HiddenInWar wrote...
Its sort of weird how pro and anti enders have diverged into sort of their own coalitions.
Not a particularly effective arguing strategy, to say the least. Unless you are okay with arguing with an imaginary person with imaginary arguments anyway.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.
Modifié par Neizd, 24 novembre 2012 - 08:18 .
There is actually this weird phenomenon where bleakness is treated as "mature, quality" writing and happiness is treated as "childish, trash" writing.DirtyMouthSally wrote...
That's sounds like a good reason to me. To reiterate what you said: There are plenty of folks who do want a happy ending, and who also understand the ending. This does not somehow preclude those same people, and others like me who don't necessarily desire a happy ending, from perceiving the writing as being poorly written.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.
The ending's problems were bigger than happy vs sacrifice.
Happy and sacrifice are not synonyms of perceived quality of writing.
txgoldrush wrote...
Wow, this is amazing the level of ignorance here....
Sorry, but the concept of a Reaper Master was foreshadowed. This is how ME3 foreshadows things...through questions. What does the Crucible do? Who is the master? What if TIM is right? And the very fact that the plot was about FINDING THE CATALYST allows it to have aplot twist that reveals he is the antagonist.
The Yo Dawg stuff is also idiotic.
The Catalyst tried other solutions, they all ended in failure, he tells you this. So he does the cycle. Why?
We know one reason, but in Leviathan, another motive comes to light. He is using evolution as an experiement to FIND THE IDEAL SOLUTION, and this results in Shepard. Its purpose is not fufilled with the cycle. Its all in the narrative.
The ending was supposed to have contradictions and irony, its intentional. The Leviathans create an AI to stop their "clients" from being wiped out by AI's, but the AI turns against them. The AI is also the threat he is supposed to save organics from. This is all intentional, its not bad writing and its not an accident.
And how many times do organics in the series use something or someone as a tool without regard and have it backfire? The ending is THIS on a GRAND scale. Its too bad the community doesn't get this.
frostajulie wrote...
God OP sniff your own farts much? All you did was lambast a bunch of cogent arguments against the pisspoor ending and defend it with your own opinion and interpretations none of which matter to the rest of us. You say we don't "get" the ending. I say there was nothing to get other than the fact that it completely sucked, was full of plotholes a slap job ending that completely contradicted the series themes in fact shat on them and you have the gall to accuse us of not paying attention? Fck you man, look in the mirror you didn't pay attention.
If so many people don't "get" the ending its not because we don't get it its because there is nothing to get except that it sucks.
Modifié par Neizd, 24 novembre 2012 - 08:28 .
txgoldrush wrote...
The ending was supposed to have contradictions and irony, its intentional. The Leviathans create an AI to stop their "clients" from being wiped out by AI's, but the AI turns against them. The AI is also the threat he is supposed to save organics from. This is all intentional, its not bad writing and its not an accident.
txgoldrush wrote...
Wow, this is amazing the level of ignorance here....
Sorry, but the concept of a Reaper Master was foreshadowed. This is how ME3 foreshadows things...through questions. What does the Crucible do? Who is the master? What if TIM is right? And the very fact that the plot was about FINDING THE CATALYST allows it to have aplot twist that reveals he is the antagonist.
The Yo Dawg stuff is also idiotic.
The Catalyst tried other solutions, they all ended in failure, he tells you this. So he does the cycle. Why?
We know one reason, but in Leviathan, another motive comes to light. He is using evolution as an experiement to FIND THE IDEAL SOLUTION, and this results in Shepard. Its purpose is not fufilled with the cycle. Its all in the narrative.
The ending was supposed to have contradictions and irony, its intentional. The Leviathans create an AI to stop their "clients" from being wiped out by AI's, but the AI turns against them. The AI is also the threat he is supposed to save organics from. This is all intentional, its not bad writing and its not an accident.
And how many times do organics in the series use something or someone as a tool without regard and have it backfire? The ending is THIS on a GRAND scale. Its too bad the community doesn't get this.
