250 réponses à ce sujet

[DeamonSlaz]

I never got into Mass Effect when it was released. When ME 2 was being sold, I wasn't into it. It was not until I played a fan based forum text roleplaying game that I felt compelled to know more about this new and unexplored science fiction. Then I saw how Biotics were portrayed and went: Oh yeah they even got techno -sorcery! Awesome! Whoa and would you look, Blue skinned chicks and you get laid, I am Captain Kirk.

I played ME as a soldier class and immediately was bought. My choices felt real and the Paragon/Renegade system felt very natural. What type of Human are you? How do you want Sheppard, a growing symbol of what Humanity is, to be viewed? Is he a tough nut who doesn't believe in preserving life and getting things done regardless of the over arcing consequences or is he a caring soul who believes every race should work together? Mass Effect sold itself, in the gameplay, in the story telling and various other aspects.

Mass Effect 2 took the gameplay inwards. Suddenly it was not your actions directly affecting the entire universe, but the respect and comradeship of your team. So much time and effort was put into developing each character, their back story and various other aspects you occasionally forget the Collectors were the real threat. It was involving and I still have fond memories of Mordin, Miranda and her sister, and other key scenes that built a connection to these characters. Hell even Ashley, my first game love interest, telling me to buzz off hurt. It hurt so bad Sheppard cried hard into Miranda's chest lol.

Then Mass Effect 3 was released. I bought it on release day and well, yeah what can I say? I was not really enthusiastic about playing it like I was Mass Effect 2. It didn't initially grasp me because I was restricted again. All of the map was slowly closed off and oh side missions you get can't be completed till this star system is open and even then you only have this much time to do it...it became confusing. Heck it was just simpler to play the storyline missions and ignore most of the fetch quests 'less you were in the area and could scan before every Reaper was on you. Yeah I was like: wow this is my Mass Effect.

Yes the storyline did grip me. Fond memories of the Thresher Maw attacking the Reaper, awesome scene with Mordin's sacrifice, and really compelling game play with facing down a Reaper and a orbital targeting laser, but then, Priority: Cerebrus. It just .........

This is where I get sticky and begin to feel sick. It is at that moment I go to Earth I know the game was rushed. It was all going to hell at that point.

Could Mass Effect spawned forth a movie, a book series based around various other races, and continued to develop a hundred and one different games based around the first 2 games, the Reaper War and maybe a few games set after? Yes I do think Mass Effect could have achieved this and more. However, Bioware not carefully crafting a well developed ending is what killed the game. The Three Choices make little sense and are forced upon you in an almost unnatural way.

Why even bother to have Tali investigated a sun that is about to explode for no reason in ME 2? Didn't anyone else get a sneaky feeling that was going to be a re-occurring point in ME 3? Some much was hinted at by ME 2 that was just left untouched. It almost like ME 3 was made separate from ME 2 and just failed to do anything with the potential.

For the fans being divided. I'm sorry that it came to this, but we can all smile in the fact we enjoyed the games. Yes Sheppard is either dead or alive and you are free to dream up your own endings. However, Bioware just failed to meet any expectation. I really think they need to wonder if they even reached their own?

[Zacatus88]

Kunari801 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Mass Effect was never close to being 'our generations' epic cultural product. Halo has a better claim to being one of the most famous/influential video game series in the last decade and a half.

Mass Effect's claim was in its ambitious trilogy-RPG attempt, and its blending of action-shooter and RPG genres. Except a lot of the RPG fans never accepted that either, and thought it was the weakness of the series.

I came into Mass Effect from the RPG side and never understood the complaints about the "action-shooter" side of ME.  It was a great blend, ME was easy enough as a shooter on lowest setting if necessary but I got through Normal easy enough. 

I'm one of the few that FPS give me vertigo and make me dizzy quickly.  I can't play a FPS for long before I get dizzy and a headache.  
ME does at times too but it's worth it!   I can even do a few rounds of MP before I get sick. 

