514 réponses à ce sujet

[SpamBot2000]

Oh look, it's that guy who thinks blatant employment of a cliche that's hackneyed enough to have a freaking latin name is a subversion of it.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 24 novembre 2012 - 02:41 .

[EnvyTB075]

JC_aka_fps_john wrote...

But it's remarkable how many people dislike it simply because they wanted a 'happy ending'

>People reply with logical reasoning as to why they didn't like the end sequence
>Still thinks all they wanted was happy ending.

Pro-enders; Still missing the point.

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Woah, now we have Brovikk here as well. Can it get any better...?

Only Seival could make it better...

Yeah, I was thinking about him.   I'm not here as often as I used to - is Blueprotoss (?) still around?

Don't forget Dreman.

Modifié par EnvyTB075, 24 novembre 2012 - 02:44 .

[Aiyie]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Oh look, it's that guy who thinks blatant employment of a cliche that's hackneyed enough to have a freaking latin name is a subversion of it.

to be fair, dues ex machina got its name from the ancient romans.

it literally means, "the god in the machine".. and comes from when in ancient greek tragedies a play's final act would be resolved by an actor, playing the role of one of the gods of olympus, would be lowered to the stage via crane to provide a resolution to a conflict that the mortal character were incapable of resolving on their own.

[GreyLycanTrope]

I think OP was not paying attention

[trey40]

i am sorry i didn't read all posts in detail (only the first page), but as there are people here that get the ending and know everything about the lore, maybe u can help me understand why in ME1 Sovereign needs to get to the citadel to activate its relay to dark space, when the catalyst is the whole time on the station, undetected, by anyone, even sovereign....

[Nightwriter]

DirtyMouthSally wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
My answer would be that the connections between people and races represent perhaps the strongest and most emotionally evocative storytelling element in Mass Effect; the Reapers have always been secondary to it in terms of emotional engagement. ME3 took the rather masterful route of using the threat of the Reapers to make the intersocial subplots shine all the brighter, yet when the Reaper story reached its climax, it didn't follow through with its mission to complement the intersocial stories; it undermined them.

In Mass Effect, we put aside our differences and found something we were all willing to die for. The ending explained how it wasn't worth dying for after all -- and then asked the player to die anyway.

What does the ending say? "You have overcome your differences, but you have made no difference." Our fate is as assured as all those who failed to grow as we did. The geth/quarian peace does not matter; the fact that krogan and turians are fighting side by side does not matter; the fact that you have convinced the Illusive Man (who represents the same "seize control of the Reapers" faction that brought down every past civilization) that he is wrong does not matter. Synthetics will still rebel. The very purpose of the destruction you have been fighting is still assured.

You just wanted a happy ending.  You just don't get it. 

I liked your whole post, but I wanted to highlight it to a condensed version.  I would think that you can address what you've talked about without giving me a happy ending, can't you?  Contrary to what some seem to believe about those that don't like the ending, I actually don't mind not having a happy ending, and really didn't want one, tbh. 

Edit:  To clarify, I wanted there to be sacrifice and loss with ME3. I didn't want it to be perfect, prancing through a field of flowers at the end.  That's what I mean when I say that I didn't really want a happy ending.

The problem is that some people seem unwilling to decouple "the ending was poorly written" from "I wanted a perfect happy ending."

Perhaps making assumptions about the opposition allows them to more easily dismiss it? Idk.

The ending's problems were bigger than happy vs sacrifice.

[EnvyTB075]

Nightwriter wrote...
The problem is that some people seem unwilling to decouple "the ending was poorly written" from "I wanted a perfect happy ending."

Perhaps making assumptions about the opposition allows them to more easily dismiss it? Idk.

That is actually precisely what they do. You point out that their argument fails in X, Y and Z, they shove their fingers in their ears yelling and screaming "LALALA YOU STUPID POO HEAD YOU WANT UNICORNS AND BLUE BABIES YOU HIPPY" rather than admit that those criticising have actually done their homework and present a much more compelling argument than just "well you just didn't get it".

Whats easier, continue to support a flawed argument, or discredit your opposition? Politics 101.

Modifié par EnvyTB075, 24 novembre 2012 - 03:00 .

[Kusy]

Aiyie wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Oh look, it's that guy who thinks blatant employment of a cliche that's hackneyed enough to have a freaking latin name is a subversion of it.

to be fair, dues ex machina got its name from the ancient romans.

it literally means, "the god in the machine".. and comes from when in ancient greek tragedies a play's final act would be resolved by an actor, playing the role of one of the gods of olympus, would be lowered to the stage via crane to provide a resolution to a conflict that the mortal character were incapable of resolving on their own.

Thanks wikipedia.

[SpamBot2000]

Well, literally 'ex' means 'out of' rather than 'in', if you want to get all pedantic about it.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 24 novembre 2012 - 03:07 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
The problem is that some people seem unwilling to decouple "the ending was poorly written" from "I wanted a perfect happy ending."

Perhaps making assumptions about the opposition allows them to more easily dismiss it? Idk.

That is actually precisely what they do. You point out that their argument fails in X, Y and Z, they shove their fingers in their ears yelling and screaming "LALALA YOU STUPID POO HEAD YOU WANT UNICORNS AND BLUE BABIES YOU HIPPY" rather than admit that those criticising have actually done their homework and present a much more compelling argument than just "well you just didn't get it".

Whats easier, continue to support a flawed argument, or discredit your opposition? Politics 101.

"It's all in the narrative" always makes me laugh

[AlanC9]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Oh look, it's that guy who thinks blatant employment of a cliche that's hackneyed enough to have a freaking latin name is a subversion of it.

