209 réponses à ce sujet

[dunstan1993]

Kmack11 wrote...


Then the three choices appeared to me, and I chose destroy. The Mass Relays being destroyed was something I also thought was awesome. As it symbolized complete freedom from the Reapers control. As Legion said in Mass Effect 2, there are many ways to evolve, but when you pick someone else option, you blind yourself to all other options. The main reason history repeated itself the way it has every cycle was because organics evolved the way the Reapers wanted them to, by using their technology. With those gone, organics can evolve along their own paths.

That's actually a pretty damn good philosophy, I've never thought about it that way.
+1

[The Razman]

slyguy200 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Running Heron wrote...

I gotta run, but anyone who enjoyed the ending should check out this video. If you can stand the length it makes some good points in a calm and entertaining manner.



Peace.

Rather disappointed at your lack of response to my last post, I have to say.

He said he had to run. 
Are you trying to achieve something?

... what? I said I was disappointed. It was a good talk.

Are you trying to achieve something?

[Beocat]

On the numbers issue... Let us consider the Facebook Game Pages. If you look at the number of "likes" for each (English sites) rounded to the nearest thousand, this is what you'll see...

Mass Effect: 844k
Mass Effect 2: 932k
Mass Effect 3: 35k

Obviously, a lot of people didn't "like" ME3. It's usually safe to assume that the same people who "liked" the first and second, would "like" the third if they did actually like the game... Just some food for thought. If you consider this, there is plenty of people out there that did not like ME3. True, looking at a Facebook page isn't the same as polling people individually, but it's a good measure at a glance of how a population feels about things. I'd say that EA needs to work on their math too.

[The Master Chief]

The Razman wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

No, Father Jerusalem. No, there isn't. And that makes me sad. I didn't want to hate the ending. But I do. I was very disappointed.

And what actually bothers me more than the actual ending is this idea that the reason I don't like the ending is because I simply don't understand it. So, they're going to explain it to me. As if I'm a child. A dull-witted child at that.

As far as those that do like the ending...cool. I'm happy for you. Really. I'm glad it worked for you. I wouldn't wish this feeling of disappointment on anyone. I don't think that makes people that liked the ending unintelligent, or shills.

I'm not a "Retaker" per se, but what I don't understand is why so-called "pro-enders" care so much what the Retakers are doing, or not doing. The pro-enders got theirs. If the Retakers think they got what it takes--hey, let's see what they can do.

Frankly, I'm amazed that 5 minutes, or so of the game had the ability to leech away so much passion I once had for this series. When it ended the first words out of my mouth were literally, "Wtf? What?" I've never had that reaction to the ending of a ME game.

Yet, I find that I'm being belittled for not liking the ending. Yeah, yeah, I know---it's the Retakers being belittled. But besides the few crazy people sending death threats, and understanding that crazy is pretty much everywhere, most of the Retakers have been very intelligent, articulate people. They expressed what I was feeling, but didn't want to take the time to express.

In business, it's not the complainers they worry about the most. It's the quiet ones that feel the same way, but don't complain. Because then the business no longer has the opportunity to address those issues and try to make them right. In the process, hopefully, keeping a customer for the future.

In My Opinion, if I'm still allowed to have one that is, BW crapped out on that ending.

I gotta tell you, though, I never thought I'd miss the days of the Paragon vs. Renegade threads. Who knew that those were actually the good times?

You're not being belittled for not liking it. You're being belittled for making such a big, emotional "I wouldn't wish this on anybody" drama about it. Some of us have been here before with Mass Effect, and we didn't make a great big deal about it. It's just a game. Games have endings which disappoint people, just like everything else in the world of narrative storytelling. People claiming its destroyed their life/belief/soul/ability to love are what's being ridiculed (quite rightly).

Hey man, if someone feels like the ending destroyed their life/belief/soul/ability to love, then they have the right to express that. It's in the First Amendment. However, belittling them for doing so does go against the rules of this forum.
That being said, I'm not a fan of people who whine either, but I just ignore those people instead of arguing with them. That's how you show you're better, my friend. If someone wants to be overdramatic, let them. It's not our problem.

