398 réponses à ce sujet

[RebelTitan428]

DirtyMouthSally wrote...

Anyone that isn't delusional and detached from reality obviously knows that it's the "fans" fault.  Whether a product is succesful or is a failure has nothing to do with the quality of said product.  I mean that's so obvious.  Some of you need to take an economics class.

i believe you should go to any class that isnt economics, and learn that just because you have an opinion, doesn't mean anyone else wants to hear it.

[DecCylonus]

As somebody who liked the endings, I find the continuing negativity baffling, and in certain cases pathetic. I remember when I finished ME1, aside from thinking how awesome the game was, I also thought "This may not end well for Shepard." I think the sacrifice theme was there from the beginning. After learning about the Reapers and seeing the final battle with Sovereign, I never thought a conventional victory where the allied fleets blew the Reapers away was possible.

Let me be clear: I like a happy ending as much as the next person. Tragic or bittersweet endings are not my preferred outcome. However, a less than perfect ending is how things often are in the real world, and I feel that stories need reflect that sometimes, regardless of the medium they are told in. For all the war movies where the allies kick ass and go home to drink beer with their buddies, there needs to be a Saving Private Ryan. Mass Effect provided that for video games, and I appreciate that. I personally don't feel that the lack of a happy ending detracts from the series in any way. I also don't feel that it cheapens my accomplishment as a player for beating the game.
 

I disagree entirely with the haters who say the series was pointing in a different direction. I don't think they paid attention to what the narrative or the codex told them about the Reapers' military superiority. Another poster commented that these poeple dismissed what the games told them since they were expecting a happy ending, and I think that is a good explanation too. These haters make a lot of posts about counting Reapers in the final ME2 cutscene, Thannix Cannons, etc., and argue that Bioware retconned everything to force Crucible and the Catalyst on us. They flame Bioware for bad storytelling and narrative inconsitencies. I think they were so wrapped up in the story they wanted that they refused to see the story that Bioware was telling them for three games.

Lastly, I find the rage at Bioware for not giving the series a happy ending to be pathetic. I respect people's right to dislike the ending. What I don't respect are the personal insults and vitriol hurled at the developers, proclaiming that the endings are a "middle finger" to the fans, predictions that this is the end of a great developer, and claims that Bioware cheated them out of their money. These are the same people who call anyone who likes the ending stupid. To those people, I say that 99.9% of all video games have a happy Disney ending. If you can't stand Mass Effect's ending, there are hundreds of other titles available on your system of choice. Go play those, and stop wasting your life bashing ME3 on the forums. You could be out there playing that hero who wins big in the end, instead of prolonging your own misery here.

Modifié par DecCylonus, 26 septembre 2012 - 01:06 .

[megamacka]

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

I know I'm stepping into the wolves den here but please respect our opinions too.

I feel a lot of gamers are misunderstood when they are trying to explain their dissatisfaction with the ending. The ending itself is not bad, and what I mean is the story is actually very good. I think the disconnect comes with fans who after playing ME1 and ME2 are expecting endings to coincide more with the ending mechanics employed in ME2’s Suicide Mission in which our choices throughout the game changes each individual’s outcome and endings. Miranda isn’t loyal Thayne dies, you send the wrong teammate for the job through the ventilation shaft they get shot and killed before the door can be sealed, you pick the wrong squad leader and your squad dies… and so on there were several different scenarios that could play out all following the same story and ending. So I myself was expecting something more detailed and complex to be featured in the ME3 ending. Bioware delivered on this aspect throughout ME3 (Just as a quick example if you don’t speak to Miranda on the citadel before going to Sanctuary and warn her about Kai-Leng she does not survive the altercation with her father. If you do go to the citadel and warn Miranda she survives this altercation.)  However once arriving at the Beam this mechanic ceases. So when we got to the Crucible/Citadel and where presented three choices without there being any real consequences for the choices we made throughout the game it was really a major letdown. 

I think for a lot of gamers this is why we say we are not satisfied, which raises controversy with the gamers who liked the ending story told.  

