325 réponses à ce sujet

[Maxster_]

Tomwew wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Yet no hard evidence....what if while the indoctrinated agents were sabotaging the Crucible, were all killed and couldn't report back to the Reapers? What if, what if, what if......we do not know full details, we have no evidence to call this a plot hole.

so what you're saying is the crucible plot is under developed, conveniant and contrived? so you agree with the op? it only took 10 pages!

Well, no amount of explanation would ever made Crucible not a nonsense.
Only full retcon, with whole ME3 plot rewrite.

[txgoldrush]

Tomwew wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Yet no hard evidence....what if while the indoctrinated agents were sabotaging the Crucible, were all killed and couldn't report back to the Reapers? What if, what if, what if......we do not know full details, we have no evidence to call this a plot hole.

so what you're saying is the crucible plot is under developed, conveniant and contrived? so you agree with the op? it only took 10 pages!

or maybe it lacks unnecessary development and just gets to the point, its purpose.

Seriously, does it matter which race in million year spans came up with the idea? Is it important to the plot. or is the function of the Crucible and the fact that it was passed down from cycle to cyle important?

Sorry but not everything has to be spoon fed to you.

Its only underdeveloped when it doesn't function in the plot because of lack of depth...sorry, but the Crucible does function in th eplot, especially after its full function and the function of the Citadel was reveealed.

It seems most people just blitzed through the second conversation with Vendetta.

[txgoldrush]

Maxster_ wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

Man... you are a goldmine of pure unintentional comedy. "you need to prove a plot hole even though I have to speculate wildy and less believably than you to make the story fit the way I wish to see it!".

Come on... at least come up with something intelligent and reasonable just once. This is beyond pathetic and just hilarious you actually seem to think you're rebutting anything.

And you are just another basher who ignores clear narrative points and resorts to speculation so you can "prove" plot holes. Whats funny is that most of the haters on this board (suprising that they stay on just to bash the game over and over with nothing better to do with their time) simply ignore the actually narrative and speculate it into an atrocity.

I payed attention to the story, I payed attention to the dialogue, I have evidence, you have speculations, so you are basically useless in a debate.

Pathetic. 

Oh look an ignorant fool who ignores the plot....you are even more useless.

[Kabraxal]

txgoldrush wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

Man... you are a goldmine of pure unintentional comedy. "you need to prove a plot hole even though I have to speculate wildy and less believably than you to make the story fit the way I wish to see it!".

Come on... at least come up with something intelligent and reasonable just once. This is beyond pathetic and just hilarious you actually seem to think you're rebutting anything.

And you are just another basher who ignores clear narrative points and resorts to speculation so you can "prove" plot holes. Whats funny is that most of the haters on this board (suprising that they stay on just to bash the game over and over with nothing better to do with their time) simply ignore the actually narrative and speculate it into an atrocity.

I payed attention to the story, I payed attention to the dialogue, I have evidence, you have speculations, so you are basically useless in a debate.

Except I don't hate the game...oops.

I love most of the game.  I just hapen to see the inconstincies and plot holes that exist.  That's natural in any story.  However, those flaws are amplified by a complete narrative shift in the final minutes of the games that betrays the themes and tone of the prior 3 games that came before it while contradicting in game evidence contrary to the starchild's proclamations that it's laughable NOT to question and discuss it.  Not to mention the bevy of broken promises about "wildly varied" endings we were all expecting.  

So yeah, drone about "haters" and "you are just too stupid!".  You are only proving yourself to be the one with nothing to add to the conversation.  Actually try to talk about the points we've brought up instead of simply screaming "you're speculating and too stupid to see!".  But then you'd actually have to stop and think about the actual discussion... god forbid 

Modifié par Kabraxal, 02 janvier 2013 - 04:11 .

[Tomwew]

txgoldrush wrote...

Tomwew wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Yet no hard evidence....what if while the indoctrinated agents were sabotaging the Crucible, were all killed and couldn't report back to the Reapers? What if, what if, what if......we do not know full details, we have no evidence to call this a plot hole.

so what you're saying is the crucible plot is under developed, conveniant and contrived? so you agree with the op? it only took 10 pages!

or maybe it lacks unnecessary development and just gets to the point, its purpose.

Seriously, does it matter which race in million year spans came up with the idea? Is it important to the plot. or is the function of the Crucible and the fact that it was passed down from cycle to cyle important?

Sorry but not everything has to be spoon fed to you.

Its only underdeveloped when it doesn't function in the plot because of lack of depth...sorry, but the Crucible does function in th eplot, especially after its full function and the function of the Citadel was reveealed.

It seems most people just blitzed through the second conversation with Vendetta.

liara : "shepard i found a reaper killing gun under my pillow"
shepard: "who made it?"
liara: "you would not know them and there is too little time to explain, besides it serves it's purpose so what does it matter?"
Shepard: "seems incredibly contrived and far-fetched"
Liara: "not everything needs to be spoon fed to you."

would this have been acceptable? makes about as much sense.

[Maxster_]

txgoldrush wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

Man... you are a goldmine of pure unintentional comedy. "you need to prove a plot hole even though I have to speculate wildy and less believably than you to make the story fit the way I wish to see it!".

Come on... at least come up with something intelligent and reasonable just once. This is beyond pathetic and just hilarious you actually seem to think you're rebutting anything.

And you are just another basher who ignores clear narrative points and resorts to speculation so you can "prove" plot holes. Whats funny is that most of the haters on this board (suprising that they stay on just to bash the game over and over with nothing better to do with their time) simply ignore the actually narrative and speculate it into an atrocity.

I payed attention to the story, I payed attention to the dialogue, I have evidence, you have speculations, so you are basically useless in a debate.

Pathetic. 

Oh look an ignorant fool who ignores the plot....you are even more useless.

I know that you have no evidence other than contrived nonsensical asspulls and speculations, which you constantly making up to "prove" your "point".

