354 réponses à ce sujet

[BeastSaver]

A lot of people have been asking "Did he play the whole trilogy?" He specifically said he spent 30 hours on ME3. The default game has a different flavor than the trilogy as a whole. There was no way to garner peace between the Geth and the Quarrians. You either killed the Rachni Queen or you were eventually betrayed. And before EC, there was no way to gain enough EMS points to get all the possible endings.

IMO, a lot of people are upset, not because they couldn't "win" against the reapers (which you certainly do in Destroy), but that they couldn't "win" in the way they wanted. They wanted to win without collateral damage (Geth and EDI) or have an epic space battle (how this would be shown in any way other than in a lengthy cut scene, I don't know) and/or a one-on-one battle between Shepard and Harbinger.

There are plenty of instances in the trilogy where you can't save everyone. For instance, in ME1 on Feros, you can't get to the NPCs fast enough to save them. The man who tells you to go see Fai Dan, the man going into the tunnels, the woman on the stairs, the men who are on the radio on the skyway; you either sacrifice the Destiny Assension or 1/3 of the Alliance fleet. In ME2, you can't save the woman from Horizon before she becomes goo; you can't stun the Hunters on Aeia (Jacob's loyalty mission), you have to kill them. In ME3, you can't get to the NPCs on the Citadel fast enough to save them from Cerberus.

ME2, to me, is a side story to the main theme; there is a connection with the Reapers, but it is peripheral. In ME3 a lot of the fight is against Cerberus, which is actually a reflection of what happened in the Prothean's cycle (from talking to Javik) because of indoctrination.

IMO the story has always been "we can win, but the costs will be heavy." Throughout the series the phrase "no matter the cost" has been stated again and again.

As far as the hero living or dying, I'm good with the EC showing the crew member/LI not putting Shepard's name on the memorial wall and the breath scene. To me, that heavily implies survival, so I go with it.

The game is not perfect by any means, but I have gotten enough play (with more to come) that I feel I have gotten my money's worth.

[wright1978]

Well i regret wasting my time reading that drivel. Can't believe anyone would take this cretin seriously but obviously some people do.

[Memnon]

Jonata wrote...

About foreshadowing (because it's the most reasonable complaint in the mess that are the previous 5 pages) there's something I must tell to you: please try to play the game again without looking only for lore inconsistencies and oversexualide characters everywhere.

You'll notice, and I can assure this, that the endings are foreshadowed almost everywhere. Every single Priority: Mission hint at the theme of breaking the cycle and about the nature of the Reapers, with an emphasis on Synthetics during Rannoch. 80% of the lines said by the main characters are about how the conflict can end and about the bigger problems the Galaxy face, to what is behind the very nature of this conflict. 

From jokes like "Now pacify the Reapers, and we'll make you a saint" said by Garrus to the very Catalyst-like argument between Javik and EDI on synthetics' evolution, the feeling of the coming ending is practically all over the place. Believe me, I'm doing a walktrough with this very purpose right now and I'm finding evidence pretty much everywhere.

There's more evidence for the actual endings than there are IT clues, I can assure that.

Also, please avoid name-calling. I know people on the internet loves insulting each other ("Forums are like big rooms when people can put on a mask and insult each other!" - Peter Parker) and I don't know Film Crit HULK personally, but I can tell from his previous works that he's a nice guy, a very professional critic and someone who never insult anyone and any idea without explaining his reasoning bit by bit. You are free to express your opinion but if your opinion is "He's an idiot" keep it for yourself.

When you say the endings are foreshadowed, do you mean the RGB choices, the hologram child AI, or just ending the Reaper threat? The last one, I can see ... the first two, which appear to be the primary complaint of those who hate the endings (they're my primary complaint, anyways) are not

Also - a "nice guy" and a "professional critic" would not dismiss someone else's opinion by saying "F#$K THAT GUY."

As an aside - it the evidence of the RGB and starchild are more abundant than that of IT, then feel free to make detailed videos and explanations on the level of those in support of IT. I should point out that I'm not an IT proponent (though I did initially think I was in a dream sequence), but if there is more evidence then I would love to see that compilation

Modifié par Stornskar, 07 août 2012 - 06:51 .