   I actually think that they should've just had 1 '' ending ''. And then have choices and consequences along the way and have them show in the last battle on Priority:Earth. Which...... was bad.... Priority:Earth was a horrible last mission it was just so rushed and lacked heart. 

  I think that the fact that they felt like they had to give us a choice just ruined things. A triology must end somewhere. And that end is what we've been fighting for you don't have to have a damned '' pick your color '' ending. Just have it be '' Fire the crucible and destroy the reapers '' and then flesh out the consequences and choices beforehand.

  For example, with Low EMS. Your entire squad and the normandy is killed off. And perhaps even shepard, and Andersson is the one that manages to fire the crucible or maybe no one at all? Maybe the reapers win.
And with High EMS, you have this cutscene or battle with Harbringer. And you get a speech from shepard about how '' you believed us to be so insignificant compared to you, we may just have been ants to you but we fought and we prevailed. Now bugger off! '' and then the entire galaxies fleet locks on to Harbringer ( his the last reaper ) and you see shepard walk away whilst Harbringer is getting messed up.

 Just an example. I don't really like the fact that we HAVE to get choices in the very end especially not the fact that there is a random reaper AI telling us what these choices are in the last five minutes. I am sure people would've been mad tho if there was only 1 ending but I still think it would've worked out for the best. 

  And the game should've ended with shepard ( if he/she survived ) walking along the memorial wall touching it acknowledging the fallen.

I mean just thing about Dragon age for a second. Dragon age does have a set ending but the outcome and choices that you've made are clearly shown. I don't hear anyone go all like '' OH WE DIDN'T GET A PICK YOUR COLOR  CHOICE ''. Just imagine, Control, Synthesis and destroy for the dragon age ending for a sec.... lol

Modifié par megamacka, 26 septembre 2012 - 01:17 .

[Brovikk Rasputin]

DecCylonus just won everything.

[TheGreatDayne]

I like the ending, and I just stopped caring about what other people think. My favorite ending is synthesis and a lot of people hate it. Well, I don't care! I just laugh it off, since I could care less if synthesis makes as much sense as a non-waterproof wetsuit. It is my preference, and I'm not shoving it to anyone's throat.

As for the negativity, well, whatever. I ignore it. It all seems pointless, anyway.

[Ieldra]

Gogzilla wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Do you think its a sign that Bioware may be better off giving us a more tradational Hero's Journey, or should the rest of us (Clearly the minortiy on these forums atleast) Be more vocal or supportive of Bioware  in the face of all this negativity.

There are enough "traditional Hero's Journeys" to wrap the Earth in the paper they're written on, and I don't think the anti-enders are opposed to the idea of a less traditional narrative as a rule. ME's problem is that it deceived the players into believing it is such a traditional story, until the ending revealed that it's not. At any time within all the games, you could be reasonably sure that there was a way to "do the right thing" and come out of top, with any costs cosmetic at most in the long run.

What it takes to appreciate ME3's ending is an appreciation of moral diversity, and being able to emotionally adapt to a scenario where you're called to sacrifice your honor for the greater good. Rather obviously, this is a minority taste. Only the vehemence of the antagonism surprised me - and made me believe that this is a message that needed to be sent.

Nonetheless, to spring this on the player at the last moment was a mistake of epic proportions. I support Bioware in breaking new ground with their storytelling in video games, but they need to take the players with them, carefully and gradually. I've been known to rant about the fact that Paragons could always have their cake and eat it. A few big decisions where "doing the right thing" resulted in disaster during the trilogy would have done a lot to prepare for an ending like ME3's. It may also have scared away some players, though.

When playing the game through the second time,

I found that the ending does not stand as far apart from the rest of the game as has been perpetuated

Both Tuchanka and Ranoch present similar moral dilemas to the player but the sacrifices are that of other charecters and not the player. The ending asks the player to make the same choices they already made, but in different context and where the sacrifice would be ultimately theirs.