Yea I never understood why people have been complaing about the shooter elements of Mass effect. Mass effect 1 is fun but the combat is basically the same over all 3 games except it just gets better. ME 1 your slow, the combat is clunky, and cover is nigh impossibe to get into. ME 2 your still slow but the cover system is better and it doesnt take til like level 20 to be able to shoot accurately. ME 3 is the best combat wise since its more fluid and Shepard can get around the battlefield easier (I did think Insanity was too easy tho). Mass Effect is a 3rd person RPG shooter and there are not many of those (if any), so they did the best they could and I thought it was awesome.

[The Angry One]

ArchDuck wrote...

I mean even Peter "I make things up" Molyneux doesn't do that.

Peter's problem is that he goes overboard in explaining what he plans before the fact, then whatever he does make never lives up to his exagerrations.
The fact that Hudson and others lied to us after the game was essentially complete makes it far, far worse.

Modifié par The Angry One, 06 juin 2012 - 06:43 .

[3DandBeyond]

People that cannot or will not see that certain promises were made and left unfulfilled (ABC endings, vastly different endings based on how you played), endings that answered every question, and so on are being disingenuous. The game itself implied certain things, but the devs stated specific things. I played a game where characters figured prominently and where the reapers were the antagonists. Instead, I got an ending where characters are absent (even Shepard took a hike) and a glowing star kid is in my mind the antagonist and what some others think is the savior of all life itself.

I discuss things rationally and say the ending falls flat because it insults the player in its assertions, and yet it was supposed to answer logical questions not raise some brain melting thoughts. It is space magic times infinity. And each of the so-called sacrificial awesome choices are abhorrent. Godhood, slavery, and genocide. Yes, please end all games with this. That's what ME promised. The great Shepard would be forced to choose between godhood, slavery, and genocide. Yippee.

When games are released they are imbued with intangibles but those are considered real values that you pay for. Replayability is one of those things. ME3 needed to have the promised widely varied endings in order to be replayable, but it doesn't. I can't get anything much different no matter how many times I play it. That was promised. How often have we seen it said that we should play again as a different Shepard? Why? I can smash my head with a brick or a rock, but I'm pretty sure what will happen each time.

What we have here is a bunch of stuff thrown together that is called an ending, but they couldn't even decide which cliche it would follow. Deus ex, shaggy god, space Jesus, pick just one for heaven sake.

And oh, please don't tell me those goodbye phone calls in London were everything you hoped for in an ending. A real epilogue, with context for WTF just happened, not Joker crashing on a jungle planet in the hopes that he and Garrus or EDI will find a way to make babies.

The ending didn't even make sense based upon what has occurred within the 3 games-2 instances of what the destruction of a mass relay would mean for a star system. So, excuse me if I think someone who didn't even know the story or play the games wrote the ending.

As it is, we were in fact promised an ending. We didn't get one. We got a mess of stuff thrown against the wall, like someone opened a bunch of SF books and ripped out pages and threw them up in the air and then tried to make an ending out of what landed face up. It's the Matrix, nope it's Deus ex II, nope, even the Wizard of Oz, and so on. It borrows from so many lazy SF themes that others did better it's no wonder people hate it and feel lied to. This isn't an appropriate ending to this game because it's the ending of another game or story.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 06 juin 2012 - 07:13 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

IMO the writers of the ending made sure that ME3 will be forgotten. The Mass Effect series will be forgotten. Because "art".

The one saving grace for the series right now is the multiplayer. I know... I'm speaking sacrilege on a RPG board, but it's true. It's damned true. If it weren't for the MP the game would have gone into the bargain bin. I'm seeing new players entering nightly. I'm seeing people who have had the game since the beginning nightly. It's easy to find a match, and I'm hoping this trend continues at least until the EC is out.

I'm hoping the EC is really really good. I'm hoping that EA sees that this franchise is a money maker by looking at ME2 and initial sales of ME3, and actually does something positive with it for a change instead of what I've seen happen to other franchises of theirs.

My question to Hudson and Walters is "Why? Why did you do this to the ending? Nevermind that, Why did you do this to the story?" Did they hate us that much? Is this a pissing contest with EA's deadline setting policy and we're stuck in the middle of it? But indications are this ****ty ending was planned.

