292 réponses à ce sujet

[Jadebaby]

leonia42 wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

Pausanias wrote...

Are you sure you aren't confusing your feelings being hurt with bad writing?

Best line I've read in a long time.

Are you saying you consider the ME3 endings good writing? I'd hate to see what you consider bad then.

I think the terms "good" and "bad" in reference to writing have lost all sense of their original meanings. What I think personally of the ending doesn't matter, it's going to be subjective and different from what every other fans thinks. But you can't just slap "bad writing" onto everything that you dislike and put all the blame on the writers, that's hardly fair.

I totally agree with this, but in the case of ME3, it IS bad writing. If you need proof search some of the many threads intricately analyzing them.

[Conniving_Eagle]

estebanus wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

sporeian wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

estebanus wrote...

I think that destroy is the only right one. If Shepard can't accept losing people, then s/he isn't fit to lead.

If Shepard thinks sacrificing an entire innocent allied species to the enemy to take the easy way out is acceptable, then they certainly aren't fit to lead.

The Geth did not join to become sacrificial lambs for a Reaper approved future.

And Shepard didn't oppose Saren and TIM only to accept their plans in The Reaper's planned future.

They should make a DLC where you can join Saren in ME1. Then I can play the Mass Effect series again. Or maybe now I'll just have sex with Morinth at the end of ME2, much better ending.

But if you side with Saren, the war is already over in ME1. Reapers attack citadel, everyone dies, cycle continues, etc.

There's an ultimate difference? Saren isn't a DEM (there are a few people that will disagree), and I get an ending that makes a lot more sense.

[The Angry One]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

sporeian wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

estebanus wrote...

I think that destroy is the only right one. If Shepard can't accept losing people, then s/he isn't fit to lead.

If Shepard thinks sacrificing an entire innocent allied species to the enemy to take the easy way out is acceptable, then they certainly aren't fit to lead.

The Geth did not join to become sacrificial lambs for a Reaper approved future.

And Shepard didn't oppose Saren and TIM only to accept their plans in The Reaper's planned future.

They should make a DLC where you can join Saren in ME1. Then I can play the Mass Effect series again. Or maybe now I'll just have sex with Morinth at the end of ME2, much better ending.

But if you side with Saren, the war is already over in ME1. Reapers attack citadel, everyone dies, cycle continues, etc.

There's an ultimate difference? Saren isn't a DEM (there are a few people that will disagree), and I get an ending that makes a lot more sense.

And it achieves synthesis! The best ending, 3 years early!
Every synthesis supporter here should be behind "Join Saren" DLC.

[pinkandblack84]

the destroy ending comes down to your own conclusion of the ending. For me i dont understand why they would put it in there if Shep didn't survive. Would be pretty pointless otherwise.

For me it there intent was to kill the character off then they shouldn't have even shown the breath scene anyone that think "oh its his last breath bla bla bla" to me that's kind of stupid.

That scene at least for me regardless if it was in mass effect or not (if this scene was in any other game or film) would pretty much signify that shep survived. That's me though

[TheIdiocyWizard2.0]

estebanus wrote...

TheIdiocyWizard2.0 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

JDee3 wrote...

*sigh*.. I can't.. I just can't. ME3 ended with me and Anderson on the Citadel watching Reapers get ****ed up and Shepard being found passed out next to a dead Anderson and taken to a hospital where all his friends waited till he woke up in his hospital bed

No it didn't. ME3 ended with Shepard being forced into choosing the fate of everyone and everything, and had to make the right choice, even if it sucked. Which it did.

So, I'm guessing you're against any sort of fanfiction, aren't you?

 

Not at all. I like writing fan fiction, but I don't like reading or writing fanfiction that tries to change what the game presents to fit the writers' own needs.

Well then don't read it. If he wants to head-cannon a different ending, then I don't see why you have to try to put it down, just because you don't agree with the motivation for it.

[Conniving_Eagle]

The ending of ME3 being bad writing is a FACT. People can still have their opinion and decide if they enjoyed said bad writing or not.
Mac Walters: "Had to be me. Someone could have gotten it right."

[Leonia]

If there's anything I learned in English class it was that the you can interpret pretty much anything from any narrative provided you can back up your point. You might find it easier to claim it's bad but I am sure others out there can claim it is good and still others something in between.

Personally I don't find it to be either, it was entertaining and acceptable enough (Shepard stopped the Reapers in the end which was the main conflict so in that there was some sense of resolution) though I would like to know a bit more before I form a more solid opinion. Now my opinions on how we're being strung along are to find out that "more" bit are less than optimistic but I'll play all the DLC and keep my ears and eyes open all the same.

