889 réponses à ce sujet

[Seival]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Seival wrote...

You missing the most important point. You can tell what the story is about only after you read it to the end. If the ending didn't justify your expectations, it doesn't mean it was poorly presented. It only means that you wanted to see something different in the end...

...That's why BioWare defend the endings no matter the vocal minority. And that's why pro-enders help BioWare to do so. BioWare clearly care about the ideas much more than about money, so we all have a hope to get more really strong stories in the future.

first - please watch your tone. if you cant handle a different oppinion, you should not start a discussion.

and i would be very careful with statements such "vocal minority" (wich is a popular excuse to dismiss other peoples opinion). it is very offensive and counterproductive.

sorry .. but as much as i like bioware - it is a software company, with a routemap to follow. people wanted their choices to be important in the last game - they turned it into faceless war assets or replaced characters by standins.

i presented reasons that make me not like the endings without a doubt.
the trilogy plot changed while they were writing the 3rd game. the hints to the first intenden outcome are still inside the old games - you can not change that.
offering conclusion to the plot within the last 10 minutes, by a deus ex machina, is just poor. that could be done in style .. leviathan could have been a chance to explain the catalysts funktion and origin in detail. sadly, there were only hints. 

combining organic and synthetic life was never an option during the first game and neither in the second. the first hint, that a combination like this can work, was given after rannoch (dialogue with tali about suits and geth programs).
controling the reapers was only brought up by tim in the third game. in the second game, he wanted to preserve the reaper shell, to find weaknesses to destroy them.

the choices shepard could make in the first games were not about weather to control or destroy the reapers - it was about human supremicy or integration.

the control ending for instance is not about supremicy or integrtion, it is about protecting the many (all civilisation) and embracing the strong / caring for those, who can not help themselves. this is contrary to the context of the first 2 games.

The story is incomplete if it still has no ending...

...BioWare didn't change anything by ME3 events. They just finished incomplete story. And finished it in the way you didn't expect. Calling that "bad ending" is what really counterproductive here.

[Seival]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Seival wrote...
Finally, this only proves my theory: ...Ask some person, who disliked ME3 ending, to read some good old sci-fi book and describe what did he understand afterwards, and that person will call the book "nonsence" or "nice adventure".

so in your opinion, anybody who does not like the endings is undiscerning and or uneducated? ...

if your answer is yes, mine is: "this exchange is over."

In my opinion most people who dislike the endings don't bother to analize them. Why? Because it so much easier to whine and think that you know how to write books better than professional writers...

...In short, I believe that most haters are just lazy, no matter educated or not.

EDIT: Uneducated people can also make right conclusions by the way. "Uneducated" doesn't mean "stupid", and I have a feeling that you consider "uneducated" word as an insult. Some uneducated people can be much more smart than educated ones.

Modifié par Seival, 05 novembre 2012 - 12:56 .

[Reorte]

Seival wrote...

In my opinion most people who dislike the endings don't bother to analize them. Why? Because it so much easier to whine and think that you know how to write books better than professional writers...

...In short, I believe that most haters are just lazy, no matter educated or not.

It looks completely the other way around to me.

[MegaSovereign]

Seival, that's just plain wrong.

Over-analyzing actually causes people to find more flaws in the endings. Even those who like the endings will eventually get sick of analyzing them.

That's why ambiguity sucks.

[DrGunjah]

Seival wrote...
In my opinion most people who dislike the endings don't bother to analize them. Why? Because it so much easier to whine and think that you know how to write books better than professional writers...

...In short, I believe that most haters are just lazy, no matter educated or not.

Yeah, that's the problem. That people here do not analyze the endings.
It's getting more and more ridiculous. People (over-) analyze the sh!t out of the endings for months now.
Seriously, this guy must be a troll...

[drayfish]

Seival wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Seival wrote...
Finally, this only proves my theory: ...Ask some person, who disliked ME3 ending, to read some good old sci-fi book and describe what did he understand afterwards, and that person will call the book "nonsence" or "nice adventure".

so in your opinion, anybody who does not like the endings is undiscerning and or uneducated? ...

if your answer is yes, mine is: "this exchange is over."