I've come up with four possible alternatives that are better. I've read at least two dozen more here that are better. We don't get paid for this. Was it that difficult to figure out a better ending? No.

Bottom line? This is a pissing contest and we're stuck in the middle of it. It is so illogical to trash an entire franchise like this. Even if you liked the ending, you do have to admit it could have been executed a lot better. There are things you just don't do. I know what they'd say. "We introduced the catalyst. You were dreaming about it. You just didn't know it.?" There wasn't enough ryncol on Tuchanka to get Shepard to buy that.

"Fill in the blanks with your imagination." I remember this line vividly. This is an excuse for bad writing. Yes there are going to be blanks. Just not blanks that have a giant sucking sound to them. Sure you want to leave your audience discussing the game, and you want them discussing the philosophical ramifications of their decisions. What you don't want is them discussing "what the **** just happened?"

You don't want to leave people like that. That's a mind **** without resolution, and I hate writers who do that.

People here have talked about the "Disney Ending". Walt Disney was the king of the bittersweet ending. Something bitter always happened (remember when Old Yeller died?), but he always left you with hope. I don't know how he got remembered for the "happy all is well ending". I think it's because the movies were "family entertainment."

And what's wrong with have the trilogy have one ending where Shepard survives and gets reunited with his/her LI and all that rot? Nothing. It's still a bittersweet ending. Just look around at the state of things.

So no I don't think anything was sacrified for short term profits. I think what we got was a pissing contest between the lead writers and marketing/sales, and we got stuck in the middle of it. The "artistic integrity" was a bull**** line thrown out to cover asses. The EC is an attempt to fix this, and that's why it's free.

[Drake-Shepard]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

In literary terms, if you do a huge twist like the catalyst, you do it in the middle of the series, not at the end.


Even the Matrix got that right.

This is a great point. Look at star wars, the big twist happens at the end of the empire strikes back, not return of the Jedi.

That said, the 'twist' in the matrix was not a new concept. Being dependent on the system and then Control were the main long running themes of Matrix 1 and 2.
At the end of 2, Neo says 'it was just ANOTHER form of control'. imdb matrix quotes, the film is littered with them.

It was in the middle of the trilogy.. and the architect still answered a crap load of questions and you got to see what happened after.
The catalyst introduces a small story arc as the main plot and contradicts 66% of players rannoch story arc telling you this in 14 lines.


I just had a thought..imagine matrix ended at the end of that architect screen...he walks through the door and boom...random cutscene of trinity and morpheus in the garden of eden. There would of been blood!

Modifié par Drake-Shepard, 06 juin 2012 - 06:52 .

[ArchDuck]

The Angry One wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...

I mean even Peter "I make things up" Molyneux doesn't do that.

Peter's problem is that he goes overboard in explaining what he plans before the fact, then whatever he does make never lives up to his exagerrations.
The fact that Hudson and others lied to us after the game was essentially complete makes it far, far worse.

Actually he has admitted to wanting to please and dazzle interviewers so he makes up things during interviews that he would like to put into the game (without having planned for it or discusing with his team whether it is possible). Or something like that.

Molyneux Admits to Making Game Features Up

Peter Molyneux wrote...
I could name at least 10 features in games that I've made up to stop journalists going to sleep and I really apologise to the team for that.

Modifié par ArchDuck, 06 juin 2012 - 06:51 .

[Kunari801]

Zacatus88 wrote...

Kunari801 wrote...
... I'm one of the few that FPS give me vertigo and make me dizzy quickly.  I can't play a FPS for long before I get dizzy and a headache.  
ME does at times too but it's worth it!   I can even do a few rounds of MP before I get sick.  

Yea I never understood why people have been complaing about the shooter elements of Mass effect. Mass effect 1 is fun but the combat is basically the same over all 3 games except it just gets better. ME 1 your slow, the combat is clunky, and cover is nigh impossibe to get into. ME 2 your still slow but the cover system is better and it doesnt take til like level 20 to be able to shoot accurately. ME 3 is the best combat wise since its more fluid and Shepard can get around the battlefield easier (I did think Insanity was too easy tho). Mass Effect is a 3rd person RPG shooter and there are not many of those (if any), so they did the best they could and I thought it was awesome.  