You did actually read the argument, right? Which is that what we see is not blatant employment of the cliche. It's OK to disagree with that assessment, but you need to actually engage with the argument.

Thanks, txgoldrush. It's the first interesting analysis of the endings I've seen in weeks.

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 novembre 2012 - 03:25 .

[EnvyTB075]

Greylycantrope wrote...

"It's all in the narrative" always makes me laugh

Indeed.

"Go look at the story, stupid!"

"We HAVE been, its full of plot holes!"

"Well you just don't get it then."

>jackiechan.jpg

[Obadiah]

Nightwriter wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Op, I pretty much agree with most of what you said.

But understand, you're picking a fight with people that have been complaining for 8 months. Its not really a group prone to letting go or changing their minds.

Well, that's kinda a great way of saying anyone who disagrees with the thread is just a stubborn hater, rather than someone who genuinely finds fault with OP's arguments for explainable reasons. :
...

Er, just the "stubborn" part.

[SpamBot2000]

AlanC9 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Oh look, it's that guy who thinks blatant employment of a cliche that's hackneyed enough to have a freaking latin name is a subversion of it.

You did actually read the argument, right? Which is that what we see is not blatant employment of the cliche.

Thanks, txgoldrush. It's the first interesting analysis of the endings I've seen in weeks.

Read it months ago, it's so strained it hurts.

It's sad that people go so far out of their way to make a case for the supposed 'genius' of the endings, when the spirit they were created in is so apparent. 

[spirosz]

Mad-Hamlet wrote...

[AlanC9]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Read it months ago, it's so strained it hurts.

I feel that way a lot around here. Though probably not about the same posts

It's sad that people go so far out of their way to make a case for the supposed 'genius' of the endings, when the spirit they were created in is so apparent. 

What spirit would that be?

Anyway, my point was that the OP is saying the opposite of what you said he said.

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 novembre 2012 - 03:28 .

[Aiyie]

trey40 wrote...

i am sorry i didn't read all posts in detail (only the first page), but as there are people here that get the ending and know everything about the lore, maybe u can help me understand why in ME1 Sovereign needs to get to the citadel to activate its relay to dark space, when the catalyst is the whole time on the station, undetected, by anyone, even sovereign....

that's been brought up many times.

pro-enders declare that the prothean interference prevented the catalyst from gaining direct control over the citadel and relay network... they also use this as supporting evidence for why the Reapers did not go directly to the citadel at the start of ME3.

anti-enders declare that there is no evidence of the prothean interference having this sort of long-lasting effect.

honsetly, i think the writers just forgot about what was established in ME1... for example, listen to Javik's description of the prothean war with the Reapers.  he talks about them fighting planet to planet, system to system... when in ME1 it was established that the Reapers had taken control of the relay network and isolated each system from others in that cycle (as stated by Vigil).

[Aiyie]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

Aiyie wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Oh look, it's that guy who thinks blatant employment of a cliche that's hackneyed enough to have a freaking latin name is a subversion of it.

to be fair, dues ex machina got its name from the ancient romans.

it literally means, "the god in the machine".. and comes from when in ancient greek tragedies a play's final act would be resolved by an actor, playing the role of one of the gods of olympus, would be lowered to the stage via crane to provide a resolution to a conflict that the mortal character were incapable of resolving on their own.

Thanks wikipedia.

heh, partially, my better half deludes herself into thinking she's a writer and constantly rails about little things like this, that and im a history buff with a particular interest in greco-roman studies.

[spirosz]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
The problem is that some people seem unwilling to decouple "the ending was poorly written" from "I wanted a perfect happy ending."

Perhaps making assumptions about the opposition allows them to more easily dismiss it? Idk.

That is actually precisely what they do. You point out that their argument fails in X, Y and Z, they shove their fingers in their ears yelling and screaming "LALALA YOU STUPID POO HEAD YOU WANT UNICORNS AND BLUE BABIES YOU HIPPY" rather than admit that those criticising have actually done their homework and present a much more compelling argument than just "well you just didn't get it".

Whats easier, continue to support a flawed argument, or discredit your opposition? Politics 101.

Exactly.

[SpamBot2000]

AlanC9 wrote...

What spirit would that be?

The spirit of piling up kindling and pouring on gasoline. It's hard to miss once you get past the notions of 'They wouldn't do this deliberately! Must look for obscure meaning...'

[Harorrd]

the only issues i have is the crittical

Major Lore errors
Fake advertisement prior to release
Horrible dialogue wheel
HORRIBLE dialogue the final 10 minute

[AlanC9]

Aiyie wrote...
honsetly, i think the writers just forgot about what was established in ME1... for example, listen to Javik's description of the prothean war with the Reapers.  he talks about them fighting planet to planet, system to system... when in ME1 it was established that the Reapers had taken control of the relay network and isolated each system from others in that cycle (as stated by Vigil).

Another possibility is that it's a deliberate recon because ME1 dug the series a big hole. Again.

Let's say the Reapers can take the Citadel and shut down the relay network, and still want to do that. So any all-out war with the Reapers begins with them heading for the Citadel and seizing it? The Citadel races win or they lose?

[AlanC9]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

What spirit would that be?

The spirit of piling up kindling and pouring on gasoline. It's hard to miss once you get past the notions of 'They wouldn't do this deliberately! Must look for obscure meaning...'

Meaning that they were trying to blow up the ME iuniverse by any means necessary? Really?

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 novembre 2012 - 03:41 .