Now, I know the "Mass Effect 3 Ending: Tasteful, Understated Nerdrage" video has probably been mentioned and linked quite a bit, but it does a great job of stating my reasons for disliking the ending in a better, much more organized manner than I can. I have no claim as to whether or not my opinion about the ending represents the majority; I can only say that a majority of fellow fans I have spoken to dislike the endings as well, which is certainly a large enough sample size to perform a statistical Z-test for a proportion. At best, we can say that we are X% confident that the true proportion of Mass Effect fans who dislike the endings to Mass Effect 3 is between Y% and Z%. Nothing definitive, so I hope this at least convinces some people to stop making claims about who is the majority and who is not. 

Edit: Let me make it clear that I know the Catalyst's (Starchild) existence was forshadowed by the Prothean VI on Thessia, and the guy in the video and some anti-enders say the starchild came out of nowhere, which is not true. That being said, I also think that this one instance of foreshadowing does not justify the introduction of this character all the way in the last ten minutes of the game. It still breaks the basic rules of storytelling, in my opinion, and makes the ending objectively ill-written. 

Modifié par The Master Chief, 05 mai 2012 - 03:33 .

[Vormaerin]

dunstan1993 wrote...


Probably since no pro-ender I've found has made any comment about it being a deux ex machina, or the plotholes (Other than, e.g. interpretation and speculation are what make the plotholes good, I can fill in the gaps myself).

Well, strictly speaking, there is no deus ex machina.    A true DEM comes completely out of nowhere to solve the problem with little or no intervention by the hero.    What we have here is a Macguffin.  We spent the whole game building the thing, we expected it to solve the problem, and it did solve the problem.   Albeit not a way everyone is happy with.

As for the plotholes, the problem there is that many of them are only plot holes if you make certain assumptions that are not universally accepted.

Common assertions that I find highly dubious include:  
1)  The relays have to go nova because everyone knows what uncontrolled ruptures due to asteroid impacts and controlled self destruction are exactly the same.
2) Every Turian and Quarian si going to starve to death, because there is no possible way that a society that creates omnigel and medigel could possibly have food synthesis.
3) No way those characters could be on the Normandy  (even though there is unused voiceovers of Joker flying to the rescue).
4)  Star travel is impossible without the Relays, even though we have codex entries to the contrary.
5)  Our decisions don't matter...  even though we made many decisions with long lasting consequences even in a "destroy" setting.

and so on.

The ending is flawed in execution.  Very few people dispute that.   That it is conceptually flawed is an entirely different kettle of fish.  The EC should address the execution issues.  Then we'll be able to have a more coherent discussion of the concepts.

What you have right now is a bunch of people on one side taking the worst interpretation of every uncertainty arguing with people who are taking positive interpretations of those uncertainties.   And, naturally, lots of people can't tell the difference between their own interpretations and "fact", so people who don't agree with them are just wrong.

Modifié par Vormaerin, 05 mai 2012 - 03:55 .

[UnstableMongoose]

dunstan1993 wrote...

Just did a little bit of research.
(Answer to first part)
I think I can agree with you, I have to admit that some of those elements were introduced significantly before the final scenes and that instantly dissmisses it being a deux ex machina due to no mention.
Also the Crucible was introduced as a Prothean weapon. Which is why I used to argue "A weapon is only designed for the destruction of a foe" but the dictionary disagrees with me:

A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.A means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest: "resignation threats are a weapon in his armory".The underlined definition makes my previously assumed definition of the word weapon wrong, which also means I was wrong to previously say something along the lines of "The crucible should have worked like a weapon is supposed to and simply destroy the Reapers, not give us three random choices, 2 of which don't destroy them". Thus I've helped in destroying my own belief that the ending is a deux ex machina.

(Answer to second part)
Almost all plotholes in the series before the ending I could simply specualte on my own (I know that sounds stupidly hypocritical, but to be honest the only plotholes that bother me are the ones in the ending. If Bioware can answer for all of these then I may like the ending yet, I haven't dismissed that possiblity), ignore or some I simply didn't even notice, but when it comes to the ending of the trilogy... I don't think I'm on my own when I say that I want questions answered not asked.

(Answer to third part)
I honestly hadn't, I don't visit the forums perhaps as often as I should. And thanks for the link, I haven't read most of what's on there but I'll get to it soon enough.

No problem. People much more versed and eloquent on the topic than myself have participated. It's a very good thread. You don't have to read it all, as some of it is very long, but most of it is very interesting.

Regarding the plotholes, they break immersion for some and not for others. I can definitely see where you're coming from regarding them being an issue in the ending. 
I think you're correct about the plotholes in the ending sticking out a bit more, but I feel that there's a reason for this.

