179 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

The Razman wrote...

It really, really isn't a legitimate argument. The day we start treating "That story made me sad, so it should be changed" as a legitimate argument in any conversation is the day we should all shoot ourselves.

If you can't see the sweet because you're obsessed with the bitter, then that's really not the writer's problem. The sweet is there; you beat the Reapers, you save the galaxy, you save your love interest's life and the lives of your crew. All of that happens, and all of that is sweet. If you're saying "that's not sweet, because this bad thing also happened" ... then I think you might have missed the point of the word "bittersweet".

Sorry, I can't agree with that at all. The bitter is huge, the sweet is very small and are entirely distant and non-personal to the character. It's certainly a horribly bitter victory for the LI who's probably going to get plunged into depression. It's very much the writer's problem if lots of people think they've screwed up. If it was impossible to complete ME2 without losing several crewmembers but was otherwise the same then that would be a bittersweet result.

There's a place for sad and it's somewhere where it's always fitted in with the tone of story. When I read an Iain Banks novel I'm surprised if it doesn't end with most of the characters dead and a rather hollow victory yet it doesn't annoy me because it's consistent. Ditto even more so with Stephen Donaldson. I'll be amazed if anyone comes out alive when the last Thomas Covenant book is published. But with Mass Effect there was, until the end, always the chance of triumph over the odds and a personal victory too for the hero even if there was pain along the way. Complaints about that are entirely legitimate.

Modifié par Reorte, 10 mai 2012 - 10:21 .

[lillitheris]

tomp10 wrote...
 i dident think the end was to bad, it just needed more details on what happed after the current ending(i understand biowere's doing this now). 

I love how often this argument goes unchallenged. BioWare is only clarifying the ending because we were so upset about it.

[Mr.House]

Turians and Quarians can't eat the same food as humans/asari ect and vise versa.

[Father_Jerusalem]

legion999 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

The Razman wrote...

legion999 wrote...

Some does not equal all. (S)he was stating that everyone who disliked the ending because it wasn't happy.

That doesn't matter. The statement "lack of happy ending isn't people's main problem" was made.

There's a serious tendancy to play down the opinions of those who didn't like it because it was depressing in favour of "legitimate" arguments.

Lack of a happy ending is a legitimate reason to want a different ending. And it is certainly one of the reasons I hate it.

It may have been quoted and cited many times before but JK Rwoling changed the ending to Harry Potter to please the fans in this respect.

A lot of people are annoyed by the unhappiness because it was described as 'bittersweet' by the developers, only to turn out just bitter. Endings that are just bitter need to actually lead to that conclusion in order for it to work on a narrative, emotional and thematic level. ME didn't do that.

It really, really isn't a legitimate argument. The day we start treating "That story made me sad, so it should be changed" as a legitimate argument in any conversation is the day we should all shoot ourselves.

If you can't see the sweet because you're obsessed with the bitter, then that's really not the writer's problem. The sweet is there; you beat the Reapers, you save the galaxy, you save your love interest's life and the lives of your crew. All of that happens, and all of that is sweet. If you're saying "that's not sweet, because this bad thing also happened" ... then I think you might have missed the point of the word "bittersweet".

What the actual **** at the bolded part. Also why can't one of the endings be happy? Having variety in the endings would be good no? And my squadmates starving to death is not sweet.

I don't like the ending of Titanic and having all those people die. It made me sad. James Cameron should change it.

Extreme example? Yes. But you don't have the right to demand someone change something THEY made because YOU are sad. 

Glancing around my room right now, looking at my movie collection, I see many many movies with bittersweet endings and I'm quite happy with them. Sometimes adding an uberhappy ending to something would do more harm than good.

[ObserverStatus]

tomp10 wrote...
whats so bad about about the ending? 

everything.

[Mr.House]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

I don't like the ending of Titanic and having all those people die. It made me sad. James Cameron should change it.

Extreme example? Yes. But you don't have the right to demand someone change something THEY made because YOU are sad. 

Glancing around my room right now, looking at my movie collection, I see many many movies with bittersweet endings and I'm quite happy with them. Sometimes adding an uberhappy ending to something would do more harm than good.

Titantic was based on a real event, ME3 is not, so that is a horrible example.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Mr.House wrote...

Turians and Quarians can't eat the same food as humans/asari ect and vise versa.

No. Really? I never knew that.

