889 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr.House]

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

-What happen to the salarians
-What happen to Kelly and Aria
-What happen to Jack and Miranda(you never see any sldie of them in high ems destory)
-What happen to Shepard in high ems destroy
-What about the Leviathans
-What happen to the turians
-What happen to the rachni if kept alive
-What happen to the council

All unaswered, put this with the ending still being crap, Harbinger being ignored, several things established in past games being ignored like why did the Reapers not shut down the relay system, why was the Illos conduit not even mentioned, the Normandy evac scene, TIM being at the core and appears out of thin air, Shepard survivng a blast from Harbinger ect

You can like the ending all you want but there is plenty of reasons why someone hates the ending and it has nothing to do with not understanding or wanting a happy ending. I loved the ending to 2001 a space odyssey and other great classic sci-fi stories, I hate ME3 ending with a passion because it's crap and does not live up to the hype Bioware said it would while also throwing away all past choices for Ab and C.

[dreman9999]

Reorte wrote...

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.

EMP's don't fry tech. Nor does the destroy choice.

[Ticonderoga117]

dreman9999 wrote...
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.

But the Destroy wave completely destroys Husks. Not just shutting down, but completely destroying them. It's wibbley-wobbly energy stuff.

[ghost9191]

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

my god man. read slower

i said like a emp .  as in it will probably have a effect on the ships. only thing that i could come up with to understand why. otherwise why would it effect.

and that nano sh*t doesn't explain the husk being vaporized

and they can fry circuits if active. emps . best i can guess is it has the same effect the leviathan defenses had . close to

Modifié par ghost9191, 04 novembre 2012 - 07:20 .

[Nicodemus]

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

They do indeed, but how much of a furor did it take to get them to actually do the EC? If people hadn't actually called BW on the BS they gave us prior to the EC we'd still be left with something that makes no sense. Now, with the EC they've spent some time to actually try and polish the rushed mess they gave us originally.

It still does not forgive them the cardinal sin of not thinking through their ending, it still feels rushed, it still feels mashed together and it still feels that a great deal is still missing. 

[dreman9999]

Mr.House wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

-What happen to the salarians
-What happen to Kelly and Aria
-What happen to Jack and Miranda(you never see any sldie of them in high ems destory)
-What happen to Shepard in high ems destroy
-What about the Leviathans
-What happen to the turians
-What happen to the rachni if kept alive
-What happen to the council

All unaswered, put this with the ending still being crap, Harbinger being ignored, several things established in past games being ignored like why did the Reapers not shut down the relay system, why was the Illos conduit not even mentioned, the Normandy evac scene, TIM being at the core and appears out of thin air, Shepard survivng a blast from Harbinger ect

You can like the ending all you want but there is plenty of reasons why someone hates the ending and it has nothing to do with not understanding or wanting a happy ending. I loved the ending to 2001 a space odyssey and other great classic sci-fi stories, I hate ME3 ending with a passion because it's crap and does not live up to the hype Bioware said it would while also throwing away all past choices for Ab and C.

And that isin the case of it being open ended. We areonly show so much ofthe results of our action. The rest is up to us to decide till bw say other wise.

ME does have a single literal message. It leavse that up to the player.

[Ticonderoga117]

dreman9999 wrote...
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.

I meant the ending. For most of the series "The Reapers are bad, sentient machine/organic hybrids" was there. Then suddenly it goes to "The Reapers are your friend and are controlled by this deranged AI who just wants to help."

Contradictory.

[dreman9999]

Nicodemus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

They do indeed, but how much of a furor did it take to get them to actually do the EC? If people hadn't actually called BW on the BS they gave us prior to the EC we'd still be left with something that makes no sense. Now, with the EC they've spent some time to actually try and polish the rushed mess they gave us originally.

It still does not forgive them the cardinal sin of not thinking through their ending, it still feels rushed, it still feels mashed together and it still feels that a great deal is still missing. 

That I can agree on then. More can be done with the ending going as far as to redo priority earth.

[Mr.House]

dreman9999 wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

-What happen to the salarians
-What happen to Kelly and Aria
-What happen to Jack and Miranda(you never see any sldie of them in high ems destory)
-What happen to Shepard in high ems destroy
-What about the Leviathans
-What happen to the turians
-What happen to the rachni if kept alive
-What happen to the council

All unaswered, put this with the ending still being crap, Harbinger being ignored, several things established in past games being ignored like why did the Reapers not shut down the relay system, why was the Illos conduit not even mentioned, the Normandy evac scene, TIM being at the core and appears out of thin air, Shepard survivng a blast from Harbinger ect

You can like the ending all you want but there is plenty of reasons why someone hates the ending and it has nothing to do with not understanding or wanting a happy ending. I loved the ending to 2001 a space odyssey and other great classic sci-fi stories, I hate ME3 ending with a passion because it's crap and does not live up to the hype Bioware said it would while also throwing away all past choices for Ab and C.