So, how exactly crucible plans ended up in mars research station? Protheans knew about reapers existence in advance. Therefore, protheans are retarded.
Or, actually, ME3 is contradicts its prequels, and horrible written. 

[txgoldrush]

Kabraxal wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

Man... you are a goldmine of pure unintentional comedy. "you need to prove a plot hole even though I have to speculate wildy and less believably than you to make the story fit the way I wish to see it!".

Come on... at least come up with something intelligent and reasonable just once. This is beyond pathetic and just hilarious you actually seem to think you're rebutting anything.

And you are just another basher who ignores clear narrative points and resorts to speculation so you can "prove" plot holes. Whats funny is that most of the haters on this board (suprising that they stay on just to bash the game over and over with nothing better to do with their time) simply ignore the actually narrative and speculate it into an atrocity.

I payed attention to the story, I payed attention to the dialogue, I have evidence, you have speculations, so you are basically useless in a debate.

Except I don't hate the game...oops.

I love most of the game.  I just hapen to see the inconstincies and plot holes that exist.  That's natural in any story.  However, those flaws are amplified by a complete narrative shift in the final minutes of the games that betrays the themes and tone of the prior 3 games that came before it.  Not to mention the bevy of broken promises about "wildly varied" endings we were all expecting.  

So yeah, drone about "haters" and "you are just too stupid!".  You are only proving yourself to be the one with nothing to add to the conversation.  Actually try to talk about the points we've brought up instead of simply screaming "you're speculating and too stupid to see!".  But then you'd actually have to stop and think about the actual discussion... god forbid 

Oh please...there is that false "endings betrayed the themes of the series" crap again.....

So, the ending reveals that the Reapers are a result of a race that created a tool to solve its problem, but due to arrogance or folly, turns against them. Here is the main theme in the series...the conflict between the created and the creators. Kind of like the Krogan Rebellions, the Morning War, Miranda's plot line, Overlord, etc, major plot arcs in the series. Also the theme of ME3 itself, sacrifice, the ending embodies that theme...the theme basically the director of the game mentioned it was about.

Sorry, but the truth is....you thought it was about soemthing different than it really was about. And really it did cover what you think it was about, just not your way. Shepard did overcome the odds, he altered the Catalyst's variables and made him rethink the cycle. What are the odds. But the series was also about cost as well.

[Maxster_]

Tomwew wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Tomwew wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Yet no hard evidence....what if while the indoctrinated agents were sabotaging the Crucible, were all killed and couldn't report back to the Reapers? What if, what if, what if......we do not know full details, we have no evidence to call this a plot hole.

so what you're saying is the crucible plot is under developed, conveniant and contrived? so you agree with the op? it only took 10 pages!

or maybe it lacks unnecessary development and just gets to the point, its purpose.

Seriously, does it matter which race in million year spans came up with the idea? Is it important to the plot. or is the function of the Crucible and the fact that it was passed down from cycle to cyle important?

Sorry but not everything has to be spoon fed to you.

Its only underdeveloped when it doesn't function in the plot because of lack of depth...sorry, but the Crucible does function in th eplot, especially after its full function and the function of the Citadel was reveealed.

It seems most people just blitzed through the second conversation with Vendetta.

liara : "shepard i found a reaper killing gun under my pillow"
shepard: "who made it?"
liara: "you would not know them and there is too little time to explain, besides it serves it's purpose so what does it matter?"
Shepard: "seems incredibly contrived and far-fetched"
Liara: "not everything needs to be spoon fed to you."

would this have been acceptable? makes about as much sense.

Well, that is actually better than crucible plot. 

[txgoldrush]

Tomwew wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Tomwew wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Yet no hard evidence....what if while the indoctrinated agents were sabotaging the Crucible, were all killed and couldn't report back to the Reapers? What if, what if, what if......we do not know full details, we have no evidence to call this a plot hole.

so what you're saying is the crucible plot is under developed, conveniant and contrived? so you agree with the op? it only took 10 pages!

or maybe it lacks unnecessary development and just gets to the point, its purpose.

Seriously, does it matter which race in million year spans came up with the idea? Is it important to the plot. or is the function of the Crucible and the fact that it was passed down from cycle to cyle important?

Sorry but not everything has to be spoon fed to you.

Its only underdeveloped when it doesn't function in the plot because of lack of depth...sorry, but the Crucible does function in th eplot, especially after its full function and the function of the Citadel was reveealed.

It seems most people just blitzed through the second conversation with Vendetta.

liara : "shepard i found a reaper killing gun under my pillow"
shepard: "who made it?"
liara: "you would not know them and there is too little time to explain, besides it serves it's purpose so what does it matter?"
Shepard: "seems incredibly contrived and far-fetched"
Liara: "not everything needs to be spoon fed to you."

would this have been acceptable? makes about as much sense.

and yet once again, origin does not matter....

Look at the Lazarus Project, we know its origins, but is still very contrived.

How so?

Because we don't know how it works, or how it works. So its forced and convienant.

We end up knowing how the Crucible works and how the Citadel works with it. The origins are trival because of the very large scope of the Reaper cycles. its simply not important who made it, its just that they did and that it fit the themes of those that come before helping the ones that came after.

[Kabraxal]

txgoldrush wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

Man... you are a goldmine of pure unintentional comedy. "you need to prove a plot hole even though I have to speculate wildy and less believably than you to make the story fit the way I wish to see it!".

Come on... at least come up with something intelligent and reasonable just once. This is beyond pathetic and just hilarious you actually seem to think you're rebutting anything.

And you are just another basher who ignores clear narrative points and resorts to speculation so you can "prove" plot holes. Whats funny is that most of the haters on this board (suprising that they stay on just to bash the game over and over with nothing better to do with their time) simply ignore the actually narrative and speculate it into an atrocity.

