699 réponses à ce sujet

[Persephone]

Maxster_ wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...


So, to save 2 expendable squadmates, one of which is EDI(mobile platform), Shepard ordered Normandy(which is actually EDI) to endanger itself and over 100 crew, to save mobile platform.
And that's an order. A moral one.

If you want to be THAT nitpicky, the entire suicide mission was herp derp. Lots of things in the ENTIRE trilogy (Including several rescue runs of the Normandy) could be dissected like that. But oooooooh, one is always harder on games one hates for one reason or another and flaws just as aggravating get a pass in ME2 and ME1. (ME1 especially)

Of course. ME2 was far worse than ME1 in conxtext of main plot. And ME3 outdone even that by orders of magnitude.
But you are just trying to bash prequels, to defend ME3 garbage z-movie grade storytelling.

No. I love those prequels. I am saying that what you point out there can be done to all three games. But believe what you wish.

[Dragoonlordz]

BSN home of the drama queens. It's a video game, like it or love it but get over it already. If the BSN was a broadway show it would be unwatchable. Might get away with first few weeks or first few months being called potentially constructive feedback but 8 months on its just whining for the purpose of theatrics.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 21 novembre 2012 - 05:41 .

[Maxster_]

Persephone wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...


So, to save 2 expendable squadmates, one of which is EDI(mobile platform), Shepard ordered Normandy(which is actually EDI) to endanger itself and over 100 crew, to save mobile platform.
And that's an order. A moral one.

If you want to be THAT nitpicky, the entire suicide mission was herp derp. Lots of things in the ENTIRE trilogy (Including several rescue runs of the Normandy) could be dissected like that. But oooooooh, one is always harder on games one hates for one reason or another and flaws just as aggravating get a pass in ME2 and ME1. (ME1 especially)

The only thing that got close to that level of stupidity in ME1 (and there were things, especially concerning the evidence against Saren) was going on sidequests after hijacking the Normandy. Should have been a special game over for that. But it was your choice, not something forced.

Let's see....


The Ending Choices. The Destiny Ascension is worth thousands of lives just because it has a bunch of incompetent idiots on board? (Don't even get me started on how those politicians ought to have stepped down. Only they reappear for "Reapers? LULZ!" in ME2!) 

Yeah, and human fleet losses are not costing any lives. Suuure.

The Conduit. If I were to be nitpicky, I'd be all "Chasing for something without even knowing it exists or what it does because it will solve everything?" Hmmmmmm, sound familiar?

No. It only shows that you have no knoweldge of ME1 plot.
It was only link to Saren, and something called "Reapers" which are to return soon.

I could tear all three games to bloody shreds like that. Easily.

You showed already.

[Persephone]

Archonsg wrote...

And is it too much to ask for a Dragon Age : Origins style ending where you ARE given the full range of "winning" endings from yes, sappy we saved everyone to naive I sacrifice myself so to remain true to my ideals to my own canon "marry the queen, kept Leliana as my mistress, convinced Longain to do "the deed" with Morrigan, and oh yes, chop off Alistair's head and become ruler if not in name, in fact, of Fereldan?

Its not a "nice" all sunshine ending, but it was *mine*

ME3 took all my control out of my hands, and made me choose choices I would not have.
It was written with the intent to kill Shepard. This was an admitted fact. They only put in the "breath scene", a tack on, because they belatedly realised that they went too far with the depresive ends.

It is not too much to ask for that, no. I am all for more options. Heck, that's why I enjoy visual novels. But sometimes you have to deal with limited possibilities, that much was realistic. No one, not even Shepard, has unlimited control over everything. But yes, more options would have been lovely.

[Persephone]

Maxster_ wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...


So, to save 2 expendable squadmates, one of which is EDI(mobile platform), Shepard ordered Normandy(which is actually EDI) to endanger itself and over 100 crew, to save mobile platform.
And that's an order. A moral one.