Dr_Extrem wrote...
the catalyst was foreshadowed as a part of the crucible. vendetta mentions on thessia, that he knows what the catalyst is. later he clarifies, that the citadel is the catalyst - but only on cronos station.
vendetta:
the vi makes guesses - it guesses, that the reapers are servants of the cycle and not its masters - he states, that it is not known who the master behind the cycle is. at the end of the thessia conversation, he offers his help to communicate with the catalyst - at this point, we still do not know what the catalyst is.
now we know, that the catalyst is "something" and that there seems to be a master behind the reapers. the catalyst and the "master" are two different things at this point.
on cronos station, vendetta reveals that the citadel is the catalyst - the big space station. still no clue that leads to the ancient master-ai.
leviathan:
the leviathans only mention, that the reapers were created by an ancient ai. they do not hint any connection to the citadel or the catalyst. they only make vague statements on the reapers origin.
you can only see the loose ends connecting, during the conversation with the catalyst itself, at the very end of the game.
during the game, the catalyst and the ai are two completely different things, independent from each other. you only know that they are the same, if you are metagaming. in retrospec, it is clear - but not if you play the game for the first time.
the starchild is the very definition of a deus ex machina. it even "elevates" you to its realm of existance - like an old greek god who takes you to the olymp. it would be funny if it was not such a bad plot-tool.
Oh how I wish I could ignore it. People see the things in the story and they don't ignore them, they just find them stupid, implausible, and unsatisfying. The only way I can see that anyone could think otherwise is if they're entirely happy to simply accept what they're told as making sense. For the rest of us just a character saying something makes sense isn't good enough. It has to actually make sense as well.txgoldrush wrote...
No, you are simply ignorant who IGNORE the things the story is telling you. literally, you people ignore clear apsects of the games story to fit your argument...its amazing.
Which is precisely why it's completely and utterly at odds with ME1, ME2, and most of ME3 where you spend most of your time going around and fixing things that seem utterly impossible to everyone else (or at least you can if you play your cards right).And once again, the ending FITS the series themes, you just don't get it or made one up in your head that really isn't present.
Fact: Ending things on your terms is NOT one of the main themes, in fact its the opposite...the INABILITY to do so is a major theme.
Neizd wrote...
Fake...criticisms...
1. Catalyst: Synthesis is the final evolution of life...
This in-game line. "FINAL EVOLUTION?!" there is no such thing as "final evolution"... For a very smart AI it lacks the basic knowledge that every intelligent person has.
2. Catalyst existance is foreshadowed?
Yep it was, especially when he was trolling Sovereign and decided NOT to open the citadel doors for him. After all, the catalyst doesn't care about the cycle... /sarcasm
3. Great plot device?
- Oh no the reapers came, but it's okay we just found those blueprints for this big something. Maybe it's a prothean weapon, or maybe it's a big ugly microphone but whatever, let's waste A LOT of resources and build it anyway just for lolz.
4. Choices given by catalyst?
- Yes you can trust me, I know I met you and I am the main enemy from all of those three games and 100+ hours of gameplay but you can illogicaly toss a coin and choose one of three endings to see if I am lying or not to you.
Really. If Shepard is not a psychopath, the only rational decision is to refuse, since he may as well just screw not only his cycle but also every other, because some unknown entity is telling him to choose one of three options without any sound arguments. "Trust what I am saying, because I say so".
Modifié par ghost9191, 24 novembre 2012 - 08:34 .
Lack of closure, lack of clarity, underdeveloped Catalyst dialogue and an underdeveloped Catalyst, and lack of ending variations and consquences....all fixed with the extended cut. Everything else is fake criticisms, or basically the fact that A) You don't like it or
You don't get it.
Reorte wrote...
Oh how I wish I could ignore it. People see the things in the story and they don't ignore them, they just find them stupid, implausible, and unsatisfying. The only way I can see that anyone could think otherwise is if they're entirely happy to simply accept what they're told as making sense. For the rest of us just a character saying something makes sense isn't good enough. It has to actually make sense as well.txgoldrush wrote...
No, you are simply ignorant who IGNORE the things the story is telling you. literally, you people ignore clear apsects of the games story to fit your argument...its amazing.Which is precisely why it's completely and utterly at odds with ME1, ME2, and most of ME3 where you spend most of your time going around and fixing things that seem utterly impossible to everyone else (or at least you can if you play your cards right).And once again, the ending FITS the series themes, you just don't get it or made one up in your head that really isn't present.
Fact: Ending things on your terms is NOT one of the main themes, in fact its the opposite...the INABILITY to do so is a major theme.
txgoldrush wrote...
Neizd wrote...
Fake...criticisms...