The Normandy has a supply of food for the entire crew, we see one very small section of the planet so who's to say what else is on this planet, and the possibilty of rescue is extremely likely, but... you'd choose to believe they starve to death anyway? Really?

[Father_Jerusalem]

Mr.House wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

I don't like the ending of Titanic and having all those people die. It made me sad. James Cameron should change it.

Extreme example? Yes. But you don't have the right to demand someone change something THEY made because YOU are sad. 

Glancing around my room right now, looking at my movie collection, I see many many movies with bittersweet endings and I'm quite happy with them. Sometimes adding an uberhappy ending to something would do more harm than good.

Titantic was based on a real event, ME3 is not, so that is a horrible example.

Don't care. Made me sad. Change it.

[The Razman]

Reorte wrote...

There's a place for sad and it's somewhere where it's always fitted in with the tone of story. When I read an Iain Banks novel I'm surprised if it doesn't end with most of the characters dead and a rather hollow victory yet it doesn't annoy me because it's consistent. Ditto even more so with Stephen Donaldson. I'll be amazed if anyone comes out alive when the last Thomas Covenant book is published. But with Mass Effect there was, until the end, always the chance of triumph over the odds and a personal victory too for the hero even if there was pain along the way. Complaints about that are entirely legitimate.

That argument implies that every story must lock itself into a predefined and restrictive set of conventions early on which it cannot stray from. I reject that notion entirely; nothing can ever surprise us if that's true.

[Mr.House]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Turians and Quarians can't eat the same food as humans/asari ect and vise versa.

No. Really? I never knew that.

The Normandy has a supply of food for the entire crew, we see one very small section of the planet so who's to say what else is on this planet, and the possibilty of rescue is extremely likely, but... you'd choose to believe they starve to death anyway? Really?

1:Supplies won't last forever
2:The odds of that planet having both food types is 0.0001%
3:No one knows wheret he ship is, FTL takes a long time and the relays are goen so by teh time a rescue does happen most of the crew will have died from animals, hunger, in fighting or other stuff.

[Fiery Phoenix]

@Father and Razman: You two are either the same person or are sitting literally two feet away from one another. I refuse to believe otherwise.

[Sunnie]

tomp10 wrote...

 so many people are upset with the ending of ME3,  however i injoyed the game. i dident think the end was to bad, it just needed more details on what happed after the current ending(i understand biowere's doing this now). so what is it people dont like about the ending apart from details? 

Ever watched/seen a train wreck?

[Father_Jerusalem]

Mr.House wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Turians and Quarians can't eat the same food as humans/asari ect and vise versa.

No. Really? I never knew that.

The Normandy has a supply of food for the entire crew, we see one very small section of the planet so who's to say what else is on this planet, and the possibilty of rescue is extremely likely, but... you'd choose to believe they starve to death anyway? Really?

1:Supplies won't last forever
2:The odds of that planet having both food types is 0.0001%
3:No one knows wheret he ship is, FTL takes a long time and the relays are goen so by teh time a rescue does happen most of the crew will have died from animals, hunger, in fighting or other stuff.

FTL does NOT take a long time. FTL is faster than Warp 9 in Star Trek, FTL is 12 light years per day. They are somewhere in the vicinity of Earth, depending on where they were heading when it crashed, and they have come out with these newfangled inventions called "distress beacons". The chances of rescue are extremely likely.

Some people think of the ending of everyone starves to death and dies. I think of it as a bunch of guys who just fought in a war getting some unexpected shore leave and hanging out on a beach drinking little umbrella drinks.

And I thought *I* was a pessimist.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

@Father and Razman: You two are either the same person or are sitting literally two feet away from one another. I refuse to believe otherwise.

You have no opinion worth noting, all you do is try to disparage posters you don't agree with by making snide personal comments toward them. I refuse to believe otherwise. Except, you know, in my case I have evidence to back me up, so...

[Reorte]

The Razman wrote...

Reorte wrote...

There's a place for sad and it's somewhere where it's always fitted in with the tone of story. When I read an Iain Banks novel I'm surprised if it doesn't end with most of the characters dead and a rather hollow victory yet it doesn't annoy me because it's consistent. Ditto even more so with Stephen Donaldson. I'll be amazed if anyone comes out alive when the last Thomas Covenant book is published. But with Mass Effect there was, until the end, always the chance of triumph over the odds and a personal victory too for the hero even if there was pain along the way. Complaints about that are entirely legitimate.

