yeah, If I need a Phd to understand a video game..thats just crazy..Hell I haven't even finished my masters yet...
#185
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:49
Nobrandminda
-
- Members
- 1 289 messages
I read the article, and it brought me right back to my first impression of the ending. Before I even had time to think about about the ending. Before it really set in just how terrible the ending was, I had this to say about the ending.
It's like if Return of the Jedi had the ending to 2001: A Space Odyssey.
So go ahead and cite Moore's Law and the Drake Equasion. That doesn't change the fact that is is simply not what the series was building up to. Everything that happens in Mass Effect has been building up to one thing: defeating the Reapers, not a complex hard science philosophical descusion about the future of galactic life, just the end of a war. You have to earn that type of thought provoking ending, and Mass Effect simply did not earn it.
I'll just touch on a couple specifics from the article that I disagree with:
- Just because you can fit the various races on the Kardashev Scale, that does not count as foreshadowing for the importance of the Kardashev Scale.
- Again with this insistance that the Crucible forced the Catalyst to surrender? I've seen it brought up a couple of other times and I still don't buy it. All the Catalyst would have to do is keep Shepard occupied for long enough to get the Crucible destroyed and then keep an eye out for it in future cycles. Problem solved. The Catalyst lets Shepard win, which cheapens any feeling of accomplishment you might have gotten from the series.
- "The ending discards important philosophies and themes. It does, but it doesn’t do so without very good reason." This may be slightly subjective, but I'm just going to say: No. You don't get to just throw out all of the previously established themes in a piece of literature because you want to make a statement with your ending. Well, you can, but if you do, we're rightfully going to call it a terrible ending.
- And I have just one question concerning the Closing Thoughts section, where the author is alarmed that we're "bullying" Bioware into "changing" the ending:
What would you have us do? All we've done is reacted to the ending, and if that reaction has seemed hostile, it's only because the ending affected us that badly. So what should we have done? Ignored our own opinions? All we've done is used our powers as consumers to say "this is not the product I was promised" and seeing as how the BBB partially agreed with our claim, I'd say it's safe to say this does not qualify as an abuse of power. We are allowed to choose what games and stories we buy, just as Bioware is allowed to tell the stories they want to tell.
Bioware told a story that we didn't want to hear, so what would you have us do about it?
It's like if Return of the Jedi had the ending to 2001: A Space Odyssey.
So go ahead and cite Moore's Law and the Drake Equasion. That doesn't change the fact that is is simply not what the series was building up to. Everything that happens in Mass Effect has been building up to one thing: defeating the Reapers, not a complex hard science philosophical descusion about the future of galactic life, just the end of a war. You have to earn that type of thought provoking ending, and Mass Effect simply did not earn it.
I'll just touch on a couple specifics from the article that I disagree with:
- Just because you can fit the various races on the Kardashev Scale, that does not count as foreshadowing for the importance of the Kardashev Scale.
- Again with this insistance that the Crucible forced the Catalyst to surrender? I've seen it brought up a couple of other times and I still don't buy it. All the Catalyst would have to do is keep Shepard occupied for long enough to get the Crucible destroyed and then keep an eye out for it in future cycles. Problem solved. The Catalyst lets Shepard win, which cheapens any feeling of accomplishment you might have gotten from the series.
- "The ending discards important philosophies and themes. It does, but it doesn’t do so without very good reason." This may be slightly subjective, but I'm just going to say: No. You don't get to just throw out all of the previously established themes in a piece of literature because you want to make a statement with your ending. Well, you can, but if you do, we're rightfully going to call it a terrible ending.
- And I have just one question concerning the Closing Thoughts section, where the author is alarmed that we're "bullying" Bioware into "changing" the ending:
What would you have us do? All we've done is reacted to the ending, and if that reaction has seemed hostile, it's only because the ending affected us that badly. So what should we have done? Ignored our own opinions? All we've done is used our powers as consumers to say "this is not the product I was promised" and seeing as how the BBB partially agreed with our claim, I'd say it's safe to say this does not qualify as an abuse of power. We are allowed to choose what games and stories we buy, just as Bioware is allowed to tell the stories they want to tell.
Bioware told a story that we didn't want to hear, so what would you have us do about it?
