428 réponses à ce sujet

[Ravenking1]

1/10
I did not like the ending and I felt in cheapened the rest of the series

[noobcannon]

we talking as a legit ending or as a troll ending?

Modifié par noobcannon, 18 novembre 2012 - 03:55 .

[Sharn01]

Seival wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

If you wish to be tolerated then you yourself have to learn to tolerate and be respectful of others. That means not dismissing views that you do not personally agree with. It is a door that swings both ways.

Toleration is indeed a door that swings both ways, and I told that many times on BSN.

I like so called "mirror concept" which means showing little toleration to those who show little toleration to me. This is fair, and works just fine.

I think that moderators should create a sticky reminder about toleration (and how it works) in each forum's section.

You have actively dismissed the opinions of anyone who disagree's with you repeatedly in this thread, I am not sure about elsewhere, labeling them as haters and trolls.  I am sure that those terms do aptly describe some people, but certainly not all or even most of the people rating the game poorly. 

I gave the ending a one on your poll, I posted my opinion as to why I gave it a one on your poll, I have never attacked or dismissed you or your opinion, I have never even vaugely insinuated anything against you, yet you choose to lump me and anyone else who disagrees with you with the label of troll and hater and make posts about how you have not been tolerated so your not going to tolerate anyone else.

You may have grown bitter with people who do fit that type, I am not sure, but its certainly not represenative of everyone who is unhappy with the ending, internet forums can get nasty, and most of the time when it does its a small group of people rehashing the same arguments and insults ad nauseum, so its hardly fair to lump anyone who may share some of the opinions these people have into the same group.

Modifié par Sharn01, 18 novembre 2012 - 04:13 .

[Yate]

It's fine. Could've been better, but I'm satisfied.

[Yate]

also lol at the idea of toleration on these forums

either you join the circle of hate or you get yelled at

[teh DRUMPf!!]

The ending is bro.

[ld1449]

Seival wrote...


This is how the whole game development works...

...And it's really profitable to create and sell large DLCs only if the game was truly successful and people are willing to pay for new parts of content. Otherwise devs will never even bother to support the game, and instead throw resources on creating a new game (or stop developing anything).

Dragon age 2

and Kingdoms of Amalur;

just to name a few of the games in more recent memory; would like a word with you.

[HiddenInWar]

I still believe Mass Effect is the greatest piece of science-fiction ever produced.

It may not have ended perfectly originally, but with the EC, it was improved greatly. Not all the way to a truly satisfying conclusion, but an improvement.

[ld1449]

HiddenInWar wrote...

I still believe Mass Effect is the greatest piece of science-fiction ever produced.

It may not have ended perfectly originally, but with the EC, it was improved greatly. Not all the way to a truly satisfying conclusion, but an improvement.

You say this as if roadkill wouldn't have been an improvement...

[HiddenInWar]

ld1449 wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

I still believe Mass Effect is the greatest piece of science-fiction ever produced.

It may not have ended perfectly originally, but with the EC, it was improved greatly. Not all the way to a truly satisfying conclusion, but an improvement.

You say this as if roadkill wouldn't have been an improvement...

I'm really tired  I should have just wrote the first sentence and left it at that.

[ld1449]

HiddenInWar wrote...

ld1449 wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

I still believe Mass Effect is the greatest piece of science-fiction ever produced.

It may not have ended perfectly originally, but with the EC, it was improved greatly. Not all the way to a truly satisfying conclusion, but an improvement.

You say this as if roadkill wouldn't have been an improvement...

I'm really tired  I should have just wrote the first sentence and left it at that.

Then I probably would have called you misinformed (at best), Delusional (at worst), and recommended several other works from several authors. The original (Not any of the sequels since its not the same guy) Dune, for instance. Or Hyperion These are two cornerstones of Sci-fi and some of the greatest modern literary pieces produced, wether discussing Sci-fi or books in general.

Modifié par ld1449, 18 novembre 2012 - 06:39 .

[o Ventus]

HiddenInWar wrote...

I still believe Mass Effect is the greatest piece of science-fiction ever produced.

It may not have ended perfectly originally, but with the EC, it was improved greatly. Not all the way to a truly satisfying conclusion, but an improvement.

Greatly? Aside from numerous retcons (which breaks Bioware's "we aren't changing anything" spiel), it's hardly a "great" improvement, unless you're the type who's impressed by PowerPoint slides and more plot contrivances.

[HiddenInWar]

ld1449 wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

ld1449 wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

I still believe Mass Effect is the greatest piece of science-fiction ever produced.

