258 réponses à ce sujet

[shenlonzero]

Justin2k wrote...

Thread after thread after thread about the ending, the extended cut and everything else.  What if the indoctination theory was true, what if they really mean this, what if this is the real ending.

It's all rubbish.  You have hope and faith in Bioware I get it.  But the obvious plain truth is that Starchild was a joke, Bioware realised it was a joke but rather than rewrite it, they didn't want to offend their writing staff so they "expanded" on it.

It's just poor writing, nothing more or nothing less.  A five year old child could have finished the story better.  Defeat the reapers, save the galaxy.  There, done.

There is no clever hidden underlining meaning, there is no theory.  It was just a stupid contrived ending and the writers should have their work reviewed in future before releasing it to the public.  Just imagine if Luke Skywalker had walked in to face the Emperor and Darth Vader only to be faced with a little child telling him that the empire exists because people rebel or something.  Lucas would never had found work again.

as soon as you stop crying about it from the other side of the tracks....waaaaaah.....wahhhhhhhhh..wah wah wahhhhhhhh

[CoolioThane]

It's worth participating, Vox, we're always finding and debunking new potential evidence and it's bloody fun

I do understand your views on ME2 and I agree to an extent, though I do feel Thane to be pretty coolio

What was your opinion on Arrival?

[Mazebook]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

ahah ! but the EC clarly says that all is for the best if you choose synthesis, so it pretty much tells you what to think. From what you are told, Syntesis is clearly the best option according to th writrs.


Deus ex 1 did it right, as all option are less contrived and come in naturally, and all 3 choices are proposed by people who helped you. And none of the ending shows a pefect world or situation.

Honestly, you spend the entire game stoppng TIM because his ideas are stupid, but suddenly it's  viable option ?

And again, how come the crucible cant discriminate btween reapers andsynthetics if it can rewrite everyone's DNA ?

That's not saying synthetic vs organic couldn't be a valid theme, but in another game. You can't just dump all that on the player in the last 15 minutes.
You know spec op the line ? It doesn't start being dark and grim i the last 30 minutes, nor does it get incredibly brighter, instead, the whole game is grim, an makes you think about what you're doing, how pople ca react to this situation,how good intention can degenerate etc.

For th catalyst to be relevant, he sould have been foreshadowed more, and conflict vs snthetics should have been much more frequents  and deadly.

To Synthesis...
Well it is from EDI´s point of view. You can have your own and your own judgement of what she tells you.

And again, how come the crucible cant discriminate btween reapers andsynthetics if it can rewrite everyone's DNA ?  

The same way an atomic power plant can preduce energy controlled or release that energy uncontrolled.
There are many factors that divide Organics and Synthetics...pick one. 

That's not saying synthetic vs organic couldn't be a valid theme, but in another game. You can't just dump all that on the player in the last 15 minutes. 

I say it was foreshadowed pretty much from the beginning with the very first death of the series (jenkins).

[I_eat_unicorns]

CoolioThane wrote...

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

I think it's good writing. That's my opinion. Errm...does that make you wrong femlob? As it clearly isn't a fact if I thought it good. 8-)

Yea, but why did you think it was good?

Why does it matter? I liked the writing. I'm an ITer so think it's been set up excellently. 

Ask me what I think if it turns out IT is not true, the ending might seem different to me without this point of view. Sorry I can't give exactly what you want me to give though 

Well if you can't justify your opinion on why the ending was bad ( IT is not the ending) then your opinion is invalid to this discussion. I'll repeat what I said before in this topic: 
At this point, currently believeing that the writers "secretly intended the IT to be correct" after the release of the EC DLC is exactly equal to believing that the thing in the box at the end of 'Seven ' was a ham sandwich, or that Obi Wan Kenobi was meant to be Luke Skywalker come back from the future to guide himself. 

You can believe anything you want if that's how you derive entertainment, and there's nothing wrong with it. But if there can be a "truth" about the structure of a fictional work it is that that which the author intended is the actuality. ME's writers do not intend IT to be the valid end

Oh, do you work for Bioware then? Until it is proven that IT is false, all that you say is conjecture. 

No it is not, because the IT makes logical sense and fits the theme of the series..unlike a ham sandwich in Seven 

Again, conjecture. You don't know that IT still won't be made true 

Would you make a "false" ending, then expand on that "false ending" to prepare for the "real" ending?