The difference is, in their sacrifice those characters' hands stayed 100% clean. Legion upgraded all geth with Reaper code, but since geth are always in contact we can assume a consensus was reached about that decision beforehand. Mordin sacrificed himself curing the genophage, which is seen as "doing the right thing" by most people. There was no moral dilemma involved in those decisions. What most anti-enders object to is that there is no way out of the moral trilemma the ending presents.

Needless to say, I do not agree. Adding a way out would make all other decisions worthless. You either have  a moral trilemma with no way out, or you don't have a difficult decision at all. The scenario is completely ok, only how it's presented and sprung on the player with too little foreshadowing is problematic.

BTW, you are completely correct when you say many players didn't take the dark mood of ME3 seriously. The best foreshadowing, as I see it, came from Javik: "Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghost if honor matters. The silence is your answer." People took that as the meaningless opinion of a particularly cynic character. But it was more... Still not enough, though, given that you could always have your cake and eat it in any decision, excepting only Virmire and Arrival. Those were not enough because the consequences were immediately clear.

[DecCylonus]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

DecCylonus wrote...

I disagree.

1) ME was designed to be a trilogy from the beginning. Shepard had to succeed in the first two games, by definition. The outcome of the first two games was not a gaurantee of success in the third.

2) In spite of my first point, you actually could fail in ME2. If you did things wrong Shepard died, or at least got a lot of the squad killed. Even if you did things right, you didn't always have enough Paragon / Renegade points to retain everyone's loyalty on the higher difficulties.

3) All the way back in ME1 you couldn't save everyone. On Virmire and on the Citadel final battle, Shepard gave orders that got people killed, and knew they would be when he/she gave them.

IMO, the foreshadowing was there throughout the series. Not for the Crucible or the Catalyst, but definitely for a less-than-happy ending.

I'd like to point out that all the deaths you witnessed along the way, were, just that. Witnessed along the way. Not thrust upon you in the final minutes to say "lolz, you thought you could succeed."

That's the issue also, it's not just that you can't save everybody, it's that you have to compromise, with a Reaper. That's not a direction we've ever been taken in Mass Effect before, in fact, it's the complete OPPOSITE direction to where we were taken. And no matter whether you played paragon or renegade. This fact never changed!

I disagree. Those deaths along the way were a part of the major theme in the series: if you want victory, you have to be willing to sacrifice someone or something. It should not have been a shock that a sacrifice was required to beat the Reapers.

I also disagree that the endings (other than Refuse) were not a success for Shepard. If you don't want to compromise with the Reapers, pick Destroy. You eliminate the Catalyst's solution completely, for a price.

[Grubas]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

DecCylonus just won everything.

For missing the point.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Grubas wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

DecCylonus just won everything.

For missing the point.

No.

[DecCylonus]

Grubas wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

DecCylonus just won everything.

For missing the point.

Let me guess: I'm stupid for liking the endings.

[Fawx9]

DecCylonus wrote...

Grubas wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

DecCylonus just won everything.

For missing the point.

Let me guess: I'm stupid for liking the endings.

No but you're stupid for grouping every anti ender into a "We could have won if we employed 19th century tactics and stood still in a line and shot Reapers with thanix muskets".

Did I think the implmentation of the crucible stupid? Yes.

Was it the only way to do it? No.

A large amount of effort went into telling the PC that this cycle was different, we had not only stopped the Reapers key stragegy of turning off the Relays, but united most of the races, which apparently no one had managed to do.

Why couldn't those fact have been taken into account with what the crucible did? Maybe its a dissabling device that is intended to counter Reaper shielding(the stuff that gives us them the biggest advantage). We then fight another set of battles agianst the weakend Reaper forces and depedning on what you did throughout the other 3 games will effect how the final campaign plays out.

We didn't need space magic. We didn't need our choices to mean nothing but an abritrary number in the end. And no, not all of us wanted to win the war in an exchange of fleet fire above Earth. We simply wanted to have a real effect on the outcome, rather than being forced bewteen three silly choices.

[Jadebaby]

DecCylonus wrote...

