889 réponses à ce sujet

[Argolas]

dreman9999 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

The ending was not made for genius authors. It was made for players. You know, the ones who hate it.

Op's point is foryou to think about the endings and stop blindly hating it.

I'm not a blind hater. I hated the pre-EC endings because they seemed extremely lazy to me, that's true. The combination of EC and headcanon fixed it for me, and now I consider it decent.

My point is not "I hate the ending". My point is "The ending is hated by many fans that could not enjoy it." And that's a fact.

I know you and many people hate the ending. Op is say lookat it in a new perspective and try to find meaning in them.

I don't hate the ending. Have you read my post?

[ghost9191]

Seival wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Seival wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Seival you're not gonna change anyone's mind.

Trying to change hater's mind about ME3 ending is like trying to convince Kerk Pyrrus that nuclear bomb is not a good solution to deal with the "enemy". But even people like Kerk can be reasonable. If I'll manage to convince at least few people, it would be worth trying.

Whose Kerk Pyrrus? And what do historical analysts say, regarding the dropping of FatMan over Nagasaki, about how it altered the duration of the war?

I suggest you to read the Deathworld

"FatMan" wasn't needed. And fortunately it didn't destroy the entire race. Just look at the Germany. Noone dropped nuclear bombs on it, but the country have changed after the war. Changed in much better way than Japan did.

to be fair germany was already losing, japan wasn't quiting. more lives would have been lost , innocent and otherwise if the war was not ended.    united states would have invaded japan


not saying it was right, but saved more lives .

[dreman9999]

ghost9191 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Arcian wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

The ending was not made for genius authors. It was made for players. You know, the ones who hate it.

Op's point is foryou to think about the endings and stop blindly hating it.

What the hell is there to think about?

The morality of ends vs means.
The morality of advancement.
The issues of control vs free will.

pretty sure the ppl that hate them have thought about them . which is probably why they hate them. just because someone heates it doesn't mean its blind. probably a good reason . same as liking them

Calling the ending genocide, tranny , and  genetic distruption does not point to much thinking of the meaningof the ending...Just that they did not like the final question that was asked.

[ghost9191]

@dreman

if you are going to quote. quote the whole thing. it is no longer shepard. shep died, giving birth to a AI , same as grunt was based on memories of past krogan but was his own person. it follows shepards path, has the memories , which influenced how it handled things, such as renegade or paragon. but it is not shepard

[Isichar]

Mcfly616 wrote...

 funny. I'm still waiting for you provide a single shred of evidence of this behavior you speak of coming from me. You're the one doing the labeling. Whenever 'you' type? Haha idk who.you are, and I certainly don't recall ever responding to you. Certainly not in the manner you speak of, amd definitely not in this thread. You've been on the offense for the last 4 pages bro lol im just chillin.

And I never said I had a problem with anybody regardless of whether they like the ending or hate it. I simply said it makes sense and implied its not for everyone..and then you went all "RAWEWTGSTEW" on me lol

Well I am sorry you feel that way.

You said "Seems people that say they know sci fi, really just mean Star Wars and Star Trek." I asked a question and you went on the defensive and I have just been responding since. I am pointing out your original comment came off as a generalization, and if you look at it you should be able to see why, you never said "Some people" you just said "People" and no its not the same thing.

I have no anger towards you, I dont look down on your opinions regardless of what they are, I mean that and you can take it for whatever its worth. Anyways sorry to the OP for this pointless offtopic argument.

[Applepie_Svk]

Zardoc wrote...

Define "genius".





...wait, Seival thread, nevermind.

Stop defending bad writing, bad writing is simply bad writing and it appears when writer start ignoring rest of the story and start trying so hard with some so called thought-provoking stupid drama which going against rest of the story and even headcanon have a problem to comprehend...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 04 novembre 2012 - 05:34 .

[dreman9999]

Grubas wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Grubas wrote...

It dosn't make sense. It feels forced. If you leave out as many things as have been dumped in ME3 the audience at last deserves an epic conclusion story and gameplaywise.
Its a bad idea to suddenly go on the art train, just because its cheaper and creates less work.
If so, bw should have kept up the style the whole game long.

1.Th efact that the choice feels droppedon you lap is irrelivent. Not every choice you have the time to plan out and prep for before hand.
2. Added, the issues in the ending were decused well before anyway. In many converstions with Garrus, Liara, and Hackett you question if the crucible could be a double edge sword and what you would do in that case.

This is a game of hyptheticals, how and when the questions are asked to you does not change that no go ageins the themes of the story. The grand question form ME1 is what you would do and sacrifice to stop an unstoppable force. The final question in the game does no contradict that question.

The last question does make sense, you just don't like the question.

This is the final choice in the trilogy. i would have expected a more organic flow of the story related decisions.

Instead I get suddenly teleported into a holodeck for random choices.
Random I say because why else.. 

does destroy target all synthetics?
why does control target only Reapers? Not reapertech?
why has the kid such problems explaining me the simplest things? Why Shepard? 
why does Shepard have to die?

The immersion already starts to suffer when i learn that Anderson aswell as TIM obviously can teleport.  