[Vox Draco]

CoolioThane wrote...

It's worth participating, Vox, we're always finding and debunking new potential evidence and it's bloody fun

I do understand your views on ME2 and I agree to an extent, though I do feel Thane to be pretty coolio

What was your opinion on Arrival?

I don't think I would be fun to the people there anymore, and I don't have anything to contribute than "The EC is the ending we get, nothing more" by now. Also I try to avoid the thread alltogether. After the release and first vision of the ending, I was in shock, when IT was first mentioned, I was hopeing again. Until April, then EC was announced, I was in despair again. Gradually the IT-thought grew stronger again, now I am in the valley of sorrow once more. I swore to myself not going there anymore. Shepard lies in a pile of rubble somewhere for some reason I will never be told by Bioware, and the storyi in my head up until the beamrun and after is much better anyway...

I acutually never played Arrival, nor any other ME2 DLC. I have to admit though I liked the game it paled in comparison to part one for me, and I never followed the praise it got from mayn fans. I guess it must be either Aria's or Miranda's arse...

But I know the significance Arrival holds for the IT. Hell, even without Arrival being canon anything else than an indoctrination-fighting Shepard is ridiculous to assume...

Maybe the reason they still haven't shown a true living breathing Shepard after the breateh scene is...and when she wakes up we'll find out that...ah, no way I will fall to that once more!

[CoolioThane]

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

I think it's good writing. That's my opinion. Errm...does that make you wrong femlob? As it clearly isn't a fact if I thought it good. 8-)

Yea, but why did you think it was good?

Why does it matter? I liked the writing. I'm an ITer so think it's been set up excellently. 

Ask me what I think if it turns out IT is not true, the ending might seem different to me without this point of view. Sorry I can't give exactly what you want me to give though 

Well if you can't justify your opinion on why the ending was bad ( IT is not the ending) then your opinion is invalid to this discussion. I'll repeat what I said before in this topic: 
At this point, currently believeing that the writers "secretly intended the IT to be correct" after the release of the EC DLC is exactly equal to believing that the thing in the box at the end of 'Seven ' was a ham sandwich, or that Obi Wan Kenobi was meant to be Luke Skywalker come back from the future to guide himself. 

You can believe anything you want if that's how you derive entertainment, and there's nothing wrong with it. But if there can be a "truth" about the structure of a fictional work it is that that which the author intended is the actuality. ME's writers do not intend IT to be the valid end

Oh, do you work for Bioware then? Until it is proven that IT is false, all that you say is conjecture. 

No it is not, because the IT makes logical sense and fits the theme of the series..unlike a ham sandwich in Seven 

Again, conjecture. You don't know that IT still won't be made true 

Would you make a "false" ending, then expand on that "false ending" to prepare for the "real" ending?

Yes.

[CoolioThane]

Vox Draco wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

It's worth participating, Vox, we're always finding and debunking new potential evidence and it's bloody fun

I do understand your views on ME2 and I agree to an extent, though I do feel Thane to be pretty coolio

What was your opinion on Arrival?

I don't think I would be fun to the people there anymore, and I don't have anything to contribute than "The EC is the ending we get, nothing more" by now. Also I try to avoid the thread alltogether. After the release and first vision of the ending, I was in shock, when IT was first mentioned, I was hopeing again. Until April, then EC was announced, I was in despair again. Gradually the IT-thought grew stronger again, now I am in the valley of sorrow once more. I swore to myself not going there anymore. Shepard lies in a pile of rubble somewhere for some reason I will never be told by Bioware, and the storyi in my head up until the beamrun and after is much better anyway...

I acutually never played Arrival, nor any other ME2 DLC. I have to admit though I liked the game it paled in comparison to part one for me, and I never followed the praise it got from mayn fans. I guess it must be either Aria's or Miranda's arse...

But I know the significance Arrival holds for the IT. Hell, even without Arrival being canon anything else than an indoctrination-fighting Shepard is ridiculous to assume...

Maybe the reason they still haven't shown a true living breathing Shepard after the breateh scene is...and when she wakes up we'll find out that...ah, no way I will fall to that once more!

ahhh, sorry for taking you to that place again 

We'll continue to fight, and hope for the true conclusion to Commander Shepard's story! 

