179 réponses à ce sujet

[Michale_Jackson]

the ending was utterly hopeless and that in itself was bad,

and it wasn't at the end it was 3/4 into the game, in fact see social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11903729/1#11905246 , cause it's right when you see the Prothean VI on Thessia

where you realize you're pretty much doing a junk shot (BP Gulf spill ref) to save the galaxy. 


To equate this on lamen classic video game terms,

It would be if Nintendo designed Super Mario Bros 3 that by the time you get to the 8th World, Koopa Kindom, before that last area map that leads to King Koopa's castle, there would be a stage level where you must jump across the longest open pit ever, and it's near impossible, and by the time you get to King Koopa's castle you find that everyting's empty and Koopa's not there nor the Princess that you were to rescue.  Except a ghostly figure Toad appears telling you that he's the catalyst.

That's how Mass Effect 3's ending is.^^

[Hunter of Legends]

tMc Tallgeese wrote...

Nothing was wrong with the ending, though they could use a little more time on cutscenes and epilogue.

Incorrect.

What we were promised and what we were given were not the same. What we have gotten before is not what we got this time. There is of course the narrative plot holes and general laziness on the part of Bioware in the endings.

Thematically the endings are fine but that does not make the end result positive.

[Scimal]

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't follow this. The Crucible does whatever the Crucible does. And I don't quite see how continuing the cycle doesn't count as a separate choice.

Why does the Crucible do what it does? What limits it to those three choices? We're not given an answer, and it's not even clear if it's the Crucible, the Catalyst, or the Citadel that limits us to the three choices. It's implied the Catalyst - acting as the interface between the Crucible and the Citadel (power source and transmitter) - gives us the options, but it's logic for offering the specific three aren't given. If the Catalyst wasn't an A.I., the ending would be far more palatable. That way you could blame the programmer or designer of the Catalyst for only thinking up the three options, and it would prevent the cyclical logic of "an A.I. killing organics to prevent A.I.'s from killing organics." By giving the Catalyst intelligence, BioWare automatically took on the additional responsibility of explaining why it does things. If it doesn't, then the Catalyst's actions cannot be said to stem from reason.

The Red option doesn't solve the problem (doesn't end the cycle), destroys what's preventing the cycle from happening (the Reapers), and kills the very self-aware Catalyst (a living being). The Red option is little more than an "I told you so" from beyond the grave by the Catalyst, that's all.

If you believe you would sacrifice yourself to prove a point when you presumably have the capability to not do so and prove your point just as much, why risk your death at all? The Catalyst knows the Reapers will win in an outright war. Why aren't the three choices "Control, Synthesis, Forfeit"?

Again, the Catalyst isn't there to help Shepard. The Catalyst is there to prevent the cycle from happening. Shepard is little more than an ant which learned it was going to be stepped on in comparison to the Catalyst and the Reapers.

There are actually four choices if you've got the EMS points. Red, green, blue and none of the above -- don't use the Crucible at all and let the Reapers win.

Technically, sure. Of course, if you want your choice to have any long-term affect on the galaxy and organic life, you only have two.

What happens is exactly what is said to have happened. The genophage is/is not cured. The rachni exist/ become an indoctrinated slave race. The geth and quarians resolve their dispute in some fashion. The Reapers die/ are controlled/ (what happens to them in the green ending? I'll give you that one). All life in the galaxy is/is not transformed. The galaxy survives the Reaper invasion, with a fair amount of damage.

That's a pretty big list of accomplishments.

Accomplishments are not conclusions. The cycle of organics being enslaved or killed by synthetics takes longer than 50,000 years (because to prevent the cycle the Reapers act every 50,000 years before it happens). The timespan of all three Mass Effects is less than 5 years. Not even 1%. Barely 1% of 1% of the time required to make a conclusion about Shepard's actions.

SPOILERS!!!

Even the old man narration doesn't tell us what Shepard actually did. Since there isn't a time frame given for the old man's speech to the kid, it's entirely possible that the time for the cycle to occur hasn't happened yet. The old man could be telling Shepard's story 10,000 years after Shepard's death, and 43,000 years later the Ultra-Geth designed by Korgan descendants wipe out all organic life in the galaxy, finishing the cycle the Catalyst was trying to prevent.