It may not have ended perfectly originally, but with the EC, it was improved greatly. Not all the way to a truly satisfying conclusion, but an improvement.

You say this as if roadkill wouldn't have been an improvement...

I'm really tired  I should have just wrote the first sentence and left it at that.

Then I probably would have called you misinformed (at best), Delusional (at worst), and recommended several other works from several authors. The original (Not any of the sequels since its not the same guy) Dune, for instance. Or Hyperion These are two cornerstones of Sci-fi and some of the greatest modern literary pieces produced, wether discussing Sci-fi or books in general.

I actually did mean sci-fi in general. I know most would say "well what about star wars or this or that", I mean, star wars provides a lot of expansion for a universe but its just not that immersive for me. I haven't read/seen dune, I should check it out though.

[Iakus]

HiddenInWar wrote...

I still believe Mass Effect is the greatest piece of science-fiction ever produced.

It may not have ended perfectly originally, but with the EC, it was improved greatly. Not all the way to a truly satisfying conclusion, but an improvement.

Even if we're just talking about science fiction video games, I'd disagree.  The Fallout series (in particular, Fallout 2) blows ME3 out of the water.

If we branch of into books, TV, and movies, oh, boy.

[ld1449]

HiddenInWar wrote...

I actually did mean sci-fi in general. I know most would say "well what about star wars or this or that", I mean, star wars provides a lot of expansion for a universe but its just not that immersive for me. I haven't read/seen dune, I should check it out though.

Dune (Again I stress. The Original.) Is great

Hyperion (very nearly all) is magnificent.

Again, there are many many others.

Even if ME3 would have ended epically I couldn't say that it would beat either of these books, in innovation, immagination or influence at all. Ever

The writer for Dune started writing it in 1960. No one even really HEARD of Sci-fi back then. It was really one of the pieces of literature that defines the genre.

Until you've read, AT LEAST that book, even if you've never read any of the others, like Hyperion, Isac Asimovs Original I-robot, Enders Game, or Ring World (Something Halo heavilly drew on for much of its technology) then, not to sound like a complete and total dick for once, you simply have no right to label anything as the greatest sci-fi ever produced outside of your own opinion,  especially not something as flawed (Especially but not limited to the literary standpoint) as ME3.

[ld1449]

And by the way, don't WATCH dune, Read it, every adaptation ever made is woefully underbudget and abysmal in either execution, costumes, acting. Or all three at once.

[HiddenInWar]

ld1449 wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

I actually did mean sci-fi in general. I know most would say "well what about star wars or this or that", I mean, star wars provides a lot of expansion for a universe but its just not that immersive for me. I haven't read/seen dune, I should check it out though.

Dune (Again I stress. The Original.) Is great

Hyperion (very nearly all) is magnificent.

Again, there are many many others.

Even if ME3 would have ended epically I couldn't say that it would beat either of these books, in innovation, immagination or influence at all. Ever

The writer for Dune started writing it in 1960. No one even really HEARD of Sci-fi back then. It was really one of the pieces of literature that defines the genre.

Until you've read, AT LEAST that book, even if you've never read any of the others, like Hyperion, Isac Asimovs Original I-robot, Enders Game, or Ring World (Something Halo heavilly drew on for much of its technology) then, not to sound like a complete and total dick for once, you simply have no right to label anything as the greatest sci-fi ever produced outside of your own opinion,  especially not something as flawed (Especially but not limited to the literary standpoint) as ME3.

I will take the science-fiction recommendations in mind.

Also, yes it was my opinion. 

[ld1449]

HiddenInWar wrote...

ld1449 wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

I actually did mean sci-fi in general. I know most would say "well what about star wars or this or that", I mean, star wars provides a lot of expansion for a universe but its just not that immersive for me. I haven't read/seen dune, I should check it out though.

Dune (Again I stress. The Original.) Is great

Hyperion (very nearly all) is magnificent.

Again, there are many many others.

Even if ME3 would have ended epically I couldn't say that it would beat either of these books, in innovation, immagination or influence at all. Ever

The writer for Dune started writing it in 1960. No one even really HEARD of Sci-fi back then. It was really one of the pieces of literature that defines the genre.

Until you've read, AT LEAST that book, even if you've never read any of the others, like Hyperion, Isac Asimovs Original I-robot, Enders Game, or Ring World (Something Halo heavilly drew on for much of its technology) then, not to sound like a complete and total dick for once, you simply have no right to label anything as the greatest sci-fi ever produced outside of your own opinion,  especially not something as flawed (Especially but not limited to the literary standpoint) as ME3.