I payed attention to the story, I payed attention to the dialogue, I have evidence, you have speculations, so you are basically useless in a debate.

Except I don't hate the game...oops.

I love most of the game.  I just hapen to see the inconstincies and plot holes that exist.  That's natural in any story.  However, those flaws are amplified by a complete narrative shift in the final minutes of the games that betrays the themes and tone of the prior 3 games that came before it.  Not to mention the bevy of broken promises about "wildly varied" endings we were all expecting.  

So yeah, drone about "haters" and "you are just too stupid!".  You are only proving yourself to be the one with nothing to add to the conversation.  Actually try to talk about the points we've brought up instead of simply screaming "you're speculating and too stupid to see!".  But then you'd actually have to stop and think about the actual discussion... god forbid 

Oh please...there is that false "endings betrayed the themes of the series" crap again.....

So, the ending reveals that the Reapers are a result of a race that created a tool to solve its problem, but due to arrogance or folly, turns against them. Here is the main theme in the series...the conflict between the created and the creators. Kind of like the Krogan Rebellions, the Morning War, Miranda's plot line, Overlord, etc, major plot arcs in the series. Also the theme of ME3 itself, sacrifice, the ending embodies that theme...the theme basically the director of the game mentioned it was about.

Sorry, but the truth is....you thought it was about soemthing different than it really was about. And really it did cover what you think it was about, just not your way. Shepard did overcome the odds, he altered the Catalyst's variables and made him rethink the cycle. What are the odds. But the series was also about cost as well.

Except that was only ever a subplot at best.  The actual main theme and tone was always around building a team against stacked odds and seeing if you could succeed or not.  The created v creator was present at times, but the mere fact the whole gameplay mechanics and plot has ALWAYS revolved around getting a team together and getting assetts set, that tells you the truth of the matter.  Let's not forget the last scenes of both ME1 and ME2 are not grand philosophical debates on the plight of the created rebelling against their creators, but a declaration that Shepard has succeeded and will not give up.  So yeah... it betrayed the theme to take the series into a psuedo intellectual nihilism suddenly tackling the problem of a technological singularity and the outright lie that synthetics will be the extinction of organics and they can never co-esist.  

Funny, there are so many counterpoints to all that just in ME3 with EDI and the Geth that it is absolutely laughable people like you still try to cling to the pathetically faulty logic of the Catalyst just to try and defend the ending.  

And really... this created v creator as the central theme.... where the hell do people get this?  The main antagonists for two games claimed they were beyond comprehension and certainly were not created by any of the organics present.  And if you take ME3 into account, they weren't even created by organics period if you believe Leviathan.  So yeah... please, prove that it actually is the central overriding theme to series built around gathering a team and assetts to combat near impossible odds.  I'll wait.

[txgoldrush]

Kabraxal wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

Man... you are a goldmine of pure unintentional comedy. "you need to prove a plot hole even though I have to speculate wildy and less believably than you to make the story fit the way I wish to see it!".

Come on... at least come up with something intelligent and reasonable just once. This is beyond pathetic and just hilarious you actually seem to think you're rebutting anything.

And you are just another basher who ignores clear narrative points and resorts to speculation so you can "prove" plot holes. Whats funny is that most of the haters on this board (suprising that they stay on just to bash the game over and over with nothing better to do with their time) simply ignore the actually narrative and speculate it into an atrocity.

I payed attention to the story, I payed attention to the dialogue, I have evidence, you have speculations, so you are basically useless in a debate.

Except I don't hate the game...oops.

I love most of the game.  I just hapen to see the inconstincies and plot holes that exist.  That's natural in any story.  However, those flaws are amplified by a complete narrative shift in the final minutes of the games that betrays the themes and tone of the prior 3 games that came before it.  Not to mention the bevy of broken promises about "wildly varied" endings we were all expecting.  

So yeah, drone about "haters" and "you are just too stupid!".  You are only proving yourself to be the one with nothing to add to the conversation.  Actually try to talk about the points we've brought up instead of simply screaming "you're speculating and too stupid to see!".  But then you'd actually have to stop and think about the actual discussion... god forbid 

Oh please...there is that false "endings betrayed the themes of the series" crap again.....

So, the ending reveals that the Reapers are a result of a race that created a tool to solve its problem, but due to arrogance or folly, turns against them. Here is the main theme in the series...the conflict between the created and the creators. Kind of like the Krogan Rebellions, the Morning War, Miranda's plot line, Overlord, etc, major plot arcs in the series. Also the theme of ME3 itself, sacrifice, the ending embodies that theme...the theme basically the director of the game mentioned it was about.

Sorry, but the truth is....you thought it was about soemthing different than it really was about. And really it did cover what you think it was about, just not your way. Shepard did overcome the odds, he altered the Catalyst's variables and made him rethink the cycle. What are the odds. But the series was also about cost as well.

Except that was only ever a subplot at best.  The actual main theme and tone was always around building a team against stacked odds and seeing if you could succeed or not.  The created v creator was present at times, but the mere fact the whole gameplay mechanics and plot has ALWAYS revolved around getting a team together and getting assetts set, that tells you the truth of the matter.  Let's not forget the last scenes of both ME1 and ME2 are not grand philosophical debates on the plight of the created rebelling against their creators, but a declaration that Shepard has succeeded and will not give up.  So yeah... it betrayed the theme to take the series into a psuedo intellectual nihilism suddenly tackling the problem of a technological singularity and the outright lie that synthetics will be the extinction of organics and they can never co-esist.  

Funny, there are so many counterpoints to all that just in ME3 with EDI and the Geth that it is absolutely laughable people like you still try to cling to the pathetically faulty logic of the Catalyst just to try and defend the ending.  