So either the Catalyst presented an option which accomplished nothing but its own death - effectively offering to pointlessly commit suicide because an ant found its hiding spot, or it's lying about how the cycle of synthetics and organics operates - which means it was lying about the Reapers' existence and why it was killing organics.

Which one is right? Well, there's not enough evidence to support either one. Without a firm conclusion either way, the entire interaction with the Catalyst seems like a huge waste of time - and since it was the ultimate conclusion of the series, every interaction prior to the Catalyst in terms of defeating the Reapers was also a huge waste of time. Yes, you can savor the gameplay and interpersonal relationships, the exhileration of Ilos, the Suicide Mission - but in the end, there's absolutely no proof given whatsoever that Shepard actually changed things.

For all that's said, Shepard died doing nothing but delaying the rise of another synthetic race which will kill all organic life by a few years. Unless you chose Synthesis, which means that Shepard changed reality itself on a scale that's outside of comprehension - and the results of the change, again, aren't given. Why does Synthesis end the cycle? Because it combines synthetic and organic DNA into something new? What's to stop it from segregating again? The questions just pile on after that, especially if you know anything about genetics and basic Evolutionary theory.

So, yeah, that's why I think people are (rightfully) upset. The Catalyst doesn't offer believable logic for its actions, the options it presents are confusing when you start asking why it would offer them, and the game doesn't actually show the impact Shepard had on the cycle the Catalyst was trying to prevent if you choose to believe the Catalyst was correct.

Yes, you can sort of ignore certain questions, make up excuses for others, and perform impressive mental gymnastics that result in a more satisfactory conclusion - but you shouldn't have to. Explaining how things work is literally Sci-Fi 101 - Basics of Creating a Believable Story. Every decent Sci-Fi author knows that they need to have how stuff works and why stuff happens, even if it's for their benefit and is never addressed in the narrative. They do this because it can - even subconsciously - make the interactions more believable, and a better read in return.

I can screw up the entire ending, completely shatter the fragile narrative constructed around the Catalyst and the ending, with two questions:

1) Why does it present the option that does nothing but destroy itself?

and

2) What happens 60,000 years after Shepard's death?

If BioWare does not have answers to those two questions, then they have failed with the ending to ME3.

[Amioran]

Grimwick wrote...
No you haven't... Where are these miraculous words? Where is this famous gospel of evidence of yours?

Forgot all about the other thread? I see.

The miracolous selective memory I see from time and time again in this forum.

Grimwick wrote...
I don't like it because it doesn't make any sense and it actually doesn't fit the themes of the game. I'm sorry but when someone is as self-righteous and has such a large ego they cease to have any meaning in their words. The highlighted comment is appalling.

The only thing appaling is that you don't know absolutely anything about something (as you in this case) and yet you want to pass as an expert of the same. When someone that has a bit of experience on it tells you something about it the more intelligent behaviour would be to listen then check, instead you just close your hears and deny everything, based on what? Your assumed knowledge that you have not to begin with?

Grimwick wrote...
[On a side note I find it quite funny, especially with such spelling and grammatical mistakes coming from the muse of literature we have here]

English is not my mother language. If you want to speak in mine you will see I will make no errors at all.

Grimwick wrote...
No, I don't believe what you say because you have not provided any evidence and you are certainly not the objective arbitrater of the themes of ME.

I provided evidence, you just forgot it (as it always happen, causally) and also if I can not be the "objective arbitrer" I have surely much more knowledge on literature than you have, so I think I have a better chance at understand what's what in a narrative, don't you think?

Or do you really think that if you had never play chess in all your life you could pretend to teach a GM how to play?

Modifié par Amioran, 11 mai 2012 - 07:57 .

[beyondsolo]

Amioran wrote...

Grimwick wrote...
No you haven't... Where are these miraculous words? Where is this famous gospel of evidence of yours?