If you want to be THAT nitpicky, the entire suicide mission was herp derp. Lots of things in the ENTIRE trilogy (Including several rescue runs of the Normandy) could be dissected like that. But oooooooh, one is always harder on games one hates for one reason or another and flaws just as aggravating get a pass in ME2 and ME1. (ME1 especially)

The only thing that got close to that level of stupidity in ME1 (and there were things, especially concerning the evidence against Saren) was going on sidequests after hijacking the Normandy. Should have been a special game over for that. But it was your choice, not something forced.

Let's see....


The Ending Choices. The Destiny Ascension is worth thousands of lives just because it has a bunch of incompetent idiots on board? (Don't even get me started on how those politicians ought to have stepped down. Only they reappear for "Reapers? LULZ!" in ME2!) 

Yeah, and human fleet losses are not costing any lives. Suuure.

The Conduit. If I were to be nitpicky, I'd be all "Chasing for something without even knowing it exists or what it does because it will solve everything?" Hmmmmmm, sound familiar?

No. It only shows that you have no knoweldge of ME1 plot.
It was only link to Saren, and something called "Reapers" which are to return soon.

I could tear all three games to bloody shreds like that. Easily.

You showed already.

The human fleet's losses cost many lives. I never denied that.

The Conduit was not the only link to Saren. Or to the Reapers. It was an "Explain everything button" delivered in pieces. An ancient trope.

That's exactly my point. Lousy storytelling is defended in ME1 and bashed elsewhere. Be consistent, at least.<_<

[Kawamura]

Persephone wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

Persephone wrote...

No. I was unhappy with the pre EC endings. VERY unhappy.

I guess it really is about individual taste. No game has put my emotions through the wringer like ME3 did. I sobbed my heart out serveral times. And I loved it.

And choosing Renegade Control and seeing that ending, everything came together at last. I loved it, yup.

It is a matter of taste, not "those people that don't like it just don't get it, man, they want their sappy LI endings and that's just pandering". 

See how that's problematic?

I would have agreed prior to the MEHEM and its reception. Now I'm more cynical.

Why? Because people want "happy" endings? Endings where they've lost friends and loved ones, where their species has suffered, where they've seen death and destruction on a scale they've never known, and they triumph? 

Let me guess, you also are unhappy that people desire to pick a sexual orientation or gender identity for their Shep outside of the one you picked? You're upset when they pick Paragon and not Renegade or vice versa. 

Because that's what this sounds like to me: you are disapproving of people picking things that have no bearing on your game. 

I disapprove of one ending in particular, Synthesis, because I think it shifts the story's tone far too quickly and it takes a turn into really uncomfortable territory, and because that ending is pushed as the "good" one in the game.

You disapprove of endings others might pick because they don't fit with the tone you think the ending should have, though those endings have no effect on your own game's ending's tone. 

See the kind of frustration I'm feeling?

[Fawx9]

Persephone wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

Persephone wrote...

No. I was unhappy with the pre EC endings. VERY unhappy.

I guess it really is about individual taste. No game has put my emotions through the wringer like ME3 did. I sobbed my heart out serveral times. And I loved it.

And choosing Renegade Control and seeing that ending, everything came together at last. I loved it, yup.

It is a matter of taste, not "those people that don't like it just don't get it, man, they want their sappy LI endings and that's just pandering". 

See how that's problematic?

I would have agreed prior to the MEHEM and its reception. Now I'm more cynical.

Look at what the MEHEM mod does.

It removes star jar and adds a reunion scene.

That's it. It's bascially an auto destory with a reunion scene.

It's not happiness and rainbows. All those people on the citidal and planets still died. You still lost the squad mates you couldn't save. Earth is still a former shell of its previous self.

If removing the buzzkillington that is the star brat and giving High EMS destroy proper closure is rainbows and happiness then you must go blind from shock at the end of the Lion King when all the pretty colours and happy music starts to play.

