689 réponses à ce sujet

[Snypy]

Maxster_ wrote...

Snypy wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

And yet another laughable assertion.
Harbringer could one-shot entire offensive, why he even cares about individual soldiers?
It is nonsense.

Shepard did take out the Human Capital ship in ME2 and did heavily help out in the defeat of Sovreign in ME1.

That is something close to Harbringer main gun.

400kt explosion.

I reckon Harbinger doesn't want the Conduit destroyed as well.

Additionally, do you remember the fight on Tuchanka, or better--on Rannoch where Shepard was dodging the Reaper destroyer? Why didn't it simply use its main gun to wipe out the entire area? Well, perhaps the main gun has some limitations when fighting ground battles.

Yeah yeah, "perhaps", "dodging the reaper".
You forgot to add that entire quarian fleet, that could obliterate everything in 50km giving they trained targeting, shooting at Shepard.
As i said, everyone involved in ME3 main plot becomes completely retarded.

It is gun used to bombard planets from orbit, and destroy ships from 1-2 shots. It is just another lore butchering and shoehorning that ME3 consists of.

As it was stated above, you don't need to understand something for it to make sense. (We never saw Sovereign land on a planet and shoot people, so there's little reason to think that the plot is "retarded.") Do you know precisely how eezo works? I don't think so. Still, it makes sense to you. A better illustration: do you know exactly how sending objects as big as a car to other planets works? And yet, the MSL successfully landed on Mars a couple of weeks ago.

As for conduit - it is out of the lore, another asspull, and - generated by citadel.
Also, reapers could just turn the thing off from the start of ground offensive, which(ground offensive), btw, caused Harbringer descend.

Not entirely out of the lore. Shepard used a Prothean Conduit on Illos in ME1. And Saren didn't shut it down before Shepard could get in either. (Sure, it wasn't generated by the Citadel)

(edit: typo)

Modifié par Snypy, 10 octobre 2012 - 06:14 .

[Ticonderoga117]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Finn the Jakey wrote...

On the Beam Run sequence,
Why would Harbinger risk taking time to shoot down the Normandy, which is waking people AWAY from the battle, when letting just one single soldier get onto the Citadel could mean the end of the Reapers?

if the beam is so important why is only harbinger there to protect it?

why does shepards EMS score define harbingers ineptitude?

Because they realized that one Reaper is more than enough to fry everyone running towards the beam from one direction, or maybe because the game engine wouldn't be able to handle it.

Because... it just does. Enjoy the endings you heathen![/sarcasm]

[Cobretti ftw]

Really? THats ur conclusion?

[Maxster_]

Snypy wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Snypy wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

And yet another laughable assertion.
Harbringer could one-shot entire offensive, why he even cares about individual soldiers?
It is nonsense.

Shepard did take out the Human Capital ship in ME2 and did heavily help out in the defeat of Sovreign in ME1.

That is something close to Harbringer main gun.

400kt explosion.

I reckon Harbinger doesn't want the Conduit destroyed as well.

Additionally, do you remember the fight on Tuchanka, or better--on Rannoch where Shepard was dodging the Reaper destroyer? Why didn't it simply use its main gun to wipe out the entire area? Well, perhaps the main gun has some limitations when fighting ground battles.

Yeah yeah, "perhaps", "dodging the reaper".
You forgot to add that entire quarian fleet, that could obliterate everything in 50km giving they trained targeting, shooting at Shepard.
As i said, everyone involved in ME3 main plot becomes completely retarded.

It is gun used to bombard planets from orbit, and destroy ships from 1-2 shots. It is just another lore butchering and shoehorning that ME3 consists of.

As it was stated above, you don't need to understand something for it to make sense. (We never saw Sovereign land on a planet and shoot people, so there's little reason to think that the plot is "retarded.") Do you know precisely how eezo works? I don't think so. And yet you consider that it makes sense. A better illustration: do you know exactly how sending objects as big as a car to another planet works? And yet, the MSL successfully landed on Mars a couple of weeks ago.

Yeah, yeah, your headcanon contradicts the lore, - screw the lore, who needs consistencty and believeability?
That was one lousy excuse.
Entire priority:earth is lore-butchering nonsense. And nullifying the lore is bad, you know - it makes everything unbelieveable.

As for conduit - it is out of the lore, another asspull, and - generated by citadel.
Also, reapers could just turn the thing off from the start of ground offensive, which(ground offensive), btw, caused Harbringer descend.

Not entirely out of the lore. Shepard used a Prothean Conduit on Illos in ME1. And Saren didn't shut it down before Shepard could get in either. (Sure, it wasn't generated by the Citadel)

You just making things up. Prothean Conduit - is mass relay. Which is perfectly established in the lore.
Magic beam is not, first time we see teleporting beams in entire ME games  - in the priority:earth.
So, giving teleporting beam same name as prothean mass relay, automatically puts it in the lore? :D:D

[Maxster_]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Finn the Jakey wrote...