Modifié par Nobrandminda, 19 avril 2012 - 05:51 .
#186
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:49
Muhkida
-
- Members
- 1 259 messages
Speculations, nothing concrete.
It's like arguing with people that there's actually life beyond the solar system (don't answer that, it's an example). People will say yes because of logic and probability, others will disagree.
Besides, I think the majority of people "challenged" the ending (both pro/anti-ending) because Bioware scripted it like a bag of smacked ***.
It's like arguing with people that there's actually life beyond the solar system (don't answer that, it's an example). People will say yes because of logic and probability, others will disagree.
Besides, I think the majority of people "challenged" the ending (both pro/anti-ending) because Bioware scripted it like a bag of smacked ***.
#187
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:50
Spectre-00N7
-
- Members
- 758 messages
crappyjazzy wrote...
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.
I'm not one who hates the overall reasoning of the Reapers, it just sucks that the dialogue with the cataylst breaks Shepard's character for me and the lack of an epilogue really makes this character driven game end horribly. Maybe I'll like the ending when I get my doctorate...
#188
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:50
Degs29
-
- Members
- 1 073 messages
That's a very good read. There are many legitimate and logical reasons given for why the endings "had" to be the way they are. However, I still take issue with the endings and here's why:
-If the holo-kid had explained the synthetic situation perfectly in the final moments before the choice, Shepard still would have been forced to pick an ending that goes against his values. I would rather die fighting for a free galaxy, then be responsible for taking that freedom away in the name of survival (which is effectively what all three endings give us). There should have been a fourth (or more) choice that allowed us to say "I don't care, I'll fight the Reapers to the bitter end, because every other option is horrendously wrong".
-This epiphany (the OP's link) wasn't referenced at all through the games. Major themes that are present throughout the three games run counter to this epiphany. It's very unsatisfactory to believe in these themes, only to be told at the end "no, you're wrong, and I'm not even really going to bother explaining why, and even if you do understand why I won't give you a choice in case you disagree with the principles of my argument." The only potential reference to this scenario is the war between the Geth and Quarians, and even that theme seems to say peace is possible.
-The Destroy and Control options don't solve this Grey Goo scenario. Hence, the third option: Synthesis. However, synthesis is never explained. What does it even mean? All we know is that all organic and synthetic lifeforms are now mated together. Uh, ok. Even if we disregard the obvious problems of how the Crucible even achieved this feat, would it actually solve the Grey Goo scenario? Organic life fights organic life all the time in the real world. Would it be any different for synthetic life? Or organic/synthetic life? Do these hybrids require the same resources and do they have the same desire to reproduce as regular AI? Why are these hybrids not capable of producing pure synthetics in the future?
-Even if all these questions are answered (which there wasn't even an attempt to do), this ending is in no way, shape or form, satisfying. It is a problem we may or may not have to face in the future...but if we survive long enough on this planet (or beyond) to see ourselves in the face of extinction due to synthetic races, would we actually choose synthesis if we had the power? Would we choose destroy if we had developed allegiances with other synthetic life? Would we choose to control synthetic life, after believing synthetic life is every bit as precious as organic life? Or would we fight for our survival to the bitter end? I guess each of us would have to decide that.
-The Grey Goo scenario is depressing as hell and human beings have a good chance at dying out before faced with that "inevitability". As "deep" as this philosophical problem is, dumping it into the end of ME3 was extremely unfair, especially since we were so unprepared for it beforehand and since it was explained so poorly. We weren't looking for a happy ending. We were looking for a happy ending, a bittersweet ending, a disasterous ending, a sorrowful ending, a vengeful ending, and a myriad of other endings. And we weren't looking for a theme reversal, even if it does have some logic behind it. I'll admit, the current ending is very profound and...well, BIG in every definition of the world. Uncomprehensibly big. That doesn't make it a good ending. Fans don't want that. Fans want to rescue the Mass Effect galaxy, not irreversible reshape it. I think the writers were thinking too big, and I don't blame the fans for wanting something a little smaller and a whole lot more satisfying!