I am fairly convinced that many plotholes are in the ending in order to suggest Indoctrination Theory as a possible interpretation of the ending, but I also think they laid it on a little thick at some points. They could have concentrated on only the core links, and probably should have made the closing cinematic slightly more clear. That would have cleaned up a lot of the extraneous plotholes and left you with only the ones that  make you question what you're seeing on the screen. But overall, I thought it was a good ending with some problems, rather than a bad ending with some redeeming qualities.

Modifié par UnstableMongoose, 05 mai 2012 - 04:18 .

[Davillo]

People are to F...... stupid to understand the damn ending. Anybody saw The Day The Earth Stood Still? Same **** and it made sense and it makes sense in ME:3. Me:3 is a hell of a game and the ending is not a happy ending but it is an ending that makes sense. Reapers cause is viable too so this ending makes sense.

[The Razman]

The Master Chief wrote...

Hey man, if someone feels like the ending destroyed their life/belief/soul/ability to love, then they have the right to express that. It's in the First Amendment. However, belittling them for doing so does go against the rules of this forum.

1. Your First Amendment doesn't apply to me.
2. Even if it did, it would also back my right to tell people they're being ridiculously overdramatic first-world-problemers who need the 1950s-style glass of water thrown in the face followed by a slap to get over the melodrama of letting a video-game ending affect their life so negatively.
3. First Amendment applies to hardly anywhere on the internet, even if you're in America.

Now, I know the "Mass Effect 3 Ending: Tasteful, Understated Nerdrage" video has probably been mentioned and linked quite a bit, but it does a great job of stating my reasons for disliking the ending in a better, much more organized manner than I can.

Which is my problem with people quoting and linking to it all the time.

If you need a YouTube video to make your point for you, all that says to me is that you don't really have a firm grasp of the beliefs you supposedly hold. And worse yet, don't link to a video that starts off with a definition of science-fiction which takes every piece of academic writing regarding genre studies in literature and treats it as toilet paper in favour of erroneous and dumbed down Star Trek analogies. As I recall, one of its main arguments against the ending is "Sci-fi is a nitpicky genre cos Star Trek was all about the technobabble stuff, so nitpicky complaints are appropriate here, so all my nitpicky complaints are valid" (he calls them nitpicky complaints himself as I recall, I'm not just mocking him ... that's actually his argument). It makes me want to take his face and smoosh it into a pile of open books until some semblance of knowledge regarding genre studies is driven in.

It steadily gets worse from there. He spends a good few minutes dragging out how you don't get any closure with any of the characters in a game where you spend almost all your time doing side-missions which allow you to tie up all the loose ends regarding all the characters. He laments how "the Reapers didn't need a reason behind their actions; look at the Emperor in Star Wars, he never needed one" while ignoring that the Emperor in Star Wars never did anything mysterious or unexplained and was content to just be a villain who built massive space weapons, while the Reapers have been imposed a ridiculously complicated system of technological cycles on the galaxy for millions of years. Kind of needed an explanation (and the series was always building to one; even in the rejected Dark Energy scenario, the culmination of the series was finding out the reality behind the Reapers). He says "the Starchild introduced a new goal right at the end!" when he didn't; he just gave us a way of achieving the goal we've had all along. And then if I remember right I turned off when he started citing random questions which all had perfectly explainable answers and started making them talk over each other, as if drowning out all logical reasoning with the sheer volume of crap and nonsensical questions would make his point more valid.

Seriously, I could go on for ages on that video and how ridiculous it is. Point is ... don't use a video as a substitute for your own words, because there's no way anybody will take you seriously. Especially if the video you're quoting is so easily rebutted.

[Vormaerin]

The Razman wrote...


3. First Amendment applies to hardly anywhere on the internet, even if you're in America.

Few people understand the protections in the 1st Amendment.   It doesn't provide unlimited rights to speech.  It protects against *government* imposed censorship.

I can censor the crap out of anyone I want in media I own, like private forums, magazines, etc.   Because I'm not a government.

This site belongs to Bioware so the only speech allowed here is that which Bioware is willing to accept.

[Artemis_Entrari]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Yeah, uh, nothing you said there
is actually accurate. Unless you've watched every single ME3 related
video on the internet, you cannot possibly state that there "aren't
enough pro-end videos to help them get their point across".