[Kamfrenchie]

maaaze wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

ahah ! but the EC clarly says that all is for the best if you choose synthesis, so it pretty much tells you what to think. From what you are told, Syntesis is clearly the best option according to th writrs.


Deus ex 1 did it right, as all option are less contrived and come in naturally, and all 3 choices are proposed by people who helped you. And none of the ending shows a pefect world or situation.

Honestly, you spend the entire game stoppng TIM because his ideas are stupid, but suddenly it's  viable option ?

And again, how come the crucible cant discriminate btween reapers andsynthetics if it can rewrite everyone's DNA ?

That's not saying synthetic vs organic couldn't be a valid theme, but in another game. You can't just dump all that on the player in the last 15 minutes.
You know spec op the line ? It doesn't start being dark and grim i the last 30 minutes, nor does it get incredibly brighter, instead, the whole game is grim, an makes you think about what you're doing, how pople ca react to this situation,how good intention can degenerate etc.

For th catalyst to be relevant, he sould have been foreshadowed more, and conflict vs snthetics should have been much more frequents  and deadly.

To Synthesis...
Well it is from EDI´s point of view. You can have your own and your own judgement of what she tells you.

And again, how come the crucible cant discriminate btween reapers andsynthetics if it can rewrite everyone's DNA ?  

The same way an atomic power plant can preduce energy controlled or release that energy uncontrolled.
There are many factors that divide Organics and Synthetics...pick one. 

That's not saying synthetic vs organic couldn't be a valid theme, but in another game. You can't just dump all that on the player in the last 15 minutes. 

I say it was foreshadowed pretty much from the beginning with the very first death of the series (jenkins).

ah, but EDI is the only pov we get, and she is a trustworhy team mate, so the writers tell you what to think. She tell you that people are rebuilding, live well, and may transcend mortality, those are meant to be fact.

She doesn't say "oh i love my new life", tht'd be an opinion.  If  tell you armed conflicts happen around the world riht now it's not a pov, it's a fact.


I on't see how your analoogy with a nulear plant works. A nuclear plnt would povide energy for al, or blow up everyone.
If you can rewrite eveyone's DNA, and even modify synthetics so deeply, that means you need to be able to differentiate btween each  of them, as DNA is a very tricky ting to change, and the process would vary for each individual. Hence the crucible can differentiate. Heck, detroy doesn't even blow up ships or all computers...  The most logical explanation is that the wave contain nanomachines.
If you can do synthesis, you can just rewrite the reapers DNA to make'em die.

Agin, it's like having an athlete ableto move a 20kg rock, but unable to move a 10 kg rock. It make no sense.

or someone making equation of he 2nd degree being unable to do an addition

Modifié par Kamfrenchie, 19 juillet 2012 - 08:06 .

[Vox Draco]

CoolioThane wrote...
ahhh, sorry for taking you to that place again 

We'll continue to fight, and hope for the true conclusion to Commander Shepard's story! 

Bah, with the game copies neatly back in the shelf and out of sight, and every day posting my anger away in the forums I won't "break" again. 

Good luck with the fight, I hope it might succeed, though I doubt to see Shepard's story being concluded in a worthy manner. Bioware seems to care more for anything else than the avatar and iconic protaginsit of many many fans, for reasons I don't follow.
 

[Mazebook]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

I on't see how your analoogy with a nulear plant works. A nuclear plnt would povide energy for al, or blow up everyone.
If you can rewrite eveyone's DNA, and even modify synthetics so deeply, that means you need to be able to differentiate btween each  of them, as DNA is a very tricky ting to change, and the process would vary for each individual. Hence the crucible can differentiate. Heck, detroy doesn't even blow up ships or all computers...  The most logical explanation is that the wave contain nanomachines.
If you can do synthesis, you can just rewrite the reapers DNA to make'em die.

Agin, it's like having an athlete ableto move a 20kg rock, but unable to move a 10 kg rock. It make no sense.

or someone making equation of he 2nd degree being unable to do an addition

If you can rewrite eveyone's DNA, and even modify synthetics so deeply, that means you need to be able to differentiate btween each  of them, as DNA is a very tricky ting to change, and the process would vary for each individual. Hence the crucible can differentiate. Heck, detroy doesn't even blow up ships or all computers...  