I enjoyed ME3, sue me.

Modifié par leonia42, 15 juillet 2012 - 07:46 .

[estebanus]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

sporeian wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

estebanus wrote...

I think that destroy is the only right one. If Shepard can't accept losing people, then s/he isn't fit to lead.

If Shepard thinks sacrificing an entire innocent allied species to the enemy to take the easy way out is acceptable, then they certainly aren't fit to lead.

The Geth did not join to become sacrificial lambs for a Reaper approved future.

And Shepard didn't oppose Saren and TIM only to accept their plans in The Reaper's planned future.

They should make a DLC where you can join Saren in ME1. Then I can play the Mass Effect series again. Or maybe now I'll just have sex with Morinth at the end of ME2, much better ending.

But if you side with Saren, the war is already over in ME1. Reapers attack citadel, everyone dies, cycle continues, etc.

There's an ultimate difference? Saren isn't a DEM (there are a few people that will disagree), and I get an ending that makes a lot more sense.

But the reapers are manipulating him. He is indoctrinated. The reapers never achieved synthesis themselves, they try and prevent organics from achieving it.

[The Angry One]

leonia42 wrote...

If there's anything I learned in English class it was that the you can interpret pretty much anything from any narrative provided you can back up your point. You might find it easier to claim it's bad but I am sure others out there can claim it is good and still others something in between.

Personally I don't find it to be either, it was entertaining and acceptable enough (Shepard stopped the Reapers in the end which was the main conflict so in that there was some sense of resolution) though I would like to know a bit more before I form a more solid opinion. Now my opinions on how we're being strung along are to find out that "more" bit are less than optimistic but I'll play all the DLC and keep my ears and eyes open all the same.

Except the narrative sidelines the Reapers as the main conflict at the last minute, and makes it about organics vs. synthetics. Suddenly the Reapers aren't the problem! It's this other thing.
By your own definition it's bad writing because it doesn't resolve the conflict, it creates a *new* conflict, resolves that, and the Reapers either die or stick around without killing things as a result.

[estebanus]

TheIdiocyWizard2.0 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

TheIdiocyWizard2.0 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

JDee3 wrote...

*sigh*.. I can't.. I just can't. ME3 ended with me and Anderson on the Citadel watching Reapers get ****ed up and Shepard being found passed out next to a dead Anderson and taken to a hospital where all his friends waited till he woke up in his hospital bed

No it didn't. ME3 ended with Shepard being forced into choosing the fate of everyone and everything, and had to make the right choice, even if it sucked. Which it did.

So, I'm guessing you're against any sort of fanfiction, aren't you?

 

Not at all. I like writing fan fiction, but I don't like reading or writing fanfiction that tries to change what the game presents to fit the writers' own needs.

Well then don't read it. If he wants to head-cannon a different ending, then I don't see why you have to try to put it down, just because you don't agree with the motivation for it.

Oh no, I wasn't trying to put it down, it's just that the way he worded it seemed like he thought it was the official canon of the story, which it obviously isn't.

[devSin]

pinkandblack84 wrote...

the destroy ending comes down to your own conclusion of the ending. For me i dont understand why they would put it in there if Shep didn't survive. Would be pretty pointless otherwise.

They already said why they did this.

They thought it was too bleak, and so they opted to do something so that you could imagine things turned out differently.

That doesn't mean Shepard lived. Survived the explosion, sure, but then actually lived? That part is all in your head.

Some people believe that Shepard was indoctrinated. Some people believe Shepard lives.

If they had intended for Shepard to live, they would have shown you Shepard living. Instead, they simply gave you just enough to question whether Shepard died so that you can pretend something else occurs.

It's ambiguous on purpose, as they said, because they didn't want Shepard to live but didn't want to have the sense that Shepard always had to die. It doesn't mean anything beyond that, and it's clear now that this is entirely by design.

Modifié par devSin, 15 juillet 2012 - 07:54 .

[The Angry One]

estebanus wrote...

But the reapers are manipulating him. He is indoctrinated. The reapers never achieved synthesis themselves, they try and prevent organics from achieving it.

The latter a complete assumption. The Reapers desire synthesis, and have tried it before.
Since this cycle is apparently "ready" now (for reasons unknown), nothing says the Reapers weren't being sincere with Saren indoctrination or no.

[Conniving_Eagle]

You know, I've concluded at this point that Bioware just want the player to headcanon their own ending. In that case, we all bought an unfinished product.