-If the holo-kid had explained the synthetic situation perfectly in the final moments before the choice, Shepard still would have been forced to pick an ending that goes against his values. I would rather die fighting for a free galaxy, then be responsible for taking that freedom away in the name of survival (which is effectively what all three endings give us). There should have been a fourth (or more) choice that allowed us to say "I don't care, I'll fight the Reapers to the bitter end, because every other option is horrendously wrong".
-This epiphany (the OP's link) wasn't referenced at all through the games. Major themes that are present throughout the three games run counter to this epiphany. It's very unsatisfactory to believe in these themes, only to be told at the end "no, you're wrong, and I'm not even really going to bother explaining why, and even if you do understand why I won't give you a choice in case you disagree with the principles of my argument." The only potential reference to this scenario is the war between the Geth and Quarians, and even that theme seems to say peace is possible.
-The Destroy and Control options don't solve this Grey Goo scenario. Hence, the third option: Synthesis. However, synthesis is never explained. What does it even mean? All we know is that all organic and synthetic lifeforms are now mated together. Uh, ok. Even if we disregard the obvious problems of how the Crucible even achieved this feat, would it actually solve the Grey Goo scenario? Organic life fights organic life all the time in the real world. Would it be any different for synthetic life? Or organic/synthetic life? Do these hybrids require the same resources and do they have the same desire to reproduce as regular AI? Why are these hybrids not capable of producing pure synthetics in the future?
-Even if all these questions are answered (which there wasn't even an attempt to do), this ending is in no way, shape or form, satisfying. It is a problem we may or may not have to face in the future...but if we survive long enough on this planet (or beyond) to see ourselves in the face of extinction due to synthetic races, would we actually choose synthesis if we had the power? Would we choose destroy if we had developed allegiances with other synthetic life? Would we choose to control synthetic life, after believing synthetic life is every bit as precious as organic life? Or would we fight for our survival to the bitter end? I guess each of us would have to decide that.
-The Grey Goo scenario is depressing as hell and human beings have a good chance at dying out before faced with that "inevitability". As "deep" as this philosophical problem is, dumping it into the end of ME3 was extremely unfair, especially since we were so unprepared for it beforehand and since it was explained so poorly. We weren't looking for a happy ending. We were looking for a happy ending, a bittersweet ending, a disasterous ending, a sorrowful ending, a vengeful ending, and a myriad of other endings. And we weren't looking for a theme reversal, even if it does have some logic behind it. I'll admit, the current ending is very profound and...well, BIG in every definition of the world. Uncomprehensibly big. That doesn't make it a good ending. Fans don't want that. Fans want to rescue the Mass Effect galaxy, not irreversible reshape it. I think the writers were thinking too big, and I don't blame the fans for wanting something a little smaller and a whole lot more satisfying!
#189
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:50
sp0ck 06
-
- Members
- 1 318 messages
LucasShark 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.
Explain what there is to like in an ending which outright destroys everything you'd been working towards?
So "try and like" that they are actively selling me sewage and claiming it's fine wine, and if I disagree I'm stupid? If you honestly buy that, then you are a truly weak willed person.
Why would you honestly try to like someone ripping you off? That's just sad, almost stockholm syndrome-like in effect.
Companies shouldn't get to dictate that we should buy or like whatever they produce: respect is not something just dolled out, it must be earned.
Why do you feel compelled to "prove" the ending is bad? If I liked it, and I post something trying to explain why, you can't simply respectfully disagree? You claim Bioware thinks if you disagree with them, "you're stupid," but since I disagree with you, I'm "weak-willed" and fail to see that I was "ripped off?"
Come on dude, seriously? I'm going out of my way to be as non confrontational about this and just want to have a discussion, and you pull this crap?
#190
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:50
SuperZombieChow
-
- Members
- 207 messages
lillitheris wrote...
Yeah, we get it. We're not too dumb to understand what they changed their story to attempt to say at the last minute. That's not the problem with the ending. Sorry.
This is listed in the pro-ending compendium, by the way. You might find other interesting reading there.
The first comment says it perfectly. It's not the idea of a technological singularity, nor the scientific question of different levels of civilization, that makes the ending unsatisfying. The problem is not scientific, and it's not resolved through having a grasp of esoteric scientific information. It's unsatisfying because it's bad writing, throwing out the narrative and themes preceding it in favor of a question that was a b-plot at best and an asspull at worst.