I disagree. Those deaths along the way were a part of the major theme in the series: if you want victory, you have to be willing to sacrifice someone or something. It should not have been a shock that a sacrifice was required to beat the Reapers.

I also disagree that the endings (other than Refuse) were not a success for Shepard. If you don't want to compromise with the Reapers, pick Destroy. You eliminate the Catalyst's solution completely, for a price.

No, we went from fighting Reapers 2.9 of the game. To choosing 1 of 4 options to a solution that NEVER EVEN EXISTED in the MEverse.

I agree that sacrifices were a necessity, and I was prepared for that. Hell, I was prepared to lose my LI or Shepard for it. However, what sacrifices?

1) Control: Shepard commits suicide at the Catalyst's whim. (This is NOT a sacrifice, you had no idea that this would do what the Catalyst said it would, it's killing herself plain and simple.)

2) Same as control. Even less believable.

3) Same as above, (uhh hello Shepard? Maybe walking at the exploding tube while holding your pistol isn't such a good idea? You're an infiltrator and you were always an amazing shot, how about we stand at the back of the walkway?) NO, SUICIDE!
Then the Geth aren't a sacrifice, they are collateral damage because the other two options can't stand on their own merits so destroy needed to have a "con" tacked on to it.

4) The EC SUICIDE is a suicide on the grandest of scales. But at least in this one Shepard stays true to their character and gives an epic "**** you" speech.

[Jadebaby]

Fawx9 wrote...

thanix muskets".

OH MY GOD! MY SIDES!

[Fawx9]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

DecCylonus wrote...

I disagree. Those deaths along the way were a part of the major theme in the series: if you want victory, you have to be willing to sacrifice someone or something. It should not have been a shock that a sacrifice was required to beat the Reapers.

I also disagree that the endings (other than Refuse) were not a success for Shepard. If you don't want to compromise with the Reapers, pick Destroy. You eliminate the Catalyst's solution completely, for a price.

No, we went from fighting Reapers 2.9 of the game. To choosing 1 of 4 options to a solution that NEVER EVEN EXISTED in the MEverse.

I agree that sacrifices were a necessity, and I was prepared for that. Hell, I was prepared to lose my LI or Shepard for it. However, what sacrifices?

1) Control: Shepard commits suicide at the Catalyst's whim. (This is NOT a sacrifice, you had no idea that this would do what the Catalyst said it would, it's killing herself plain and simple.)

2) Same as control. Even less believable.

3) Same as above, (uhh hello Shepard? Maybe walking at the exploding tube while holding your pistol isn't such a good idea? You're an infiltrator and you were always an amazing shot, how about we stand at the back of the walkway?) NO, SUICIDE!
Then the Geth aren't a sacrifice, they are collateral damage because the other two options can't stand on their own merits so destroy needed to have a "con" tacked on to it.

4) The EC SUICIDE is a suicide on the grandest of scales. But at least in this one Shepard stays true to their character and gives an epic "**** you" speech.

Also I want to point out, destory also has a massive con to it, if the Reapers are indead truthful to their word. Destoryers dont get the knoweldge of the past, they dont get the help to rebuild, they get a damaged galaxy with an uncertain future hoping that they were right and that they could find a way to coexist with synthetics. But apparently that still made Destory look to good so Bioware through in edi + geth genocide for kicks for the sake of 'balance'.

Heres a hint, if 2 endings suck next to the 3rd maybe its those endings and not the 3rd that needs to be changed.

[dreamgazer]

Fawx9 wrote...

"We could have won if we employed 19th century tactics and stood still in a line and shot Reapers with thanix muskets".

Cue the next multiplayer weapon. 

Got quite a chuckle there, sir. 

[Kel Riever]

There's no bad ending in Multiplayer.

Which is why it is better.

But Thanix muskets? Maybe the best idea ever. Totally an N7 weapon.

[DecCylonus]

Fawx9 wrote...

DecCylonus wrote...

Grubas wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

DecCylonus just won everything.

For missing the point.