The false equivalency stands because he was accusing both sides of using the same tactics, and it's absolutely demonstrable that that statement is inaccurate. Ergo, false equivalency. 

Being the "he" in question, I think you should re-read the bolded part of the post I quoted.  You're making a strawman argument at worst (arguing something I never even said or touched upon - ie. the thing about pro-enders demanding proof of the anti-enders for why they dislike the ending just as equally as anti-enders do of pro-enders -- and arguing against it), or misrepresenting what I was commenting on at best.

The only part I was commenting on (ie. the bolded part) involves where he (the person I quoted) talks about folks having a tendency to ignore anything the other side says, and just pushes their view on anyone who engages with them in discussion.  I simply said that both sides are guilty of being dismissive of the other's point of view, not just one side.

Modifié par Artemis_Entrari, 05 mai 2012 - 06:33 .

[Trapper_920]

Beocat wrote...

On the numbers issue... Let us consider the Facebook Game Pages. If you look at the number of "likes" for each (English sites) rounded to the nearest thousand, this is what you'll see...

Mass Effect: 844k
Mass Effect 2: 932k
Mass Effect 3: 35k

Obviously, a lot of people didn't "like" ME3. It's usually safe to assume that the same people who "liked" the first and second, would "like" the third if they did actually like the game... Just some food for thought. If you consider this, there is plenty of people out there that did not like ME3. True, looking at a Facebook page isn't the same as polling people individually, but it's a good measure at a glance of how a population feels about things. I'd say that EA needs to work on their math too.

Wow, yea. They need to reevaluate how they decide who likes and who does not like ME3.

[Adam1117]

"The majority of players did not like the endings."

Usually the ones that are unhappy about something are the ones that are the most vocal about it. Majority? Yeah I like how you state your opinions as fact.

You don't understand the ending? You're an idiot. See how easily opinions can be stated as fact?

[Adam1117]

Modifié par Adam1117, 05 mai 2012 - 06:56 .

[andysdead]

Kreidian wrote...

The Razman wrote...

They're not basing the decision on mathematically pleasing as many people as possible. Straw man fallacy.

Actually no. They've made the argument themselves that staying with the current ending will please the majority of their fans. I'm arguing that this is not the case and I find their logic here faulty.

Pretty sure you're flat-out wrong here. Their decision to not change the ending but to elaborate on it was actually a compromise between maintaining "artistic integrity" and pleasing their client base. As The Razman wrote, they aren't basing the decision on maths.

[andysdead]

For the record, I like the ending. It's sort of this cyberpunk-meets-singularitarian hybrid. It is informed by literature and science, and in that regard makes for excellent science fiction.

However, I do believe that the ending (particularly the part about the Reapers being created by organics) is a bit of a ret-con, as I am currently replaying ME1 and found the part where Sovereign suggests that the Reapers are "eternal" and "the pinnacle of evolution" and therefore they were not created by organics but perhaps were the original sentient race that first ventured to the stars.

[CARL_DF90]

You bring up a lot of good points OP. My buddy who threw away his copies of the ME trilogy would agree with you as well. Shame he is in "EA must die in fire!", mode right now.  (mildly ironic considering EA published Dante's Inferno, one of his favs).

Heh, anyways, to those who either liked the ending or don't feel there is a problem read this:


http://social.biowar...ndex/11435886/1


If reading a well written and well thought out wall of text isn't your thing then I direct your attention to this vid. Cheers!

Modifié par CARL_DF90, 05 mai 2012 - 07:10 .

[walklikeazombie]

So glad all of you end game haters have no real choices that decide things in my life.  I would be screwed based on your never ending arguments. 

[PaxtonFetel]

And I don't care. Thanks BW for two weeks depression. For me, ME the universe died. Strangely enough, I liked the multiplayer. People who respect themselves enough humiliation. The more there is always an idiot, which will laugh at your pain

[Sir Fluffykins]

Keep old ending, add DYNAMIC EPILOGUE (MOST IMPORTANT) and add new endings (should I say, new outcomes) based on chocies and ems that result in different playthroughs, everyone wins with added replay value and Bioware profit with future DLC and MP purchases?

[DaJe]

Adam1117 wrote...

"The majority of players did not like the endings."

Usually the ones that are unhappy about something are the ones that are the most vocal about it. Majority? Yeah I like how you state your opinions as fact.

You don't understand the ending? You're an idiot. See how easily opinions can be stated as fact?

