889 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr.House]

Seival wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

This is pathetic. OP, saying you ending is best because some authors might agree with it is not a basis for an arguement.

Destroy supporters, don't argue, just ignore.

A lot of people like classic sci-fi books. If some particular sci-fi writer would like a story, then people who like this writer's stories would also like that story.

I like classic sci-fi books, I hate the ME3 ending. Nice try.

[3DandBeyond]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Seival wrote...


IT is an attempt to refuse almost everything the story is about, and I can't support this.

This made me laugh... Indoctrination is one of the stronger plotdevice of whole Reaper lore, and IT as an explanation is most rational and polishing attempt to explain bad writing.  IT is not the attempt to refuse, but it´s the only attempt to keept Reaper´s nature evil as it was before instead some kind of glowboy trying to force some empty feeling of guilt in main protagonist.

As it did me.  Indoctrination Theory is an attempt to reconcile the contradictions BW created within ME3.  An attempt to make sense of a lot of nonsense.  And BW did leave a lot of indoctrination references within ME3.  Leviathan doubles down on that with the Leviathan thrall.  The Thorian was enthralling people.  Cerberus attempted to learn about that.  TIM was indoctrinated.

IT is meant to address the idiocy of the endings and a lot of other stuff within ME3.  The kid in the vent and what he says-stupid.  All of the opening dialogue-stupid.  Shepard "it's not about strategy or tactics", "we fight or we die".  So, there's no way to plan to fight.  The only plan is to fight somehow.  Must be why everyone just stands there shooting at the reapers.  Mars dialogue is stupid.  The crucible and the fact that no one challenges the use of resources and all for it, is stupid.  The whole galaxy finally went full on moron because the last sane person of the bunch, joined them.  And IT does fit a lot of what's in numerous codex entries, experiences from Saren to Virmire to the derelict reaper and events of ME2 to Arrival to all of ME3, that it makes far more sense of the endings than if the endings were real.  The endings are like a bad LSD trip or indoctrination.  As realistic attempts to end the game, they are non-endings and laughable.

[3DandBeyond]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Oh Seival you and your perspective on why people dislike the ending. Phrase "the Emperor has no clothes on" comes to mind, whoever knows why gets a cookie.

This has been my working theory all along.  Some people that liked the endings didn't want to appear unintelligent when BW claimed people just needed to understand the endings.  It's a fear that if you say you don't like them, then everyone will think you are dumb.  I've risked being thought stupid on a regular basis and I'm ok with it.  I don't think I am too stupid and I have yet to have one pro-ending person give me any compelling intelligent explanation as to the sense of these endings.  BW as yet has failed to explain their reasoning, even though that was promised.  Maybe that's coming on N7 day.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 04 novembre 2012 - 06:55 .

[Redbelle]

Bill Casey wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

I am talking about an end sequence that goes from your typical "Desperate battle against impossible odds" to some weird sequence filled with dreamy music and symbolism. In a series that has for the most part been rather straightfoward when it comes to these things. We go from a story whose main goal was "Stop the Reapers" to "Help Starkid solve the issue of conflict between organic and synthethic life.".

I mean, really?
really?

(The following is a work of fiction brought to you by Alliance Social Services).

Shepard: You know what Catalyst? I think you and I need to go fishing.

Catalyst:? Really? You mean it?

S: I've realised. Behind all the murder and genocide and gooing and backwards logic and forwards logic. Your just a kid whose been ignored for far to long.

C: I am?.......... You will!

S: My father took me fishing........... depending on if I'm a spacer, Earthborn or colonist. So yeah. I'm going to take you away from all this and raise you right. Maybe after some guidance from a firm hand you'll know how to settle this whole organic, synthetic problem that's been on your mind so much. Let's go catch some fish.

C: I husked them.

S: What?

C: Nothing. Ok................ Dad........... Let's go and, um, catch some fish....... (might have missed a few anyway).

Modifié par Redbelle, 04 novembre 2012 - 06:57 .

[clennon8]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Oh Seival you and your perspective on why people dislike the ending. Phrase "the Emperor has no clothes on" comes to mind, whoever knows why gets a cookie.

This has been my working theory all along.  Some people that liked the endings didn't want to appear unintelligent when BW claimed people just needed to understand the endings.  It's a fear that if you say you don't like them, then everyone will think you are dumb.  I've risked being thought stupid on a regular basis and I'm ok with it.  I don't think I am too stupid and I have yet to have one pro-ending person give me any compelling intelligent explanation as to the sense of these endings.  BW as yet has failed to explain their reasoning, even though that was promised.  Maybe that's coming on N7 day.

