1917 réponses à ce sujet

[Robhuzz]

Seival wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

Xellith wrote...

IndridColdx wrote...

this is garbage

seconded.

Thirded

Fourthed.

I'm sorry OP, it's a nice idea to make this thread and all but that scene is outright disgusting and is an insult to the ME series.

I will not accept the idea that ME turns into some cheap Adam & Eve allegory.

My theory actually proves the scene is not a "cheap Adam & Eve allegory". You don't believe that crash-test was what BioWare really meant by the scene?

I believe BioWare has a monkey for a company mascotte and they asked him to write the ending because every other person on the team was busy rushing the game out the door before EA's ridiculous deadline. Now that would make a lot more sense...

[DiebytheSword]

Wow, if this were true, and that is an enormous if, it would be a case for some of the worst storytelling ever made.

[SackofCat]

For what it's worth, I found your "what kind of message" post whimsical and pretty funny.

[Bebuse]

It's a testament to how shockingly atrocious the ME3 ending is that I genuinely cannot tell if this is supposed to be a joke.

[Landon7001]

I will admit i actually liked the look, feel and music of the scene and my ash was alive!....but honestly only in a bubble.....when viewed in context with the rest of the franchise it still fakls apart just like always

[M Hedonist]

Seival wrote...

Why? Maybe because they wanted to make a game that requires a lot of thinking to understand (like a well-written complicated book). Maybe because a huge number of players complain that thay've got tired of non-instructive, standard, boring and completely predictable endings that 99.99% of games have nowdays?

Oh yeah. I remember somebody once saying the ending was like a fine piece of art, it'd make more sense the more you look at it. I'd rather compare it to a really abstract painting somebody has cutten holes into. You only get the whole picture if you make a bunch of baseless assumptions.
There's really no reason your assumptions hold more weight than any other... but I guess we'll see in the EC.
Oh, and your theory breaks the whole narrative.

SackofCat wrote...

I see. Then I apologize Sauraz an am a little embarrassed.

It's ok
Just stop calling me Saurez and Sauraz

Modifié par Sauruz, 06 juin 2012 - 08:02 .

[SackofCat]

My online forum ettiquete(sp) is a work in progress...

[SackofCat]

My spelling too.

[Seival]

Sauruz wrote...

Seival wrote...

Why? Maybe because they wanted to make a game that requires a lot of thinking to understand (like a well-written complicated book). Maybe because a huge number of players complain that thay've got tired of non-instructive, standard, boring and completely predictable endings that 99.99% of games have nowdays?

Oh yeah. I remember somebody once saying the ending was like a fine piece of art, it'd make more sense the more you look at it. I'd rather compare it to a really abstract painting somebody has cutten holes into. You only get the whole picture if you make a bunch of baseless assumptions.
There's really no reason your assumptions hold more weight than any other... but I guess we'll see in the EC.
Oh, and your theory breaks the whole narrative.

SackofCat wrote...

I see. Then I apologize Sauraz an am a little embarrassed.

It's ok
Just stop calling me Saurez and Sauraz

How do you think my theory will break the whole narrative? Do you really think BioWare wanted to destroy Mass Relays once and for all so all future games in this universe will not have them? Very doubtful.

...As far as I remember, BioWare confirmed that EC will have clues that Mass Relays can be reconstructed/reactivated. If so, the game might already have such clues, which I described in my theory.

[Shepard Wins]

[Archontor]

To the poster above me. Lol.

[M Hedonist]

Seival wrote...

How do you think my theory will break the whole narrative?

It breaks the narrative because you're suggesting there's a sudden, unmentioned chronological jump within a sequence that clearly suggests what we're seeing is chronologically connected to each other. As others have pointed out, it's a story telling failure.
Take IT for example. It gives a reason why people feel so weirded out by the ending. Your theory requires one to look at the narrative from an entirely different perspective. Where almost everybody sees Joker fleeing from the battle or from the Mass Relay explosions, you see something that is completely unrelated to what happened before.

Modifié par Sauruz, 06 juin 2012 - 09:02 .

[Seival]

Sauruz wrote...

Seival wrote...

How do you think my theory will break the whole narrative?

It breaks the narrative because you're suggesting there's a sudden, unmentioned chronological jump within a sequence that clearly suggests what we're seeing is chronologically connected to each other. As others have pointed out, it's a story telling failure.
Take IT for example. It gives a reason why people feel so weirded out by the ending. Your theory requires one to look at the narrative from an entirely different perspective. Where almost everybody sees Joker fleeing from the battle or from the Mass Relay explosions, you see something that is completely unrelated to what happened before.

I disagree that unmentioned chronological jumps are always story telling failure. Such jumps could be made to force players to watch and analize, instead of just watching and taking everything in the most simple way.

...Well, and "IT" actually was such an attempt to take everything in the most simple way. "IT" means "We don't understand the endings, and don't want to try. So the entire ending was just a hallucination, and never happened".