In my opinion most people who dislike the endings don't bother to analize them. Why? Because it so much easier to whine and think that you know how to write books better than professional writers...

...In short, I believe that most haters are just lazy, no matter educated or not.

EDIT: Uneducated people can also make right conclusions by the way. "Uneducated" doesn't mean "stupid", and I have a feeling that you consider "uneducated" word as an insult. Some uneducated people can be much more smart than educated ones.

But this entire patronising thread is based upon you fundamentally misreading - whether naive or lazy - the entire purpose of Harrison's fiction.

I'm not sure it's wise to get insulting about the critical capacity of others now...

[Applepie_Svk]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Seival, that's just plain wrong.

Over-analyzing actually causes people to find more flaws in the endings. Even those who like the endings will eventually get sick of analyzing them.

That's why ambiguity sucks.

DrGunjah wrote...

Yeah, that's the problem. That people here do not analyze the endings.
It's getting more and more ridiculous. People (over-) analyze the sh!t out of the endings for months now.
Seriously, this guy must be a troll...

The answer is yes, Legion this unit is a troll...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 05 novembre 2012 - 01:05 .

[Seival]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Seival, that's just plain wrong.

Over-analyzing actually causes people to find more flaws in the endings. Even those who like the endings will eventually get sick of analyzing them.

That's why ambiguity sucks.

Finding the flaws is "testing", not "analizing". That's the point. Haters ask "why is that truth" instead of asking "what should my Shepard do knowing all the truth".

The only productive way here is to accept all game events as they are and analize the game as it is, instead of trying to find flaws. The game is about moral decisions. So make those decisions based on information you know. It's that easy.

Modifié par Seival, 05 novembre 2012 - 01:08 .

[solidsnake78]

DrGunjah wrote...

Seival wrote...
In my opinion most people who dislike the endings don't bother to analize them. Why? Because it so much easier to whine and think that you know how to write books better than professional writers...

...In short, I believe that most haters are just lazy, no matter educated or not.

Yeah, that's the problem. That people here do not analyze the endings.
It's getting more and more ridiculous. People (over-) analyze the sh!t out of the endings for months now.
Seriously, this guy must be a troll...

My troll sense is tingling, that statement is pretty ridiculous, most people on this board have been analyzing them since before March 6th. Constantly. Non stop. And most haters? People on this board.

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Seival, that's just plain wrong.

Over-analyzing actually causes people to find more flaws in the endings. Even those who like the endings will eventually get sick of analyzing them.

That's why ambiguity sucks.

Finding the flaws is "testing", not "analizing". That's the point. Haters ask "why is that truth" instead of asking "what should my Shepard do knowing all the truth".

The only productive way here is to accept all game events as thay are and anilize the game as it is, instead of trying to find flaws. The game is about moral decisions. So make those decisions based on information you know. It's that easy.

I can't even be bothered to try and unpick these unclearly conveyed statements anymore.

Something for you Seiv:

http://www.forumgard...ffectively.html

[Applepie_Svk]

Seival wrote...



Finding the flaws is "testing", not "analizing". That's the point. Haters ask "why is that truth" instead of asking "what should my Shepard do knowing all the truth".

/facepalm

In the next episode we will see in this cartoon with Seival: genocide is justifiable....

[Nightwriter]

Seival wrote...

Haters ask "why is that truth" instead of asking "what should my Shepard do knowing all the truth".

Critics ask "why did you put that bad writing in there" instead of "what should my roleplaying response be now that I've blindly accepted the bad writing."

[MegaSovereign]

Seival wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Seival, that's just plain wrong.

Over-analyzing actually causes people to find more flaws in the endings. Even those who like the endings will eventually get sick of analyzing them.

That's why ambiguity sucks.

Finding the flaws is "testing", not "analizing". That's the point. Haters ask "why is that truth" instead of asking "what should my Shepard do knowing all the truth".

The only productive way here is to accept all game events as they are and analize the game as it is, instead of trying to find flaws. The game is about moral decisions. So make those decisions based on information you know. It's that easy.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you just said.

Are you saying instead of questioning the narrative we should just roll with it? That's the exact OPPOSITE of analyzing. That's somewhere along the lines of "ignorance is bliss."

[Seival]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Seival wrote...