There are factors that also divide Synthetics and Computers...

The Synthetics are not blown up in the destroy ending...the reapers don´t blow up...they just fall down...they do not function anymore.

I on't see how your analoogy with a nulear plant works. A nuclear plnt would povide energy for al, or blow up everyone. 

You know that Shepard (organic) is needed to make Synthesis work...there is your answer...why it can not divide in destroy and why it can devide in synthesis.

Modifié par maaaze, 19 juillet 2012 - 08:15 .

[CoolioThane]

Vox Draco wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...
ahhh, sorry for taking you to that place again 

We'll continue to fight, and hope for the true conclusion to Commander Shepard's story! 

Bah, with the game copies neatly back in the shelf and out of sight, and every day posting my anger away in the forums I won't "break" again. 

Good luck with the fight, I hope it might succeed, though I doubt to see Shepard's story being concluded in a worthy manner. Bioware seems to care more for anything else than the avatar and iconic protaginsit of many many fans, for reasons I don't follow.
 

Just remember. If you need a community with which to get less angry, BSN is the right one...oh **** 

[thefallen2far]

I don't think it was "just" bad writng. Timeframes, inconsistent writing teams, the lead writer of the first game leaving, the belif that they were in the "fans love us" they believed they could coast, politics.... many things lead to it being a bad ending.

Good writing could have saved it, but it didn't.

[elitehunter34]

maaaze wrote...

The Synthetics are not blown up in the destroy ending...the reapers don´t blow up...they just fall down...they do not function anymore.

I on't see how your analoogy with a nulear plant works. A nuclear plnt would povide energy for al, or blow up everyone. 

You know that Shepard (organic) is needed to make Synthesis work...there is your answer...why it can not divide in destroy and why it can devide in synthesis.

maaze I think you're missing the point.  The reason why people call the death of EDI/Geth contrived and the Crucible inconsistant it's because they are.

The Crucible is an enormously powerful device that operates on unknown principles.  Therfore, the consequences of the Crucible are completely up to the writers.  There is no reason why the Crucible has to control the Reapers.  There is no reason why it can give synthetics full understanding of organics, whatever the hell that means.  There is no reason why it can control the Reapers, yet it doesn't control the Geth and EDI.  It does all of these things because the writer willed it to be so.

The Crucible doesn't have to kill the Geth and EDI.  It is a comple and utter forced sacrifice.  They aren't sacrificed because the Geth sacrificed their fleets to stop the Reapers.  EDI isn't killed in a storm of Reaper fire as Joker takes on a Sovereign class Reaper head on to stop it from destroying the Crucible.  Those would have been noble sacrifices borne of their own actions and reasonable circumstances.  The Crucible killing the Geth/EDI in a beam of energy is not borne of reasonable circumstances.

Almost every time the game has had a sacrifice it was done as a result of an reasonable and unavoidable situation and/or it was done of the character's own will, or it could be avoided by making the right choices/putting in effort to the game (suicide mission in Mass Effect 2).  

Kaiden/Ashley's sacrifce?  It happened because there wasn't enough time to save both.  There were too many Geth forces. That's reasonable.

The fleet's sacrifice to save the Destiny Ascension?  It happened because they needed to draw fire to stop the Destiny Ascension from being destroyed.  Ships dying in this situation isn't unreasonable to expect.

Mordin's sacrifice?  The Shroud was being destroyed by the STG sabotage.  Mordin had only seconds to counteract it.  An explosion killed him, but he went in being fully prepared to die.  The situation was reasonable so I'm not complaining.

Thane's sacrifice?  Arguably it wasn't necessary.  Why didn't Shepard help Thane?  Shepard and the whole squad stood there while Thane was engaging Kai Leng in hand to hand combat.  They could've helped Thane.  Thane's sacrifice was therefore borne of somewhat unreasonable circumstances, but even if Shepard helped, Thane could have been stabbed anyways, so it wasn't that unreasonable that Thane died from his wounds.

Legion's sacrifice?  The writers willed it, but I will accept it this time because it isn't that unreasonable that an extremely complex code upload might take "direct personality dissemination."  It might have even happened as a result of Reaper sabotage, making the code more difficult to upload, so Legion had to use more drastic methods. Reaper technology is completely fictional, so it's effects can be manipulated by the writers.  I'll take it because it seems plausable enough to me that it is necessary.