Let me guess: I'm stupid for liking the endings.

No but you're stupid for grouping every anti ender into a "We could have won if we employed 19th century tactics and stood still in a line and shot Reapers with thanix muskets".

Did I think the implmentation of the crucible stupid? Yes.

Was it the only way to do it? No.

A large amount of effort went into telling the PC that this cycle was different, we had not only stopped the Reapers key stragegy of turning off the Relays, but united most of the races, which apparently no one had managed to do.

Why couldn't those fact have been taken into account with what the crucible did? Maybe its a dissabling device that is intended to counter Reaper shielding(the stuff that gives us them the biggest advantage). We then fight another set of battles agianst the weakend Reaper forces and depedning on what you did throughout the other 3 games will effect how the final campaign plays out.

We didn't need space magic. We didn't need our choices to mean nothing but an abritrary number in the end. And no, not all of us wanted to win the war in an exchange of fleet fire above Earth. We simply wanted to have a real effect on the outcome, rather than being forced bewteen three silly choices.

Look, I respect your right to dislike the ending. And I'm not lumping all the anti-enders together. The ones I'm specifically attacking are the ones that say Bioware failed to make the case that a conventional victory - 19th Century tactics, as you put it - wouldn't work against the Reapers. Bioware did make the case, and you obviously understood and accepted it. Many anti-enders don't.

As to your specific argument, all I can say is that's not the story Bioware chose to tell. You may not like it, and that's your right. However, arguing with them about it is like arguing with an author about how they ended their book. Anytime a CRPG tries to tell a story, certain constraints will be applied. The writers want to tell a specific story, and there are only so many contingencies that can be programmed for. Could Bioware have implemented things differently? Sure. But we have the game we have, just like the Star Wars movies are what they are.

Lastly, I have to disagree that our choices have no impact. You can have radically different outcomes for the Rachni, Quarians, Geth, Krogan, and many characters, depending on your choices. Your final choice determines the future of the galaxy. There aren't many games that offer even one choice as meaningful, much less the number in ME. Just because you don't like the implementation doesn't mean the choices meant nothing.

[Loaderini]

The negativity tires me.
Bioware fans acting like morons, Bioware employees acting like morons, it's like a couple that goes through a very bad divorce.

[Fawx9]

DecCylonus wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

DecCylonus wrote...

Grubas wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

DecCylonus just won everything.

For missing the point.

Let me guess: I'm stupid for liking the endings.

No but you're stupid for grouping every anti ender into a "We could have won if we employed 19th century tactics and stood still in a line and shot Reapers with thanix muskets".

Did I think the implmentation of the crucible stupid? Yes.

Was it the only way to do it? No.

A large amount of effort went into telling the PC that this cycle was different, we had not only stopped the Reapers key stragegy of turning off the Relays, but united most of the races, which apparently no one had managed to do.

Why couldn't those fact have been taken into account with what the crucible did? Maybe its a dissabling device that is intended to counter Reaper shielding(the stuff that gives us them the biggest advantage). We then fight another set of battles agianst the weakend Reaper forces and depedning on what you did throughout the other 3 games will effect how the final campaign plays out.

We didn't need space magic. We didn't need our choices to mean nothing but an abritrary number in the end. And no, not all of us wanted to win the war in an exchange of fleet fire above Earth. We simply wanted to have a real effect on the outcome, rather than being forced bewteen three silly choices.

Look, I respect your right to dislike the ending. And I'm not lumping all the anti-enders together. The ones I'm specifically attacking are the ones that say Bioware failed to make the case that a conventional victory - 19th Century tactics, as you put it - wouldn't work against the Reapers. Bioware did make the case, and you obviously understood and accepted it. Many anti-enders don't.

As to your specific argument, all I can say is that's not the story Bioware chose to tell. You may not like it, and that's your right. However, arguing with them about it is like arguing with an author about how they ended their book. Anytime a CRPG tries to tell a story, certain constraints will be applied. The writers want to tell a specific story, and there are only so many contingencies that can be programmed for. Could Bioware have implemented things differently? Sure. But we have the game we have, just like the Star Wars movies are what they are.