+1

[GreyLycanTrope]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Oh Seival you and your perspective on why people dislike the ending. Phrase "the Emperor has no clothes on" comes to mind, whoever knows why gets a cookie.

This has been my working theory all along.  Some people that liked the endings didn't want to appear unintelligent when BW claimed people just needed to understand the endings.  It's a fear that if you say you don't like them, then everyone will think you are dumb.  I've risked being thought stupid on a regular basis and I'm ok with it.  I don't think I am too stupid and I have yet to have one pro-ending person give me any compelling intelligent explanation as to the sense of these endings.  BW as yet has failed to explain their reasoning, even though that was promised.  Maybe that's coming on N7 day.

As promised


I have no expectiations for N7 day, haven't had any expectations for this franchise for a while.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 04 novembre 2012 - 07:04 .

[dreman9999]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

And also you can't refuse the choices in the pitt.
 

You can't refuse the choices in the pitt, but I picked refusal none the less.

BS.Not doing anything in the pitt is the same as siding with the radiers.It hasthe same end result.

If a tree falls and no one is around.
Does it make a sound?

It 's just not heard.
 The point still is you were there in the pitt. When you see the results would mean you ether made a chocie or ran.

One would question if I was in the pitt. 

A bethasda fan not taking the time to play more of a bethasda game.....

[Seival]

jstme wrote...

Seival wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

This is pathetic. OP, saying you ending is best because some authors might agree with it is not a basis for an arguement.

Destroy supporters, don't argue, just ignore.

A lot of people like classic sci-fi books. If some particular sci-fi writer would like a story, then people who like this writer's stories would also like that story.

But that sci-fi writer did not say he liked the ending of ME3 and for several months he is not with us.
And yet you use his name to promote your agenda.

That's why I'm using "would" word in the name of the thread. Because not everyone sure as I do.

I'm not promoting anything. Just giving more clues that disappointment about the endings has no real reason to exist. It was just hyped on BSN forums, and this artificial situation is not a real representation of most players' attitude.

[dreman9999]

DrGunjah wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Shepard was not hit by the lazer.
The normandy was close by.
The cunduit was clearly not a back door.
The crucible getting attached even with lowest possible EMS is not a plot hole.
The catalyst says destroy effects all tech, and control has you replace it equaling rewrite for reapers.

That's exactly the kind of flimsy explanation I was talking about.
It's like:
"why is this pig able to fly?" 
-"because it's a flying pig"...

How is say destory effects all tech a flimsy explination?

[Nicodemus]

So OP, you think the ending of 2001 a space odyssey makes sense to a lot of people? Clarke is one of the masters of the Sci Fi genre and even that ending makes readers squint a bit at trying to understand it.

I've read most of the classic Sci Fi works by Clarke, Bradbury, EE Doc Smith, Phillip K Dick, Asimov, Anderson et al (I'm an old git, had plenty of time) as well a lot of the new stuff including Banks, Reynolds, Niven, Weber, McDevitt etc and the one thing they've all done has been consistent with their themes and the conclusion of their themes for their stories.

At times they've had some rather unsatisfactory conclusions but at least they have made sense for that story. Sometimes even a master drops the ball and has a bad book.

ME3 doesn't meet even the barest minimum of a satisfactory ending, as it feels bolted on. It feels rushed, it feels incomplete and it does not meet the expectations that the reader/player has been led to believe by the story to that point. That is the sign of bad writing, or someone who ran out of ideas and decided to mash a selection of other peoples ideas together to meet a deadline.

I've read a lot of Sci Fi and my conclusion has been and still is, ME3 ending is effing bad.

Edit: Someone mentioned that folks are too dependant on Trek or Star Wars to "get it" tbh, I'd say that ME3 is more Trek and Star Wars than anything else. When you use "space magic" to make everyone suffer the atrocity called "synthesis" simultaneously then it's getting a distinct Trek/SW vibe.

Modifié par Nicodemus, 04 novembre 2012 - 07:10 .

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Oh Seival you and your perspective on why people dislike the ending. Phrase "the Emperor has no clothes on" comes to mind, whoever knows why gets a cookie.