Now I know what you are thinking, "If he can accept Legion's why can't he accept the Geth and EDI's."  It's because of a combination of the Crucible's inconsistant abilities (an example is how it controls the Reapers, but not the Geth/EDI, yet it can't distinguish in destroy), the fact that it doesn't have to, and because I can draw the line of what I think is reasonable wherever I want.  The Crucible is a device designed to kill Reapers; it shouldn't target synthetics in general.  It has been built and refined for millions of years.  It was worked on by Geth engineers.  It makes no sense how it wasn't precisely calibrated to destroy only Reapers.   I would have had absolutely no problem with it if the sacrifice was borne of a low EMS, just like how the deaths of characters in Mass Effect 2's suicide mission could be avoided by doing their loyalty missions, making the right choices, and getting the ship ugrades.  The game rewarded you for putting the effort in and being smart.  Having more war assests represents more talented people on the Crucible, so if you had enough, it would work exactly as it should: by killing the Reapers, and only the Reapers.

Right now we have a device with completely contrived consequences that can't be altered by making smart choices and putting in effort into the game.  I will not accept that.

Modifié par elitehunter34, 19 juillet 2012 - 09:59 .

[Kamfrenchie]

maaaze wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

I on't see how your analoogy with a nulear plant works. A nuclear plnt would povide energy for al, or blow up everyone.
If you can rewrite eveyone's DNA, and even modify synthetics so deeply, that means you need to be able to differentiate btween each  of them, as DNA is a very tricky ting to change, and the process would vary for each individual. Hence the crucible can differentiate. Heck, detroy doesn't even blow up ships or all computers...  The most logical explanation is that the wave contain nanomachines.
If you can do synthesis, you can just rewrite the reapers DNA to make'em die.

Agin, it's like having an athlete ableto move a 20kg rock, but unable to move a 10 kg rock. It make no sense.

or someone making equation of he 2nd degree being unable to do an addition

If you can rewrite eveyone's DNA, and even modify synthetics so deeply, that means you need to be able to differentiate btween each  of them, as DNA is a very tricky ting to change, and the process would vary for each individual. Hence the crucible can differentiate. Heck, detroy doesn't even blow up ships or all computers...  

There are factors that also divide Synthetics and Computers...

The Synthetics are not blown up in the destroy ending...the reapers don´t blow up...they just fall down...they do not function anymore.

I on't see how your analoogy with a nulear plant works. A nuclear plnt would povide energy for al, or blow up everyone. 

You know that Shepard (organic) is needed to make Synthesis work...there is your answer...why it can not divide in destroy and why it can devide in synthesis.

I'm sorry but you're not making any sense to me. Synthetics are pretty much a powerful computer with meaans to interact with the world, at the very least, the line is very thin between both, much saller than the line between reapers and synthetics. + shepard doesn't die with high enough EMS. there is no reason for the geth to die, and if anything it makes siding with the geth pointless considring tey die either way.

And shepard being required for synthesis make no sense either. Shepard doesn't have that new DNA, and is just a member of humankind, how does that makes the crucible able to change everyone in the galaxy ?

I'm  sorry but none of th options mke sense.

[Mazebook]

elitehunter34 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

The Synthetics are not blown up in the destroy ending...the reapers don´t blow up...they just fall down...they do not function anymore.

I on't see how your analoogy with a nulear plant works. A nuclear plnt would povide energy for al, or blow up everyone. 

You know that Shepard (organic) is needed to make Synthesis work...there is your answer...why it can not divide in destroy and why it can devide in synthesis.

maaze I think you're missing the point.  The reason why people call the death of EDI/Geth contrived and the Crucible inconsistant it's because they are.

The Crucible is an enormously powerful device that operates on unknown principles.  Therfore, the consequences of the Crucible are completely up to the writers.  There is no reason why the Crucible has to control the Reapers.  There is no reason why it can give synthetics full understanding of organics, whatever the hell that means.  There is no reason why it can control the Reapers, yet it doesn't control the Geth and EDI.  It does all of these things because the writer willed it to be so.