Every single poll I have seen from different websites and other statistical numbers show a very clear and obvious pattern that ME3, especially because of the ending is a disappointment.

Yes statistics should not be taken literally, but with results this obvious, it is the closest you can get to a fact in this matter.

These impressions come from thousands of players, that obviously disagree with the 10/10 and 90-100% review scores. And it is exactly those scores without reviewer integrity that BW is now holding on to, telling them self ME3 is the best game ever, ignoring the ugly truth that ME3 is disappointing and BW lost their reputation even more after DA2.

Modifié par DaJe, 05 mai 2012 - 09:13 .

[SalsaDMA]

Davillo wrote...

People are to F...... stupid to understand the damn ending. Anybody saw The Day The Earth Stood Still? Same **** and it made sense and it makes sense in ME:3. Me:3 is a hell of a game and the ending is not a happy ending but it is an ending that makes sense. Reapers cause is viable too so this ending makes sense.

Is this where I am supposed to tell you the remake as different than the original? That the >cores< of reasoning for the socalled singularity in TDTESS was different in each movie? Maybe not the best example to pull out for you

Not to mention I both felt the movie(s) were not really my cup of tea, and that I felt the philosophy behind it were horribly contrived.

Deterministic beliefs/faiths never were my cup of tea as it culls the desire to progress beyond the current state.

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

Adam1117 wrote...
"The majority of players did not like the endings."

Usually the ones that are unhappy about something are the ones that are the most vocal about it. Majority? Yeah I like how you state your opinions as fact.

Actually, by statistics he's right about the majority disliking the ending.

[The Master Chief]

The Razman wrote...

The Master Chief wrote...

Hey man, if someone feels like the ending destroyed their life/belief/soul/ability to love, then they have the right to express that. It's in the First Amendment. However, belittling them for doing so does go against the rules of this forum.

1. Your First Amendment doesn't apply to me.
2. Even if it did, it would also back my right to tell people they're being ridiculously overdramatic first-world-problemers who need the 1950s-style glass of water thrown in the face followed by a slap to get over the melodrama of letting a video-game ending affect their life so negatively.
3. First Amendment applies to hardly anywhere on the internet, even if you're in America.

Now, I know the "Mass Effect 3 Ending: Tasteful, Understated Nerdrage" video has probably been mentioned and linked quite a bit, but it does a great job of stating my reasons for disliking the ending in a better, much more organized manner than I can.

Which is my problem with people quoting and linking to it all the time.

If you need a YouTube video to make your point for you, all that says to me is that you don't really have a firm grasp of the beliefs you supposedly hold. And worse yet, don't link to a video that starts off with a definition of science-fiction which takes every piece of academic writing regarding genre studies in literature and treats it as toilet paper in favour of erroneous and dumbed down Star Trek analogies. As I recall, one of its main arguments against the ending is "Sci-fi is a nitpicky genre cos Star Trek was all about the technobabble stuff, so nitpicky complaints are appropriate here, so all my nitpicky complaints are valid" (he calls them nitpicky complaints himself as I recall, I'm not just mocking him ... that's actually his argument). It makes me want to take his face and smoosh it into a pile of open books until some semblance of knowledge regarding genre studies is driven in.

It steadily gets worse from there. He spends a good few minutes dragging out how you don't get any closure with any of the characters in a game where you spend almost all your time doing side-missions which allow you to tie up all the loose ends regarding all the characters. He laments how "the Reapers didn't need a reason behind their actions; look at the Emperor in Star Wars, he never needed one" while ignoring that the Emperor in Star Wars never did anything mysterious or unexplained and was content to just be a villain who built massive space weapons, while the Reapers have been imposed a ridiculously complicated system of technological cycles on the galaxy for millions of years. Kind of needed an explanation (and the series was always building to one; even in the rejected Dark Energy scenario, the culmination of the series was finding out the reality behind the Reapers). He says "the Starchild introduced a new goal right at the end!" when he didn't; he just gave us a way of achieving the goal we've had all along. And then if I remember right I turned off when he started citing random questions which all had perfectly explainable answers and started making them talk over each other, as if drowning out all logical reasoning with the sheer volume of crap and nonsensical questions would make his point more valid.

Seriously, I could go on for ages on that video and how ridiculous it is. Point is ... don't use a video as a substitute for your own words, because there's no way anybody will take you seriously. Especially if the video you're quoting is so easily rebutted.