Modifié par Conniving_Eagle, 15 juillet 2012 - 07:50 .

[Reptilian Rob]

leonia42 wrote...

If there's anything I learned in English class it was that the you can interpret pretty much anything from any narrative provided you can back up your point. You might find it easier to claim it's bad but I am sure others out there can claim it is good and still others something in between.

Personally I don't find it to be either, it was entertaining and acceptable enough (Shepard stopped the Reapers in the end which was the main conflict so in that there was some sense of resolution) though I would like to know a bit more before I form a more solid opinion. Now my opinions on how we're being strung along are to find out that "more" bit are less than optimistic but I'll play all the DLC and keep my ears and eyes open all the same.

I enjoyed ME3, sue me.

A logical and calm person on BSN?

HERESY!

[Leonia]

The Angry One wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

If there's anything I learned in English class it was that the you can interpret pretty much anything from any narrative provided you can back up your point. You might find it easier to claim it's bad but I am sure others out there can claim it is good and still others something in between.

Personally I don't find it to be either, it was entertaining and acceptable enough (Shepard stopped the Reapers in the end which was the main conflict so in that there was some sense of resolution) though I would like to know a bit more before I form a more solid opinion. Now my opinions on how we're being strung along are to find out that "more" bit are less than optimistic but I'll play all the DLC and keep my ears and eyes open all the same.

Except the narrative sidelines the Reapers as the main conflict at the last minute, and makes it about organics vs. synthetics. Suddenly the Reapers aren't the problem! It's this other thing.
By your own definition it's bad writing because it doesn't resolve the conflict, it creates a *new* conflict, resolves that, and the Reapers either die or stick around without killing things as a result.

But the Reaper issue is still settled, one way or another. Even if there is a new conflict added in at the last minute (which yeah, that does bother me a great deal but it's ignorable because it still resolves the original conflict).

Modifié par leonia42, 15 juillet 2012 - 07:51 .

[sporeian]

estebanus wrote...

But the reapers are manipulating him. He is indoctrinated. The reapers never achieved synthesis themselves, they try and prevent organics from achieving it.

So they try to prevent synthesi, because the catalyst controls them and he wants to force synthesis on... AGHHHHHH

*head explodes*

[TheIdiocyWizard2.0]

estebanus wrote...

TheIdiocyWizard2.0 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

TheIdiocyWizard2.0 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

JDee3 wrote...

*sigh*.. I can't.. I just can't. ME3 ended with me and Anderson on the Citadel watching Reapers get ****ed up and Shepard being found passed out next to a dead Anderson and taken to a hospital where all his friends waited till he woke up in his hospital bed

No it didn't. ME3 ended with Shepard being forced into choosing the fate of everyone and everything, and had to make the right choice, even if it sucked. Which it did.

So, I'm guessing you're against any sort of fanfiction, aren't you?

 

Not at all. I like writing fan fiction, but I don't like reading or writing fanfiction that tries to change what the game presents to fit the writers' own needs.

Well then don't read it. If he wants to head-cannon a different ending, then I don't see why you have to try to put it down, just because you don't agree with the motivation for it.

Oh no, I wasn't trying to put it down, it's just that the way he worded it seemed like he thought it was the official canon of the story, which it obviously isn't.

Oh, then my bad. I didn't mean to jump down your throat or something. Sorry about that.

Anyway, back on topic.
They really thought that there would even be one person who looked at that scene and thought, "Yep, that's Sheps last breath before he dies in agony under a pile of rubble."
No. Shepard lived. There is no other way to take that, unless you want to be super depressing.

[ediskrad327]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

You know, I've concluded at this point that Bioware just want the player to headcanon their own ending. In that case, we all bought an unfinished product.

the number of glitches and bugs already proved that

[Conniving_Eagle]

leonia42 wrote...

If there's anything I learned in English class it was that the you can interpret pretty much anything from any narrative provided you can back up your point. You might find it easier to claim it's bad but I am sure others out there can claim it is good and still others something in between.

Personally I don't find it to be either, it was entertaining and acceptable enough (Shepard stopped the Reapers in the end which was the main conflict so in that there was some sense of resolution) though I would like to know a bit more before I form a more solid opinion. Now my opinions on how we're being strung along are to find out that "more" bit are less than optimistic but I'll play all the DLC and keep my ears and eyes open all the same.

I enjoyed ME3, sue me.

Give the ending and story of Mass Effect to any literature professor, even english teacher, and ask them how the writing is.

Like I said, the writing is bad, people can still decide if they like it or not.