Forgot all about the other thread? I see.

The miracolous selective memory I see from time and time again in this forum.

Grimwick wrote...
I don't like it because it doesn't make any sense and it actually doesn't fit the themes of the game. I'm sorry but when someone is as self-righteous and has such a large ego they cease to have any meaning in their words. The highlighted comment is appalling.

The only thing appaling is that you don't know absolutely anything about something (as you in this case) and yet you want to pass as an expert of the same. When someone that has a bit of experience on it tells you something about it the more intelligent behaviour would be to listen then check, instead you just close your hears and deny everything, based on what? Your assumed knowledge that you have not to begin with?

Grimwick wrote...
[On a side note I find it quite funny, especially with such spelling and grammatical mistakes coming from the muse of literature we have here]

English is not my mother language. If you want to speak in mine you will see I will make no errors at all.

Grimwick wrote...
No, I don't believe what you say because you have not provided any evidence and you are certainly not the objective arbitrater of the themes of ME.

I provided evidence, you just forgot it (as it always happen, causally) and also if I can not be the "objective arbitrer" I have surely much more knowledge on literature than you have, so I think I have a better chance at understand what's what in a narrative, don't you think?

Or do you really think that if you had never play chess in all your life you could pretend to teach a GM how to play?

This again... You're just polemicizing what other people say instead of working with game material or secondary texts. You undermine your own alleged expertise with utter lack of knowledge about argumentative practice. Don't be surprised if people don't take your polemic rhetoric seriously. What you do is neither polite, nor is it good academic practice (if we've come so far as to throw expertise at each other).

I wonder why thse discussions always emerge on the Spoiler-free forum, though. It's specifically here where the forum rules essentially forbid us to properly reference game content to support our argumentation. References to game content are the only thing that prevents a discussion from veering off topic into a litany of "my opinion is better than yours because I can tear apart everything you said based on my supposedly superior intellect, never mind the game." ... Duh...

Modifié par beyondsolo, 11 mai 2012 - 10:24 .

[clipped_wolf]

Ignoring the broken promises and marketing lies, the break from the themes of victory against insurmountable odds, unity, a several more touchy-feely themes to a sudden order vs. chaos, fatalistic, defeatist theme is just grating.

[Amioran]

beyondsolo wrote...
This again... You're just polemicizing what other people say instead of working with game material or secondary texts.

The narrative IS game material. The narrative is what is being attacked. The narrative has a primary theme people that attack it have no knowledge upon. A theme is the context of a narrative and lacking the knowledge of the same you lack the context. You cannot judge a narrative objectively without taking in consideration the context.
 

beyondsolo wrote...
You undermine your own alleged expertise with utter lack of knowledge about argumentative practice.

I don't undermine anything at all. It is not me that pretend to judge a narrative without knowing the context.

beyondsolo wrote...
Don't be surprised if people don't take your polemic rhetoric seriously. What you do is neither polite, nor is it good academic practice (if we've come so far as to throw expertise at each other).

1. I've explained all I said detailedly and exposing evidences of why I said so.
2. I've explained why I'm in the position of knowing those things so that people can understand that I'm not "making it up".

If people are polite with me then I'm with them, and the contrary is true. I'm sorry but I cannot be polite with people that insist they know better without explanations and without background on the thing they are talking about. I cannot be polite with people that insist that I'm saying bulls*it without either reading what I write just because they don't care and then they either insult me at every turn.

After a while, you know, I bore of being treated badly by people that neither know of what they are talking about and have neither the humility to have an open mind on the things they say (that they know not to begin with).

beyondsolo wrote...
References to game content are the only thing that prevents a discussion from veering off topic into a litany of "my opinion is better than yours because I can tear apart everything you said based on my supposedly superior intellect, never mind the game." ... Duh...

I never did a thing as that. I always provided proof of what I say and I've done so in many threads.

It is just that it's much simpler to discard them and attack me personally on other things, removing them from the context. I never said that I'm superior to anybody else's or that my opinion is. I just said that I have a background that many people here don't have and so I know of what I'm talking about, only this and I only brought this up because people insisted that I was "making it all up" no matter what evidence I brought in support of it.