I agree, ME3's combat system is the best of the three.  As I said, I get vertigo easy so I'm not that great at it but I even find the MP fun for a round or two before I need to break.  

There isn't enough RPG shooters out there and I myself want more!  

[LiarasShield]

I personally feel that they don't have to sacrifice a happy ending for a sad ending or sacrificing a sad end for a happy one

I mean the collector base from mass effect 2 was a pure example depending on how you want everything to turn out either everybody lives or everybody dies


They don't need to retcon the endings or get rid of them but maybe possibly give us other alternatives or other possible endings beside just the three that are there

Let the people who like a sad sacrifical ending where shepard dies and forces are stranded in sol stay

but allow the people who want to beat the reapers to go home with love interest and rebuild his or her world let that be a option not one side has to lose for the otherside to win

Both sides can win

[Zacatus88]

Kunari801 wrote...

Zacatus88 wrote...

Kunari801 wrote...
... I'm one of the few that FPS give me vertigo and make me dizzy quickly.  I can't play a FPS for long before I get dizzy and a headache.  
ME does at times too but it's worth it!   I can even do a few rounds of MP before I get sick.  

Yea I never understood why people have been complaing about the shooter elements of Mass effect. Mass effect 1 is fun but the combat is basically the same over all 3 games except it just gets better. ME 1 your slow, the combat is clunky, and cover is nigh impossibe to get into. ME 2 your still slow but the cover system is better and it doesnt take til like level 20 to be able to shoot accurately. ME 3 is the best combat wise since its more fluid and Shepard can get around the battlefield easier (I did think Insanity was too easy tho). Mass Effect is a 3rd person RPG shooter and there are not many of those (if any), so they did the best they could and I thought it was awesome.  

I agree, ME3's combat system is the best of the three.  As I said, I get vertigo easy so I'm not that great at it but I even find the MP fun for a round or two before I need to break.  

There isn't enough RPG shooters out there and I myself want more!  

Yea I think people complain to much about the shooter elements. The fact is no matter how good a story for a video game is if you don't like the gameplay you wouldn't play it. Nor would you spend $60 for it.

[LiarasShield]

I just think if everybody got their own ending everybody would be mostly happy and their wouldn't be so much hate they can have a sad sacrificial ending and a happy we beat the reapers and go home to love interest and rebuild ending I don't think either option has to be sacrificed for the other option to exist

[Mathias]

Even with Mass Effect 3's final 2 hours, being the trainwreck that it is, the franchise still could've recovered with future high quality games and storylines. But unfortunately EA owns the franchise now, and they'll milk it as much as they can with spin offs and MP bull****. We'll inevitably get another single player experience, but whether it's another epic rpg trilogy remains to be seen, and you can be damn sure the soul of this once great franchise is pretty much dead until that happens.

[Zacatus88]

LiarasShield wrote...

I personally feel that they don't have to sacrifice a happy ending for a sad ending or sacrificing a sad end for a happy one

I mean the collector base from mass effect 2 was a pure example depending on how you want everything to turn out either everybody lives or everybody dies


They don't need to retcon the endings or get rid of them but maybe possibly give us other alternatives or other possible endings beside just the three that are there

Let the people who like a sad sacrifical ending where shepard dies and forces are stranded in sol stay

but allow the people who want to beat the reapers to go home with love interest and rebuild his or her world let that be a option not one side has to lose for the otherside to win

Both sides can win

Yea but the endings have to have substance, not just I want this ending so I will pick that one. What I love about ME2 is the only way you do keep every one alive is that you bust your ass helping your squadmates find the resolve to fight, you spend countless hours mining resources and tons of credits on upgrades, and you pick the right people for the right job. If you don't do these things people die, so if my EMS is above 7000 i should be able to fight the reapers conventionally and win. Anybody know where the superweapon that destroyed that derilict reaper went? That should be worth like 1000 EMS lol. If you don't know what that is look up the great rift/klendagon.

[3DandBeyond]

@sH0tgUn jUliA,

Art is in the eye of the beholder, not the creator.  A person can write or paint or bake anything they want, but if they want to be in business they deal with reality and don't make things just to please themselves.