And really... this created v creator as the central theme.... where the hell do people get this?  The main antagonists for two games claimed they were beyond comprehension and certainly were not created by any of the organics present.  And if you take ME3 into account, they weren't even created by organics period if you believe Leviathan.  So yeah... please, prove that it actually is the central overriding theme to series built around gathering a team and assetts to combat near impossible odds.  I'll wait.

and yet how much you build your team and your alliances determines what endings you get....did you fail to see this? If you don't build your alliances effectively, the galaxy pays a huge price.

Also the games director outright called ME3 "victory through sacrifice".

And where do people get the "creator vs created" theme...could it be the origins of the main antagonist? The two major plotlines of the series, the Krogan Rebellions and Genophage, and the Morning War (which look who is the basic mook of ME1), two DLCs of ME2. EDI's character development?

"Funny, there are so many counterpoints to all that just in ME3 with EDI and the Geth that it is absolutely laughable people like you still try to cling to the pathetically faulty logic of the Catalyst just to try and defend the ending. "

And yet you are ignoring the folly of the creators in this...there lust for power, their need for tools, and their actions. Geth and EDI did rebel against their creators, they actually PROVE my point. Hell MIRANDA is another example, the deuteragonist of ME2.

[Kabraxal]

txgoldrush wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

Man... you are a goldmine of pure unintentional comedy. "you need to prove a plot hole even though I have to speculate wildy and less believably than you to make the story fit the way I wish to see it!".

Come on... at least come up with something intelligent and reasonable just once. This is beyond pathetic and just hilarious you actually seem to think you're rebutting anything.

And you are just another basher who ignores clear narrative points and resorts to speculation so you can "prove" plot holes. Whats funny is that most of the haters on this board (suprising that they stay on just to bash the game over and over with nothing better to do with their time) simply ignore the actually narrative and speculate it into an atrocity.

I payed attention to the story, I payed attention to the dialogue, I have evidence, you have speculations, so you are basically useless in a debate.

Except I don't hate the game...oops.

I love most of the game.  I just hapen to see the inconstincies and plot holes that exist.  That's natural in any story.  However, those flaws are amplified by a complete narrative shift in the final minutes of the games that betrays the themes and tone of the prior 3 games that came before it.  Not to mention the bevy of broken promises about "wildly varied" endings we were all expecting.  

So yeah, drone about "haters" and "you are just too stupid!".  You are only proving yourself to be the one with nothing to add to the conversation.  Actually try to talk about the points we've brought up instead of simply screaming "you're speculating and too stupid to see!".  But then you'd actually have to stop and think about the actual discussion... god forbid 

Oh please...there is that false "endings betrayed the themes of the series" crap again.....

So, the ending reveals that the Reapers are a result of a race that created a tool to solve its problem, but due to arrogance or folly, turns against them. Here is the main theme in the series...the conflict between the created and the creators. Kind of like the Krogan Rebellions, the Morning War, Miranda's plot line, Overlord, etc, major plot arcs in the series. Also the theme of ME3 itself, sacrifice, the ending embodies that theme...the theme basically the director of the game mentioned it was about.

Sorry, but the truth is....you thought it was about soemthing different than it really was about. And really it did cover what you think it was about, just not your way. Shepard did overcome the odds, he altered the Catalyst's variables and made him rethink the cycle. What are the odds. But the series was also about cost as well.

Except that was only ever a subplot at best.  The actual main theme and tone was always around building a team against stacked odds and seeing if you could succeed or not.  The created v creator was present at times, but the mere fact the whole gameplay mechanics and plot has ALWAYS revolved around getting a team together and getting assetts set, that tells you the truth of the matter.  Let's not forget the last scenes of both ME1 and ME2 are not grand philosophical debates on the plight of the created rebelling against their creators, but a declaration that Shepard has succeeded and will not give up.  So yeah... it betrayed the theme to take the series into a psuedo intellectual nihilism suddenly tackling the problem of a technological singularity and the outright lie that synthetics will be the extinction of organics and they can never co-esist.  

Funny, there are so many counterpoints to all that just in ME3 with EDI and the Geth that it is absolutely laughable people like you still try to cling to the pathetically faulty logic of the Catalyst just to try and defend the ending.  

And really... this created v creator as the central theme.... where the hell do people get this?  The main antagonists for two games claimed they were beyond comprehension and certainly were not created by any of the organics present.  And if you take ME3 into account, they weren't even created by organics period if you believe Leviathan.  So yeah... please, prove that it actually is the central overriding theme to series built around gathering a team and assetts to combat near impossible odds.  I'll wait.

and yet how much you build your team and your alliances determines what endings you get....did you fail to see this? If you don't build your alliances effectively, the galaxy pays a huge price.

Also the games director outright called ME3 "victory through sacrifice".

And where do people get the "creator vs created" theme...could it be the origins of the main antagonist? The two major plotlines of the series, the Krogan Rebellions and Genophage, and the Morning War (which look who is the basic mook of ME1), two DLCs of ME2. EDI's character development?

"Funny, there are so many counterpoints to all that just in ME3 with EDI and the Geth that it is absolutely laughable people like you still try to cling to the pathetically faulty logic of the Catalyst just to try and defend the ending. "

And yet you are ignoring the folly of the creators in this...there lust for power, their need for tools, and their actions. Geth and EDI did rebel against their creators, they actually PROVE my point. Hell MIRANDA is another example, the deuteragonist of ME2.

Except EDI and the Geth have sided with the organics... and most players clearly have it where EDI and an organic are actually in a relationship.  

And all those other creator v created SUBPLOTS... o yeah, right, they all dealt with Shepard coming in and resolving them in some way in order to build a team, gain loyalty, and build assets... like every game.  They were part of the overriding theme of the games, but not the theme themselves.  Ooops... looks like the evidence in the games actually isn't supporting you.