[Jadebaby]

The Angry One wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

If there's anything I learned in English class it was that the you can interpret pretty much anything from any narrative provided you can back up your point. You might find it easier to claim it's bad but I am sure others out there can claim it is good and still others something in between.

Personally I don't find it to be either, it was entertaining and acceptable enough (Shepard stopped the Reapers in the end which was the main conflict so in that there was some sense of resolution) though I would like to know a bit more before I form a more solid opinion. Now my opinions on how we're being strung along are to find out that "more" bit are less than optimistic but I'll play all the DLC and keep my ears and eyes open all the same.

Except the narrative sidelines the Reapers as the main conflict at the last minute, and makes it about organics vs. synthetics. Suddenly the Reapers aren't the problem! It's this other thing.
By your own definition it's bad writing because it doesn't resolve the conflict, it creates a *new* conflict, resolves that, and the Reapers either die or stick around without killing things as a result.

QFT

[Conniving_Eagle]

ediskrad327 wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

You know, I've concluded at this point that Bioware just want the player to headcanon their own ending. In that case, we all bought an unfinished product.

the number of glitches and bugs already proved that

Yes, but this points it even further, indicating just how unfinished ME3 is.

[estebanus]

The Angry One wrote...

estebanus wrote...

But the reapers are manipulating him. He is indoctrinated. The reapers never achieved synthesis themselves, they try and prevent organics from achieving it.

The latter a complete assumption. The Reapers desire synthesis, and have tried it before.
Since this cycle is apparently "ready" now (for reasons unknown), nothing says the Reapers weren't being sincere with Saren indoctrination or no.

 

Well, if they wanted to achieve synthesis, why prevent them from achieving it by killing them? Why not help them achieve it? 

I still find it funny how Starchild at first says that synthesis can't be forced, but then proceeds to try to get Shepard to force it on the galaxy, which pretty much should prove that the current cycle isn't ready yet.

[1483749283]

The Angry One wrote...

Except the narrative sidelines the Reapers as the main conflict at the last minute, and makes it about organics vs. synthetics. Suddenly the Reapers aren't the problem! It's this other thing.
By your own definition it's bad writing because it doesn't resolve the conflict, it creates a *new* conflict, resolves that, and the Reapers either die or stick around without killing things as a result.

I used to think this way, Angry One, until someone suggested I view the reapers as raving lunatics similar to the illusive man, all under the influence of the ur-indoctrinator, the Catalyst. Then the whole thing makes sense.

The theme of organics vs. synthetics has been the dominant theme of the series since the very beginning. The other dominant theme has been control/indoctrination. The two are merged into the catalyst.

[The Angry One]

estebanus wrote...

Well, if they wanted to achieve synthesis, why prevent them from achieving it by killing them? Why not help them achieve it?

Because the Catalyst is the antithesis of logic.

I still find it funny how Starchild at first says that synthesis can't be forced, but then proceeds to try to get Shepard to force it on the galaxy, which pretty much should prove that the current cycle isn't ready yet.

Well, see above. None of it's actions and words make any sense.

Pausanias wrote...

I used to think this way, Angry One,
until someone suggested I view the reapers as raving lunatics similar to
the illusive man, all under the influence of the ur-indoctrinator, the
Catalyst. Then the whole thing makes sense.

The theme of organics
vs. synthetics has been the dominant theme of the series since the very
beginning. The other dominant theme has been control/indoctrination.
The two are merged into the catalyst.

Organics vs. synthetics was a B plot throughout Mass Effect. An occassional problem, but not the overarching threat and certainly not the main theme.

Modifié par The Angry One, 15 juillet 2012 - 07:57 .

[Reptilian Rob]

Pausanias wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Except the narrative sidelines the Reapers as the main conflict at the last minute, and makes it about organics vs. synthetics. Suddenly the Reapers aren't the problem! It's this other thing.
By your own definition it's bad writing because it doesn't resolve the conflict, it creates a *new* conflict, resolves that, and the Reapers either die or stick around without killing things as a result.

I used to think this way, Angry One, until someone suggested I view the reapers as raving lunatics similar to the illusive man, all under the influence of the ur-indoctrinator, the Catalyst. Then the whole thing makes sense.

The theme of organics vs. synthetics has been the dominant theme of the series since the very beginning. The other dominant theme has been control/indoctrination. The two are merged into the catalyst.

I agree with you on the last paragraph, for sure. 

ME3 was not poorly written as a whole, just the last few minutes and even then it wasn't terrible. Those of you who are claiming such need to read more literature.