This has been my working theory all along.  Some people that liked the endings didn't want to appear unintelligent when BW claimed people just needed to understand the endings.  It's a fear that if you say you don't like them, then everyone will think you are dumb.  I've risked being thought stupid on a regular basis and I'm ok with it.  I don't think I am too stupid and I have yet to have one pro-ending person give me any compelling intelligent explanation as to the sense of these endings.  BW as yet has failed to explain their reasoning, even though that was promised.  Maybe that's coming on N7 day.

More like everytime someone says to you why they likethe ending you bury you head in the groung and not listen.

[GreyLycanTrope]

You can refuse the choices in the Pitt dreman, you can choose not to download it.

dreman9999 wrote...
More like everytime someone says to you why they likethe ending you bury you head in the groung and not listen.

No I stop listening when I am being told why I don't like something, because anyone who claims they know my view point better than I know it myself is full of crap.

If someone says I like the ending despite the flaws that's valid to me. "The endings are perfect and entirely consistant" is a flawed argument.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 04 novembre 2012 - 07:08 .

[Reorte]

3DandBeyond wrote...

This has been my working theory all along.  Some people that liked the endings didn't want to appear unintelligent when BW claimed people just needed to understand the endings.  It's a fear that if you say you don't like them, then everyone will think you are dumb.  I've risked being thought stupid on a regular basis and I'm ok with it.  I don't think I am too stupid and I have yet to have one pro-ending person give me any compelling intelligent explanation as to the sense of these endings.  BW as yet has failed to explain their reasoning, even though that was promised.  Maybe that's coming on N7 day.

My theory is that the endings look superficially intelligent and comparable with some classic works of science fiction and therefore certain people lump them in with them as being intelligent. I still can't grasp how they don't see the mess below that surface though. Aiming for the same style as a classic does not create something of equal quality. And trying to do so at the end in contrast to the the style of the rest of the series is a ****up no matter how good a job you do of it.

[dreman9999]

Nicodemus wrote...

So OP, you think the ending of 2001 a space odyssey makes sense to a lot of people? Clarke is one of the masters of the Sci Fi genre and even that ending makes readers squint a bit at trying to understand it.

I've read most of the classic Sci Fi works by Clarke, Bradbury, EE Doc Smith, Phillip K Dick, Asimov, Anderson et al (I'm an old git, had plenty of time) as well a lot of the new stuff including Banks, Reynolds, Niven, Weber, McDevitt etc and the one thing they've all done has been consistent with their themes and the conclusion of their themes for their stories.

At times they've had some rather unsatisfactory conclusions but at least they have made sense for that story. Sometimes even a master drops the ball and has a bad book.

ME3 doesn't meet even the barest minimum of a satisfactory ending, as it feels bolted on. It feels rushed, it feels incomplete and it does not meet the expectations that the reader/player has been led to believe by the story to that point. That is the sign of bad writing, or someone who ran out of ideas and decided to mash a selection of other peoples ideas together to meet a deadline.

I've read a lot of Sci Fi and my conclusion has been and still is, ME3 ending is effing bad.

That can be said for the orignal ending. Post ec at lease show the results of you actions. You may not like the means you getto your result but that does not mean the result is  bad. With a person who wants to destory the reaper with out the geth dieing and Shepard dieing, one can say you're issue is with the question being asked in the end, not it's meaning.

You missing that fact here that it's a game of hypathetical to see how you will react.

[ghost9191]

dreman9999 wrote...

DrGunjah wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Shepard was not hit by the lazer.
The normandy was close by.
The cunduit was clearly not a back door.
The crucible getting attached even with lowest possible EMS is not a plot hole.
The catalyst says destroy effects all tech, and control has you replace it equaling rewrite for reapers.

That's exactly the kind of flimsy explanation I was talking about.
It's like:
"why is this pig able to fly?" 
-"because it's a flying pig"...

How is say destory effects all tech a flimsy explination?

yeah see it ( totally not answering but just saying ) as effecting tech like a EMP. does more dmg to reapers. as you can see the internal explosions and vaporizing troops, but it can fry equipment and such ., but easily replaced

[Reorte]

dreman9999 wrote...
How is say destory effects all tech a flimsy explination?

You honestly don't see that? Think about what technology actually is, think about how things work in both the real universe and what made up bits we already knew about the Mass Effect universe. If you don't have a problem with pretty basic things like this then it's no wonder you're blind to all the flaws.

[dreman9999]

Greylycantrope wrote...