[Book of Mazarbul]

This guy is a pretentious, self-important waste of space - the ME3 endings have no artistic value, period.

[Mastone]

HULK IS WRONG

[ticklefist]

Neverimnd.

Modifié par ticklefist, 07 août 2012 - 07:01 .

[Jonata]

Stornskar wrote...

When you say the endings are foreshadowed, do you mean the RGB choices, the hologram child AI, or just ending the Reaper threat? The last one, I can see ... the first two, which appear to be the primary complaint of those who hate the endings (they're my primary complaint, anyways) are not

Also - a "nice guy" and a "professional critic" would not dismiss someone else's opinion by saying "F#$K THAT GUY."

As an aside - it the evidence of the RGB and starchild are more abundant than that of IT, then feel free to make detailed videos and explanations on the level of those in support of IT. I should point out that I'm not an IT proponent (though I did initially think I was in a dream sequence), but if there is more evidence then I would love to see that compilation

I mean that what is hinted is the very nature of the endings: the fact that the Reapers cannot be defeated, but that there will be a new way to live after this war end. And that the new way the Galaxy can take is strongly bonded with the fate of Syntehtics... also, specifically regarding Synthesis, the theme of a union that reach the level of a symbiosis are hinted more than once (the most noticeable lines being the one said by Tali if you end the Geth/Quarian war peacefully).

I think a Compendium Thread / Video of this evidence can be very useful to the Pro-Endings cause, but I have not the time and ability to do that. I'll be sure to find some Pro-Ending talented fellow to help me as soon as I have the time to.

About HULK, I'm not saying to avoid talking about his article if you don't like it, you are free to express your position. I said to avoid name-calling. "F**k that HULK guy" is okay (but I would like to know why or your just yelling pointless insutls), "Hulk is clearly an idiot and needs help" is NOT. That's name-calling.

[Memnon]

Jonata wrote...

I mean that what is hinted is the very nature of the endings: the fact that the Reapers cannot be defeated, but that there will be a new way to live after this war end. And that the new way the Galaxy can take is strongly bonded with the fate of Syntehtics... also, specifically regarding Synthesis, the theme of a union that reach the level of a symbiosis are hinted more than once (the most noticeable lines being the one said by Tali if you end the Geth/Quarian war peacefully).

I think a Compendium Thread / Video of this evidence can be very useful to the Pro-Endings cause, but I have not the time and ability to do that. I'll be sure to find some Pro-Ending talented fellow to help me as soon as I have the time to.

About HULK, I'm not saying to avoid talking about his article if you don't like it, you are free to express your position. I said to avoid name-calling. "F**k that HULK guy" is okay (but I would like to know why or your just yelling pointless insutls), "Hulk is clearly an idiot and needs help" is NOT. That's name-calling.

I guess my point is that I can actually understand why people are proponents of IT. When I got hit by the beam, as I said I thought I was in a dream sequence. I mean, for crying out loud, you are in three or four dream sequences and the behaviors and the controls are similar. What I never thought was that I was going meet some god child being thing that was going to force me to kill myself to save the galaxy. I actually expected a heroic sacrifice, I never expected the mechanism for it would be so ... stupid.

[Grubas]

Its a game. What roleplaying game ends with a neverending shootermission, and 3 choices, that everyone gets? the ending is anticlimatic at best.

[M Hedonist]

[...]A LONG, IN-DEPTH CONVERSATION ABOUT THE NATURE OF CYCLES[...]

????????????????????????????????????????????

Modifié par Sauruz, 07 août 2012 - 07:51 .

[NS Wizdum]

Sauruz wrote...

[...]A LONG, IN-DEPTH CONVERSATION ABOUT THE NATURE OF CYCLES[...]

????????????????????????????????????????????

14 lines isn't even considered a "long, in-depth" text message. Not sure what this dude was smoking.

[M Hedonist]

SergeantSnookie wrote...

All I could think of while reading this review: www.youtube.com/watch

I killed a guy with a trident.