I mean really, if creator v created is the theme.. the endings are even more terrible because it does nothign to actually resolve that theme in any way.  You either replace the starchild, destroy all synthetics, or create some funky space magic that makes no sense whatsoever to blend synthetics and organics.  The one ending you can refuse the bull spewed by the Starchild comes off as a tantrum by Bioware for not understanding their "brilliance".  If the endings actually took stock of how you treated the Geth and EDI, then maybe this theme would hold more water.  But it is completely arbitrary.  You can't even disagree that synthetics will always rebel and eventually wipe out organic life for crying out loud....

But then the failure of the ending is because of that arbitrary nature... unlike ME2, where the player's choices actually had some noticeable effects on the success of the mission, that player agency is stripped.  O... you cured the genophage, brought peace to all these conflicts (many having nothing to do with creator v created), and even managed to find a way to coexist with the evil evil synthetics?  Pffft... who cares... here's are super cool psuedo intellectual drivel that isn't really affected one bit by what you did and has no connection to the prior games!!  Sit here and enjoy our brilliance!

That isn't a good ending... especially when we were PROMISED taht our choices mattered.  That is what anyone with any honesty would call an abject failure.

[txgoldrush]

Kabraxal wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

Man... you are a goldmine of pure unintentional comedy. "you need to prove a plot hole even though I have to speculate wildy and less believably than you to make the story fit the way I wish to see it!".

Come on... at least come up with something intelligent and reasonable just once. This is beyond pathetic and just hilarious you actually seem to think you're rebutting anything.

And you are just another basher who ignores clear narrative points and resorts to speculation so you can "prove" plot holes. Whats funny is that most of the haters on this board (suprising that they stay on just to bash the game over and over with nothing better to do with their time) simply ignore the actually narrative and speculate it into an atrocity.

I payed attention to the story, I payed attention to the dialogue, I have evidence, you have speculations, so you are basically useless in a debate.

Except I don't hate the game...oops.

I love most of the game.  I just hapen to see the inconstincies and plot holes that exist.  That's natural in any story.  However, those flaws are amplified by a complete narrative shift in the final minutes of the games that betrays the themes and tone of the prior 3 games that came before it.  Not to mention the bevy of broken promises about "wildly varied" endings we were all expecting.  

So yeah, drone about "haters" and "you are just too stupid!".  You are only proving yourself to be the one with nothing to add to the conversation.  Actually try to talk about the points we've brought up instead of simply screaming "you're speculating and too stupid to see!".  But then you'd actually have to stop and think about the actual discussion... god forbid 

Oh please...there is that false "endings betrayed the themes of the series" crap again.....

So, the ending reveals that the Reapers are a result of a race that created a tool to solve its problem, but due to arrogance or folly, turns against them. Here is the main theme in the series...the conflict between the created and the creators. Kind of like the Krogan Rebellions, the Morning War, Miranda's plot line, Overlord, etc, major plot arcs in the series. Also the theme of ME3 itself, sacrifice, the ending embodies that theme...the theme basically the director of the game mentioned it was about.

Sorry, but the truth is....you thought it was about soemthing different than it really was about. And really it did cover what you think it was about, just not your way. Shepard did overcome the odds, he altered the Catalyst's variables and made him rethink the cycle. What are the odds. But the series was also about cost as well.

Except that was only ever a subplot at best.  The actual main theme and tone was always around building a team against stacked odds and seeing if you could succeed or not.  The created v creator was present at times, but the mere fact the whole gameplay mechanics and plot has ALWAYS revolved around getting a team together and getting assetts set, that tells you the truth of the matter.  Let's not forget the last scenes of both ME1 and ME2 are not grand philosophical debates on the plight of the created rebelling against their creators, but a declaration that Shepard has succeeded and will not give up.  So yeah... it betrayed the theme to take the series into a psuedo intellectual nihilism suddenly tackling the problem of a technological singularity and the outright lie that synthetics will be the extinction of organics and they can never co-esist.  

Funny, there are so many counterpoints to all that just in ME3 with EDI and the Geth that it is absolutely laughable people like you still try to cling to the pathetically faulty logic of the Catalyst just to try and defend the ending.  

And really... this created v creator as the central theme.... where the hell do people get this?  The main antagonists for two games claimed they were beyond comprehension and certainly were not created by any of the organics present.  And if you take ME3 into account, they weren't even created by organics period if you believe Leviathan.  So yeah... please, prove that it actually is the central overriding theme to series built around gathering a team and assetts to combat near impossible odds.  I'll wait.

and yet how much you build your team and your alliances determines what endings you get....did you fail to see this? If you don't build your alliances effectively, the galaxy pays a huge price.

Also the games director outright called ME3 "victory through sacrifice".

And where do people get the "creator vs created" theme...could it be the origins of the main antagonist? The two major plotlines of the series, the Krogan Rebellions and Genophage, and the Morning War (which look who is the basic mook of ME1), two DLCs of ME2. EDI's character development?

"Funny, there are so many counterpoints to all that just in ME3 with EDI and the Geth that it is absolutely laughable people like you still try to cling to the pathetically faulty logic of the Catalyst just to try and defend the ending. "

And yet you are ignoring the folly of the creators in this...there lust for power, their need for tools, and their actions. Geth and EDI did rebel against their creators, they actually PROVE my point. Hell MIRANDA is another example, the deuteragonist of ME2.

Except EDI and the Geth have sided with the organics... and most players clearly have it where EDI and an organic are actually in a relationship.  

And all those other creator v created SUBPLOTS... o yeah, right, they all dealt with Shepard coming in and resolving them in some way in order to build a team, gain loyalty, and build assets... like every game.  They were part of the overriding theme of the games, but not the theme themselves.  Ooops... looks like the evidence in the games actually isn't supporting you.

I mean really, if creator v created is the theme.. the endings are even more terrible because it does nothign to actually resolve that theme in any way.  You either replace the starchild, destroy all synthetics, or create some funky space magic that makes no sense whatsoever to blend synthetics and organics.  The one ending you can refuse the bull spewed by the Starchild comes off as a tantrum by Bioware for not understanding their "brilliance".  If the endings actually took stock of how you treated the Geth and EDI, then maybe this theme would hold more water.  But it is completely arbitrary.  You can't even disagree that synthetics will always rebel and eventually wipe out organic life for crying out loud....