They call this ending bittersweet, well there's nothing sweet about it.  There is illogical mess.

The game lent itself to very special sensible well-done pathos-laden endings.  They were there all along with clear paths to get there.  We see it in what some fans have come up with.

I have always said I'd like a happy (full blown) ending as a possibility.  Why not?  You know what Disney did right in his movies and cartoons?  He believed in everything in moderation.  You can show sad, but it is there for a reason and it does not overwhelm the viewer.  Once it gets over the top, too much, it becomes depressing and morose.  He found balance.  He also did not leave you with the idea that you can't go on from sadness-he was clear in that sad things happen, but the will to go on and overcome exists and good things can happen.

ME3's ending does none of that.  In fact in a story that focused on redemption and overcoming the deep dark secrets in one's soul, the ending sticks with deep and dark and crazy, and abandons redemption.

My opinion is all the sad and sacrificial stuff has already taken place.  These people have all gone through a blender.  Some have found their better natures-that redemption through Shepard's goal and example.  Some found life itself, though they came from ignoble beginnings.  Every single one of them suffered and often horribly.  Some died.  And Shepard never had a life.  So now the bitter continues in the ending and sweet does not exist.  Crazy and moronic, that's there.  Sacrifice has taken place.  So, sure kill Shepard off or leave Shepard's charred torso gasping in a pile of rubble.  That's what heroes deserve.

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

Drake-Shepard wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

In literary terms, if you do a huge twist like the catalyst, you do it in the middle of the series, not at the end.


Even the Matrix got that right.

This is a great point. Look at star wars, the big twist happens at the end of the empire strikes back, not return of the Jedi.

That said, the 'twist' in the matrix was not a new concept. Being dependent on the system and then Control were the main long running themes of Matrix 1 and 2.
At the end of 2, Neo says 'it was just ANOTHER form of control'. imdb matrix quotes, the film is littered with them.

It was in the middle of the trilogy.. and the architect still answered a crap load of questions and you got to see what happened after.
The catalyst introduces a small story arc as the main plot and contradicts 66% of players rannoch story arc telling you this in 14 lines.


I just had a thought..imagine matrix ended at the end of that architect screen...he walks through the door and boom...random cutscene of trinity and morpheus in the garden of eden. There would of been blood!

Imagine if the identity of Revan wasn't revealed until the end of Knights of the Old Republic and they didn't spend a third of the game exploring that idea.  Can you imagine how unsatisfying and confusing that would have been?  Who made that game by the way, I can't remember...?

Oh.  Right.  

[TransientNomad]

LiarasShield wrote...

I personally feel that they don't have to sacrifice a happy ending for a sad ending or sacrificing a sad end for a happy one

I mean the collector base from mass effect 2 was a pure example depending on how you want everything to turn out either everybody lives or everybody dies


They don't need to retcon the endings or get rid of them but maybe possibly give us other alternatives or other possible endings beside just the three that are there

Let the people who like a sad sacrifical ending where shepard dies and forces are stranded in sol stay

but allow the people who want to beat the reapers to go home with love interest and rebuild his or her world let that be a option not one side has to lose for the otherside to win

Both sides can win

I wholly agree but there is a serious problem with that arguement, according to the "Mass Effect MUST have a depressing ending" crowd.  Introducing a "happy" ending, in their minds, would ironically mean that they made the "wrong choice" especially if introduced later.  It would not be so much about choice, like "I choose to have a 'bittersweet' ending" or choosing "A happy ending."  The question becomes then "Why would you choose the bad ending?"  In other words, those that say the ending must be a bad, downer ending would not choose it if another option exists thus the bad, downer ending would have less of a emotional impact.  It would then become a choice between "Good" and "Bad." 

Thats why there is resistance against a happy ending.  The anti-happy enders would rather have the majority be less satisfied with the ending if it means they can keep there depressing/nonsensical Asimov reject ending.

[BlueStorm83]

--- Since this isn't an ending thread, I'll talk about... endings!

Or rather, I'll say that they SHOULDN'T have ended the series. I mean, Mass Effect was a series that I could have gotten behind for books, movies, TV series, other games, etc.