[M Hedonist]

On a related note, the people from RedLetterMedia (most familiar for the overly long "Plinkett" reviews bashing on the Star Wars prequels) have promised to make something regarding the ME3 endings months ago.

[Twinzam.V]

Sauruz wrote...

[...]A LONG, IN-DEPTH CONVERSATION ABOUT THE NATURE OF CYCLES[...]

????????????????????????????????????????????

I dont think Hulk knows what are in-depth conversations. 

[Mahrac]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Mahrac wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

It sounds like you and a couple people haven't played ME3 based on how it still continueswhat ME1 and ME2 did.  

THen tell me what themes it continued. Personally I don't see how it kept the themes of overcoming the impossible, finding a third option, strength through diversity, ect.

Synthesis, Control, Destory, Creator vs Created, Indoctrination, Experimentation, Racism, Genocide, and etc.   Overcoming the Impossible isn't a theme based on how nothing is impossible other then killing the Reapers conventually. 

In order, not a theme of the series, not a theme of the series,
not a theme of the series, minor conflict, mechanic, not a theme, not a theme, not touched on by the end, point.

And what do you mean it's not a theme? suicide mission... Ilos... beating Sovreign... Plenty of times in the series that Shepard accomplished the impossible.

Modifié par Mahrac, 07 août 2012 - 08:22 .

[Hawkeye121]

OniTYME wrote...

[Mahrac]

Nyoka wrote...



There you have it. Coherent plot, convincing characters, believable worlds... DON'T MATTER.

To Hulk, anyway.

Doesn't matter if you want to make a babbling idiot out of the protagonist and fill the ten last minutes with nonsense, because the only thing that matters is the metaphors and the ideas.

Bye-bye credibility

[McAllyster]

This article is a bad joke isn't it? Or this CAPSLOCKGUY is trolling, right?

[FFHAuthor]

Wow, that was disappointing. The way OP talked up the reviewer I had expected someone who would look at the ending in relation to the trilogy and the entirety of the game and what has been represented rather than what he wanted it to represent. Very unfortunate, another member of the "I see this and only this and don't see what you see and what I see is wonderful!" group.

It sounds like he played a completely different game than I did, and truthfully he probably did. And more than likely he's ignoring the other themes represented in the game...or perhaps I should say -HE- is inferring themes that he desires to see in the game, rather than all the themes that can be inferred.

If you're gonna decide to examine an interactive experience with multiple ways of exploring the story and multiple ways of interacting with the environment, characters and narrative, then you can't just lock yourself in and say 'The theme of breaking cycles was perfect and present in all games!'.

I can make decisive arguments about themes of 'Triumph in the face of adversity', 'Unity in diversity leads to victory', 'We are invulnerable' or hell even 'We're saved by the Military industrial Complex!', or 'Shepard is a Timelord!' are present in every play-through of the Trilogy. (seriously)

[JaceBelerin]

Jonata wrote...

 Film Crit Hulk writes some of the most illuminating, deep and compelling articles about movies. He's not only a very professional critic who never try to simply use sarcasm and harsh lines to gain popularity, but actually explain his reasons and he always has something extraordinary to say.

(He does all of this with the gimmick of the Hulk writing a deep cinema article so he use ALL-CAPS and the so-called "Hulk Speak", but believe me, it's worth it.)

See that red text? Right there is where I stopped. You contradict your oppening statement.

[3DandBeyond]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Yet this is the Year of Gamer Entitlement based on what happened with Dark Souls, Diablo 3, Zelda: Skyward Sword, RE: ORC, Street Fighter x Tekken, ME3, Tomb Raider, and Hitman: Absolution while there's 4 months to go.

Well I don't know about the rest of those (I do know a bit about Diablo 3 and if you think what was done to it was a great thing then you don't know what you are talking about)-but I do very much know about Dark Souls.  I played Demon's Souls and had 2 versions of it-the NA and EU versions so I could play with friends and others and didn't have a problem doing so.  Dark Souls came out and Bandai Namco set up the most god awful P2P solution for online play (an integral part of the game) that I've ever seen.  You needed to play online to go many of the things in the game and while many really wanted to play specifically with friends, others were begging to be able to play with anyone randomly and the P2P lobbies that were created were so small for a great number of players they were empty-so you couldn't play online at all, ever.  And most of the lobbies threw everyone into online play with Japanese players and made it almost impossible to play with a friend.