On the Beam Run sequence,
Why would Harbinger risk taking time to shoot down the Normandy, which is waking people AWAY from the battle, when letting just one single soldier get onto the Citadel could mean the end of the Reapers?

if the beam is so important why is only harbinger there to protect it?

why does shepards EMS score define harbingers ineptitude?

Because they realized that one Reaper is more than enough to fry everyone running towards the beam from one direction, or maybe because the game engine wouldn't be able to handle it.

Because... it just does. Enjoy the endings you heathen![/sarcasm]

Stop thinking, it will help you enjoy the game © someone on youtube(about ME3, of course).

[Jadebaby]

arial wrote...

 The real reason the ending(s) were poorly recieved is quite simple.

since the day ME3 was anounced, people started speculating on what features it would have, how the story would progress, etc.

It came to the state where No game could realisticly match what fans expected.

When the game finally came out, and it could not live up to what people were sure it would be, people looked for every possible reason to blame for their dissatisfaction.

seriously, just don't post crap like this, it will never do any good.

[White Zombie]

The endings were poorly recieved because they were awful. Still awful post Extended Cut.

How hard is this to comprehend?

[ericjdev]

Please see above

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

Ugh! Another blame the fans thread? Seriously?!? As someone who hated the ending with a fiery passion I still get annoyed with all the ending hate threads. GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON! The ending are not gonna change no matter how hard you protest! Granted not all who share my POV are doing this and are sharing their displeasure in a more constructive manner.

But ending hate isn't my biggest issue on this forum, it's the defenders. If you like the ending fine but if you are offended by contrasting POVs then keep it to yourself. I'm more incensed by the copout, BS notion that the fans/customers are the problem and not the shoddy product. EA needs to accept that they make lousy products and if they want to stay relevant in the long run they need to change their anti-consumer practices or face becoming irrelevant in the not too distant future.

[deatharmonic]

arial wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

arial wrote...

and Im waiting for you to give data that disproves it.

Its not the kind of thing people realise they are doing, its subliminal, like how people shun those who are different without knowing they are doing so.

most of the things we do in life we are not even aware we are doing them.

Educational moment: You made the claim, ergo the onus is on you to prove it. One cannot prove a negative, only disprove a postive.

It's called the Burden of Proof.

look man, I know people IRL that hated the endings, and I know those who liked it.

The majority of those who hated it had played previous games, or had some prior knowledge of the franchise.
And the majority who liked it had no prior knowledge of the franchise.

I took a few Physchology classes back in University (before I started majoring in Computer Science), and its quite obvious.


the reason the majority of those who hated it had some prior knowledge of the series is simple, you were wishing hopeing and speculating all at the same time, wether you realise you were or not, many of a persons thoughts are subliminal, this is why you get random songs stuck in your head, or start craveing a certain food.

Anyways, I am done argueing with you who are obviously trying to troll my thread (as always).

I've got a date, so so long and good night!

I take issue with this because I did a whole BSc degree in Psychology, not just a few classes and if there's anything at all you should take away from Psychology its that you CANNOT reduce human behaviour down to a single factor. Which is what you've done in the OP by stating the reaction to the endings was based on expectation, totally ignoring a plethora of other factors. Personally I can't comprehend why anyone (even those who haven't studied psychology) would be so reductive. In fact its a major criticism of a lot of past research; that researchers have attempted to attribute behaviour to a singular cause. 

The reaction to the endings stem from numerous reasons and for each person those reasons could be totally different from the next persons. I can't say expectation didn't play a part for some people, it may well have. However, for me I know it didn't. 

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

deatharmonic wrote...

arial wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

arial wrote...

and Im waiting for you to give data that disproves it.

Its not the kind of thing people realise they are doing, its subliminal, like how people shun those who are different without knowing they are doing so.

most of the things we do in life we are not even aware we are doing them.

Educational moment: You made the claim, ergo the onus is on you to prove it. One cannot prove a negative, only disprove a postive.

It's called the Burden of Proof.

look man, I know people IRL that hated the endings, and I know those who liked it.

The majority of those who hated it had played previous games, or had some prior knowledge of the franchise.
And the majority who liked it had no prior knowledge of the franchise.

I took a few Physchology classes back in University (before I started majoring in Computer Science), and its quite obvious.


the reason the majority of those who hated it had some prior knowledge of the series is simple, you were wishing hopeing and speculating all at the same time, wether you realise you were or not, many of a persons thoughts are subliminal, this is why you get random songs stuck in your head, or start craveing a certain food.

