381 réponses à ce sujet

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

jumpingkaede wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

terminator 2 is a real easy answer.  alien is another.  i dont even have to dip into anything obscure to answer that question.

Terminator 2 ended with John Connor and Sarah Connor defeating the T-1000 and having hope for the future.  A future in which John Connor is the leader of the human resistance.  Did you watch a totally different movie where T2 ended with the T-1000 killing John Connor or something?  It's not a cliff-hanger ending because the story is resolved.  T2 wasn't about the human resistance in the future (a subject of later films).

Alien ended with Ripley killing the alien.  Alien is Ripley's story of surviving the alien "attack".  Ripley is lost in space but her story involving the aliens is ended.

...

A cliffhanger nonsense ending would be T2 ending with John Connor huddled in the corner while more T-1000s appear.  Or Alien ending with a teaser of more aliens hiding in the space ship.

The reason I brought up T2 is because arnold has to sacrifice himself to prevent the machine threat in the future.  John is even FORCED to drop him into a pool of lava, sacrificing the father figure he never had for the good of the world.  How is that NOT a downer?

The reason I brought up Alien is its a parrallel to the reaper threat.  She barely manages to survive against this super powerful creature.  Leaving the theatre audiences are left to wonder how anyone would be able to stand up to MORE of them.  (And thats how we got the sequel, Aliens)


those are some direct comparisons to mass effect right there.  Sacrifice is the only way to stop the reapers, because the reapers are stronger and better than us in almost every way.  we're lucky for every moment we can survive against them.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 12 mars 2013 - 06:56 .

[cerberus1701]

AlanC9 wrote...

cerberus1701 wrote...
Padding and justifying him after the fact is not foreshadowing.

Someone came up with the phrase "retroactive foreshadowing."

Heh. Lovely oxymoron, that.

[Astartes Marine]

AlanC9 wrote...
I didn't see different notes in ME1's finale. They were all pretty happy.
ME2, sure. But like I said earlier, I consider getting an optimal ending in ME2 a problem with the design.

ME1 Renegade path and sacrificed the Destiny Ascencion/council, the music that plays is pretty dark and foreboding, I believe it's Sovereign's theme, reminiscent of the Emperor's theme from Star Wars. 

Sovereign's gone sure, woohoo victory...but with the Council dead and pro-human Udena leading the new charge...

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 12 mars 2013 - 06:59 .

[ioannisdenton]

this is an interesting thread as it turned out to be. I liie your discusiion. Personally i wish Me3 was way better regarding the catalyst , the endings but most the priority earth mission a.k.a worst mission ever in a videogame.
Apart from that ME games (along with some other games like witcher (have not play it), deus ex games dragon age etc) belong to the pinnacle of gaming. They are not just "games", they are interactive expreriences, they give reasons to care, a reason to play, a reason to feel, a reason to stop and THINK. Almost no other game does that , most games especially the horrid Mp or some action games that force you to act fast and rush forward cause you know "beeing able to beat or to insta snipe is cool".
I am at peace with Me3 and i am currently replaying the trilogy from the beggining and it really feels great. I am looking for some headcanon catalyst organic-vs-synthetic foreshadowing...

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

jumpingkaede wrote...

In summary:

- Every game should be a point-and-click adventure like The Walking Dead.

- If you think only one type of game should exist you're preventing the growth of the medium.

- Games like God of War or HALO or Gears of War shouldn't exist.

-

- Nope, i was talking about the tragedy the narrative forces on the player.  No matter who you saved in ep1 they die in ep3.  People didnt protest the game about that subversion of choice.

- Yeah you're stiffling growth when you dictate what is acceptable.

- I said giving into user demand is WHY those games continue to exist.  I didnt say they shouldn't, i was merely using them as examples of "lets just keep making them"  (ignoring individual elements of pandering in all of those "fourth" games)

-

[jumpingkaede]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

1. Yeah it was real fun when carly died despite your best efforts.  it was real fun when vergil stabs you in the back and steals your boat even if you were as nice as possible to him.  it was super fun when the stalker kidnaps clem despite you NOT raiding his car.  it was fun when no matter what you do lee gets bit and dies, leaving clementine to fend for herself in a world that wants her dead.

But mass effect has to have a happy ending.  (do you get it yet?  Do you understand why I brought up walking dead?  it wasnt about gameplay it was about a story that controls the player inspite of player choice being well recieved)

I wonder if you realize that you are confusing "fun" with "happy".  The Walking Dead is a fun game because I enjoyed the story.   Much like... say, Saw, is a fun movie despite everyone dying.  Or... any zombie movie or zombie game ever made.