Finding the flaws is "testing", not "analizing". That's the point. Haters ask "why is that truth" instead of asking "what should my Shepard do knowing all the truth".

/facepalm

In the next episode we will see in this cartoon with Seival: genocide is justifiable....

No. Such "cartoons" are privilege of Destroyers and Refusers, I'm afraid.

[Applepie_Svk]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Are you saying instead of questioning the narrative we should just roll with it? That's the exact OPPOSITE of analyzing. That's somewhere along the lines of "ignorance is bliss."

In the other words "you should blindly follow and pay more for DLCs or you are hater" 

[dreamgazer]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Are you saying instead of questioning the narrative we should just roll with it? That's the exact OPPOSITE of analyzing. That's somewhere along the lines of "ignorance is bliss."

In the other words "you should blindly follow and pay more for DLCs or you are hater" 

Of course, I also love the generalization that people who purchase any DLC are "blindly following".

[jeweledleah]

 god I didn't think I would ever post on these forums again, but through series of events, I saw this thread (someone on my friendslist replied to it) and as Harry Harrison is one of my absolute favorite sci-fi writers EVER, of course I had to see this one.

Deathworld is also one of my favorite books of his to the point where in pretty much every game I play that allows you to name the characters - I have one named Meta (or Metta - depending on availability.  random amusing fact - in SWTOR its the name of my Trooper, who just happens to be voice by Jennifer Hale)

now that this is out of the way, IMO, OP?  you are completely misunderstanding the point of these books.  in fact, passages you quoted?  support those who do not like synthesis or control as solution.  you can almost directly use the first quote to disprove the idylia of synthesis as presented to us by bioware, and yet we are supposed to accept that that's the way things would be.

moreover.  if you had read Deathworld, then I'm assuming, you've read The Ethical engineer?  a lot of defenders of Synthesis remind me of Micah.  strongly.  their reasoning seems to be very similar.

the fact that you compared Harry Harrison's writing to the writing in Mass Effect, puting them on equal standing, especialy ME3?  saddens me.  sure there's surface resemblance.  the entire alien planet rising up to destroy the junkers, constantly improving against them, doign their best to destroy them and the twist is - we find out that the flora and fauna by themselves are not these evil beings, that junkers themselves are to blame.

but this is where resemblance ends.  at that twist of "bad guys are actualy good guys and understanding them and accepting them  - ends the sycle of ever escalating fighting"  

the Narrative in Deathworld is cohesive. it adds up.  it makes sence. its coherent.  the characters never go out of character.  they are never forced into doing something that doesn't fit the rest of their respresentation for the sake of railroading the plot.  Harrison is a freaking MASTER of twist/reveal endings.  I cannot say the same about twist in ME3.  ME1 and nature of Sovereign?  comes close.  ME2 and nature of collectors?  also comes close.  ME3 and nature of reapers and the catalyst?  eh....  YMMV  origin of Asari however, does come close to being a great twist/revelation.

either way.  the whole argument "you dislike it becasue you are too lazy/stupid/insert insult here" to understand it is one of the reasons why I stopped posting here or generaly discussing ME3.

I just coudln't resist, because a writer whose writing I grew up on, learned english with (oh yeah - reading him and Bradbury was how I studied the language) is being used in this absolutely awful context.

incidentaly - before I leave again?  I would strongly suggest that people who might wonder into this thread?  read some Harry Harrison.    good, smart sci-fi that is also well written.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 05 novembre 2012 - 01:26 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Seival wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Seival, that's just plain wrong.

Over-analyzing actually causes people to find more flaws in the endings. Even those who like the endings will eventually get sick of analyzing them.

That's why ambiguity sucks.

Finding the flaws is "testing", not "analizing". That's the point. Haters ask "why is that truth" instead of asking "what should my Shepard do knowing all the truth".

The only productive way here is to accept all game events as they are and analize the game as it is, instead of trying to find flaws. The game is about moral decisions. So make those decisions based on information you know. It's that easy.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you just said.

Are you saying instead of questioning the narrative we should just roll with it? That's the exact OPPOSITE of analyzing. That's somewhere along the lines of "ignorance is bliss."

The emperor has no clothes on, seriously that's what is happening.

