356 réponses à ce sujet

[BrotherCorvid]

"Violated?"

By a video game?

Oh son, you're too precious for your own good. I hope you never have to face down any real problems in life. I'd hate to see how you feel then.

Modifié par RobotWalk, 15 février 2013 - 04:15 .

[sharkboy421]

BirdsallSa wrote...
The Catalyst has been around for billions of years collecting data. Who are you to question his evidence after a few hours of observing the ME universe?

That's my point, I don't know what his evidence is.  In the two other major conflicts of the series where we have direct influence over the outcome, the genophage and the morning war, we are given plenty of context and evidence about each situation so that we can make the choice we feel is the best one.

What the catalyst tells us about the synthetic/organic conflict, to me at least, feels at odds with everything else I have already seen and experienced.  But you're right as well; it has been around for at least a billion years.  So I don't see it being unreasonable to ask for exposition on his claim.

However is will end with the issue of the game telling us rather than showing us as it would usually do.  This is another reason why I feel the ending is out of place.  In order for it to fit, a of exposition has to be put in a very short amount of time when this is information that should already have been given to the player over the course of the game or the series.

[Eshaye]

sharkboy421 wrote...

However is will end with the issue of the game telling us rather than showing us as it would usually do.  This is another reason why I feel the ending is out of place.  In order for it to fit, a of exposition has to be put in a very short amount of time when this is information that should already have been given to the player over the course of the game or the series.

That's exatcly it, they've had 3 GAMES to set this up and yet we end up with something that simply does not flow with the rest of the series. 

I blame it on Drew K. having not been part of ME3, he was the brain behind the mystery of ME and whithout him they just did their best to wrap it up or totally ignored what he had originally intended. I see no other possible explanation. IF Drew had still been lead writer I bet you anything the ending would have been more profound and satisfying, not happy no, but it would go with the rest of the story. 

So maybe such a long trilogy isn't a good idea, just stick to one game at a time and make sure their endings match their beginnings. 

[Commander Wookie]

sharkboy421 wrote...

There is simply far too little evidence for the catalyst, in my opinion, to make such a striking and important claim.  I also feel it is a very sudden and awkward "twist" just for the sake of being a twist, but that is a bit off topic.

Also was it a bit of shock to shoot the catalyst and see the result?

Agreed the ending did feel very rushed & out of place, and I feel more evidence was needed to be presented in order for the Catalyst claims to be somewhat believable.


Yea I don’t know the original endings, I had the EC loaded the first time through, but after listening to the Catalysts not make much sense to me, I was like these are my only options? Decided to open a can of WA on him, que demonic voice “the cycle continues!” BAM dead. Left scratchin my head goin what just happened there? 


Was ready for EPIC battle instead was left feeling completely deflated. But I did like going out atleast guns ablaze !

[Commander Wookie]

BirdsallSa wrote...


The Catalyst has been around for billions of years collecting data. Who are you to question his evidence after a few hours of observing the ME universe?

My Shepard spent the entire 100+ hrs of the Mass Effect trilogy questioning authority.

The Catalyst, no matter how old, is NO exception to this.

[abch4]

Lol.....violated. 1st world problems

[macrocarl]

Oh good, so now all the angry internet people have had time to settle down only to get more frustrated all over again. Creative.

[wong990616]

that why i delete my saves after cronos station

[SpamBot2000]

Ah good, the people who are authorized to judge the feelings of others are here. I was wondering where they were.

It is fitting that the people who contribute searching criticism like "lol! it's a game, so it makes no difference if it's good or if it's sea bass bicycle" are the audience BioWare are cultivating with their current artistry though. Appears that BW have set back the "Games are Art" argument by about 30 years.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 15 février 2013 - 06:03 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Violated...right. I'm going to give you a doll, and I want you to show me on the doll where the bad game touched you, okay honey?

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 15 février 2013 - 06:08 .

[hiraeth]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Violated...right. I'm going to give you a doll, and I want you to show me on the doll where the bad game touched you, okay honey?

i encourage everyone whose only contribution to this thread is to mock the OP's use of term "violated" to look up the term before commenting. it has multiple meanings, like "to be the recipient of harm" or "to be treated irreverently (i.e., without respect)." it makes sense to, for example, feel as though the ME ending made you feel irreverent. i assumed the OP meant that use of the term, and not the sexual use of "to be violated." 

if you feel that the term is inappropriate, then just say that. but the mockery and insults derail the thread and do nothing for discussion.

/endrant.

Modifié par MassEffectFShep, 15 février 2013 - 06:16 .

[Commander Wookie]

^^ agreed

[Cainhurst Crow]

Yes, but I believe the OP was going for the most common assossiated meaning of the word when he or she picked it to gain the most attention in the title, and for hyperbolic intent.

So I chose to mock that intent, merrily, and with much enjoyment and personal satisfaction.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 15 février 2013 - 06:20 .

[Mathias]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Yes, but I believe the OP was going for the most common assossiated meaning of the word when he or she picked it to gain the most attention in the title, and for hyperbolic intent.

So I chose to mock that intent, merrily, and with much enjoyment and personal satisfaction.

Was with you until that last sentence, because you came off as ridiculous as the OP when he claimed to be violated.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Fair enough.

[AlanC9]

sharkboy421 wrote...

That's my point, I don't know what his evidence is.  In the two other major conflicts of the series where we have direct influence over the outcome, the genophage and the morning war, we are given plenty of context and evidence about each situation so that we can make the choice we feel is the best one.