I make you a little summary:

Me: The narrative of ME has a primary theme behind that's called order vs. chaos.
Others: No, it's not.
Me: It is. It is foundable in all the narrative in many points (explaining all of them).
Other: No, it's not so. You are making it up.
Me: I'm not making anything up. I know the theme perfectly and I can recognize the same in the narrative. You don't know the theme, on the contrary, but you insist that you know better and that what I say is not true, on what basis?
Other: It's not how you say. You didn't bring up any evidence and you are not superior than me.
Me: I've brought you evidences before (I wasted pages and pages on it, on this and many other threads), and I'm just saying that you cannot tell me I'm making it up because I provided evidences and I know the theme and you don't. Why don't you try to have an open mind and check the theme yourself instead insisting that I'm wrong without motive?
Other: I cannot lose time to read your "wall of texts", who cares. Anyway it is wrong because the theme is not order vs. chaos and you are making it up. I have no need of having background on the theme to understand that what you say is wrong and you are making it up.
Me: Why if you insist I'm making it all up don't you post the same in a literature forum and see it for yourself? Why you pretend to be an expert in a thing you don't know?
Other: You are not superior than me. You don't know better. You have not brought any evidence of it.  (And the cycle continues, over and over).

Modifié par Amioran, 11 mai 2012 - 11:54 .

[poerksen]

Agree with Mr.Atomica and Scimal. Sorry Razman

I don't mind Shepard dying or having a bittersweet ending (ME3s ending is pure nihilism btw). Got the feeling that I might aswell have walked around the Normandy mercy-killing my entire crew. Did not see any happyness or sweetness anywhere. Going by the information given to us in the Codex, Arrival DLC etc..

I just want an ending that makes sense and fits the narrative. An ending that is not objectively bad.
Having to think up explanations for every little detail concerning the ending is just irritating. Why this and why that.... Before the catalyst showed up and presented it's three highly suspicious and illogical options, I had very few questions. After seeing the ending, I have a million questions and most of them are the wrong kind of questions to leave the player with.

I did not mind having to use my imagination to explain the reapers' actions or their potential origin. In fact I think that is what made them great villains. They were mysterious.

Furthermore, the game did not have multiple endings, as we were promised again and again.

Modifié par poerksen, 11 mai 2012 - 12:07 .

[beyondsolo]

Amioran wrote...

The narrative IS game material. The narrative is what is being attacked. The narrative has a primary theme people that attack it have no knowledge upon. A theme is the context of a narrative and lacking the knowledge of the same you lack the context. You cannot judge a narrative objectively without taking in consideration the context.

Yes, the narrative is game material. But without references to specific themes and aspects of said narrative we're just throwing abstract terms around. The point of argumentation is to decrease abstraction by making a point, not to take a point and abstract it until it has nothing to do with the context it originates from.
 

Amioran wrote...

I don't undermine anything at all. It is not me that pretend to judge a narrative without knowing the context.

Yes, you do. Of course you can deny it all you want, but your polemicizing is not as intimidating as you think. Your general goal appears to be to discredit everyone who disagrees with you on basis of their alleged inferiority in terms of intellect, knowledge, and experience. At no point do you provide evidence of how your opinion is more qualified. Note that emphasizing "narrative" and "context" ad infinitum is, once more, juggling with abstract terms with no clear reference. By your permanent use of abstraction you refuse to admit common ground in the discussion. Without common ground, you exclude yourself from the discussion and will therefore only meet resistance from anyone who critically considers what it is that you write.

Amioran wrote...
1. I've explained all I said detailedly and exposing evidences of why I said so.
2. I've explained why I'm in the position of knowing those things so that people can understand that I'm not "making it up".

There is only one single excuse in a discussion for not referencing something: that's when it's been agreed upon, canonized of sorts. Then you can assume that people will know what you're talking about. Until then, references to evidence provided somewhere else (I've read your posts on other threads, btw, especially those you recommended to me yourself) is worth nothing in a new discussion unless quoted or reiterated.