1. Catalyst: Synthesis is the final evolution of life...
This in-game line. "FINAL EVOLUTION?!" there is no such thing as "final evolution"... For a very smart AI it lacks the basic knowledge that every intelligent person has.
2. Catalyst existance is foreshadowed?
Yep it was, especially when he was trolling Sovereign and decided NOT to open the citadel doors for him. After all, the catalyst doesn't care about the cycle... /sarcasm
3. Great plot device?
- Oh no the reapers came, but it's okay we just found those blueprints for this big something. Maybe it's a prothean weapon, or maybe it's a big ugly microphone but whatever, let's waste A LOT of resources and build it anyway just for lolz.
4. Choices given by catalyst?
- Yes you can trust me, I know I met you and I am the main enemy from all of those three games and 100+ hours of gameplay but you can illogicaly toss a coin and choose one of three endings to see if I am lying or not to you.
Really. If Shepard is not a psychopath, the only rational decision is to refuse, since he may as well just screw not only his cycle but also every other, because some unknown entity is telling him to choose one of three options without any sound arguments. "Trust what I am saying, because I say so".
FACT: The Catalyst only sees synthesis as an ideal solution. In fact, he does NOT want you to pick destroy and tries to warn you away from it.
And its not psychopathic, its the "ruthless claculus of war" established IN THE GAME....or did you blow Garrus off? Or maybe the fact is that ME3's main theme is victory through sacrifice and thats what the ending is.
Anti enders are delusional, no matter how much the game tells them something, they ignore it. They h ave no or little grasp on the themes of the series.
txgoldrush wrote...
But Vendetta told you he was there. Its all in the narrative..
ghost9191 wrote...
believe the simple . and reason they fixed it . is because for a end to a trilogy and shepards story . the ending lacked closure . it was abrupt.
that is the simple and probably main reason. EC kinda fixed that but the ending is still flawed. logic is off . the catalyst does contradict itself and some of the lore . it seemed ( which it was ) that it was written by a completely different group . without outside input
those are simple though, ending is still flawed , and probably not the best way to end a trilogy . just seems like a cop out
but hey just because you like the ending. doesn't mean everyone will . and they have opinions too . respect it , or don't idc
Oh god, not this nonsense again. People die in a war so it's all about victory through sacrifice? And you have the gall to call anti-enders delusional? And that's before we even get into how stupid the final sacrifice was. How contrived and ridiculous to things have to be before you reach a point where a force as dangerous and powerful as the Reapers can be defeated (or at least stopped) by one person giving their life? Even if the whole tone of the thing doesn't bother you it's beyond me how anyone wouldn't facepalm at the sheer stupidity of that.txgoldrush wrote...
Or maybe the fact is that ME3's main theme is victory through sacrifice and thats what the ending is.
Anti enders are delusional, no matter how much the game tells them something, they ignore it. They h ave no or little grasp on the themes of the series.
txgoldrush wrote...
FACT: The Catalyst only sees synthesis as an ideal solution. In fact, he does NOT want you to pick destroy and tries to warn you away from it.
Andromidius wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
But Vendetta told you he was there. Its all in the narrative..
No, he didn't. He said there might be a force driving the Reapers. Pure speculation, not to mention Vendetta is shady when it comes to the information he discusses (for various reasons).
The literal ending is a Dues Ex Machina. LITERALLY SO, there's a ghost boy in the machine that magically ends the story!
So yeah, stop this nonsense.
Sure, always at some cost but that's simply down to it being war. You're still ultimately standing triumphant against all the odds and, quite honestly, with very, very little cost. Are you seriously trying to suggest that it's either "Victory through sacrifice" or "everyone escapes without a scratch"? Is every single war story where someone, anyone, dies running with a sacrifice theme? Hey, that was the theme for Star Wars I suppose. Some X-Wing pilots died in the attack on the Death Star.txgoldrush wrote...
Wrong....
Yes, you fix things that seem impossible, BUT AT A COST. The entire series. If things were done on your terms, both Ashley and Kaiden would be alive, both the Council and the Fifth Fleet would emerge out of th ebattle unsacthed, that every companion quest has a happy ending, the Horizon colonists wouldn't be killed, Shepard would have beena ble to save the Batarian colony as well....and many of your friends wouldn't sacrifice themeselves in ME3.
And yet, once again, you do the impossible, but at a price, in the ending.
Retour en haut