I will take the science-fiction recommendations in mind.

Also, yes it was my opinion. 

And that is why you shall simply be labeled as "Misinformed" (Hands name plate)

And not Delusional, like the OP. (Points at bright Neon Sign over Seival)

And now, I'm off to sleep. My work here is doneB)

Modifié par ld1449, 18 novembre 2012 - 07:28 .

[Archonsg]

I still don't understand why some pro-enders insist on labeling those of us who do not like the ending with valid reasons, as valid as those who do like the ending as "haters" of the game.

For the most part, from most of the posts of those of us who disliked the ending, we have been very detailed and logical in our discussions with pro-enders. Difference in view points perhaps, but that is a given.

The OP asks in a poll and then discounts anyone who voted 1/10 as not being subjective. Why?
Subjectively, I found *all* options in the ending Repulsive.

The first issue is that I see Shepard acceping a forced suicide ultimatum, and not acting in "sacrifice" as some seem to think.
Sacrifice happens when a person, on his or her own violation decides to lay down his or her life for others. Not when at the point of a "so be it, you all die if you do not play along" gun is placed to the person's head to force an acceptance.

I do understand that sacrifice *was* supposed to be *one* of the choices given to the player. Those choices were however co-opted, changed to reflect the views of principals behind the ending, team Walters and Hudson, to show their version of the ending which in all fairness reeks of nihilism.

Then, we have the options themselves. The most "favored" ending is the red destroy, but how much is because it is the only one with the infamous "breath scene"? I had to ask myself, if not for that scene would I had picked another (if refusal was unavailable) the answer was yes.
Delving further into the Destroy option brought up more inconsistencies and again enforced the "suicide" theme further. Why did Shepard not shoot the tube from afar, why did he had to walk towards and into something that he very well knew will explode and kill him?

Control;
This ending of the three colored choices was perhaps the most persuasive. I get to save everyone except myself and then turn what was the most destructive force in the universe for good. But, again, the suicude theme and other logical inconsistencies bugged me.
I am told that I have to die. Grab a pair of energized handles, fry, and then allow a digital facsimile of me take control of the Reapers.
Even with our current 20th century technology, we do not need a physical intrusive method to map our brains, much less a fatal one and to believe that something as advanced as the Reapers require me to physically die in order for it to gain my thought patterns is, absurd at best.

Also, not many picked up on this but for those who did, the realization that the Shepard VI *isn't* Shepard but a Reaper reproduction of Shepard, coded by, created by and housed by Reaper tech, leaves doubts as to its true intentions.

And finally Synthesis.
I make no apologies for my disgust of the concept. I have seen the products of our own race's efforts for "racial purity", for a racial supremacy, for a genetic singularity, walked amongst the bones and skulls of those who fell to idea that there should be a single race. How am I not to see this as abhorrent?

But again subjectively looking at Synthesis, the suicude theme is again at the forefront. Your death us again callef for. Why? If we are to believe that this same tech can incorporate inorganic material, forge data circuitry, and make modifications at the genetic level, non-intrusive, non-fatal, instantaneous modifications at a flash of a light, excuse my curiosity as to why you do not expect me to question your motives for insisting on my death.

All in all, I subjectively find all three endings forced, questionable morally and because we have no other option if we want to "win" the game. The message of the game is mixed, if you want realism, that went out the door with the solutions, so what was it that the game wanted to tell us? That we have to sell our souls, loose our dignity, become Reapers ourselves to win?

With EC, we had the additional "Refusal" ending. Anyone who played that right to the end, questioning then refuting the AI's claims cannot help but see the "old" Shepard back. But we also have the message hammered into us, leave morality and humanity behind, they don't win wars.

I find this repulsive.
Thus my subjective score of 1/10.

This does not invalidate anyone who finds reasons to like the endings nor does it mean that my views are the right one, the only one.
It is however as subjective as you get, given my life's experiences, my own moral orientation and my service to my nation as a soldier.

The endings to me are as bad as they come, not just due to bad writing but also because of the message behind them.

Shepard said it best, "I will not let fear compromise who I am." in ME2.
Too bad the ones responsible for ME3's ending saw fit to compromise Shepard with the power of the pen.

ps: please forgive any speling errors, proof reading from a phone isn't easy.

Modifié par Archonsg, 18 novembre 2012 - 09:16 .