Well, the thesis is that sufficiently advanced AIs would surpass organics' capabilities. And since the cycles prevent the galaxy from getting to that level of technology, the solution prevents him from gathering evidence about whether the problem is real or not.

[xAmilli0n]

Meh, if the ending makes you feel like that OP, then I think it's time to move on and play a different game.

Why people stick around and play something they don't like is beyond me.

[darkway1]

The damage has been done OP....Bioware are just going through the motions,on auto-pilot......one more DLC and Mass3 is done for good..........the attention will then switch next to DA3...the show goes on.

[BrotherCorvid]

MassEffectFShep wrote...

i encourage everyone whose only contribution to this thread is to mock the OP's use of term "violated" to look up the term before commenting. it has multiple meanings, like "to be the recipient of harm" or "to be treated irreverently (i.e., without respect)." it makes sense to, for example, feel as though the ME ending made you feel irreverent. i assumed the OP meant that use of the term, and not the sexual use of "to be violated." 

The strength of one's argument, especially on the internet, relies on effective word choice. If the OP did in fact use the term, as you imply, to mean that they were a "recipient of harm" or "treated irreverently," then they should be aware that such a word choice makes them look absurd. To imply that a video game, an inanimate object, somehow caused harm or was irreverent, is ridiculous. Especially after the OP, without any obligation, willingly chose to subject themselves to a product which they already knew had disappointed them in the first place.

If the OP wanted to be taken seriously, then they should have chosen different words. Something more along the lines of "I gave it some time, went back, and re-played the game, and you know what?  Still don't care for it." That would invite actual productive discussion. As it stands, however, the OP just looks like someone with an over-inflated sense of entitlement regarding a copyrighted property which they have no claim on.

The fact is that there are some of us who have real problems in life, who understand the weight which a word like "violated" actually carries. If the OP has too fragile an ego to handle that sort of criticism, then perhaps they shouldn't use such incendiary language in a semi-public forum.

Modifié par RobotWalk, 15 février 2013 - 07:05 .

[CroGamer002]

xAmilli0n wrote...

Meh, if the ending makes you feel like that OP, then I think it's time to move on and play a different game.

Why people stick around and play something they don't like is beyond me.

Because we love(d) this frachise before the ending(s)?

[hiraeth]

RobotWalk wrote...

MassEffectFShep wrote...

i encourage everyone whose only contribution to this thread is to mock the OP's use of term "violated" to look up the term before commenting. it has multiple meanings, like "to be the recipient of harm" or "to be treated irreverently (i.e., without respect)." it makes sense to, for example, feel as though the ME ending made you feel irreverent. i assumed the OP meant that use of the term, and not the sexual use of "to be violated." 

The strength of one's argument, especially on the internet, relies on effective word choice. If the OP did in fact use the term, as you imply, to mean that they were a "recipient of harm" or "treated irreverently," then they should be aware that such a word choice makes them look absurd. To imply that a video game, an inanimate object, somehow caused harm or was irreverent, is ridiculous. Especially after the OP, without any obligation, willingly chose to subject themselves to a product which they already knew had disappointed them in the first place.

If the OP wanted to be taken seriously, then they should have chosen different words. Something more along the lines of "I gave it some time, went back, and re-played the game, and you know what?  Still don't care for it." That would invite actual productive discussion. As it stands, however, the OP just looks like someone with an over-inflated sense of entitlement regarding a copyrighted property which they have no claim on.

The fact is that there are some of us who have real problems in life, who understand the weight which a word like "violated" actually carries. If the OP has too fragile an ego to handle that sort of criticism, then perhaps they shouldn't use such incendiary language in a semi-public forum.

I think we disagree on what words constitute "incendiary language;" or at least I didn't jump straight to the most offensive interpretation of the term "violated" when I first read the post. In any case, as I said in my original post, if you find the term offensive then just say that the term is offensive (or PM it to the OP). The point of my post is to discourage people who mock and/or insult the OP for using that term. I don't think that people who mock or insult the OP for using the term have any more right to lecture people on civil behavior than a person who uses the term in the first place...seems like you would agree since you believe that the strength of one's argument relies on effective word choice.

Modifié par MassEffectFShep, 15 février 2013 - 07:10 .

[liggy002]

Don't forget OP that you've now doomed the galaxy with destroy.

[BrotherCorvid]

MassEffectFShep wrote...

I think we disagree on what words constitute "incendiary language;" or at least I didn't jump straight to the most offensive interpretation of the term "violated" when I first read the post. In any case, as I said in my original post, if you find the term offensive then just say that the term is offensive (or PM it to the OP). The point of my post is to discourage people who mock and/or insult the OP for using that term. I don't think that people who mock or insult the OP for using the term have any more right to lecture people on civil behavior than a person who uses the term in the first place...seems like you would agree since you believe that the strength of one's argument relies on effective word choice.

So the OP can post how they feel, and insult Bioware by implying that their product somehow caused them harm, but people who disagree with that assessment can't post how they feel?

Your selective censorship is adorable.

[sharkboy421]

AlanC9 wrote...

sharkboy421 wrote...

That's my point, I don't know what his evidence is.  In the two other major conflicts of the series where we have direct influence over the outcome, the genophage and the morning war, we are given plenty of context and evidence about each situation so that we can make the choice we feel is the best one.

Well, the thesis is that sufficiently advanced AIs would surpass organics' capabilities. And since the cycles prevent the galaxy from getting to that level of technology, the solution prevents him from gathering evidence about whether the problem is real or not.

But there had to have been something that lead him to his conclusions.  Something happened before the first cycle began that gave the catalyst the information he needed to make this thesis.  I would like to know what that is, whatever it happens to be.