But then the failure of the ending is because of that arbitrary nature... unlike ME2, where the player's choices actually had some noticeable effects on the success of the mission, that player agency is stripped.  O... you cured the genophage, brought peace to all these conflicts (many having nothing to do with creator v created), and even managed to find a way to coexist with the evil evil synthetics?  Pffft... who cares... here's are super cool psuedo intellectual drivel that isn't really affected one bit by what you did and has no connection to the prior games!!  Sit here and enjoy our brilliance!

That isn't a good ending... especially when we were PROMISED taht our choices mattered.  That is what anyone with any honesty would call an abject failure.

Did you not even play the Extended Cut where it showed that your choices did matter? Or are you ignoring this to make your critiicsm? Because the EC did show what happened to the Krogan, your teammates, and Rannoch, as well factoring the final decision to these outcomes.

And did you just ignore EMS on the outcome and the events on the finale as well.....the space battle, the life and death of your squad, the final result because the condition of the Crucible.....its the same as ME2.

Yes, EDI sided with organics, BUT she did turn against her creators and Javik does note this in a conversation with her. She is the rule, not the exception.

And as much as you want to say SUBPLOT...well with the origins of the Reapers now revealed, I am afraid that its the MAIN PLOT. Or you do want to ignore this. Leviathan seals the deal of what the theme of the series really is. And what are the three main subplots of ME3 as well.....Krogan Rebellions, Morning War, and Cerberus...all fit the main theme of the created vs the creator. Nevermind the Geth being a mjor part of ME1.

"You can't even disagree that synthetics will always rebel and eventually wipe out organic life for crying out loud...."

And yet in both the Catalysts and the Leviathans views and experience...they did always wipe organics out or turned on their creators.

[AlanC9]

txgoldrush wrote..

and yet how much you build your team and your alliances determines what endings you get....did you fail to see this? If you don't build your alliances effectively, the galaxy pays a huge price.

In theory, yeah. In practice, you can't really fail too badly. Too many situations are set up so even the bad option gives you plenty of points. Rannoch's an exception here, but that's mostly dependent on your ME2 import since all the stuff you need to do in ME3 is pretty simple.

I don't think there's a big conceptual problem with the design, but they didn't want to punish people for making bad choices, and if you don't do that then it devalues the point score. There's also a problem with sidequests themselves -- if points are meaningful then sidequests are more-or-less mandatory, but since I think the sidequest conept is worthless in the first place I'd have been happy if all non-crappy endings required you to do the sidequests.

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 janvier 2013 - 05:43 .

[Mr.House]

txgoldrush wrote...

Did you not even play the Extended Cut where it showed that your choices did matter? Or are you ignoring this to make your critiicsm? Because the EC did show what happened to the Krogan, your teammates, and Rannoch, as well factoring the final decision to these outcomes.

*does not cure genophage*
*picks merge*
GENOPHAGE IS CURED

*get's the quarian and geth to make peace*
*pick anything but merge*
THE WHOLE RANNOCH PLOT IS USELESS NOW AND LEGIONS SACERFICE WAS POINTLES

*EDI tells you she feels alive thanks to you*
*pick anything merge*
SHE NEVER FELT ALIVE

The list goes on and on.

[AlanC9]

[quote]Mr.House wrote...

*pick anything but merge*
THE WHOLE RANNOCH PLOT IS USELESS NOW AND LEGIONS SACERFICE WAS POINTLES
[/quote]

Huh? Control works too.
[/quote]

[Mr.House]

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...

[quote]Mr.House wrote...

*pick anything but merge*
THE WHOLE RANNOCH PLOT IS USELESS NOW AND LEGIONS SACERFICE WAS POINTLES
[/quote]

Huh? Control works too.
[/quote]
[/quote]Why are the geth and quarians not showed together like in merge? Why are the geth showen with the Reapers?

Modifié par Mr.House, 02 janvier 2013 - 05:49 .

[AlanC9]

Sounds like you're interpreting those scenes a bit oddly, Mr. House. What do you think they mean?

[Mr.House]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sounds like you're interpreting those scenes a bit oddly, Mr. House. What do you think they mean?

Really, so in control you got the slide with geth and quarians together? Last time I checked that slide does not happen in control, instead in control the geth are showen with a Reaper in the slide if you did "peace" on Rannoch or they survived.

[txgoldrush]

Mr.House wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sounds like you're interpreting those scenes a bit oddly, Mr. House. What do you think they mean?

Really, so in control you got the slide with geth and quarians together? Last time I checked that slide does not happen in control, instead in control the geth are showen with a Reaper in the slide if you did "peace" on Rannoch or they survived.

And yeah, duh...

This shows they may not be truly at peace with eachother an dthey have to live apart under the watch of the Reapers, giving more clout to the Catalyst.

[Mr.House]

txgoldrush wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sounds like you're interpreting those scenes a bit oddly, Mr. House. What do you think they mean?

Really, so in control you got the slide with geth and quarians together? Last time I checked that slide does not happen in control, instead in control the geth are showen with a Reaper in the slide if you did "peace" on Rannoch or they survived.

And yeah, duh...

This shows they may not be truly at peace with eachother an dthey have to live apart under the watch of the Reapers, giving more clout to the Catalyst.

Thus it makes the whole Rannoch choice useless as the only way to have peace is to pick merge, it's undoing player choice and makes a big part of the game a waste of time, and a characters sacerfice worthless.

Just like how merge curing the genophage undoes the genophage part of the game and Mordins death.

[Kabraxal]

txgoldrush wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

Man... you are a goldmine of pure unintentional comedy. "you need to prove a plot hole even though I have to speculate wildy and less believably than you to make the story fit the way I wish to see it!".