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...2. Its really funny you say that because the walking dead has twitch shooter elements in chapters 3 and 4.  Nearly every chapter has a really bad shooting segment.

And you didn't like it, yes?  Why?  Is it because it is at odds with the rest of the game?

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

3. thats funny because mass effect 2 wasnt the same as mass effect 1.  it was COMPLETELY different.  Mass Effect 1 ends with "We barely managed to survive and have no idea how we're going to handle the reapers in force."  mass effect 2 ends with "I killed all the badguys and saved all the goodguys high five guys we're invincible"  When I beat ME1 i was SCARED of the threat.  one reaper has stronger than an entire fleet, how were we going to handle MORE than one reaper?  we didnt even beat soverign fair and square, shepard had to cheat it to win.  In Mass Effect 2 I shot a baby reaper in its glowing weak spot until it blew up.  YEAH THOSE ARE THE SAME THING

It's almost like you played a totally different game.  

In MY Mass Effect 1, it ended with Shepard triumphing over the Reaper threat (and presented up to that point) and saying he would find a way to stop the Reapers and Anderson giving an inspired speech about how the galaxy needs to stand united.  Then Faunts started playing.

In MY Mass Effect 2, Shepard, again, triumphed over the Collector Threat.  

I don't remember an ending in Mass Effect 1 or 2 where Shepard was broken and huddled in the corner, resigned to his death.  Maybe you took a different route?  I was mostly paragon.

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

4. By my logic more than one kind of game can exist and be good.  That is the complete opposite from me saying "Game before story is bad".  I said "Story before Game" is just as good as "Game before Story"

So what is your problem with people who didn't like the Mass Effect 3 ending then?  IMO, I found t he ME3 ending to be NEITHER a good story or a fun game.  It was an unimaginative ending that had been done before with equally poor results.  Specifically, most recently, in the Matrix Trilogy.  

The only difference is Neo would up jumping into (or being lifted) into a pillar of light and having his "code" redistributed through the machine world to rid itself of a virus.  And that we, the viewer, knew from the beginning of the trilogy that the world was a machine world.  We also knew, from the second movie, that Anderson was a virus.  Lastly, it had been hinted at throughout that Neo was an anomaly.  So the ending... with the whole "god" in a room thing, at least sort of made sense.

Whereas in ME3, Shepard jumped into a pillar of light and had his "code"...  I guess, distributed around the galaxy to... I dunno.  Stop a war between synthetics and organics?  Who knows.  It wasn't fun, it wasn't enjoyable, it wasn't a good story, and it wasn't conducive to personal growth (the latter which you seem to  value).

[jumpingkaede]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

The reason I brought up T2 is because arnold has to sacrifice himself to prevent the machine threat in the future.  John is even FORCED to drop him into a pool of lava, sacrificing the father figure he never had for the good of the world.  How is that NOT a downer?

The reason I brought up Alien is its a parrallel to the reaper threat.  She barely manages to survive against this super powerful creature.  Leaving the theatre audiences are left to wonder how anyone would be able to stand up to MORE of them.  (And thats how we got the sequel, Aliens)

those are some direct comparisons to mass effect right there.  Sacrifice is the only way to stop the reapers, because the reapers are stronger and better than us in almost every way.  we're lucky for every moment we can survive against them.

Hmm.  I guess.

T2 was a little bit of a downer mixed with the uplifting hope for the future thing.   That's why the movie didn't end with him being lowered into the lava.  It ended with Sarah Connor and John speeding away pondering the promise of the future, which Arnold's sacrifice won for them.  That's probably a closer parallel to the EC ending (which has been better received), and not the original ending which didn't end with any sort of promise.  The original ending would've been T2 ending with the T-1000 melting.  Leaving lots of speculation as to what would happen to the T-800's arm, whether machines can learn human emotions, etc.


Also Ripley does stand up to the aliens in all the later sequels as well.  So... the unstoppable alien force actually gets stopped.  Repeatedly, in fact.  Even in Aliens 3 although it required a sensible sacrifice to do so.  (I didn't see Aliens: Resurrection.)

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 12 mars 2013 - 07:15 .

[Ieldra]

cerberus1701 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

cerberus1701 wrote...
Padding and justifying him after the fact is not foreshadowing.

Someone came up with the phrase "retroactive foreshadowing."