You can refuse the choices in the Pitt dreman, you can choose not to download it.

dreman9999 wrote...
More like everytime someone says to you why they likethe ending you bury you head in the groung and not listen.

No I stop listening when I am being told why I don't like something, because anyone who claims they know my view point better than I know it myself is full of crap.

If someone says I like the ending despite the flaws that's valid to me. "The endings are perfect and entirely consistant" is a flawed argument.

Who here said the ending it perfect? All the op and pro endings are saying is the ending has meaningand a point. It not as bad as people claim it is.

[dreman9999]

Reorte wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
How is say destory effects all tech a flimsy explination?

You honestly don't see that? Think about what technology actually is, think about how things work in both the real universe and what made up bits we already knew about the Mass Effect universe. If you don't have a problem with pretty basic things like this then it's no wonder you're blind to all the flaws.

You means EMP weapons don't exsist? It a pretty easy concept to how a weapon can effect all tech.

[Ticonderoga117]

dreman9999 wrote...
Who here said the ending it perfect? All the op and pro endings are saying is the ending has meaning and a point. It not as bad as people claim it is.

But it's not logical or natural in the universe. You can have meaning and make all the points you want, but if it's contradictory to pretty much everything before hand, you're doing it wrong.

[dreman9999]

ghost9191 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

DrGunjah wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Shepard was not hit by the lazer.
The normandy was close by.
The cunduit was clearly not a back door.
The crucible getting attached even with lowest possible EMS is not a plot hole.
The catalyst says destroy effects all tech, and control has you replace it equaling rewrite for reapers.

That's exactly the kind of flimsy explanation I was talking about.
It's like:
"why is this pig able to fly?" 
-"because it's a flying pig"...

How is say destory effects all tech a flimsy explination?

yeah see it ( totally not answering but just saying ) as effecting tech like a EMP. does more dmg to reapers. as you can see the internal explosions and vaporizing troops, but it can fry equipment and such ., but easily replaced

Husk are held together my nano machines. Destory effects those nano machines, the husk then falls a part. And emp doesnor mean blow up machines.

[Reorte]

dreman9999 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
How is say destory effects all tech a flimsy explination?

You honestly don't see that? Think about what technology actually is, think about how things work in both the real universe and what made up bits we already knew about the Mass Effect universe. If you don't have a problem with pretty basic things like this then it's no wonder you're blind to all the flaws.

You means EMP weapons don't exsist? It a pretty easy concept to how a weapon can effect all tech.

No, it is not, and saying it as such demonstrates a big lack of understanding. A waterwheel is tech. A mechanical computer is tech. A valve-based computer is tech. Military hardware is shielded against EMP. An EMP strong enough to fry electronics across a solar system will probably kill absolutely everything nearby. It isn't anti-electronics magic.

[dreman9999]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Who here said the ending it perfect? All the op and pro endings are saying is the ending has meaning and a point. It not as bad as people claim it is.

But it's not logical or natural in the universe. You can have meaning and make all the points you want, but if it's contradictory to pretty much everything before hand, you're doing it wrong.

How is that contriditory if wenever say it's perfect. That only means the people who think we think is perfect who are saying we think it's perfect. The very concept o fit being perfect or bad is flawed as a point.

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreman9999 wrote...

Who here said the ending it perfect? All the op and pro endings are saying is the ending has meaningand a point. It not as bad as people claim it is.

You must not be familiar with Sevial's viewpoint on the matter, he even made an image to help emphasize his point

[Seival]

Mr.House wrote...

Seival wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

This is pathetic. OP, saying you ending is best because some authors might agree with it is not a basis for an arguement.

Destroy supporters, don't argue, just ignore.

A lot of people like classic sci-fi books. If some particular sci-fi writer would like a story, then people who like this writer's stories would also like that story.

I like classic sci-fi books, I hate the ME3 ending. Nice try.

I like classic sci-fi books, and I hated the ending just after the first playthrough too. But then I changed my mind. Why? Two main reasons. First, some people helped me. Second (but not less important), I wanted some new sci-fi story which I would like, and didn't find any. So, I decided to re-read my favorite classic sci-fi - the Deathworld...

...And know what? After doing that I realized that I've forgotten those old books. I've read them very long ago, and modern mass-media replaced them for me somehow. Mass-media which can only degrade the mind, because really strong stories are too rare... That was so stupid to hate the endings. I even wanted my money back. Good thing I realized that the problem was in me, not in the ending.