I would have been GLUED to my TV for every single episode of Garrus Vakarian, P.I.

I'd have tossed 100 bucks at Mass Effect: The Card Game, and even bought the Mass Effect: The Card Game: The Videogame adaptation for the latest nintendo handheld.

I'd be wearing an N7 hoodie and a Cerberus Thong right now (I'm a dude. And not a sexy one.) And not wearing anything else.

I'd have a cupboard stuffed with Citadel Crunch cereal, 2 liter bottles of Diet Flotilla (now safe for humans and other Levo-protien species!), and packets of Varren Sauce to put on my fish or my steak, or BOTH.

I'd even DRIVE A MAKO.

Even though there may not have been as much variety in the endings as some would like, the fate of life in the galaxy is pretty different if you pick Synthesis from the other 2, so they probably can't extend the fiction forward anymore. And that's kinda sad. I love the universe they gave us, it had so many possibilities. If they'd resolved things without making it almost impossible to move forward, I'd be buying Mass Effect games forever. Who cares if they'd get samey after a while: I own 15 "different" Zelda games that are about finding the Magic McGuffins to unlock the Weapon That's Slightly Better, and then go and fight "Gannon." Wait, I didn't need to quote that, it's always ACTUALLY GANNON. But I have fun with it, so who cares that it's not Shakespeare?

[Mcfly616]

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

Drake-Shepard wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

In literary terms, if you do a huge twist like the catalyst, you do it in the middle of the series, not at the end.


Even the Matrix got that right.

This is a great point. Look at star wars, the big twist happens at the end of the empire strikes back, not return of the Jedi.

That said, the 'twist' in the matrix was not a new concept. Being dependent on the system and then Control were the main long running themes of Matrix 1 and 2.
At the end of 2, Neo says 'it was just ANOTHER form of control'. imdb matrix quotes, the film is littered with them.

It was in the middle of the trilogy.. and the architect still answered a crap load of questions and you got to see what happened after.
The catalyst introduces a small story arc as the main plot and contradicts 66% of players rannoch story arc telling you this in 14 lines.


I just had a thought..imagine matrix ended at the end of that architect screen...he walks through the door and boom...random cutscene of trinity and morpheus in the garden of eden. There would of been blood!

Imagine if the identity of Revan wasn't revealed until the end of Knights of the Old Republic and they didn't spend a third of the game exploring that idea.  Can you imagine how unsatisfying and confusing that would have been?  Who made that game by the way, I can't remember...?

Oh.  Right.  

No...sorry....the Matrix sequals didn't get anything right. Unless their goal was to ruin the series....then yes, I.guess they got that right....the Architect single-handedly ruins that trilogy....oh and Bioware literally copied the Architect.....VOMIT.

I thought I would hold ME in high regard, like the Star Wars original.trilogy.....but no....I have to.relive the same exact thing that ruined the Matrix.....

The Matrix sequals should be a lesson in WHAT NOT TO DO when concluding a trilogy.....instead Bioware literally copied and pasted it. Makes me sick


The catalyst is the architect....ridiculous logic and all....make no mistake

[Samuel_Valkyrie]

In reaction to OP's title: probably true.

If the EC manages to smooth things over, in years to come, it will probably come to be seen as one of the prime examples of how to interweave the combination of storytelling and gamer agency into a game. In years to come, it will bounce back from how it is seen now.

But right now, yeah...this is not the victory BiowarEA, and most of the gaming world, had hoped for.

[3DandBeyond]

TransientNomad wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

I personally feel that they don't have to sacrifice a happy ending for a sad ending or sacrificing a sad end for a happy one

I mean the collector base from mass effect 2 was a pure example depending on how you want everything to turn out either everybody lives or everybody dies


They don't need to retcon the endings or get rid of them but maybe possibly give us other alternatives or other possible endings beside just the three that are there

Let the people who like a sad sacrifical ending where shepard dies and forces are stranded in sol stay

but allow the people who want to beat the reapers to go home with love interest and rebuild his or her world let that be a option not one side has to lose for the otherside to win

Both sides can win

I wholly agree but there is a serious problem with that arguement, according to the "Mass Effect MUST have a depressing ending" crowd.  Introducing a "happy" ending, in their minds, would ironically mean that they made the "wrong choice" especially if introduced later.  It would not be so much about choice, like "I choose to have a 'bittersweet' ending" or choosing "A happy ending."  The question becomes then "Why would you choose the bad ending?"  In other words, those that say the ending must be a bad, downer ending would not choose it if another option exists thus the bad, downer ending would have less of a emotional impact.  It would then become a choice between "Good" and "Bad." 