Anyways, I am done argueing with you who are obviously trying to troll my thread (as always).

I've got a date, so so long and good night!

I take issue with this because I did a whole BSc degree in Psychology, not just a few classes and if there's anything at all you should take away from Psychology its that you CANNOT reduce human behaviour down to a single factor. Which is what you've done in the OP by stating the reaction to the endings was based on expectation, totally ignoring a plethora of other factors. Personally I can't comprehend why anyone (even those who haven't studied psychology) would be so reductive. In fact its a major criticism of a lot of past research; that researchers have attempted to attribute behaviour to a singular cause. 

The reaction to the endings stem from numerous reasons and for each person those reasons could be totally different from the next persons. I can't say expectation didn't play a part for some people, it may well have. However, for me I know it didn't. 

This. Very well said!

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I know my reaction to the ending came not from expectation, because at 3:00 a.m. you're really tired. My reaction was that I was emotionally beaten and curb stomped for the last 40 minutes of the game. I felt helpless. I had no way out except to turn it off. But I'd have to go through the whole thing again so I pushed onward. The worst of it was what appeared to be slipping an falling in my own blood after Anderson died when Hackett called. That was the curb stomp. Then the scene with the child faced with the three horrendous choices just to end the game. I chose Destroy. The Breath Scene was like... what? did Shepard live? All the mass relays are destroyed; and the Normandy is stranded on a planet and Shepard is never going to see Liara again. We were supposed to have a family.

It was March 22, 2012. I blew up the galaxy at 3:20 a.m. What the hell kind of ending is this? I felt like I'd been kicked in the stomach.

There were no Geth in the ending (gone already).

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 11 octobre 2012 - 12:50 .

[Ghost]

arial wrote...

 The real reason the ending(s) were poorly recieved is quite simple.

since the day ME3 was anounced, people started speculating on what features it would have, how the story would progress, etc.

It came to the state where No game could realisticly match what fans expected.

When the game finally came out, and it could not live up to what people were sure it would be, people looked for every possible reason to blame for their dissatisfaction.

People had high expectations. I was a little disappointed in the original endings. They weren't bad as KnL2 or KZ3 per say but they were disappointing.

[Ghost]

Eloise K wrote...

I wasn't expecting anything that BW couldn't deliver. My expectations were based on their previous products, which are - despite minor flaws - excellent.
From now on I won't certainly expect anything good from BW, and no, I'm not stating that out of disdain or hatred, just caution.
I guess BW could care less about my "caution", since they are apparently giving up on storytelling to appeal a broader audience with casualized mild shooters.

*states I'm not hating*
*hating*

[Ghost]

Eloise K wrote...

Ghost1017 wrote...

Eloise K wrote...

I wasn't expecting anything that BW couldn't deliver. My expectations were based on their previous products, which are - despite minor flaws - excellent.
From now on I won't certainly expect anything good from BW, and no, I'm not stating that out of disdain or hatred, just caution.
I guess BW could care less about my "caution", since they are apparently giving up on storytelling to appeal a broader audience with casualized mild shooters.

*states I'm not hating*
*hating*

If you say so.

lol! If you hate the game then hate it.

[Charles Rosemberg]

SovereignX6 wrote...

I hated the ME3 ending before EC, now its all good.

[stargatefan1990]

SovereignX6 wrote...

I hated the ME3 ending before EC, now its all good.

I enjoyed ME3 non stop right up until the end, the EC fixed it for me mostly, still a bit annoyed about ending on a picture montage but i can go and play ME1/2 and 3 now looking forward to OMEGA right now

[Massa FX]

Why stir this pot of cow plop up?

[Blueprotoss]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Ad hominems still won't work and you don't need to completely understand something for it to make sense.

you seem to rely on that word quite a bit.

Its not my fault that opinions should be discussed without people resorting to insults, which this should also happen with facts.  If you want to be taken serious;y then you'll have to drop the petty insulting.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 11 octobre 2012 - 01:56 .

[Blueprotoss]

Maxster_ wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Finn the Jakey wrote...

On the Beam Run sequence,
Why would Harbinger risk taking time to shoot down the Normandy, which is waking people AWAY from the battle, when letting just one single soldier get onto the Citadel could mean the end of the Reapers?

if the beam is so important why is only harbinger there to protect it?

why does shepards EMS score define harbingers ineptitude?

Because they realized that one Reaper is more than enough to fry everyone running towards the beam from one direction, or maybe because the game engine wouldn't be able to handle it. 

Because... it just does. Enjoy the endings you heathen![/sarcasm]

Stop thinking, it will help you enjoy the game © someone on youtube(about ME3, of course).

I do find it funny that some people freaked out about ME3 on that not ME1 and ME2.