The choices might fit some of the themes of the story, i dont argue with that but there are definitely
to many convenient plottwists for a final mission to take anything serious.  

1.The catalyst expalines why destroy tagets synthetics.
2.Control effects what is in the catalyst system of control . Other AI's are not in the catalyst system of control.
3.But it does explain out side of synthesis clearly. Also, Shepard is just a sample.

4.How control and synthesis work destroys Shepards body. Destroy effects all tech...Which Shepardis only alive becaosue of.

[fil009]

Wouldn't have guessed geniuses especially sci-fi authors would like such garbage.

[dreman9999]

ghost9191 wrote...

@dreman

if you are going to quote. quote the whole thing. it is no longer shepard. shep died, giving birth to a AI , same as grunt was based on memories of past krogan but was his own person. it follows shepards path, has the memories , which influenced how it handled things, such as renegade or paragon. but it is not shepard

Grunt was not based on past Krogan minds. We was just taught about them in the tank.
And everything thing the Shaprd AI say just means itusto be human and is no longer.

[ghost9191]

dreman9999 wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Arcian wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

The ending was not made for genius authors. It was made for players. You know, the ones who hate it.

Op's point is foryou to think about the endings and stop blindly hating it.

What the hell is there to think about?

The morality of ends vs means.
The morality of advancement.
The issues of control vs free will.

pretty sure the ppl that hate them have thought about them . which is probably why they hate them. just because someone heates it doesn't mean its blind. probably a good reason . same as liking them

Calling the ending genocide, tranny , and  genetic distruption does not point to much thinking of the meaningof the ending...Just that they did not like the final question that was asked.

which could be said for some. but haven't seen anyone say that here

i don't hate , just dislike . say control - no one should have that power. i wouldn't trust somone else and pretty sure the same could be said for the races of the galaxy. if they had to make a choice. sacrificing somone to control the reapers. could u trust that person to be good. my reason for most part.

synthesis will take longer lol . but that is my reason, so i have put thought., not sure where i was going. but i dislike all options. the ending does feel out of place though , from the rest of the games . could have gone without the synthetic vs organic, wehn i just disproved that , just let me shoot the damn tube

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Seival wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Seival you're not gonna change anyone's mind.

Trying to change hater's mind about ME3 ending is like trying to convince Kerk Pyrrus that nuclear bomb is not a good solution to deal with the "enemy". But even people like Kerk can be reasonable. If I'll manage to convince at least few people, it would be worth trying.

Whose Kerk Pyrrus? And what do historical analysts say, regarding the dropping of FatMan over Nagasaki, about how it altered the duration of the war?

I suggest you to read the Deathworld

"FatMan" wasn't needed. And fortunately it didn't destroy the entire race. Just look at the Germany. Noone dropped nuclear bombs on it, but the country have changed after the war. Changed in much better way than Japan did.

Can you explain why you felt FatMan wsn't needed? And then can we concieve a reason why the American Admin felt it was?

Also, of course it didn't destroy the entire race. It was just a 18-23kt bomb. As opposed to the Tsar Bomba which went off with a yield of 500kt's (fifty million tonnes of TNT). And in case your interested. It was halfed to 500kt's from it's initial 100MT as they found out, before they set it off I'm glad to mention, that the drop craft would not have been able to get away in time.

Modifié par Redbelle, 04 novembre 2012 - 05:35 .

[Edolix]

Slightly off-topic, but @OP: Your signature almost caused me to have a seizure. Haven't laughed so hard in weeks! So thanks, I guess.

Modifié par Edolix, 04 novembre 2012 - 05:32 .

[jstme]

dreman9999 wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Arcian wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

The ending was not made for genius authors. It was made for players. You know, the ones who hate it.

Op's point is foryou to think about the endings and stop blindly hating it.

What the hell is there to think about?

The morality of ends vs means.
The morality of advancement.
The issues of control vs free will.

pretty sure the ppl that hate them have thought about them . which is probably why they hate them. just because someone heates it doesn't mean its blind. probably a good reason . same as liking them

Calling the ending genocide, tranny , and  genetic distruption does not point to much thinking of the meaningof the ending...Just that they did not like the final question that was asked.

Trying to amateurishly force well known semi-philosophical themes from other places into unfitting ME narrative in an abhorent depressing grimdark emo way makes it bad ending.
Going full hipster mode "it is ,like, deep, and has, like ,meaning and stuff" is not going to fool anyone.

[Argolas]

Btw., I don't agree with him in every point, but this part is pretty good if you stay critical and ignore exaggerations.

The dos and don'ts of endings

[Seival]

Grubas wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Grubas wrote...

It dosn't make sense. It feels forced. If you leave out as many things as have been dumped in ME3 the audience at last deserves an epic conclusion story and gameplaywise.
Its a bad idea to suddenly go on the art train, just because its cheaper and creates less work.
If so, bw should have kept up the style the whole game long.

1.Th efact that the choice feels droppedon you lap is irrelivent. Not every choice you have the time to plan out and prep for before hand.
2. Added, the issues in the ending were decused well before anyway. In many converstions with Garrus, Liara, and Hackett you question if the crucible could be a double edge sword and what you would do in that case.