[Maxster_]

Persephone wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...


So, to save 2 expendable squadmates, one of which is EDI(mobile platform), Shepard ordered Normandy(which is actually EDI) to endanger itself and over 100 crew, to save mobile platform.
And that's an order. A moral one.

If you want to be THAT nitpicky, the entire suicide mission was herp derp. Lots of things in the ENTIRE trilogy (Including several rescue runs of the Normandy) could be dissected like that. But oooooooh, one is always harder on games one hates for one reason or another and flaws just as aggravating get a pass in ME2 and ME1. (ME1 especially)

Of course. ME2 was far worse than ME1 in conxtext of main plot. And ME3 outdone even that by orders of magnitude.
But you are just trying to bash prequels, to defend ME3 garbage z-movie grade storytelling.

No. I love those prequels. I am saying that what you point out there can be done to all three games. But believe what you wish.

No, you just defending undefendable.
And you line of defense is - "ignore numerous enormous fails of ME3, because other games have minor(ME1) and major(ME2) fails".
It only shows that you can't object my points.

ME3 "story" is nonsensical garbage, starting with crappy intro, Crucible which ruined story and requires characters to be assassinated, and Catalyst which puts a final nail into already destroyed overarching plot.

[Persephone]

Maxster_ wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...


So, to save 2 expendable squadmates, one of which is EDI(mobile platform), Shepard ordered Normandy(which is actually EDI) to endanger itself and over 100 crew, to save mobile platform.
And that's an order. A moral one.

If you want to be THAT nitpicky, the entire suicide mission was herp derp. Lots of things in the ENTIRE trilogy (Including several rescue runs of the Normandy) could be dissected like that. But oooooooh, one is always harder on games one hates for one reason or another and flaws just as aggravating get a pass in ME2 and ME1. (ME1 especially)

Of course. ME2 was far worse than ME1 in conxtext of main plot. And ME3 outdone even that by orders of magnitude.
But you are just trying to bash prequels, to defend ME3 garbage z-movie grade storytelling.

No. I love those prequels. I am saying that what you point out there can be done to all three games. But believe what you wish.

No, you just defending undefendable.
And you line of defense is - "ignore numerous enormous fails of ME3, because other games have minor(ME1) and major(ME2) fails".
It only shows that you can't object my points.

ME3 "story" is nonsensical garbage, starting with crappy intro, Crucible which ruined story and requires characters to be assassinated, and Catalyst which puts a final nail into already destroyed overarching plot.

Defending the undefendable. How melodramatic.

No, I can't object overblown, melodramatic hyperbole.

If you hate this game so much, why are you still wasting time on it.

[Maxster_]

[quote]Persephone wrote...

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Persephone wrote...

[quote]Nerevar-as wrote...

[quote]Persephone wrote...

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...


So, to save 2 expendable squadmates, one of which is EDI(mobile platform), Shepard ordered Normandy(which is actually EDI) to endanger itself and over 100 crew, to save mobile platform.
And that's an order. A moral one.


[/quote]

If you want to be THAT nitpicky, the entire suicide mission was herp derp. Lots of things in the ENTIRE trilogy (Including several rescue runs of the Normandy) could be dissected like that. But oooooooh, one is always harder on games one hates for one reason or another and flaws just as aggravating get a pass in ME2 and ME1. (ME1 especially)

[/quote]

The only thing that got close to that level of stupidity in ME1 (and there were things, especially concerning the evidence against Saren) was going on sidequests after hijacking the Normandy. Should have been a special game over for that. But it was your choice, not something forced.

[/quote]

Let's see....