Lastly, I have to disagree that our choices have no impact. You can have radically different outcomes for the Rachni, Quarians, Geth, Krogan, and many characters, depending on your choices. Your final choice determines the future of the galaxy. There aren't many games that offer even one choice as meaningful, much less the number in ME. Just because you don't like the implementation doesn't mean the choices meant nothing.

My arguements for choices always gets clouded between the OE and the EC. OE non of your choices mattered, you made a decision on what direction you wanted to walk in as nothing made sense and were given a pallet swap ending. Your choices amounted to a number that unlocked a certain colour swap.

The EC did do a better job, however with the star kid still there it's extemly hard to pull myself out of the "Oh god just please shut up and point me to your power cord so I can yank it out". It's good at showing what the furture may bring but it still failed at showing what your choices did in the present, though thats more a fault of Priority: Earth. For me, and maybe others, I get the feeling that the EC, while improving the endings surface value, still contains fundamental issues that couldn't be solved by a slide show.

PS I personally wouldn't use the Rachni as an example of choices mattering, but maybe thats just me.

Modifié par Fawx9, 26 septembre 2012 - 02:40 .

[Grubas]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

No

Yes

DecCylonus wrote...

Let me guess: I'm stupid for liking the endings.

Your wrong in your judgement of the whole Retake and HTL movement. The lack of a happy ending is not what unites us. The hate for the catalyst is not what unites us. The lack of closure is not what unites us. This are just attempts to understand what happened. The endings are bad, thats what unites us. Thats what we all agree on.

Every subgroup of Antienders hangs on to something, that would make the game bearable. Be it a happy ending, a well thoughtout narrative, a classic conventional ending, more sexytime with your LI... Ponys, IT whatever. 

If you are one of the few, who got invested into the franchise, and was satisfied, thats cool. Im happy for you. And i would never call you names, obviously. 

Those who are attacking you for your opinion alone, are a "vocal minority" and don't represent all Antienders. Not in the slightest. So keep your disingenuous assertions. Respect others opinion.



 

Modifié par Grubas, 26 septembre 2012 - 02:46 .

[Gogzilla]

Jade8aby88 wrote...
I'd just like to point out that you, too, show signs off being discontent with the game by having a "revamp priority Earth" banner.

Sure i want to express my intrest in seeing a revamped Priority Earth, Like i said  "i would be lying if i said i was not disspointed".

But thats hardly negative.

Jade8aby88 wrote...
And you too, are also claiming opinion as fact in your control banner which heralds the paragon symbol.

Well for starters

I was unaware that certain people can percive a banner as proposed fact, rather than a means of representing ones own opnnions. 

Also while i did borrow this banner from the Control thread, i did so because i felt the banner reflected my play style and not my ending choice. Which was not control, 

[Kamfrenchie]

DecCylonus wrote...

As somebody who liked the endings, I find the continuing negativity baffling, and in certain cases pathetic. I remember when I finished ME1, aside from thinking how awesome the game was, I also thought "This may not end well for Shepard." I think the sacrifice theme was there from the beginning. After learning about the Reapers and seeing the final battle with Sovereign, I never thought a conventional victory where the allied fleets blew the Reapers away was possible.

Let me be clear: I like a happy ending as much as the next person. Tragic or bittersweet endings are not my preferred outcome. However, a less than perfect ending is how things often are in the real world, and I feel that stories need reflect that sometimes, regardless of the medium they are told in. For all the war movies where the allies kick ass and go home to drink beer with their buddies, there needs to be a Saving Private Ryan. Mass Effect provided that for video games, and I appreciate that. I personally don't feel that the lack of a happy ending detracts from the series in any way. I also don't feel that it cheapens my accomplishment as a player for beating the game.
 