This is a game of hyptheticals, how and when the questions are asked to you does not change that no go ageins the themes of the story. The grand question form ME1 is what you would do and sacrifice to stop an unstoppable force. The final question in the game does no contradict that question.

The last question does make sense, you just don't like the question.

This is the final choice in the trilogy. i would have expected a more organic flow of the story related decisions.

Instead I get suddenly teleported into a holodeck for random choices.
Random I say because why else.. 

does destroy target all synthetics?
why does control target only Reapers? Not reapertech?
why has the kid such problems explaining me the simplest things? Why Shepard? 
why does Shepard have to die?

The immersion already starts to suffer when i learn that Anderson aswell as TIM obviously can teleport.  

The choices might fit some of the themes of the story, i dont argue with that but there are definitely
to many convenient plottwists for a final mission to take anything serious.  

That's the reason of the problem. You are asking wrong questions. Correct ones would be:
 - Is destruction the only way?
 - Maybe TIM was right after all?
 - Do I really want to kill my friends to reach my target, while there are other ways to deal with the problem?
 - Am I ready to assume direct control, am I ready to such responsibility?
 - Why should I cause any more deaths today, if there are other valid ways to stop the Reapers?
 - Am I ready to sacrifice myself for the sake of entire galaxy?
 - Why would the Catalyst lie to me, if it could just left me to die instead of talking?
...
And so on.

Game states that Destroy target all synthetics, Control targets only The Reapers (the Catalyst to be more correct), Shepard has to die in case of Control and Synthesis (maybe even in Destroy). You don't need to ask "why?". You need to ask "what should I choose?". ME Story is all about moral choices, remember? So make the one.

...It's as easy as that.

[SNascimento]

Yes sir, you are right.

[Conniving_Eagle]

Hmmm, the words ME3 ending and genius in the same sentence without an adverb to negate them...

Oh, I forgot!

Zardoc wrote...

Seival thread, nevermind.

Modifié par Conniving_Eagle, 04 novembre 2012 - 05:39 .

[Chaotic-Fusion]

Wow, the way you have misinterpreted those lines to suit your views is so incredible it's almost artistic. And I'm not just talking about the usual "the ending is wonderful and if you hate it you're a moron" bias, but the anti-destroy stuff is showing too.

And no, having read many sci-fi books I have found the endings underwhelming to say the least. I earn nothing from being asked, and poorly at that, the same questions I had pondered many, many times before. The endings are an unoriginal, poorly executed mess written in an attempt to slap a nihilistic and "artistic" ending to a series that had previously been about anything but.

And as much as I hate the ipse dixit argument, the big three of science fiction would have been appalled by the poor show of superMAC and co. Asimov would have laughed at the "homage" it paid to Foundation's Edge, Clarke would by disgruntled by it amounting to nothing more than an overused generalization of synthetics vs. organics, and finally Heinlein would have disliked the message of anti-individualism and the overall belittlement of self-determination. But again, an ipse dixit argument means nothing. Galileo showed that four centuries ago. Think with your own head.

[Redbelle]

SNascimento wrote...

Yes sir, you are right.

In which case Shepard has not won the war on his terms. He won it on the Catalyst's and has just done the cat's work for him.

Destroy: Org's safe from synthetics............ till the next round of synthetics? And no Reapers to stop it? Not the Cat's first choice.

Control: Reapers live as the catalyst wished, and now Reaper's have a new mandate and accepted status in galactic society............... and they are very very sorry about all the people they gooed.

Synthesis: An option never considered on such a scale by any sentient creature. The Catalyst's salivating desire since he thought of it. The end of what we are because the Catalyst wanted us to be what he wanted us to be.

Can we get just one more ECDLC? I want the option to spank the little punk god child and send him to his room. That last part worked for Dr Who.

Modifié par Redbelle, 04 novembre 2012 - 05:42 .

[dreamgazer]

Arcian wrote...

What the hell is there to think about?

Plenty, actually, on a meta level. 

Can organic life cope with seeing the life-extinguishing beings threatening to end civilization walking among them?

Should someone make a choice based on advanced technology just because they can?

Will ambition and hubris take life down the same path? 

As well as how the universe perceives controlling synthetics, the threshold of augmentation of organic beings, and the finality of destruction.

[Seival]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

You are asking wrong questions. Correct ones would be:
 - Is destruction the only way?
 - Maybe TIM was right after all?
 - Do I really want to kill my friends to reach my target, while there are other ways to deal with the problem?
 - Am I ready to assume direct control, am I ready to such responsibility?
 - Why should I cause any more deaths today, if there are other valid ways to stop the Reapers?
 - Am I ready to sacrifice myself for the sake of entire galaxy?
 - Why would the Catalyst lie to me, if it could just left me to die instead of talking?
...
And so on.

...It's as easy as that.

Hmmm, the answers to those questions is......









IT.

The answers to those questions are the ones you made yourself, embracing the story, and accepting each part of it as it is.