Amioran wrote...

If people are polite with me then I'm with them, and the contrary is true. I'm sorry but I cannot be polite with people that insist they know better without explanations and without background on the thing they are talking about. I cannot be polite with people that insist that I'm saying bulls*it without either reading what I write just because they don't care and then they either insult me at every turn.

Yes, I've seen that people don't tend to respond to you too well. However, I can only once more point you to critically exploring your own tone, which is decidedly polemic. That's no way to lead a discussion. I'm aware that you are not a native English speaker, so you may not realize that you come across as aggressive and often disrespectful. Also, this is not exclusively a problem with your linguistic competence but with your general practice of abstracting, decontextualizing, and ripping apart other people's statements.

Your way of saying things seems to be more harmful than beneficial to your own ideas.

Amioran wrote...
It is just that it's much simpler to discard them and attack me personally on other things, removing them from the context. I never said that I'm superior to anybody else's or that my opinion is. I just said that I have a background that many people here don't have and so I know of what I'm talking about, only this and I only brought this up because people insisted that I was "making it all up" no matter what evidence I brought in support of it.

I'm afraid that your background will only help you as far as it benefits your analysis and your way of presenting it. Beyond that, it's fairly useless on the internet. And as I said before, as relevant and insightful your ideas may be, your argumentation of them and any evidence you may provide is always overshadowed by your polemic style, which is more detrimental to whatever you're trying to say than anything else.

[SP2219]

1. The quality of production was extremely poor

2. The arguments presented in the ending were fallacious: appeals to probability, ad hominem, circular cause and effect

3. The plot devices used do not fit with the pre-established lore (retcons), the wirters forgot what they had previously written, or didn't bother to research the writings of their predecessors (Drew Karpyshyn)

4. The main themes are ignored completely, or contradicted

5. The protagonist (Shepard) contributes nothing to the outcome whatsoever - the player has no influence, only the Catalyst

6.  No exposition on the Catalyst, who they are, what their motives are, hence we can take nothing from it

7.  No exposition on the outcome of the story - no character reactions, no effects on setting, future events

8.  All foreshadowing and motives thrown out the window - no children with Liara, no house on Rannoch for Tali, no Beer with Garrus, yet they have nothing to say on the matter whatsoever!  So Liara, who fell in love with my Shepard, doesn't seem at all bothered that I'm dead?  

9.  Retcons, plot holes, contrivances everywhere.  Cains can suddenly blow up Reaper spiders, characters forget everything they've done in the past two games - the Conduit anyone? (retcon)  No one knows what the crucible does (stupidity), and what it can do makes no sense in the ME universe - space magic, merging DNA using EM fields (contrived), controlling machines posthumously (contrived), destroying a tube to activate a machine (contrived)

10.  All outcomes are the same regardless of player choice - the choice is false.  There are clearly more possible outcomes, yet we are not given the ability to explore those outcomes, because the writers were tired and wanted to go home.

11. Mass relays explode - yikes.  So is everyone dead?  Is everyone going to starve to death?  Just get off your lazy ass and answer the question please. 

12.  Grandfather/ grandson scene - seriously?  So this whole trilogy was just a bed time story?  You've got to be kidding.  So that kid is totally cool hearing about mutilated corpses coming back to life, and Shepard having sex with aliens and stuff?  Did the grandfather include all the expletives?  I guess that kid will be well versed in the F word by now.

13.  Buy DLC!  Incredibly insulting to everyone.  We were under the impression we were experiencing "a work of art" but this imporession is destroyed by the end message - "buy DLC."  So this is clearly a work of commerce.  Then Bioware claim it is a work of art, it clearly isn't.  You proved that with the DLC message - please buy more stuff from us, so we can make more money.

14.  We are suddenly transported back to the Normandy before the Cerberus base.  What?  How?  Were you really so lazy you couldn't be bothered to make this even remotely continuous?

15.  Generally endless questions, discontinuity, no coherent message, everything contradicts what came before it

All in all the worst attempt at an ending or any piece of valid storytelling I have ever seen.  