And that isin the case of it being open ended. We areonly show so much ofthe results of our action. The rest is up to us to decide till bw say other wise.

ME does have a single literal message. It leavse that up to the player.

You don't end trilogies with an open end. That is one of the biggest failures in writing.

[Reorte]

dreman9999 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

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.

EMP's don't fry tech. Nor does the destroy choice.

]
You say Destroy affects all tech then go on to compare it with an EMP though. So now what point are you actually trying to make with an EMP?

[dreman9999]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
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.

I meant the ending. For most of the series "The Reapers are bad, sentient machine/organic hybrids" was there. Then suddenly it goes to "The Reapers are your friend and are controlled by this deranged AI who just wants to help."

Contradictory.

Thereaper in me was persented as a egnigma. We know what they are doing, just not why. Any lable you think the reapers are under wasplaced by you not the game or story.

All we know is that we don't agree with their actions. We never know their intent. Itwas never saidthe reaper are good or evil in the series ever. And in the end they are neather. Itthe orignal dark endergy plot they were plan tobe neather as well.

[Reorte]

dreman9999 wrote...

Thereaper in me was persented as a egnigma. We know what they are doing, just not why. Any lable you think the reapers are under wasplaced by you not the game or story.

All we know is that we don't agree with their actions. We never know their intent. Itwas never saidthe reaper are good or evil in the series ever. And in the end they are neather. Itthe orignal dark endergy plot they were plan tobe neather as well.

That's like saying that someone who's preventing starvation by killing millions of people is neither good nor evil. Hey, at least there's enough food to go round now they're all dead. He might even come up with a load of vague, arrogant nonsense that sounds pretty evil, and "I'm your salvation throughd destruction" would be pretty apt too.

[DrGunjah]

dreman9999 wrote...
You means EMP weapons don't exsist? It a pretty easy concept to how a weapon can effect all tech.

the issue is, that it doesn't affect "all tech".
So it's obviously not an EMP because it only affects the reapers, edi and the geth (high ems). People state this is due to "reaper code". But no one can explain how the beam discriminates between "reaper code" and other code. Which should not even happen because the catalyst states "the crucible does not discriminate".

[Seival]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
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.

I meant the ending. For most of the series "The Reapers are bad, sentient machine/organic hybrids" was there. Then suddenly it goes to "The Reapers are your friend and are controlled by this deranged AI who just wants to help."

Contradictory.

The brilliant turn of the events bothers you? You like standard boring stories with ending you knew from the beginning?

...That looks unnatural.

[AlanC9]

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.

Well, that's on Kubrick. The book was actually quite clear.

[dreman9999]

Reorte wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

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.

EMP's don't fry tech. Nor does the destroy choice.

]
You say Destroy affects all tech then go on to compare it with an EMP though. So now what point are you actually trying to make with an EMP?

The second you statedmaking the crucible. The fact remain your trying fine a way to stop the reapers. Theprothen vi makes it clear how the crucible can do that, using the mass relays ans an apliphier for the crucible.  In the end you find out it's a double edge sword,a thing that you descusedbefore with Garrus, Hachett , and Liara that the crucible possibly can be.
That does not scream the crucible in the destory choice makes no sense. The only thing in destory that makes no sense iswhy you had to shot the pipe.

[dreman9999]

DrGunjah wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
You means EMP weapons don't exsist? It a pretty easy concept to how a weapon can effect all tech.

the issue is, that it doesn't affect "all tech".
So it's obviously not an EMP because it only affects the reapers, edi and the geth (high ems). People state this is due to "reaper code". But no one can explain how the beam discriminates between "reaper code" and other code. Which should not even happen because the catalyst states "the crucible does not discriminate".

You never ask your self why the normandy is on a planet in the end of the game?   Anwser..It's tech was effected.

All tech was effected.

[Ticonderoga117]

dreman9999 wrote...
Thereaper in me was persented as a egnigma. We know what they are doing, just not why. Any lable you think the reapers are under wasplaced by you not the game or story.

All we know is that we don't agree with their actions. We never know their intent. Itwas never saidthe reaper are good or evil in the series ever. And in the end they are neather. Itthe orignal dark endergy plot they were plan tobe neather as well.

Ok, for the people with long term memory issues let's review what the Reapers have done before ME3 came out:

-Caused the rachni to attack, resulting in untold deaths from that. (Actual casualties from the fighting and then the fallout from uplifting the Krogan needed to fight the rachni.)
-Have turned uncountable numbers of sentient beings into techno-zombies by impaling them on spikes.
-Have turned uncountable numbers of sentient beings into goo to make more of themselves.
-Brainwashed uncountable numbers of sentient beings to do thier will through indoctrination.
-Killed hundreds, if not thousands, during the battle of the Citadel.