We get it. That doesn't mean we have to like it. Your mileage may vary.
Modifié par SuperZombieChow, 19 avril 2012 - 05:51 .
#191
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:51
Bill Casey
-
- Members
- 7 609 messages
Stephen Hawking provides a potential answer: that soon after discovering radio technology, all civilizations discover more destructive technologies, such as nuclear power, nanotechnology and AI – and so we all blow ourselves up before we can be transmitting for very long. Some nanotechnology, some AI species, and some uses of nuclear power can be safe. But given enough time, someone will screw up.
The problem with that is Synthetic species would still factor in similarly to Biological species...
If I were a betting man, I would say the use of radio waves as a form of communication will become obsolete...
#192
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:51
ericjdev
-
- Members
- 1 123 messages
Read it, the ending is still garbage.
#193
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:52
Flidget
-
- Members
- 289 messages
The ending doesn't work on this hard sci-fi level either - about a week or two ago there was a rash of posts on the forum about why the Reapers seemed so focused on the Milky Way when at their level of technology there wasn't really anything stopping them from jaunting-off to anywhere in the Local Group. If Drake's Equation is correct then there's got to be organic life getting uppity and stupid over in Andromeda too, right? If the Reapers neglected to deal with that then there was nothing stopping a competing force evolving to eventually pose a threat to them and their galactic husbandry.
Yet everything stayed at a resolutely Galactic scale.
Yet everything stayed at a resolutely Galactic scale.
Modifié par Flidget, 19 avril 2012 - 05:53 .
#194
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:53
Vasparian
-
- Members
- 396 messages
sp0ck 06 wrote...
LucasShark 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.
Explain what there is to like in an ending which outright destroys everything you'd been working towards?
So "try and like" that they are actively selling me sewage and claiming it's fine wine, and if I disagree I'm stupid? If you honestly buy that, then you are a truly weak willed person.
Why would you honestly try to like someone ripping you off? That's just sad, almost stockholm syndrome-like in effect.
Companies shouldn't get to dictate that we should buy or like whatever they produce: respect is not something just dolled out, it must be earned.
Why do you feel compelled to "prove" the ending is bad? If I liked it, and I post something trying to explain why, you can't simply respectfully disagree? You claim Bioware thinks if you disagree with them, "you're stupid," but since I disagree with you, I'm "weak-willed" and fail to see that I was "ripped off?"
Come on dude, seriously? I'm going out of my way to be as non confrontational about this and just want to have a discussion, and you pull this crap?
The only people I can see at all liking the ending are those that only played ME3. They didn't play ME1 or 2, and they are pretty much just Shooter game fans that don't care about story. IMO, anyone else that says they like the ending are just deluding themselves or bioware fanboys.
#195
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:53
Silpheed58
-
- Members
- 545 messages
sp0ck 06 wrote...
If you hated/disliked/didn't understand/were let down by the ending, read this editorial.
http://galacticpillo...ffect-3-ending/
It really might make you look differently at not just the ending but the whole of ME3. If you want to love the conclusion to the series but just can't, please give this a read. It's long but worth it.
Im not going to knock the article, what was intended was not what was presented. Or atleast not in an acceptablly coherent manner (thus the EC). I validate my statement by refering to what he and many others say alot, ME 3 is the end. Well if I go by that the the end of the game iis good until the end.
All the accomplishments you achieve, bonds you created, diffferences you made all came to a head and were closed, then made possibly moot by that poorly executed end. It feels like I ran a race got first, and stopped at the tape on the finish and turned around and walked off quitting.
#196
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:53
Spectre-00N7
-
- Members
- 758 messages
Bill Casey wrote...
It's not the truth...SRX wrote...
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Raising money for charities is the best form of protest I have ever seen...
I thought the charity was a good way to get us to work together and I feel like we were really helping others out at the same time.
#197
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:55
Aetas Mutuo
-
- Members
- 286 messages
sp0ck 06 wrote...
If you hated/disliked/didn't understand/were let down by the ending, read this editorial.
http://galacticpillo...ffect-3-ending/
It really might make you look differently at not just the ending but the whole of ME3. If you want to love the conclusion to the series but just can't, please give this a read. It's long but worth it.