The Ending Choices. The Destiny Ascension is worth thousands of lives just because it has a bunch of incompetent idiots on board? (Don't even get me started on how those politicians ought to have stepped down. Only they reappear for "Reapers? LULZ!" in ME2!) 
[/quote]
Yeah, and human fleet losses are not costing any lives. Suuure.
[quote]
The Conduit. If I were to be nitpicky, I'd be all "Chasing for something without even knowing it exists or what it does because it will solve everything?" Hmmmmmm, sound familiar?
[/quote]
No. It only shows that you have no knoweldge of ME1 plot.
It was only link to Saren, and something called "Reapers" which are to return soon.
[quote]
I could tear all three games to bloody shreds like that. Easily.

[/quote]
You showed already.

[/quote]

The human fleet's losses cost many lives. I never denied that.
[/quote]
Stop this demagogy, already.
You said
[quote]The Ending Choices. The Destiny Ascension is worth thousands of lives
just because it has a bunch of incompetent idiots on board?[/quote]
But real choice were human lives versus asari and council. So you lied to prove your point, or just don't know ME1 plot.
But you need to bash ME1 to defend garbage.
[quote]
The Conduit was not the only link to Saren. Or to the Reapers. It was an "Explain everything button" delivered in pieces. An ancient trope.
[/quote]
Really?
I like you style. Plain lies are so credible.
[quote]
That's exactly my point. Lousy storytelling is defended in ME1 and bashed elsewhere. Be consistent, at least.<_<

[/quote]
Nah, ME1 had good storytelling, ME2 had bad storytelling, and ME3 had terrible storytelling, which ruined entire series.

[Maxster_]

Persephone wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...


So, to save 2 expendable squadmates, one of which is EDI(mobile platform), Shepard ordered Normandy(which is actually EDI) to endanger itself and over 100 crew, to save mobile platform.
And that's an order. A moral one.

If you want to be THAT nitpicky, the entire suicide mission was herp derp. Lots of things in the ENTIRE trilogy (Including several rescue runs of the Normandy) could be dissected like that. But oooooooh, one is always harder on games one hates for one reason or another and flaws just as aggravating get a pass in ME2 and ME1. (ME1 especially)

Of course. ME2 was far worse than ME1 in conxtext of main plot. And ME3 outdone even that by orders of magnitude.
But you are just trying to bash prequels, to defend ME3 garbage z-movie grade storytelling.

No. I love those prequels. I am saying that what you point out there can be done to all three games. But believe what you wish.

No, you just defending undefendable.
And you line of defense is - "ignore numerous enormous fails of ME3, because other games have minor(ME1) and major(ME2) fails".
It only shows that you can't object my points.

ME3 "story" is nonsensical garbage, starting with crappy intro, Crucible which ruined story and requires characters to be assassinated, and Catalyst which puts a final nail into already destroyed overarching plot.

Defending the undefendable. How melodramatic.

No, I can't object overblown, melodramatic hyperbole.

If you hate this game so much, why are you still wasting time on it.

So, you can't object my points. Ok, you lost this debate

[Persephone]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

BSN home of the drama queens. It's a video game, like it or love it but get over it already. If the BSN was a broadway show it would be unwatchable. Might get away with first few weeks or first few months being called potentially constructive feedback but 8 months on its just whining for the purpose of theatrics.

When are people like you going to realise that these boards are not the exclusive property who love all things ME3? I dont need your permission to say that our endings are offensive and its apologists kowtowing plebs.

I don't think anyone is asking for that.

And haters are entitled, elititst snobs who think they know everything there is about storytelling.

[Chashan]

Persephone wrote...



No. I was unhappy with the pre EC endings. VERY unhappy.

I guess it really is about individual taste. No game has put my emotions through the wringer like ME3 did. I sobbed my heart out serveral times. And I loved it.

And choosing Renegade Control and seeing that ending, everything came together at last. I loved it, yup.

So Gott-Imperator Shepard is all fine, yes?

Truth be told, I got that impression of Ctrl the one time I bothered to watch the "Paragon"-version of its Director's Cut already, and find both to be pretty much indistinguishable in that regard.