And I will repeat the online play was integrated into the SP experience-you needed to play online to merely have help at times to get through the game.  That is the type of game Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are.  And Dark Souls was released with Bandai Namco saying it was all about playing with friends, when many couldn't play with anyone at all.

From software the Japanese dev, set about fixing it after fans repeatedly asked it be fixed because it was a broken aspect of the game.  They released a patch to Japanese players first and it further broke their games-they could no longer play at all online ever.  Japanese players that don't usually complain about too many things began to get really angry at From and accused them of using them as Beta testers.  From finally came out and admitted they made an error and apologized for the patch.  The solution to the whole thing was to make the P2P lobbies bigger (32 people as opposed to 8 or 16), but it never fully corrected to problem as playing online with others was hit or miss and sometimes involved waiting 45 minutes or longer.  Most of the blame was directed at Bandai Namco because it seems the game was developed to need actual servers and BN likes to do things cheaply.  The NA servers for Demon's Souls (run by Atlus) never had these issues.

Fans are customers.  When companies do things wrong, what is the best thing to do, complain or return the game and move on?  If people continually return the game (if they even can), then games might not get made.  If that's what you want to happen to games you like, keep telling people not to complain.

I loved Demon's Souls and like ME3, I'd been really counting on a lot of fun with Dark Souls and like many many others most of the game was broken because online didn't work right.  I platted it and moved on.  And it's questionable if any sort of "sequel" to it will ever be released globally again.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Dark Souls was a damn good game, probably in my top five. It's a shame to hear this kinda stuff ruining the experience for others.

[tonnactus]

I stopped reading after "deep conversations with the Catalyst"...

[cdtrk65]

Art fart...since when are art and good storytelling opposed to each other? Yes there is a theme of cycles involved in the game, as others have said it was always about breaking them, not embracing.

ME1: Look at it from the cycle prespective, the protheans goal was to also break the cycle. If not for themselves for the next space faring species. Hince the left beacons to warn, then created a block to stop the gate keepers from starting again. Shepard discovers their warnings and begins the war to prevent it from happening, Sovergien informs him that it is inevitable anyways. Shepard eventual stop Sovergien and delays the cycle. 

ME2: Shepard discovers what happened to the previous cycle, and that the reapers have secretly already begun the cycle with his species. Shepard agains delays the cycle,  Harbinger informs him it was all in vain.

ME3: The cycle has begun, despite Shepard's efforts. It looks like it is going to happen again, when they sudden find the answer to beating the cycle in a base that they've known about for a while.  Shepard and the rest of the spacefaring species unite, unlike; as we have been told in game, the previous cycles to build the weapon and successfully fire it off. (though there is some debate) Only to discover that the weapon leaves us with three choices one is to ruin the unity that has already been accomplished and only harmed by the reapers, though you could also say that it wouldn't have happened without them. Submit to the cycle, and everyone becomes machines (which was presented as an option in ME1 and was flatly turned down by Shepard). The last option being pretty much the losing result for Shepard (Does he not accept what he was fighting against the whole time by becoming part of the reapers?) but potential a win for everyone else.

So one and two set-up a lying antagonist as Shepard defeated them both times. Though they are tough the aren't as unstopable as they proclaimed.

Number three final gives us the key to beating them, but rather than beating them all three options force some kind of submit to them.  Which might have been fine if it had been handled better, as the previous two games did present the option that in might not have been possible to win, though only through the err... voice of an unreilable antagonist.

Yeah he is right cycle's are a theme, but so was fighting them and all we are left with is a submit to them through death of our allies (destroy), to outright submitting to things early established as wrong (synthesis/control).

If ME3 ending are art then they are of the abstract variety.

Modifié par cdtrk65, 07 août 2012 - 10:47 .