Heh. Lovely oxymoron, that.

Not exactly. If you play the story will all the DLC, the events of Leviathan will be valid foreshadowing. That this was added late in the publishing history doesn't matter for your experience of the story. It only matters for your opinion of the publishing sequence.

[Ieldra]

AlanC9 wrote...

 I'd add points six and seven to that list.

Six: the endings are morally bad because they violate certain standards of morality. The sophisticated version of his argument is that creative works should not depict a world where "evil" methods produce "good" results; artists have a duty to make a world that's better than this one. The unsophisticated one is just that this makes people feel bad. The game-design version is that the endgame doesn't respect being a Paragon.

Seven: The endings are an illogical mess. Arguing against illogic is fine, as long as you don't hold ME3 to higher standards than you hold other Bio games.

Do you actually support No. 6? Because I passionately disagree with that. I think that stories have a moral obligation to shatter the delusion that bad methods never produce something good. I've railed against the feel-good morality in the ME games for years and highly appreciate that it was finally subverted with the ending of ME3. My only complaint is that it came too sudden. There should've been more of than throughout the trilogy. 

[Faded-Myth]

"Sad" isn't the descriptor I'd use. I hated the original ending for its brevity, lack of real choice and no shown consequences of your actions, which leave the universe in an incredibly poor state. (For example, I have the Art of the Mass Effect Universe book, and it states that without the Mass Relays, travel between the various homeworlds would be virtually impossible. That puts almost everyone up sh*t creek).

Long story short, the writing was poor and, in a game where the consequences of your actions were always shown and never left to last minute "speculation", it seemed extremely out of character for a Mass Effect game. And within the last 5 minutes of the game too, to make it worse.

But to each their own, and this dance has been done more times than I care to think about. Thankfully the EC and the various DLCs have each helped make the endings far more tolerable. I mean cripes, I picked Control, and Shepard dies in that ending (or at least loses corporeal form). That says a lot about how different the new endings were for me on a personal level. I felt I was given enough information to make an informed choice, and saw the result of that choice. That was what I was after.

Modifié par Faded-Myth, 12 mars 2013 - 07:29 .

[Urdnot Amenark]

Brass_Buckles wrote...

Had nothing to do with it being sad, but the many reasons have been explained hundreds of times on the boards.

Why not search the forums and actually read what people said about the endings instead of trying to start yet another completely pointless argument about the endings?

This. Atleast he didn't make a Star Wars dancing Ewoks reference.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

My Cousland did the Dark Ritual
My Surana redeemed Logain
My Marahiel let Alistair sacrifice himself
My Aeducan took teh final blow.

WHich one got the "good ending"?

They all did. Even if your Cousland thought the DR was a bad idea and did it anyway, so far he seems to have gotten away with it. My point was that there's no gamut because they're all good.

Edit: but yes, a player can make his character pick an ending that his character thinks isn't a good one, out of stupidity, cowardice, or whatever else the player wants to inflict on the PC.

Glad you edited that because yes, that's exactly why my Cousland did the Dark Ritual.  He was a devout Andrastrean who was very down on blood magic until Morrigan managed to push his buttons in convincing him to go through with it   He now has to spend his days going "We won, but at what cost?"

At any rate, yes the answer is "all of them" though I should qualify it as "for a given value of 'good'"  None of the endings were perfect for them, (Aeducan certainly didn't want to leave Leliana alone and bereft) But for how they were played, they turned out well.  And for other characters, and if other choices had been made in those given playthroughs, they may not have turned out so well.  

That's what ME3 lacked, the range of options that leaves me going "This isnt' perfect, but it will do"  It wasn't so much that the chocies were all gray, but that the grays were so dark they might as well have been black.

[AdmiralCheez]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

So basically I think lots of people here got really angry at BioWare because one message of the ending is There is no Heaven.

Bro, I'm an atheist.  You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Anyway, about the other stuff you said, about not getting to "watch over" your friends and family.  What the hell is the Control ending, then?  As for no heaven, no magical place where everything is all better?  Then what is Synthesis?

Also, the problem with abrupt endings in video games: We, as players, are conditioned by the medium to see any and all sudden deaths as "game over" screens.  If there are loose ends, we see it as a cheap stunt to set up DLC/a sequel.  Because of how loaded cliffhangers and zero-epilogue endings are in the game community, you can't really pull off either one very easily.  The associations are too strong.  Plus, let's not forget all the hundreds of dollars and hours people spend on big-time franchises like Mass Effect; is it wrong to want all that effort to pay off?