And honestly, I would not have much of a problem with this, had the game provided a straight path for achieving that specific Wunderwaffe-function prior to the finale. As is, I can only consider it hurrdurr and contrary to the way the story unfolded right up until then.


In that regard, I find your assertion that

I would have agreed prior to the MEHEM and its reception. Now I'm more cynical.

somewhat...inconsistent.

[AlanC9]

daecath wrote...

Actually the catalyst is the one with the power. "The Crucible changed me. Created new... possibilities." Shepard is the one that makes the decision, but it is the catalyst's power that makes that decision possible. And as for synthetics vs organics, that theme was there, but not the inevitability of the conflict between them, or that being the motivating factor in the Reapers' actions.

Hmmm..... well, I can see that, but the Catalyst only has power in the same sense that Shepard's guns have power. Or perhaps the way the Normandy has pwer, since the Normandy has an AI installed and Shepard's guns do not.

My reading is that it is conceptually bad because it didn't have enough time put into it. I do think that they had something else planned. All you have to do is listen to what they said in their interviews prior to the release. The only possible way they could have been describing the ending we received is severe mental disability. When you make a statement like "There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How
could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and
then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets?" or "You won't be able to say that you got ending A, B or C," then it's clear that they obviously had something else in mind. What that something else was, no one knows. Personally, I think that they were going to go down the path of IT, but ran out of time and had to make it literal, but that's just a theory. In any case, something changed that caused them to switch from what was planned to what we got, and I would bet EA's marketting budget that it was because they were rushed.

Well, design plans get modified as you move on through development, when you decide that something just isn't working. Stuff gets cut all the time, sometimes because it's a resource sink, sometimes because it's just a bad idea. The trial, for instance, went away because it started the game with a snooze. The indoctrination sequence  (which wasn't IT as we currently use the term) is said to have failed in playtesting. I don't think those two things would have worked better with more resources. They were just bad ideas that didn't make the cut.

But only a dev could tell us for sure, and they surely won't. And obviously, my read is colored by my personal tastes, since I always thought the trial was a bad idea and I've never liked IT.

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 novembre 2012 - 05:56 .

[Persephone]

Maxster_ wrote...

Stop this demagogy, already.

But real choice were human lives versus asari and council. So you lied to prove your point, or just don't know ME1 plot.
I like you style. Plain lies are so credible.

Nah, ME1 had good storytelling, ME2 had bad storytelling, and ME3 had terrible storytelling, which ruined entire series.

No. It was just about the Ascension and its crew, not about thousands of Asari. (It wasn't a fleet, it was one ship)

Don't tell me what I "need", dearie, condescending remarks like that won't go over well.

D'awwwwwwwww, lies? There was no other connection to Saren other than the Conduit? I guess Benezia never existed. Nor did other evidence. Sure.

And more melodrama. Yeesh. If you already thought ME2 was "bad", why did you even play ME3?

Modifié par Persephone, 21 novembre 2012 - 05:59 .

[Persephone]

Maxster_ wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...


So, to save 2 expendable squadmates, one of which is EDI(mobile platform), Shepard ordered Normandy(which is actually EDI) to endanger itself and over 100 crew, to save mobile platform.
And that's an order. A moral one.

If you want to be THAT nitpicky, the entire suicide mission was herp derp. Lots of things in the ENTIRE trilogy (Including several rescue runs of the Normandy) could be dissected like that. But oooooooh, one is always harder on games one hates for one reason or another and flaws just as aggravating get a pass in ME2 and ME1. (ME1 especially)

Of course. ME2 was far worse than ME1 in conxtext of main plot. And ME3 outdone even that by orders of magnitude.
But you are just trying to bash prequels, to defend ME3 garbage z-movie grade storytelling.

No. I love those prequels. I am saying that what you point out there can be done to all three games. But believe what you wish.

No, you just defending undefendable.
And you line of defense is - "ignore numerous enormous fails of ME3, because other games have minor(ME1) and major(ME2) fails".
It only shows that you can't object my points.