[o Ventus]

Seival wrote...

I disagree that unmentioned chronological jumps are always story telling failure. Such jumps could be made to force players to watch and analize, instead of just watching and taking everything in the most simple way.

You're failing your job as a story teller if you're forcing your audience to squint and analyze non-existent details in the FINAL 5 MINUTES OF THE FALLING ACTION.

[Taboo]

o Ventus wrote...

Seival wrote...

I disagree that unmentioned chronological jumps are always story telling failure. Such jumps could be made to force players to watch and analize, instead of just watching and taking everything in the most simple way.

You're failing your job as a story teller if you're forcing your audience to squint and analyze non-existent details in the FINAL 5 MINUTES OF THE FALLING ACTION.

That's basic stuff there. They teach you this in high school.

Someone thought they were being clever.

No, you aren't clever when you deaviate from basic elements, you're a fool.

The writing is AWFUL.

[Seival]

o Ventus wrote...

Seival wrote...

I disagree that unmentioned chronological jumps are always story telling failure. Such jumps could be made to force players to watch and analize, instead of just watching and taking everything in the most simple way.

You're failing your job as a story teller if you're forcing your audience to squint and analyze non-existent details in the FINAL 5 MINUTES OF THE FALLING ACTION.

Actually quite opposite... If you hide something moving it from the "surface" deep into the "subtext", forcing readers to think, then you are excellent writer.

...BioWare has excellent writers team.

[o Ventus]

Seival wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Seival wrote...

I disagree that unmentioned chronological jumps are always story telling failure. Such jumps could be made to force players to watch and analize, instead of just watching and taking everything in the most simple way.

You're failing your job as a story teller if you're forcing your audience to squint and analyze non-existent details in the FINAL 5 MINUTES OF THE FALLING ACTION.

Actually quite opposite... If you hide something moving it from the "surface" deep into the "subtext", forcing readers to think, then you are excellent writer.

...BioWare has excellent writers team.

Except there's NOTHING THERE IN THE SUBTEXT. They handed it to us pretty straightforward, you're grasping at straws.

lol @ Bioware's team being "excellent". Walters alone invalidates that statement.

[JaceBelerin]

This is a troll right...

I mean...seriously!

[Vox Draco]

Seival wrote...
Actually quite opposite... If you hide something moving it from the "surface" deep into the "subtext", forcing readers to think, then you are excellent writer.

...BioWare has excellent writers team.

You are aware that this hiding from the surface and subtext forcing readers to think has directly lead to the birth of IT? But of course it is stupid because you don't believe it might be true...and rather come up with a theory of your own that is...well...more based on assumptions than that dream-trees from IT...?

Yeah...I like that...

[Taboo]

 Walters writing is gutter snipe dog food compared to films like Stalker and Solaris.

Those are the true masterpieces of speculative Science Fiction.

Watch some clips here.

[Jenonax]

Seival wrote...


Actually quite opposite... If you hide something moving it from the "surface" deep into the "subtext", forcing readers to think, then you are excellent writer.

...BioWare has excellent writers team.

Name one example where a chronological jump that has no context and no reason to be happening in the final moments of a trilogy or series where it has never happened before has ever, ever worked.

[Seival]

Vox Draco wrote...

Seival wrote...
Actually quite opposite... If you hide something moving it from the "surface" deep into the "subtext", forcing readers to think, then you are excellent writer.

...BioWare has excellent writers team.

You are aware that this hiding from the surface and subtext forcing readers to think has directly lead to the birth of IT? But of course it is stupid because you don't believe it might be true...and rather come up with a theory of your own that is...well...more based on assumptions than that dream-trees from IT...?

Yeah...I like that...

No, I think that readers' laziness leaded to the birth of "IT" actually.

[o Ventus]

Seival wrote...

Vox Draco wrote...

Seival wrote...
Actually quite opposite... If you hide something moving it from the "surface" deep into the "subtext", forcing readers to think, then you are excellent writer.

...BioWare has excellent writers team.

You are aware that this hiding from the surface and subtext forcing readers to think has directly lead to the birth of IT? But of course it is stupid because you don't believe it might be true...and rather come up with a theory of your own that is...well...more based on assumptions than that dream-trees from IT...?

Yeah...I like that...

No, I think that readers' laziness leaded to the birth of "IT" actually.

Reader laziness?

If digging back through the 1st and 2nd (and into the 3rd) games for any evidence or implications of Shepard maybe-possibly being indoctrinated by the end of the 3rd game is lazy, then I have no faith for the future of our species.

Really. The IT is the antithesis of a lazy audience. Hell, the outlandishness of the idea defeats the meaning of the word "lazy". For people to go through ALL THAT WORK to find evidence is NOT lazy.

Modifié par o Ventus, 06 juin 2012 - 10:25 .