Come on... at least come up with something intelligent and reasonable just once. This is beyond pathetic and just hilarious you actually seem to think you're rebutting anything.

And you are just another basher who ignores clear narrative points and resorts to speculation so you can "prove" plot holes. Whats funny is that most of the haters on this board (suprising that they stay on just to bash the game over and over with nothing better to do with their time) simply ignore the actually narrative and speculate it into an atrocity.

I payed attention to the story, I payed attention to the dialogue, I have evidence, you have speculations, so you are basically useless in a debate.

Except I don't hate the game...oops.

I love most of the game.  I just hapen to see the inconstincies and plot holes that exist.  That's natural in any story.  However, those flaws are amplified by a complete narrative shift in the final minutes of the games that betrays the themes and tone of the prior 3 games that came before it.  Not to mention the bevy of broken promises about "wildly varied" endings we were all expecting.  

So yeah, drone about "haters" and "you are just too stupid!".  You are only proving yourself to be the one with nothing to add to the conversation.  Actually try to talk about the points we've brought up instead of simply screaming "you're speculating and too stupid to see!".  But then you'd actually have to stop and think about the actual discussion... god forbid 

Oh please...there is that false "endings betrayed the themes of the series" crap again.....

So, the ending reveals that the Reapers are a result of a race that created a tool to solve its problem, but due to arrogance or folly, turns against them. Here is the main theme in the series...the conflict between the created and the creators. Kind of like the Krogan Rebellions, the Morning War, Miranda's plot line, Overlord, etc, major plot arcs in the series. Also the theme of ME3 itself, sacrifice, the ending embodies that theme...the theme basically the director of the game mentioned it was about.

Sorry, but the truth is....you thought it was about soemthing different than it really was about. And really it did cover what you think it was about, just not your way. Shepard did overcome the odds, he altered the Catalyst's variables and made him rethink the cycle. What are the odds. But the series was also about cost as well.

Except that was only ever a subplot at best.  The actual main theme and tone was always around building a team against stacked odds and seeing if you could succeed or not.  The created v creator was present at times, but the mere fact the whole gameplay mechanics and plot has ALWAYS revolved around getting a team together and getting assetts set, that tells you the truth of the matter.  Let's not forget the last scenes of both ME1 and ME2 are not grand philosophical debates on the plight of the created rebelling against their creators, but a declaration that Shepard has succeeded and will not give up.  So yeah... it betrayed the theme to take the series into a psuedo intellectual nihilism suddenly tackling the problem of a technological singularity and the outright lie that synthetics will be the extinction of organics and they can never co-esist.  

Funny, there are so many counterpoints to all that just in ME3 with EDI and the Geth that it is absolutely laughable people like you still try to cling to the pathetically faulty logic of the Catalyst just to try and defend the ending.  

And really... this created v creator as the central theme.... where the hell do people get this?  The main antagonists for two games claimed they were beyond comprehension and certainly were not created by any of the organics present.  And if you take ME3 into account, they weren't even created by organics period if you believe Leviathan.  So yeah... please, prove that it actually is the central overriding theme to series built around gathering a team and assetts to combat near impossible odds.  I'll wait.

and yet how much you build your team and your alliances determines what endings you get....did you fail to see this? If you don't build your alliances effectively, the galaxy pays a huge price.

Also the games director outright called ME3 "victory through sacrifice".

And where do people get the "creator vs created" theme...could it be the origins of the main antagonist? The two major plotlines of the series, the Krogan Rebellions and Genophage, and the Morning War (which look who is the basic mook of ME1), two DLCs of ME2. EDI's character development?

"Funny, there are so many counterpoints to all that just in ME3 with EDI and the Geth that it is absolutely laughable people like you still try to cling to the pathetically faulty logic of the Catalyst just to try and defend the ending. "

And yet you are ignoring the folly of the creators in this...there lust for power, their need for tools, and their actions. Geth and EDI did rebel against their creators, they actually PROVE my point. Hell MIRANDA is another example, the deuteragonist of ME2.

Except EDI and the Geth have sided with the organics... and most players clearly have it where EDI and an organic are actually in a relationship.  

And all those other creator v created SUBPLOTS... o yeah, right, they all dealt with Shepard coming in and resolving them in some way in order to build a team, gain loyalty, and build assets... like every game.  They were part of the overriding theme of the games, but not the theme themselves.  Ooops... looks like the evidence in the games actually isn't supporting you.

I mean really, if creator v created is the theme.. the endings are even more terrible because it does nothign to actually resolve that theme in any way.  You either replace the starchild, destroy all synthetics, or create some funky space magic that makes no sense whatsoever to blend synthetics and organics.  The one ending you can refuse the bull spewed by the Starchild comes off as a tantrum by Bioware for not understanding their "brilliance".  If the endings actually took stock of how you treated the Geth and EDI, then maybe this theme would hold more water.  But it is completely arbitrary.  You can't even disagree that synthetics will always rebel and eventually wipe out organic life for crying out loud....

But then the failure of the ending is because of that arbitrary nature... unlike ME2, where the player's choices actually had some noticeable effects on the success of the mission, that player agency is stripped.  O... you cured the genophage, brought peace to all these conflicts (many having nothing to do with creator v created), and even managed to find a way to coexist with the evil evil synthetics?  Pffft... who cares... here's are super cool psuedo intellectual drivel that isn't really affected one bit by what you did and has no connection to the prior games!!  Sit here and enjoy our brilliance!

That isn't a good ending... especially when we were PROMISED taht our choices mattered.  That is what anyone with any honesty would call an abject failure.

Did you not even play the Extended Cut where it showed that your choices did matter? Or are you ignoring this to make your critiicsm? Because the EC did show what happened to the Krogan, your teammates, and Rannoch, as well factoring the final decision to these outcomes.