Like seriously, if games rewarded us the way real life does, would we even play them?

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 12 mars 2013 - 07:41 .

[N7 Shadow 90]

I love the endings. Yes, I finished before the EC was released. Yes, the EC improved them, but I loved them before, too. Yes, I love the dark tone.

[KLGChaos]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

My Cousland did the Dark Ritual
My Surana redeemed Logain
My Marahiel let Alistair sacrifice himself
My Aeducan took teh final blow.

WHich one got the "good ending"?

They all did. Even if your Cousland thought the DR was a bad idea and did it anyway, so far he seems to have gotten away with it. My point was that there's no gamut because they're all good.

Edit: but yes, a player can make his character pick an ending that his character thinks isn't a good one, out of stupidity, cowardice, or whatever else the player wants to inflict on the PC.

Glad you edited that because yes, that's exactly why my Cousland did the Dark Ritual.  He was a devout Andrastrean who was very down on blood magic until Morrigan managed to push his buttons in convincing him to go through with it   He now has to spend his days going "We won, but at what cost?"

At any rate, yes the answer is "all of them" though I should qualify it as "for a given value of 'good'"  None of the endings were perfect for them, (Aeducan certainly didn't want to leave Leliana alone and bereft) But for how they were played, they turned out well.  And for other characters, and if other choices had been made in those given playthroughs, they may not have turned out so well.  

That's what ME3 lacked, the range of options that leaves me going "This isnt' perfect, but it will do"  It wasn't so much that the chocies were all gray, but that the grays were so dark they might as well have been black.

That was exactly my issue as well. My first time through DA:O, I talked Alistair into doing the Dark Ritual... because I didn't want my character to sacrifice anyone and I had come to trust Morrigan through our friendship. It may come to bite me in the end. My second time through, I had Loghain redeem himself by sacrificing his life. While it may not have been a truly happy ending (and I didn't like losing Alistair from my party), I felt his sacrifice was a good thing, a natural part of his story of redemption.

All of the DA:O endings had some sort of grey shade to it (even the Warden killing himself to save everyone, while probably the most Paragon-type action, is still a sad event), but I felt each one had their own merit. Sacrifices were made by choice, not by force, which gave them much more meaning. The previous games had sacrifice in it, but always had a triumphant tone to them. Heck, even most of ME3 did with the sacrifices leading to great things such as the genophage cure or peace for the Quarians and Geth... then the ends did a 180 and decided to go all dark and emo, just to be different. It went from awesome Space Opera to Military Sci-Fi.

In the end, we were playing the story just as much as we were playing the game, crafting it with every dialogue wheel choice we made. Then it was taken away from us. You can't do that in a game about choices.

Modifié par KLGChaos, 12 mars 2013 - 07:46 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

jumpingkaede wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

1. Yeah it was real fun when carly died despite your best efforts.  it was real fun when vergil stabs you in the back and steals your boat even if you were as nice as possible to him.  it was super fun when the stalker kidnaps clem despite you NOT raiding his car.  it was fun when no matter what you do lee gets bit and dies, leaving clementine to fend for herself in a world that wants her dead.

But mass effect has to have a happy ending.  (do you get it yet?  Do you understand why I brought up walking dead?  it wasnt about gameplay it was about a story that controls the player inspite of player choice being well recieved)

I wonder if you realize that you are confusing "fun" with "happy".  The Walking Dead is a fun game because I enjoyed the story.   Much like... say, Saw, is a fun movie despite everyone dying.  Or... any zombie movie or zombie game ever made.

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...2. Its really funny you say that because the walking dead has twitch shooter elements in chapters 3 and 4.  Nearly every chapter has a really bad shooting segment.

And you didn't like it, yes?  Why?  Is it because it is at odds with the rest of the game?

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

3. thats funny because mass effect 2 wasnt the same as mass effect 1.  it was COMPLETELY different.  Mass Effect 1 ends with "We barely managed to survive and have no idea how we're going to handle the reapers in force."  mass effect 2 ends with "I killed all the badguys and saved all the goodguys high five guys we're invincible"  When I beat ME1 i was SCARED of the threat.  one reaper has stronger than an entire fleet, how were we going to handle MORE than one reaper?  we didnt even beat soverign fair and square, shepard had to cheat it to win.  In Mass Effect 2 I shot a baby reaper in its glowing weak spot until it blew up.  YEAH THOSE ARE THE SAME THING

It's almost like you played a totally different game.  