That argument implies that every story must lock itself into a predefined and restrictive set of conventions early on which it cannot stray from. I reject that notion entirely; nothing can ever surprise us if that's true.

No, it just means that the tone shouldn't jarringly change. To pick an extreme example starting as a comedy and ending as a tragedy doesn't work, or vice-versa (except in perhaps very skilled hands). It's especially true if you risk creating unexpected unpleasant emotions.

Surprise just for the sake of it is worthless

[Foxhound2121]

No closure. It's not an ending. It tells you nothing about wtf just happened.

It's kind of like this www.youtube.com/watch

[jakenou]

Truthfully, what irks me most about the end is the simple issue of not being able to get the so-called "best ending" by single player alone. This kind of encompasses everything that went wrong with the game to me. I also have philosophical issues with the way the ending was executed, and question the storytelling choices that were made, but it still sickens me the most that we don't get a full game from single player alone.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

@Father and Razman: You two are either the same person or are sitting literally two feet away from one another. I refuse to believe otherwise.

You have no opinion worth noting, all you do is try to disparage posters you don't agree with by making snide personal comments toward them. I refuse to believe otherwise. Except, you know, in my case I have evidence to back me up, so...

Right on. It's far too obvious for me not to note, though. You can keep telling yourself whatever, but I know *something* is up with you two. And you're not going to convince me otherwise no matter how you spin it.

[Reorte]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

FTL does NOT take a long time. FTL is faster than Warp 9 in Star Trek, FTL is 12 light years per day. They are somewhere in the vicinity of Earth, depending on where they were heading when it crashed, and they have come out with these newfangled inventions called "distress beacons". The chances of rescue are extremely likely.

Unless you went in with a very low EMS but then the implication is that the crash was fatal anyway.

I probably agree with you on this but there's simply not enough detail to be sure (and the stargazer scene doesn't help, whilst also not being conclusive about anything). This will hopefully be an EC clearup.

[Foxhound2121]

slyguy200 wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

@Father
and Razman: You two are either the same person or are sitting literally
two feet away from one another. I refuse to believe otherwise.

Wouldn't suprise me.

Just don't say the word Tsunami

Modifié par Foxhound2121, 10 mai 2012 - 10:41 .

[Bocks]

It was lazy, rushed, contrived, idiotic and demolished all the established lore of the franchise, retroactively sapping all of the fun I had with ME1 and ME2. I wish I was joking.

Anyone who settles for this isn't a true fan of the Mass Effect series, in my opinion.

[Deihjan]

1. unexplained star child who is suddenly this fabled Catalyst. I had honestly imagined we'd be looking for, I dunno, a palladium bolt or a magical unicorn horn. Seriously, a ghost child that oddly enough looks like the kid who died on Earth and has been haunting your dreams ever since.
2. How the feck did Anderson make it to the Citadel, let alone survive more than Shepard seemingly made it through.
3. The citadel having that area Shepard lands in - what the HELL is it used for, anyways? I thought the reapers were harvesting humans to make human reapers, their form for reproduction.
4. The Illusive Man - what the dealio was up with his face, and how the heck could he suddenly control Anderson AND Shepard, when neither had an explainable connection to Reaper tech.
4. b - If TIM put Reaper tech inside Shepard during The Lazarus Project, wouldn't Harbinger have been able to defeat Shep all the times he tried to kill us?
5. Why the bloody hell would TIM put Reaper tech inside himself in the first place. The man was SMART. BEYOND smart. He's the fukken Illusive man. I mean, COME ON. Okay, if you put the blame onto the object from Evolution, then TIM should have cracked in ME2.
5.b If that's the reason, then why did no one object to TIM being batsh!t insane?
6. How the f..could ANYONE think that ending was acceptable? Not even Saren, who, if we take what happened in Evolution as fact why TIM did what he did, would have accepted Synthesis. Maybe he would be dumb enough to try to control the Reapers, but then again, he would openly fail. Look at what happened to those that came into direct contact with the object. They lost their minds. TIM and Saren came into indirect control with it, and they started seeing things. I believe that they possibly started hearing whispers, too, a la indoctrination, but this theory is still lacking and is a very, very poor retcon.

[ArthurVon]

Mass Effect 3 is not a Mario Bros sequel.