ME3 "story" is nonsensical garbage, starting with crappy intro, Crucible which ruined story and requires characters to be assassinated, and Catalyst which puts a final nail into already destroyed overarching plot.

Defending the undefendable. How melodramatic.

No, I can't object overblown, melodramatic hyperbole.

If you hate this game so much, why are you still wasting time on it.

So, you can't object my points. Ok, you lost this debate

There never was a debate to begin with.

[Persephone]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

BSN home of the drama queens. It's a video game, like it or love it but get over it already. If the BSN was a broadway show it would be unwatchable. Might get away with first few weeks or first few months being called potentially constructive feedback but 8 months on its just whining for the purpose of theatrics.

When are people like you going to realise that these boards are not the exclusive property of those who love all things ME3? I dont need your permission to say that our endings are offensive and its apologists kowtowing plebs.

I don't think anyone is asking for that.

And haters are entitled, elititst snobs who think they know everything there is about storytelling.

Nope, they just know an asspull when they see one.

So much for not being elitist snobs.

[AlanC9]

Persephone wrote...
And more melodrama. Yeesh. If you already thought ME2 was "bad", why did you even play ME3?

A number of people who didn't like ME2 much stuck around, hoping that ME3 would revert to being more like ME1. I don't know why, since Bio was always clear about considering ME2 to be a big success

[Persephone]

AlanC9 wrote...

Persephone wrote...
And more melodrama. Yeesh. If you already thought ME2 was "bad", why did you even play ME3?

A number of people who didn't like ME2 much stuck around, hoping that ME3 would revert to being more like ME1. I don't know why, since Bio was always clear about considering ME2 to be a big success

Well, it was. Even though it introduced some of my fave characters, it's still the one I like least, all things considered.

[Kawamura]

AlanC9 wrote...

Persephone wrote...
And more melodrama. Yeesh. If you already thought ME2 was "bad", why did you even play ME3?

A number of people who didn't like ME2 much stuck around, hoping that ME3 would revert to being more like ME1. I don't know why, since Bio was always clear about considering ME2 to be a big success

Also, my issues with ME2 grew larger after playing ME3.

There's a certain amount of problems I'm willing to let slide because I like the series as a whole. But ME3's ending, especially the Synth one, melted a lot of that good will. 

I should've known ME3 was going to hurt me when I saw Terminator at the end of ME2 and saw the designs for Ash and Kaidan for ME3. BW, why do you have to hurt my feelings? I just want to love you.

[Persephone]

Kawamura wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Persephone wrote...
And more melodrama. Yeesh. If you already thought ME2 was "bad", why did you even play ME3?

A number of people who didn't like ME2 much stuck around, hoping that ME3 would revert to being more like ME1. I don't know why, since Bio was always clear about considering ME2 to be a big success

Also, my issues with ME2 grew larger after playing ME3.

There's a certain amount of problems I'm willing to let slide because I like the series as a whole. But ME3's ending, especially the Synth one, melted a lot of that good will. 

I should've known ME3 was going to hurt me when I saw Terminator at the end of ME2 and saw the designs for Ash and Kaidan for ME3. BW, why do you have to hurt my feelings? I just want to love you.

I understand quibbles about Ash being different in ME3, but Kaidan? Still same old Kaidan, just aged a bit.

[Nerevar-as]

Persephone wrote...
Let's see....


The Ending Choices. The Destiny Ascension is worth thousands of lives just because it has a bunch of incompetent idiots on board? (Don't even get me started on how those politicians ought to have stepped down. Only they reappear for "Reapers? LULZ!" in ME2!) 

The Conduit. If I were to be nitpicky, I'd be all "Chasing for something without even knowing it exists or what it does because it will solve everything?" Hmmmmmm, sound familiar?

I could tear all three games to bloody shreds like that. Easily.

Still nowhere near as stupid to risk a ship to save a remote, the controller being said ship.