In MY Mass Effect 1, it ended with Shepard triumphing over the Reaper threat (and presented up to that point) and saying he would find a way to stop the Reapers and Anderson giving an inspired speech about how the galaxy needs to stand united.  Then Faunts started playing.

In MY Mass Effect 2, Shepard, again, triumphed over the Collector Threat.  

I don't remember an ending in Mass Effect 1 or 2 where Shepard was broken and huddled in the corner, resigned to his death.  Maybe you took a different route?  I was mostly paragon.

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

4. By my logic more than one kind of game can exist and be good.  That is the complete opposite from me saying "Game before story is bad".  I said "Story before Game" is just as good as "Game before Story"

So what is your problem with people who didn't like the Mass Effect 3 ending then?  IMO, I found t he ME3 ending to be NEITHER a good story or a fun game.  It was an unimaginative ending that had been done before with equally poor results.  Specifically, most recently, in the Matrix Trilogy.  

The only difference is Neo would up jumping into (or being lifted) into a pillar of light and having his "code" redistributed through the machine world to rid itself of a virus.  And that we, the viewer, knew from the beginning of the trilogy that the world was a machine world.  We also knew, from the second movie, that Anderson was a virus.  Lastly, it had been hinted at throughout that Neo was an anomaly.  So the ending... with the whole "god" in a room thing, at least sort of made sense.

Whereas in ME3, Shepard jumped into a pillar of light and had his "code"...  I guess, distributed around the galaxy to... I dunno.  Stop a war between synthetics and organics?  Who knows.  It wasn't fun, it wasn't enjoyable, it wasn't a good story, and it wasn't conducive to personal growth (the latter which you seem to  value).

1. so why does ME3 need a happy ending?  I thought the weird scifi ending was "fun" if thats the word we're going to use to describe "interesting"

2. I didnt say i didnt like it, i said it was bad.  as in "the gameplay is bad"  I like how it ups the tension by being hard to control.  its still "bad controls" but its putting story first. 


about ME1 and ME2 endings: my point was that the reaper threat was MASSIVE and shepard BARELY managed to eek out a win there.  My point about 2 is that it felt nothing like 1's ending.  in me1 the fleet cant get a single shot through soverign's sheilds when he's activating the relays (Saren boss fight) they just keep shooting at it and it doesnt even react.  when you kill saren form 2 it fried soverign's mind and it went braindead.  that is the moment where joker is able to take it down.  had soverign not gone limp from the mindmeld backfiring he would have continued being impervious to all incoming fire.

What you're doing with me1's ending is you're happy that they're giving speeches, but you're not really following the logic through past the game.  They're talking about a threat that they can't handle, a battle they cant win.  they couldn't take down one reaper in a straight fight, and the game lets you know that theres more of them out there.  thats why shepard is going in search of answers.  the crucible was the answer to the question me1 gave us. 

in ME2 you defeat the threat of me2 and you're left with the ambiguous nature of the illusive man to consider.  Will he betray us in the next game?  its a moral question, and one completely unique to me1's ending.  Your descriptions are face value, they arent looking at meaning.


My problem is people discrediting it solely for being "depressing".  thats not a legitimate complaint to hold against a story.

I thought it was a good story and didnt have a problem with the concepts behind a weird scifi synthesis ending.



...


What I feel the biggest problem is is that people seem to be looking at this game like there is SUPPOSED TO BE one true ending.  The entire concept behind the game ending this way, as casey hudson said before release, is that there "is no canon" and they "have no plans to tell stories that take place after the events of mass effect 3."  All 3 endings are canon in that the canon ends with each ending individually.  there will be no continuation of events beyond those endings and casey was clear on this even during response to ME2 back in 2010 where he claimed "three will be our chance to take the story in wildly different directions, because we wont have to worry about carrying any story threads through to another game after that."

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 12 mars 2013 - 07:43 .

[Faded-Myth]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

So basically I think lots of people here got really angry at BioWare because one message of the ending is There is no Heaven.

Bro, I'm an atheist.  You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Seconded. I don't believe in afterlife. Wait, yes I do. It's on Omega and has badass music. /groan 

[Vilegrim]

Maverick827 wrote...
  But to complain this much about what is a legitimate literary ending to a narrative, not a plot hole, not a deus ex machina...I just don't understand.  