I disagree entirely with the haters who say the series was pointing in a different direction. I don't think they paid attention to what the narrative or the codex told them about the Reapers' military superiority. Another poster commented that these poeple dismissed what the games told them since they were expecting a happy ending, and I think that is a good explanation too. These haters make a lot of posts about counting Reapers in the final ME2 cutscene, Thannix Cannons, etc., and argue that Bioware retconned everything to force Crucible and the Catalyst on us. They flame Bioware for bad storytelling and narrative inconsitencies. I think they were so wrapped up in the story they wanted that they refused to see the story that Bioware was telling them for three games.

Lastly, I find the rage at Bioware for not giving the series a happy ending to be pathetic. I respect people's right to dislike the ending. What I don't respect are the personal insults and vitriol hurled at the developers, proclaiming that the endings are a "middle finger" to the fans, predictions that this is the end of a great developer, and claims that Bioware cheated them out of their money. These are the same people who call anyone who likes the ending stupid. To those people, I say that 99.9% of all video games have a happy Disney ending. If you can't stand Mass Effect's ending, there are hundreds of other titles available on your system of choice. Go play those, and stop wasting your life bashing ME3 on the forums. You could be out there playing that hero who wins big in the end, instead of prolonging your own misery here.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong, all the endings to ME3 are happy, unless losing shepard is uber devastating for you.

And yes, real life conflicts rarely ends only happily, but they also never ends with a mgical device no one understand being discovered at the last moment, nor making an odd last minute compromise with an ennemy you were engaged in an extermination war is.

War is decided by tactics, manpower, and tech employed .

But ME3 ends with only positive notes, almost ignoring the bad moral implications of your choice.

That's how bittersweet looks like


http://youtu.be/khIWdolT9xY?t=2m47s



http://youtu.be/_DSy34-zieI?t=6m43s

[AlanC9]

Fawx9 wrote...
Also I want to point out, destory also has a massive con to it, if the Reapers are indead truthful to their word. Destoryers dont get the knoweldge of the past, they dont get the help to rebuild, they get a damaged galaxy with an uncertain future hoping that they were right and that they could find a way to coexist with synthetics. But apparently that still made Destory look to good so Bioware through in edi + geth genocide for kicks for the sake of 'balance'. 

Heres a hint, if 2 endings suck next to the 3rd maybe its those endings and not the 3rd that needs to be changed.

I'll play. How would you have improved the other two endings?

[clennon8]

DecCylonus wrote...

Grubas wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

DecCylonus just won everything.

For missing the point.

Let me guess: I'm stupid for liking the endings.

Yes.

[xxskyshadowxx]

DecCylonus wrote...

Grubas wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

DecCylonus just won everything.

For missing the point.

Let me guess: I'm stupid for liking the endings.

You're not stupid at all, but a lot of folks continue to assume that people who disliked the ending hated it because it didn't have a happy ending and that is simply untrue. They also continue to assume that all of the people who dislike/hate the endings harbor some sort of animosity toward folks who liked the ending, which is also simply untrue.

BioWare fans from both sides of the coin are guilty of posting trollish threads against the "other side" and making trollish response comments within threads as well. And threads like this actively encourage the very negativity people are complaining about.

If you're sick of negativity...walk away from it. Don't post complaint about complaint threads, and if you run into a thread that you see as negative or unappealing, don't feed the fire within it. Let it calm down, and ignore the repetative stuff and eventually folks will calm down and it will return to more normal conversation. What's going wrong here, are folks are actively keeping the fires burning, then are turning around and complaining about it, which isn't helping.

All that being said, I very much disliked the endings. I have no problem with the folks who liked them at all, but my responses to some topics will be colored by my opinion, and responding with "You're wrong," or "You're stupid," or "No," or "You lose at the internet," or "You're not a BioWare Fan," and so on and so forth will not change my opinion. BioWare has the ability to change my opinion, but has elected not to do so, which is certainly their right, just as much as it is my right to have the opinion in the first place. If you dislike my opinions, sinply feel free to ignore them. Becoming angry over them doesn't do yourself any good.

Modifié par xxskyshadowxx, 26 septembre 2012 - 02:58 .