[Subject M]

The Razman wrote...

Subject M wrote...

A new character appears the last 10 minutes and NOTHING Shepard has achieved allows him or her to do anything except react to the outlandish alternatives as defined by the catalyst.

I can understand and even accept Shepard meeting "the Architect" (but should it not really have been much better if it was Harbinger, or Harbinger in disguise trying to trick Shepard before you expose the trick?) but the problem is that  not only are Shepard's agency gone (Shepard can not disproove the catalyst and send it and the Reapers packing, or simply somehow destroy it and with it the Reapers - as options should have been given certain accomplishments) and you have no clue what the choices you are offered really would mean, but what you do understand of the alternatives rhymes ill indeed with what many Shepard's out there fought for.

You keep using the word "alternatives". Alternatives to what, exactly? What was the original plan to destroy the Reapers that the Catalyst is offering "alternatives" to?

Huh? It has not much to do with any supposed "original plan to destroy the Reapers".

The catalyst gives you at the most 3 alternatives to solve the problem as it sees it, 3 new solutions.

Not only are the three solutions very hard to grasp the relevant meaning and consequences of  beyond that they either a) destroys synthetic life, merges synthetic life with organic life, or  c)controls the reapers (and that two of them does not seem to address the problem as defined by the catalyst, so one have to wonder why they are offered as solutions), but these alternatives and what comes across as their motivations does not reflect the thematic of the game or its possible achievements.

None of them offers a solution where the actions of Shepard and allies (or the combined actions of galactic history which Shepard i only a part of, for that matter ) changes the core problem or, if not enough has been done to adress the core problem and "break the cycle" allows the agressive elimination of this new unexpected adversary (the catalyst and with it, the reapers -if the catalyst in anyway is their weak spot).  These would be endings where Shepard have agency and an active influence on. What we have now is saying "I dont know" and being forced to play the game as outlined by the catalyst without having had a chance to solve the main problem ourselves and to build our own future.

[Trebor1969]

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? 

Just go and check/read the different threads in:  General Discussion, Story & Campaign and Support and u'll understand that there is not only the ending that was missed ... that why lot's of people are complaining even if the main focus is the ending ...

The ending is a kind of logic conclusion to the whole game itself ... (rushed, bugsy, less choices, choices do not matter, inconsistency, and so on ...)

Modifié par Trebor1969, 11 mai 2012 - 03:09 .

[Pockydon]

Watch this:

Watch the whole thing, very good video.

[KingJason13]

What's wrong!? How about a new character popping up during the last 5 minutes of a 100 hour story to wrap everything up with an underwritten, illogical, load of BS!!! That's what.

...Meaning the Writers LOST THE PLOT! (literally)

Modifié par KingJason13, 11 mai 2012 - 04:03 .

[Repearized Miranda]

www.facebook.com/photo.php This picture says it all: (Expletive present)

[Melra]

Nothing wrong with da endings, there's just a lot of peeps with wrong opinions.

[beyondsolo]

Melrache wrote...

Nothing wrong with da endings, there's just a lot of peeps with wrong opinions.

"Wrong opinions." Fascinating.

[Milan92]

Well technically the endings aren't bad because they are from Deus Ex and that game was awesome. The problem is that they don't fit the ME universe which will make them bad indeed.
 
I'm actually surprised that the Eidos Montreal hasn't filed a complaint towards Bioware for stealing their endings...

[harrier25699]

This question again....

@OP assuming you are not a troll then be glad you are ignorant of the problems plagueing the ending. Edifying yourself with the opinions of others will only serve to weaken your bond with the game. I'd also recommend taking the 5 seconds needed to register your copy of the game then we'll know you are not a troll or playing a pirated version.

Modifié par harrier25699, 11 mai 2012 - 04:28 .

[KingJason13]

Milan92 wrote...

Well technically the endings aren't bad because they are from Deus Ex and that game was awesome. The problem is that they don't fit the ME universe which will make them bad indeed.
 
I'm actually surprised that the Eidos Montreal hasn't filed a complaint towards Bioware for stealing their endings...