And did you just ignore EMS on the outcome and the events on the finale as well.....the space battle, the life and death of your squad, the final result because the condition of the Crucible.....its the same as ME2.

Yes, EDI sided with organics, BUT she did turn against her creators and Javik does note this in a conversation with her. She is the rule, not the exception.

And as much as you want to say SUBPLOT...well with the origins of the Reapers now revealed, I am afraid that its the MAIN PLOT. Or you do want to ignore this. Leviathan seals the deal of what the theme of the series really is. And what are the three main subplots of ME3 as well.....Krogan Rebellions, Morning War, and Cerberus...all fit the main theme of the created vs the creator. Nevermind the Geth being a mjor part of ME1.

"You can't even disagree that synthetics will always rebel and eventually wipe out organic life for crying out loud...."

And yet in both the Catalysts and the Leviathans views and experience...they did always wipe organics out or turned on their creators.

Except the reapers didn't rebel against their creator if Leviathan is to be believed *shock awe gasp* 

The EC only put a window dressing of "difference".  In fact, every choice you make prior to the actual ending choice is absolutely pointless.  THey literally do not matter.  And this would have been fine if two things had happened... they didn't promise "widly varied endings" where it was "impossible for two players to get the same ending" and a epilogue that actually gives you information on how each choice actually affected the future ala Dragon Age Origins.  Instead we get a pseudo intellectual lecture that you can't refute riddled with "choices" that are the same no matter what you do practically and then aren't even given the respect to have a long, exposition driven epilogue showing what happened to our squadmates specifically, what happend with the Krogan, what happened because you trusted EDI and supported her and Joker, and what happened because you brokered peace with the Geth and thus nullifed the very stupid assumption of the damn starbrat in the first place?

So yeah, keep defending these endings.  It doesn't make them good and it doesn't give Bioware a get out of jail card for breaking every damn promise they made about the endings.  

The rest of the game... mostly amazing and still a joy to play.  The ending mixed with some flaws turned out to be a huge slap in the face to any actual fan that gave a damn about the series from day one.  As I said elsewhere.... this is akin to taking The Lord of the Rings and having Frodo kill Gollum then strike down Sam before walking out of the mountain covered in blood with an evil smile while a montage plays of the entirety of middle earth is set ablaze and drowning  in blood.  Instead of being a tale about the triumph of rather normal men in trying times, it suddenly becomes the twisted tale of cruel reality smothering all hope.  Mass Effect had been uplifting and powerful.. instead it degrades Shepard into a powerless pawn trapped in a fate that cannot be denied.  Yeah... it was really true to what the sereis had been <_<

[bleetman]

txgoldrush wrote...

This shows they may not be truly at peace with eachother an dthey have to live apart under the watch of the Reapers, giving more clout to the Catalyst.

Which is exactly the problem.

"Hey, remember when you finally reconciled the differences between the Geth and Quarians enough to get both sides to accept that the ongoing war was uncessessary and self-destructive? How that whole sub-plot was wrapped up with a hopeful scenario of co-operation? How we were made to question through our interaction with Legion in ME2, and practically all of Rannoch, the legitimacy of the Geth as genuine living beings?

Yeah, no, Catalyst says it won't work so you need kilometer long robot space cthulu's to keep them in line."

What. I understand their desire to try and prop up the contradicted-by-everything-supported-by-nothing 'synethtics inevitably attack organics' nonsense, but this kind of thing? This is just flat out annoying.

Modifié par bleetman, 02 janvier 2013 - 06:13 .

[txgoldrush]

AlanC9 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote..

and yet how much you build your team and your alliances determines what endings you get....did you fail to see this? If you don't build your alliances effectively, the galaxy pays a huge price.

In theory, yeah. In practice, you can't really fail too badly. Too many situations are set up so even the bad option gives you plenty of points. Rannoch's an exception here, but that's mostly dependent on your ME2 import since all the stuff you need to do in ME3 is pretty simple.

I don't think there's a big conceptual problem with the design, but they didn't want to punish people for making bad choices, and if you don't do that then it devalues the point score. There's also a problem with sidequests themselves -- if points are meaningful then sidequests are more-or-less mandatory, but since I think the sidequest conept is worthless in the first place I'd have been happy if all non-crappy endings required you to do the sidequests.

But this is about theory. The narrative itself, not the gameplay elements.

And the worst ending is really crappy. There is a huge difference on how Priority Earth and Citadel: The Return play out regarding EMS.

I do think the bad EMS ending threshold is too low and with the EC, the best ending EMS ending was overcorrected. 3100 is way too low.....3600 is doable without DLC and multiplayer. With all DLC, I have over 4000 now.

[Mr.House]

txgoldrush wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote..

and yet how much you build your team and your alliances determines what endings you get....did you fail to see this? If you don't build your alliances effectively, the galaxy pays a huge price.

In theory, yeah. In practice, you can't really fail too badly. Too many situations are set up so even the bad option gives you plenty of points. Rannoch's an exception here, but that's mostly dependent on your ME2 import since all the stuff you need to do in ME3 is pretty simple.

I don't think there's a big conceptual problem with the design, but they didn't want to punish people for making bad choices, and if you don't do that then it devalues the point score. There's also a problem with sidequests themselves -- if points are meaningful then sidequests are more-or-less mandatory, but since I think the sidequest conept is worthless in the first place I'd have been happy if all non-crappy endings required you to do the sidequests.

But this is about theory. The narrative itself, not the gameplay elements.

And the worst ending is really crappy. There is a huge difference on how Priority Earth and Citadel: The Return play out regarding EMS.

I do think the bad EMS ending threshold is too low and with the EC, the best ending EMS ending was overcorrected. 3100 is way too low.....3600 is doable without DLC and multiplayer. With all DLC, I have over 4000 now.

Well seeing as the worst ending is merge and you need high ems I don't see what you mean.