All right, all right, you definitely win the First Amendment argument. lol. Didn't mean to ruffle so many feathers there.

I understand the argument that the entire game itself is a series of little endings to different story arcs, and I think that they are all wrapped up very well. We've cured the genophage (or maybe not), so now the turians and salarians/krogan can work together and help retake Earth. There's closure in that regard. We solved the geth/quarian conflict, so now both of them can help us retake Earth. There's closure there, too. But it's not the same kind of closure that we get from knowing what happens to all of our squadmates and allies after the war is over. We only know that our current squadmates crash landed on some unknown planet and we have no clue about what happened to our former ME2 squadmates, unless they died, of course. That's what I'm talking about when I say that there really was no closure with the other characters. We're left to infer what happened to them, rather than seeing the lasting consequences of our actions firsthand. This kind of ending is fit for leading into a sequel, not for wrapping up a trilogy, and I think this can be said for any game series, not just Mass Effect. 

Also, my claims are not invalid simply because you think the origin of them are defective somehow (referring to the beginning of your first long paragraph). You've shown me already that you can do better than that. Also, I watched the video again and I fail to see where the guy takes a crap on every piece of academic writing regarding genre studies in literature. He's comparing one apple to another apple, not an apple to an orange. I can't say I agree with the statement that the ending abandons the genre of Mass Effect, it's still a sci-fi, "talky and techy" video game, regardless of how it ends, so I can see where you're coming from there. But the central conflict? Throughout the entire series, it is set in stone that our goal is to stop the Reapers from wiping out advanced civilizations. Then we meet the Catalyst and it tells us that we need to find a new solution to the inevitable conflict between synthetics and organics, a claim based on an assumption that we have been shown is erroneous unless you decided to wipe out the geth. Yeah, it doesn't change our final actions or the consequences of them that we are bottlenecked into, but it shifts our focus unnecessarily, and after 100+ hours of playing Mass Effect, having this sudden shift in focus does break my immersion and suspension of disbelief. The ending of an entire series is far too late to pull such a manuever, and if it is, then this manuever was executed terribly. It segues quite nicely into the idea of loss of narrative coherence, in my humble opinion. 

Modifié par The Master Chief, 05 mai 2012 - 09:57 .

[Amioran]

Running Heron wrote...

I gotta run, but anyone who enjoyed the ending should check out this video. If you can stand the length it makes some good points in a calm and entertaining manner.



Peace.

Listen, everytime you anti-enders want to prove that the ending of ME is bad you try to give as evidence these videos that prove anything at all.

Do you know why?

Would you take as evidence of an opening in chess something said by someone that never played the game? Would that "evidence" mean anything at all? Probably not, right? It will be probably be based on glaring errors given the inability of the guy on either understanding of what he is talking about to begin with.

So why here the thing should be any different?

You take as evidence some people that have not the minimal knowledge and background in literature to evidence the faults in a narrative. The judgment of these people will never have any objective value, nor posses any weight whatsoever, just because they lack completely the background to do what they are trying to do.

If you want to judge a narrative objectively you must know the context of the same. All those videos are made by people that know anything at all about the context of the ME's narrative. Same goes for the majority of anti-enders. You can have an opinion about it, fine, but another thing is stating a judgment. If you do so you must have knowledge of the thing you are judging about before either beginning or all you write/say intelligent people with a little of knowledge will just discard immediately as "ignorant talking of things s/he doesn't either comprehend" (and then you insist "we" are condescending, you put yourself in a position that cannot be taken seriously and then you blame "us" for this).

All you anti-enders, in the majority, are people that know absolutely nothing of the context of all the narrative of ME and yet you pretend to judge it in its faults. While also some pro-enders are in the same position, they at last don't try to find faults in things they cannot have the knowledge about.

I've made countless topics about this fact, explaining all the context of the ME narrative in detail (for what I can do here); I've yet to see either one single of you (anti-enders) acknowledge the fact that you know anything about that and so you maybe (maybe) are not in a real position to judge anything at all. On the contrary I find these same people everytime insist that "nobody ever explained why the ending is not badly written", forgetting (naturally, it is convenient) the thing altogheter just a moment after.

So, let's talk about real things, want we?

Modifié par Amioran, 05 mai 2012 - 09:59 .

[SalsaDMA]

Amioran wrote...

So, let's talk about real things, want we?

Considered your history of posts, I find it humorous to see such a sentence from you.