"Like"

[Repearized Miranda]

Melrache wrote...

Nothing wrong with da endings, there's just a lot of peeps with wrong opinions.

If there was nothing wrong with the endings than there is nothing wrong with the other aspects bring nit-picked about (gameplay, visuals/audio, etc ...)

If ME3 has the wrong opinons, the first two games had the "right" one.

Like/Right, Dislike/Wrong aren't exclusive.

I may like villians, but I'm not necessary right (or wrong) - if I follow there beliefs.

I may hate heroes, but they aren't wrong for believing everybody's worth saving because I don't.

Since you made that statement though: What exactly is the right opinion? Agreeing doesn't make it right as well as disagreeing doesn't make it wrong.

IT is a very popular theory for what occured, but most are tired of it being rammed down his or her throat; yet, I haven't seen any other theory or something more substantial than "It's complete bull!" It could be, but there's no explanation as to why - except it doesn't make sense.

Why or how doesn't it make sense? IT could be just as right, but still make no sense as can any other theory out there.

I've never witnessed a real debate of any kind where those opposed have said only "You're wrong!" (at least not without looking like an idiot doing it) Most often, there's evidence to prove it and much more than it doesn't make sense. The IT has no longer become a debate, but an argument and we know that they are clearly different terms.

If supporters can build it up and actually do the building - piece by piece - those who tear it down ought to do it in the same manner. Yes, tossing a wrecking ball, is the easiest of methods, but it isn't the best! Some against this theory do that; as I said though, it's easiest to bring out the wrecking ball.

If one side, tosses wrecking balls, evetually both sides will which has clearly happened and not just here.

[Getorex]

Oh my GAWD what a silly question. The ending was, de facto and inarguably, RETARDED. It contradicted the very same game you were just finishing! "All synthetics turn on their creators blah blah". Bullcrap! You just before this retard point proved EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

It came out of nowhere and totally dropped what was introduced in ME2. There was no starbastard in ME1, not even hinted at. No starsh*thead in ME2, not even hinted at. There was no starf*ck in ME3 until he popped out of the @ss of nowhere at the end! And then the little f*ck starts spouting objectively inarguable BULLCRAP. It was illogical on ALL levels. It was out of character for the ENTIRE series. It ended with ONE ending with a mere choice of colors to "change it up", it had people who DIED next to you pop out of the Normandy on planet Incest and SMILE(?!?! WTF!?)...perhaps thinking about all the incest and gangbanging they were going to be doing to populate an empty planet?

ALL your decisions, whether you played as renegade or paragon or mix from 1 to 2 to 3, all comes to ZERO and it all (ALL OF IT) gets wiped out and turned into feces. There was NO POINT to making a single decision at any prior point in the series, they are all equal - because when you get to the end they are ALL wiped away.

The game turns out to be about one thing and one thing only: a f*cking retarded starbastard and his sociopathic and psychopathic NONSENSE. They could have skipped the ENTIRE game series up to just before the final fight on earth and the game would have been better because there would have been nothing prior to contradict and throw away as they did with the ending. A fight and then the ending, that would have been all that was needed to close down this ridiculous game.

The ending objectively sucked on ALL levels that matter (logic, self-consistency, maturity level).

[KingJason13]

SP2219 wrote...

13.  Buy DLC!  Incredibly insulting to everyone.  We were under the impression we were experiencing "a work of art" but this imporession is destroyed by the end message - "buy DLC."  So this is clearly a work of commerce.  Then Bioware claim it is a work of art, it clearly isn't.  You proved that with the DLC message - please buy more stuff from us, so we can make more money.

Yep. 100 Hours of gaming ends with an advertisement for future dlc... That about sums up the Ea/Bioware paradigm.

[Grimwick]

Amioran wrote...

Forgot all about the other thread? I see.

The miracolous selective memory I see from time and time again in this forum.

What? Is this the thread in which you also declared that your opinion is the only correct one and in which you also provided no evidence? Just claiming you have the evidence somewhere doesn't mean you actually have. I wasted 10 minutes looking for this amazing thread of yours and i just found the same old story of "haha I know more than you, just believe what I say".