The Crucible doesn't have to kill the Geth and EDI.  It is a comple and utter forced sacrifice.  They aren't sacrificed because the Geth sacrificed their fleets to stop the Reapers.  EDI isn't killed in a storm of Reaper fire as Joker takes on a Sovereign class Reaper head on to stop it from destroying the Crucible.  Those would have been noble sacrifices borne of their own actions and reasonable circumstances.  The Crucible killing the Geth/EDI in a beam of energy is not borne of reasonable circumstances.

Almost every time the game has had a sacrifice it was done as a result of an reasonable and unavoidable situation and/or it was done of the character's own will, or it could be avoided by making the right choices/putting in effort to the game (suicide mission in Mass Effect 2).  

Kaiden/Ashley's sacrifce?  It happened because there wasn't enough time to save both.  There were too many Geth forces. That's reasonable.

The fleet's sacrifice to save the Destiny Ascension?  It happened because they needed to draw fire to stop the Destiny Ascension from being destroyed.  Ships dying in this situation isn't unreasonable to expect.

Mordin's sacrifice?  The Shroud was being destroyed by the STG sabotage.  Mordin had only seconds to counteract it.  An explosion killed him, but he went in being fully prepared to die.  The situation was reasonable so I'm not complaining.

Thane's sacrifice?  Arguably it wasn't necessary.  Why didn't Shepard help Thane?  Shepard and the whole squad stood there while Thane was engaging Kai Leng in hand to hand combat.  They could've helped Thane.  Thane's sacrifice was therefore borne of somewhat unreasonable circumstances, but even if Shepard helped, Thane could have been stabbed anyways, so it wasn't that unreasonable that Thane died from his wounds.

Legion's sacrifice?  The writers willed it, but I will accept it this time because it isn't that unreasonable that an extremely complex code upload might take "direct personality dissemination."  It might have even happened as a result of Reaper sabotage, making the code more difficult to upload, so Legion had to use more drastic methods. Reaper technology is completely fictional, so it's effects can be manipulated by the writers.  I'll take it because it seems plausable enough to me that it is necessary.

Now I know what you are thinking, "If he can accept Legion's why can't he accept the Geth and EDI's."  It's because of a combination of the Crucible's inconsistant abilities (an example is how it controls the Reapers, but not the Geth/EDI, yet it can't distinguish in destroy), the fact that it doesn't have to, and because I can draw the line of what I think is reasonable wherever I want.  The Crucible is a device designed to kill Reapers; it shouldn't target synthetics in general.  It has been built and refined for millions of years.  It was worked on by Geth engineers.  It makes no sense how it wasn't precisely calibrated to destroy only Reapers.   I would have had absolutely no problem with it if the sacrifice was borne of a low EMS, just like how the deaths of characters in Mass Effect 2's suicide mission could be avoided by doing their loyalty missions, making the right choices, and getting the ship ugrades.  The game rewarded you for putting the effort in and being smart.  Having more war assests represents more talented people on the Crucible, so if you had enough, it would work exactly as it should: by killing the Reapers, and only the Reapers.

Right now we have a device with completely contrived consequences that can't be altered by making smart choices and putting in effort into the game.  I will not accept that.

you are making a good points...I will respond when i have time to formulate an answer in a new thread dedicated to this topic...

now its bedtime...

[Bill Casey]

Justin2k wrote...

Thread after thread after thread about the ending, the extended cut and everything else.  What if the indoctination theory was true, what if they really mean this, what if this is the real ending.

It's all rubbish.  You have hope and faith in Bioware I get it.  But the obvious plain truth is that Starchild was a joke, Bioware realised it was a joke but rather than rewrite it, they didn't want to offend their writing staff so they "expanded" on it.

It's just poor writing, nothing more or nothing less.  A five year old child could have finished the story better.  Defeat the reapers, save the galaxy.  There, done.

There is no clever hidden underlining meaning, there is no theory.  It was just a stupid contrived ending and the writers should have their work reviewed in future before releasing it to the public.  Just imagine if Luke Skywalker had walked in to face the Emperor and Darth Vader only to be faced with a little child telling him that the empire exists because people rebel or something.  Lucas would never had found work again.

They wrote Shepard being indoctrinated, whether or not they intended to...

It's what's in the game...
And the ending is beyond ****ing brilliant...

Either by deliberate design, or by monkey typewriter Shakespeare...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 19 juillet 2012 - 11:00 .

[shurikenmanta]

Femlob wrote...