Evil with a capital E. You don't look at this list and go "Oh, those silly Reapers! They're just doing thier own thing."

[Reorte]

Seival wrote...

The brilliant turn of the events bothers you? You like standard boring stories with ending you knew from the beginning?

...That looks unnatural.

Are you seriously suggesting that it's good simply because it's different for the sake of being different? Originality (not that there's all that much here anyway) without quality is still rubbish. Originality and quality is best but I'll take unoriginal and good before original and nonsense.

[Ticonderoga117]

Seival wrote...

The brilliant braindead turn of the events bothers you? You like standard boring stories that make sense with  an ending you knew from the beginning that flows naturally from the events in the story?

...That looks unnatural. That looks good.

Yes. It does look good because events that pop up in the last ten minutes and drastically change story elements instead of enhanching them is stupid, glad we agree.

Modifié par Ticonderoga117, 04 novembre 2012 - 07:33 .

[Reorte]

dreman9999 wrote...

You say Destroy affects all tech then go on to compare it with an EMP though. So now what point are you actually trying to make with an EMP?

The second you statedmaking the crucible. The fact remain your trying fine a way to stop the reapers. Theprothen vi makes it clear how the crucible can do that, using the mass relays ans an apliphier for the crucible.  In the end you find out it's a double edge sword,a thing that you descusedbefore with Garrus, Hachett , and Liara that the crucible possibly can be.
That does not scream the crucible in the destory choice makes no sense. The only thing in destory that makes no sense iswhy you had to shot the pipe.

What's that got to do with what I was asking? Where does the EMP analogy come into it? What's the Crucible / Citadel combination doing that can possibly have the effect it does? Just what is it amplifying that can somehow destroy every single Reaper in the galaxy?

I'm glad that at least you see that shooting the pipe was daft.

[dreman9999]

Reorte wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Thereaper in me was persented as a egnigma. We know what they are doing, just not why. Any lable you think the reapers are under wasplaced by you not the game or story.

All we know is that we don't agree with their actions. We never know their intent. Itwas never saidthe reaper are good or evil in the series ever. And in the end they are neather. Itthe orignal dark endergy plot they were plan tobe neather as well.

That's like saying that someone who's preventing starvation by killing millions of people is neither good nor evil. Hey, at least there's enough food to go round now they're all dead. He might even come up with a load of vague, arrogant nonsense that sounds pretty evil, and "I'm your salvation throughd destruction" would be pretty apt too.

What defines a person actions is intent. The action maybe immoral but the person still can be good. You example is like saying Shepard is evil for blowing up a colony in arrival.

It a question of means vs end. If the end is just, does that mean the means to get to that end is moral? Should it alway be moral? And what happens if it can't be moral?

[AlanC9]

DrGunjah wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
You means EMP weapons don't exsist? It a pretty easy concept to how a weapon can effect all tech.

the issue is, that it doesn't affect "all tech".
So it's obviously not an EMP because it only affects the reapers, edi and the geth (high ems). 

Well, those are the only known AIs at the time of the ending. It could, and should, also kill all other AIs. I agree that "reaper code" is a fan concept with no support in the game. 

[dreman9999]

Reorte wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

You say Destroy affects all tech then go on to compare it with an EMP though. So now what point are you actually trying to make with an EMP?

The second you statedmaking the crucible. The fact remain your trying fine a way to stop the reapers. Theprothen vi makes it clear how the crucible can do that, using the mass relays ans an apliphier for the crucible.  In the end you find out it's a double edge sword,a thing that you descusedbefore with Garrus, Hachett , and Liara that the crucible possibly can be.
That does not scream the crucible in the destory choice makes no sense. The only thing in destory that makes no sense iswhy you had to shot the pipe.

What's that got to do with what I was asking? Where does the EMP analogy come into it? What's the Crucible / Citadel combination doing that can possibly have the effect it does? Just what is it amplifying that can somehow destroy every single Reaper in the galaxy?

I'm glad that at least you see that shooting the pipe was daft.

Simple. Because that s the only way to effect all tech. The crusible is the emp device and the citadel is the amplifier.

[Seival]

Reorte wrote...

Seival wrote...

The brilliant turn of the events bothers you? You like standard boring stories with ending you knew from the beginning?

...That looks unnatural.

Are you seriously suggesting that it's good simply because it's different for the sake of being different? Originality (not that there's all that much here anyway) without quality is still rubbish. Originality and quality is best but I'll take unoriginal and good before original and nonsense.

I'm saying that brilliant turn of events make a story really interesting. And you can't make good philosophical points, if you told reader everything from the very beginning.

In other words... Wanna read a really good story? Be ready for surprises and don't hurry with conclusions. Good stories need some time to be processed.

Modifié par Seival, 04 novembre 2012 - 07:37 .