The only thing appaling is that you don't know absolutely anything about something (as you in this case) and yet you want to pass as an expert of the same. When someone that has a bit of experience on it tells you something about it the more intelligent behaviour would be to listen then check, instead you just close your hears and deny everything, based on what? Your assumed knowledge that you have not to begin with?

Oh dear goodness just listen to yourself... You claim i know absolutely nothing about narratives - how on earth can you justify that I know nothing? You don't know me. You don't know how intelligent someone is on the internet through any other means than what they say and so far I have provided evidence and logic for my opinion. I wish I could say the same for you.

Also, since when did I claim to be an expert? I didn't - I'm simply providing evidence to counter your claims which can be done by anyone who played the trilogy. You don't have to have a phd to understand a subject, nor be an expert. Also, just because you have previous 'experience' dosn't mean that I don't, nor does it make you right.

English is not my mother language. If you want to speak in mine you will see I will make no errors at all.

Then I think you should remember that ME is a piece of english narrative - although narrative principles remain the same you might not have the best understanding of the piece. You are at a severe disadvantage which certainly helps to negate your "expertise".

I provided evidence, you just forgot it (as it always happen, causally) and also if I can not be the "objective arbitrer" I have surely much more knowledge on literature than you have, so I think I have a better chance at understand what's what in a narrative, don't you think?

WHERE IS THIS EVIDENCE? It's useless if you don't repost it. As Beyondsolo has reminded us we are in the wrong forum for proper citation but that doesn't stop some aspects of evidence, it doesn't stop you from arguing your point more clearly, nor does it stop you from PMing me some of this apparent gold.

And you DON'T "surely" have more knowledge on literature. What on earth justifies you to say that?

Or do you really think that if you had never play chess in all your life you could pretend to teach a GM how to play?

Irrelevant. Chess is based on pure logic, there is little interpretation and little evidence or argument has to be provided. Literature requires justification and evidence which in fact means that anyone can be a master of literature if they  research it and provide evidence for their claims.
An expert in literature has no more valuable interpretations of a text - they are just often able to back up their interpretation with more evidence and more contextual knowledge. Something you haven't done in anything but gibberish.

[Sir Fluffykins]

I really shouldn't post again, but see the endings of ME1 and ME2.
Ignoring the brilliant Suicide mission part of ME2 which could result in companions dying, etc, look at the structure.

Geez no spoilers, um...

ME1: You "face" Saren at which point you're presented a choice. After you made the choice you get a cutscene followed by the final battle. Battle is then followed by cutscenes playing out your choice, an epilogue where you chose a council member and finally LONG credits to the Faunts M2 song

ME2: You "face" the eh...H-Reaper, at which point you're presented a choice. After you made the choice you get a cutscene followed by the final battle. Battle is then followed by cutscenes playing out your choice and after LONG credits you get an "interactive epilogue" where you can get lines from all your surviving crew and even continue the game with DLC.

ME3: You "face" TIM, you get cutscenes, you "face" a newly introduced character, at which point you're presented with a choice. After you'e made the choice you get a quick Cutscene showing imagery and "apparently" the results of your IMEDIATE actions.
VERY SHORT credits play and "FINAL NOTE" from stargazer and child - text box adds insult to injury stating that somehow Shepard is the hero, buy dlc.

Even people, like me, who took the TIM confrontation to mean some sort of mind games were going on, were left with no confirmation to one way or the other. People have very good theories on what happened but the game doesn't confirm who was right, it just ends.

There's 2 'acts' missing. The final confrontation, be it in chat or fighting and the epilogue

No one wants to reach the CONCLUSION OF A TRILOGY AND GET REWARDED WITH AN ADVERT instead of closure. I didn't even know about the 16 promised endings until I came here to express my displeasure.

That said, X-END should explain things so I'm waiting for it...patiently -cause I'd prefer it to be done slow and right instead of a quick-fix.

Modifié par Sir Fluffykins, 11 mai 2012 - 04:58 .