Adanu wrote...

If you think it was poor writing, that's fine.

Just don't force me to think so too, because I don't think so.

This kind of shit just drives me up the wall.

Those who complain don't think that the writing is bad. They know for a fact that the writing is bad. Objectively, quantifiably bad. This is not a matter of opinion; we are right, and you are wrong. It's as simple as that. Those who argue against this fact effectively state that professional education and a couple thousand years worth of literary works and criticism are less valid than their asinine assumptions. Seriously, who the f*ck do these people think they are?

What is a matter of opinion is whether this objectively, quantifiably bad writing offers enough value to be enjoyable in spite of its objective failings. You want to enjoy this shitty excuse for a story? Go right ahead and have fun. Just do not ever, ever, think that it's objectively, quantifiably good - because it isn't.

Arrogant tripe like this makes me want to actually think the endings are better than they are just to stick it to you lot. This is why people don't like you lot and call you lot self-entitled brats.

What are you, the thought police? People can think what they want, and if you don't like it, you can stick it.

Modifié par shurikenmanta, 19 juillet 2012 - 11:06 .

[Kamfrenchie]

shurikenmanta wrote...

Femlob wrote...

Adanu wrote...

If you think it was poor writing, that's fine.

Just don't force me to think so too, because I don't think so.

This kind of shit just drives me up the wall.

Those who complain don't think that the writing is bad. They know for a fact that the writing is bad. Objectively, quantifiably bad. This is not a matter of opinion; we are right, and you are wrong. It's as simple as that. Those who argue against this fact effectively state that professional education and a couple thousand years worth of literary works and criticism are less valid than their asinine assumptions. Seriously, who the f*ck do these people think they are?

What is a matter of opinion is whether this objectively, quantifiably bad writing offers enough value to be enjoyable in spite of its objective failings. You want to enjoy this shitty excuse for a story? Go right ahead and have fun. Just do not ever, ever, think that it's objectively, quantifiably good - because it isn't.

Arrogant tripe like this makes me want to actually think the endings are better than they are just to stick it to you lot. This is why people don't like you lot and call you lot self-entitled brats.

What are you, the thought police? People can think what they want, and if you don't like it, you can stick it.

they can think it but it can be wrong. There are rules in writing, and by those rules, ME3 story is quite poor, I thik that's his point. There are rules for writing just likethere are rules for grammar and whatnot.

[shurikenmanta]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

shurikenmanta wrote...

Femlob wrote...

Adanu wrote...

If you think it was poor writing, that's fine.

Just don't force me to think so too, because I don't think so.

This kind of shit just drives me up the wall.

Those who complain don't think that the writing is bad. They know for a fact that the writing is bad. Objectively, quantifiably bad. This is not a matter of opinion; we are right, and you are wrong. It's as simple as that. Those who argue against this fact effectively state that professional education and a couple thousand years worth of literary works and criticism are less valid than their asinine assumptions. Seriously, who the f*ck do these people think they are?

What is a matter of opinion is whether this objectively, quantifiably bad writing offers enough value to be enjoyable in spite of its objective failings. You want to enjoy this shitty excuse for a story? Go right ahead and have fun. Just do not ever, ever, think that it's objectively, quantifiably good - because it isn't.

Arrogant tripe like this makes me want to actually think the endings are better than they are just to stick it to you lot. This is why people don't like you lot and call you lot self-entitled brats.

What are you, the thought police? People can think what they want, and if you don't like it, you can stick it.

they can think it but it can be wrong. There are rules in writing, and by those rules, ME3 story is quite poor, I thik that's his point. There are rules for writing just likethere are rules for grammar and whatnot.

Heh, I won't even get into literary criticism on the story. That's a twisting and turning rabbithole with so many subjective schools of thought it isn't even funny.

I just didn't like the attitude.

[Cheviot]

Adanu wrote...

If you think it was poor writing, that's fine.

Just don't force me to think so too, because I don't think so.

Well said.

[liggy002]

Justin2k wrote...

Thread after thread after thread about the ending, the extended cut and everything else.  What if the indoctination theory was true, what if they really mean this, what if this is the real ending.

It's all rubbish.  You have hope and faith in Bioware I get it.  But the obvious plain truth is that Starchild was a joke, Bioware realised it was a joke but rather than rewrite it, they didn't want to offend their writing staff so they "expanded" on it.