I read the article. And for that I have this to say:
This is biased analysis. This is cherry picking Science Speculation punditry. It was a good article and well worth reading. But plugging in speculation into plot holes after the fact is not the consistent story telling that I have come to expect over 100 hours and 3 games.
Let's talk about Theme. Here are some themes from that article:
I liked the ending
I am annoyed with people that did not like the ending
I am smart and knowledgeable
People that did not like the ending do not know as much about stuff as I do
I will convince people that if they know what I know they will agree with me
Now let's talk about facts. Facts are true whether you believe them or not; that is what makes them facts. Here are a few for reference purposes:
Fact 1: The ending, specifically the star-child, was a Dues Ex Machina. Which is generally frowned upon in the story telling community.
Fact 2: There were a lot of nonsensical and unexplained events in the ending that have cause rampant speculation for both, people who support the ending and people who dislike the ending.
Fact 3: BioWare has taken no steps to answer or explain the ending or take any real questions about the ending. Which also has caused rampant speculation. Nebulously worded descriptions for forthcoming DLC is not an answer.
Fact 4: A well respected scientist speculating on future technology, life on other planets and Artificial Intelligence is still speculation. Science is about measureable and predictably repeatable events that happen in the physical world.
I understand that this article convinced you. Good for you. This article was well written and well thought out but it is packed with Speculation about things that were not in the Mass Effect story at all. It was not an analysis of the ending as it was a long argument for why the ending was good. I respect the fact that there are those that are satisfied with and do actually like the ending. To be honest, I have nothing against anyone's personal taste. I did not like the endings, I did not find them satisfying and I would like to what happened in the writing process that led to the ending that we got.
I have seen a lot of arguments for why the ending was good and why it was bad. I understand why some people liked it and I understand why some people did not like it. I would explain my personal opinion on the endings and what happened, but in the grand scheme of things it is irrelevant, unnecessary and very long.
#198
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:55
johnbonhamatron
-
- Members
- 520 messages
Walk away from an argument on the internet?! I could never do that!Muhvitus 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...
I thought about the same thing. No logic there, but he was yanking those things from his hat anyway, so why bother!
See, this is the thing about the ending: if the Catalyst had actually been the last boss (in a verbal stylee, like TIM), and beating him opened up the options for Shepard to use, instead of him giving us the options, I'd have had no problems with the control of destroy endings (well, except the genocide of the geth, naturally, and the destruction of the relays in both endings), both of which were foreshadowed throughout the game.
Those two basic choices, though, were fine; in fact, having the relays explicitly survive in Control and get wrecked in Destroy would've felt like a big, necessary choice (as in do you leave galactic civilisation intact, but risk the Reapers returning, or take them down for good, at the cost of galactic civilisation?).
No, it was the synthesis option that I loathed, because there's just no satisfactory way to explain what it is, or how it even exists. I can see what the article's author is trying to get at, even if it's just another version of the "advanced science looks like magic" argument, but that opens that whole can of worms of "where in the hell did such advanced tech come from, when there's never been anyone in the galaxy advanced enough to come up with something like that?"
Compared to that, Control and Destroy are dead easy to explain.
Modifié par johnbonhamatron, 19 avril 2012 - 05:58 .
#199
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:55
Shaigunjoe
-
- Members
- 925 messages
jumpingkaede wrote...
Maybe less to do with evolution and more to do with scientific advancement. Same/similar principle applies though, I would think.
All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming, compensating, for limitations. Can't carry a load, invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations. No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates. Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready, disastrous." - Mordin Solus
So what happens now after Synthesis?
I always thought that quote had something to do with the galactic society's over reliance on technology that was left there for them, nice explanation for destruction of mass relay's though.
in the synthesis ending, as the SK points out, evolution is dead. You have to remember that evolution is a purely natural process that takes a very, very long time. With the mergining of organic/synthetics society no longer needs to relay on natural selction, genetic mutation/drift in order to advance themselves biologicaly (read: genetic engineering).
Geth evolution is a tough one, though I do not see the geth 'body' as being something that is evolved, those are simply cars that they drive. Does this merging lock down geth conscioness into individual platforms? I think it might, though there is no harm in some people interpreting otherwise. The geth issues involves a much larger discussion on what part of the geth is actually sentinent to begin wtih.