[Applepie_Svk]

dreamgazer wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Are you saying instead of questioning the narrative we should just roll with it? That's the exact OPPOSITE of analyzing. That's somewhere along the lines of "ignorance is bliss."

In the other words "you should blindly follow and pay more for DLCs or you are hater" 

Of course, I also love the generalization that people who purchase any DLC are "blindly following".

same generalization which did Priestly when they have released EC, he said something in lines if you don´t like endings and you are still angry I am sorry, but none keeps you here....

[Seival]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Seival wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Seival, that's just plain wrong.

Over-analyzing actually causes people to find more flaws in the endings. Even those who like the endings will eventually get sick of analyzing them.

That's why ambiguity sucks.

Finding the flaws is "testing", not "analizing". That's the point. Haters ask "why is that truth" instead of asking "what should my Shepard do knowing all the truth".

The only productive way here is to accept all game events as they are and analize the game as it is, instead of trying to find flaws. The game is about moral decisions. So make those decisions based on information you know. It's that easy.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you just said.

Are you saying instead of questioning the narrative we should just roll with it? That's the exact OPPOSITE of analyzing. That's somewhere along the lines of "ignorance is bliss."

I'm saying that instead of questioning the narrative "why is that truth" player should ask the narrative "what should my Shepard do knowing all the truth".

Questioning "why Normandy was able to evac people?" is testing.
Questioning "should I cure Genophage or not?" is analizing.

[MegaSovereign]

Seival wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Seival wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Seival, that's just plain wrong.

Over-analyzing actually causes people to find more flaws in the endings. Even those who like the endings will eventually get sick of analyzing them.

That's why ambiguity sucks.

Finding the flaws is "testing", not "analizing". That's the point. Haters ask "why is that truth" instead of asking "what should my Shepard do knowing all the truth".

The only productive way here is to accept all game events as they are and analize the game as it is, instead of trying to find flaws. The game is about moral decisions. So make those decisions based on information you know. It's that easy.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you just said.

Are you saying instead of questioning the narrative we should just roll with it? That's the exact OPPOSITE of analyzing. That's somewhere along the lines of "ignorance is bliss."

I'm saying that instead of questioning the narrative "why is that truth" player should ask the narrative "what should my Shepard do knowing all the truth".

Questioning "why Normandy was able to evac people?" is testing.
Questioning "should I cure Genophage or not?" is analizing.

So what you're saying is we should only question things when we are being told to question things.

Yea, that's called being selective. 

[Reorte]

Seival wrote...

I'm saying that instead of questioning the narrative "why is that truth" player should ask the narrative "what should my Shepard do knowing all the truth".

Questioning "why Normandy was able to evac people?" is testing.
Questioning "should I cure Genophage or not?" is analizing.

Buy a dictionary.

And the latter set of questions become rather pointless if there are no sensible answers to the first lot.

[Applepie_Svk]

Seival just stop, because it´s already too absurd.

Why and How Normandy was able to evac - bad writing

Catalyst - bad writing

Genophage - good writing no matter which path did you choose

Only test which I can find there is the testing of your ability to recognize coherent and good writing ...

[dreamgazer]

MegaSovereign wrote...

So what you're saying is we should only question things when we are being told to question things.

Yea, that's called being selective. 

I think he's trying to say that the audience should be more understanding of logical inconsistencies in order to get to the ethical and philosophical contemplations.  I sorta agree, but only when you're stretching logic---not ignoring it. 

[MegaSovereign]

dreamgazer wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So what you're saying is we should only question things when we are being told to question things.

Yea, that's called being selective. 

I think he's trying to say that the audience should be more understanding of logical inconsistencies in order to get to the ethical and philosophical contemplations.  I sorta agree, but only when you're stretching logic---not ignoring it. 

That makes sense. However, I don't think people are being "lazy" just because they are a bit more sensitive to those logical inconsistencies. If the narrative starts to break some peoples' suspension of disbelief then they will no longer care about the underlying message of the story.


Just an FYI,  I actually like the EC. I think it stays fairly consistent with the rest of the writing quality of the series. I just don't think it's fair or accurate to say that people who don't like the endings only don't because they aren't thinking hard enough.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 05 novembre 2012 - 01:37 .