It's just poor writing, nothing more or nothing less.  A five year old child could have finished the story better.  Defeat the reapers, save the galaxy.  There, done.

There is no clever hidden underlining meaning, there is no theory.  It was just a stupid contrived ending and the writers should have their work reviewed in future before releasing it to the public.  Just imagine if Luke Skywalker had walked in to face the Emperor and Darth Vader only to be faced with a little child telling him that the empire exists because people rebel or something.  Lucas would never had found work again.

Yeah Justin, and for your analogy... Darth Vader = Harbinger

[I_eat_unicorns]

CoolioThane wrote...

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

I think it's good writing. That's my opinion. Errm...does that make you wrong femlob? As it clearly isn't a fact if I thought it good. 8-)

Yea, but why did you think it was good?

Why does it matter? I liked the writing. I'm an ITer so think it's been set up excellently. 

Ask me what I think if it turns out IT is not true, the ending might seem different to me without this point of view. Sorry I can't give exactly what you want me to give though 

Well if you can't justify your opinion on why the ending was bad ( IT is not the ending) then your opinion is invalid to this discussion. I'll repeat what I said before in this topic: 
At this point, currently believeing that the writers "secretly intended the IT to be correct" after the release of the EC DLC is exactly equal to believing that the thing in the box at the end of 'Seven ' was a ham sandwich, or that Obi Wan Kenobi was meant to be Luke Skywalker come back from the future to guide himself. 

You can believe anything you want if that's how you derive entertainment, and there's nothing wrong with it. But if there can be a "truth" about the structure of a fictional work it is that that which the author intended is the actuality. ME's writers do not intend IT to be the valid end

Oh, do you work for Bioware then? Until it is proven that IT is false, all that you say is conjecture. 

No it is not, because the IT makes logical sense and fits the theme of the series..unlike a ham sandwich in Seven 

Again, conjecture. You don't know that IT still won't be made true 

Would you make a "false" ending, then expand on that "false ending" to prepare for the "real" ending?

Yes.

why?

[Oxspit]

elitehunter34 wrote...


...snip...

You know... I have to say that Legion's sacrifice really fell kind of flat with me. I really got the impression that the entire point of it was to set up a mirror to Shepard's potential sacrifice if you choose synthesis, which seems like what they're almost trying to push you to do if you have gone to the trouble to keep the Geth alive (which you have to have done if Legion sacrifices himself).

Especially if, like I was, you were hell-bent on making peace between the Geth and the Quarians (I mean... work out a way to upload it at your leisure, buddy, Ima gonna get the Quarians to cease firing).

As for the destroy beam.... again, I suspect the qualification was there in part to make it more of a renegade choice (some of whom have actually let all of the Geth die off anyway at this point), in part because ... well, without it how insane does picking synthesis look?

And totally with you on the weirdness of being able to focus on all synthetics, sparing all organics but not being able to just target the reapers alone.

I mean, think about how sophisticated this death beam is. It encounters a thing and it knows if it's alive/self-aware. It then also knows whether this conscious thing was formed by evolutionary processes, or if it was subsequently created by another conscious thing (Is Grunt still alive, btw? There's actually a case to be made that he's synthetic, too). That's easier than knowing whether or not it's a reaper? Really? Surely there's more of a specific pattern to 'reaper' than to 'synthetic consiousness'.

Actually, I honestly kind of wonder whether or not the restriction on the death beam wasn't perhaps also placed in as an attempt to make the crucible look less like a "does anything you could possibly want" device.

Because, speaking for myself I found it pretty weird and hard to swallow that the crucible exhibited such diverse god-like powers, but was strangely restricted to precisely those three actions.

The only conclusion I could really draw is that the god-child picked those three himself from a list including many, many others. This raises at least two problems itself, though. Firstly, you have to wonder at how much agency he actually has (because it now becomes harder to swallow that he couldn't just open the citadel himself in ME1), but also you really have to further resent your being forced to pick from those three options. The triumphant tone of the endings just falls so flat.

[United_Strafes]

I think you would have to be pretty dull to think otherwise. Then again some people just make up things in thier mind that there is some underlying reason for the **** ending, the rest of us recognize crap as crap, then the leftovers who think it's good are just stupid.