Thats why there is resistance against a happy ending.  The anti-happy enders would rather have the majority be less satisfied with the ending if it means they can keep there depressing/nonsensical Asimov reject ending.

I've never left a happy ending movie and said, "I wish everyone had died in the end.  It would have been way more intellectual and artistic."  And there's a reason why happy ending movies tend to do better than sad ones-people like them.  I think there's a real need for people to assert they are intellectuals because they like the "cool" sad, people got turned into bloody pulp piles kind of ending.  And the happy ending is seen as trite and cliche.  And there's nothing cliche about the space Jesus (Omega Man, I Am Legend), Deus ex Machina (Matrix, Deus ex), type ending or the final scenes in the game-the Garden of Eden and granpa tells a fairy tale scenes.  Those are really intellectual, and no they are not sweet.

[ediskrad327]

yes but instead it's now the Matrix of our Generation

[Mcfly616]

Matrix Effect.....or Space Matrix



Either way....FAIL

[3DandBeyond]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Oooooooh, someone who is predjiduced against FPS's and their fans! How unique you are! I'm only slightly kidding. Halo's world was probably the most interesting FPS world post-2005. It's pretty much the icon world for the Xbox 360. Even though it might not be as fleshed out as the Mass Effect universe, it still has a lot to offer. Hell, I even watched the anime. Not half bad.

Yes, I don't think much of FPSs.
I said nothing about the fans however...

Ahem, "CoD deadhead crowd"

Well I will insult myself here and say it's true.  I've played more hours than I care to admit on CoD games-4,  WaW, MW2, Black Ops,  MW3.  Too many stupid hours.  The SP campaigns might at best be 5 hours long-incredibly short and often just jumbled stuff thrown together so you shoot at stuff.

The comes the MP.  It is brainless, mind-numbing shooting with a lot of people that have hacked the game, insult others (I can't tell you the number of times I've been accused of things I never did) and idiots with their mics on that think you really want to hear them have phone sex with their girlfriends.  Or the 6 year olds that play that use words that I hope their parents would be mad for them using.  And why play it-I remember once actually obtaining the numerous prestiges needed to get to buy the gold camo and all I felt was wonderment at being such an idiot for playing it so much.  Of course it could be fun, but it also was boring, repetitive and pointless.  

It isn't so much that you start out being a deadhead, but you sure are after you play it enough.

[G Kevin]

3DandBeyond wrote...
Well I will insult myself here and say it's true.  I've played more hours than I care to admit on CoD games-4,  WaW, MW2, Black Ops,  MW3.  Too many stupid hours.  The SP campaigns might at best be 5 hours long-incredibly short and often just jumbled stuff thrown together so you shoot at stuff.

The comes the MP.  It is brainless, mind-numbing shooting with a lot of people that have hacked the game, insult others (I can't tell you the number of times I've been accused of things I never did) and idiots with their mics on that think you really want to hear them have phone sex with their girlfriends.  Or the 6 year olds that play that use words that I hope their parents would be mad for them using.  And why play it-I remember once actually obtaining the numerous prestiges needed to get to buy the gold camo and all I felt was wonderment at being such an idiot for playing it so much.  Of course it could be fun, but it also was boring, repetitive and pointless.  

It isn't so much that you start out being a deadhead, but you sure are after you play it enough.

The only fun CoD games give me, is to use the most underpowered and underrated weapon and equipment in the game and beat others with it.

It feels even better when the enemy uses their mic and rages at you for not dying to their weapons and calling me a hackz0r.

Modifié par G Kevin, 06 juin 2012 - 07:36 .