[Dr_Extrem]

ti am sorry to burst a bubble here - but mass effect is not real science fiction. it contains a lot of it but it is an amalgamiation of several genres:

adventure, fantasy and science fiction build the basis of this story - but this story could easily take place in middle earth, fereldon or any other generic fantasy world.

but thats not a critique - it is perfect that way. star wars showed, that this formula works and that people love it.


science fiction is more about technology and how society handles or gets changed by it.

examples:
blade runner is a movie based on a dystopic scifi novel written by phillip k. dick - do androids dream of electric sheep. it shows a conflict between created (synthetics) and creators (humans).

the bicentannial man and its picturization, is a scifi story written by isaac asimov. it thematises the evolution of synthetic life - a robot strives to become human and the envorinment reacts to this progress.

the matrix is a story about latex and leather - jokes aside.  behind the shooting and martial arts, the core of the story is about how a creation (ai) overcame its creators.


mass effect has lots of science fiction within its sidestories - the conflict between geth and quarians e.g. is a typical scifi plot. but is also contains a mystical, driving force, that can be compared to magical powers (eezo and the mass effect).

[KingZayd]

Yate wrote...

also lol at the idea of toleration on these forums

either you join the circle of hate or you get yelled at

lol as if you can talk about tolerance. 

[KingZayd]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

ti am sorry to burst a bubble here - but mass effect is not real science fiction. it contains a lot of it but it is an amalgamiation of several genres:

adventure, fantasy and science fiction build the basis of this story - but this story could easily take place in middle earth, fereldon or any other generic fantasy world.

but thats not a critique - it is perfect that way. star wars showed, that this formula works and that people love it.


science fiction is more about technology and how society handles or gets changed by it.

examples:
blade runner is a movie based on a dystopic scifi novel written by phillip k. dick - do androids dream of electric sheep. it shows a conflict between created (synthetics) and creators (humans).

the bicentannial man and its picturization, is a scifi story written by isaac asimov. it thematises the evolution of synthetic life - a robot strives to become human and the envorinment reacts to this progress.

the matrix is a story about latex and leather - jokes aside.  behind the shooting and martial arts, the core of the story is about how a creation (ai) overcame its creators.


mass effect has lots of science fiction within its sidestories - the conflict between geth and quarians e.g. is a typical scifi plot. but is also contains a mystical, driving force, that can be compared to magical powers (eezo and the mass effect).

the mass effect isn't a "mystical driving force". It's sci-fi. Just because it's a bigger leap, doesn't make it any less sci-fi. Especially when they've made an attempt to explain it in scientific terms (it doesn't really make sense, but they tried)

Modifié par KingZayd, 18 novembre 2012 - 11:47 .

[Seival]

ld1449 wrote...

Seival wrote...


This is how the whole game development works...

...And it's really profitable to create and sell large DLCs only if the game was truly successful and people are willing to pay for new parts of content. Otherwise devs will never even bother to support the game, and instead throw resources on creating a new game (or stop developing anything).

Dragon age 2

and Kingdoms of Amalur;

just to name a few of the games in more recent memory; would like a word with you.

Dragon Age 2 wasn't perfect but it was successful. And despite all disadvantages it was way better than DA:O... Don't know anything about Kingdoms of Amalur though.

DLCs like Leviathan and Omega are quite expensive and time-consuming to produce. Devs would never spend money and time on something that will not be profitable enough. Large DLC releases are direct indicators of game's success.

[dreamgazer]

Seival wrote...

And despite all disadvantages it was way better than DA:O... Don't know anything about Kingdoms of Amalur though.

I strongly disagree. DA:O, based on story, and KoA, based on gameplay, are both noticeably superior to DA2.

[Applepie_Svk]

dreamgazer wrote...

Seival wrote...

And despite all disadvantages it was way better than DA:O... Don't know anything about Kingdoms of Amalur though.

I strongly disagree. DA:O, based on story, and KoA, based on gameplay, are both noticeably superior to DA2.

You can argue so much as you wish, but Seival is living in own buble where is only good one opinion and that´s his, every other opinion is irrelevant, as much is Seival simply moron and troll as much he has a lot of alikeness with his favourite character of whole universe, the Catalyst.

I played each of these games and Dragon Age II is the place where it all begins with BioWare running downhill, and successfuly continue in their run to the abyss of gaming history with releasing of further failed titles. Soon enough BioWare will be another grave on EA´s graveyard lying somewhere near the Pandemic, Westwood and many others...

I took Seival only for very confused guy with moments of trolling time by time until yesterday, after what he said that Witcher 2 is clone of DA2 there is nothing more to pretening about, he is simply troll.

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 18 novembre 2012 - 02:25 .