So having an all powerful creature turn up with no warning and completly change the theme of the series,  have the available dialog completly change Sheps personality, and be given 3 utterly morally reprehensible choices (2 flavours of genocide and one of enslaving a sentient race) was 'sad'?

It was a literal Deus Ex Machina, the catalyst was that machine and the star brat was that god.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

jumpingkaede wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

The reason I brought up T2 is because arnold has to sacrifice himself to prevent the machine threat in the future.  John is even FORCED to drop him into a pool of lava, sacrificing the father figure he never had for the good of the world.  How is that NOT a downer?

The reason I brought up Alien is its a parrallel to the reaper threat.  She barely manages to survive against this super powerful creature.  Leaving the theatre audiences are left to wonder how anyone would be able to stand up to MORE of them.  (And thats how we got the sequel, Aliens)

those are some direct comparisons to mass effect right there.  Sacrifice is the only way to stop the reapers, because the reapers are stronger and better than us in almost every way.  we're lucky for every moment we can survive against them.

Hmm.  I guess.

T2 was a little bit of a downer mixed with the uplifting hope for the future thing.   That's why the movie didn't end with him being lowered into the lava.  It ended with Sarah Connor and John speeding away pondering the promise of the future, which Arnold's sacrifice won for them.  That's probably a closer parallel to the EC ending (which has been better received), and not the original ending which didn't end with any sort of promise.  The original ending would've been T2 ending with the T-1000 melting.  Leaving lots of speculation as to what would happen to the T-800's arm, whether machines can learn human emotions, etc.


Also Ripley does stand up to the aliens in all the later sequels as well.  So... the unstoppable alien force actually gets stopped.  Repeatedly, in fact.  Even in Aliens 3 although it required a sensible sacrifice to do so.  (I didn't see Aliens: Resurrection.)

i didnt go beyond aliens, which still had the aliens tearing through most of the cast and being "more than they were bargaining for"  alot of people have problems with 3 and forward and feel that, depending on the film, they neuter the aliens and subvert their ability for the purpose of "letting the goodguys win".  stuff that creates inconsistencies.

ME3 sidestepped this by creating smaller reaper units that werent TRUE reapers but still allowed the hero to have some victories along the way.  (Destroyers are ridiculously small and simple compared to sovereign class reapers, and dont have the might of their bigger brothers)


i would have felt embarassed as a fan of the series if all the reapers fell as easily as the human reaper did.  "Why werent the protheans able to beat even a single reaper during their five hundred year war?  A guy with a gun and a spaceship was able to kill all eight hundred thousand of them."

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 12 mars 2013 - 07:51 .

[Vilegrim]

Eterna5 wrote...

HolyAvenger wrote...

I don't intend to excuse BioWare their shoddy writing by buying their cop-out explanatory DLC. F*ck em.

Then there is nothing to discuss with you in regards to the ending as you are willfully ignoring information based on a silly principle. 

then why post? If you answer is 'pay them more money for a sub-standard product' what is ever going to change? 

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Vilegrim wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...
  But to complain this much about what is a legitimate literary ending to a narrative, not a plot hole, not a deus ex machina...I just don't understand.  

So having an all powerful creature turn up with no warning and completly change the theme of the series,  have the available dialog completly change Sheps personality, and be given 3 utterly morally reprehensible choices (2 flavours of genocide and one of enslaving a sentient race) was 'sad'?

It was a literal Deus Ex Machina, the catalyst was that machine and the star brat was that god.

The star child didnt give you a way to defeat the reapers, he explained how to use the device that cycles of civilizations handed down, the device that your species constructed, the device that fleets gave their lives to protect.  The starchild didnt defeat the reapers, the crucible did.  thats not deus ex machina, the star child doesnt play the role of active god in this story, he's merely a vehicle for information to the player.

thats why theres grounds to deny it as deus ex machina, because it isnt used for that purpose.  people are just focused on face value things that they forget "oh right, this device is doing the work, and the citadel is just what it plugs into"  The starchild is completely independant from the mechanics of the war-winning energy wave.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 12 mars 2013 - 07:57 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Vilegrim wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

HolyAvenger wrote...

I don't intend to excuse BioWare their shoddy writing by buying their cop-out explanatory DLC. F*ck em.

Then there is nothing to discuss with you in regards to the ending as you are willfully ignoring information based on a silly principle. 

then why post? If you answer is 'pay them more money for a sub-standard product' what is ever going to change? 

if you get dlc that fixes the game then the game is what changes  :wizard:

"substandard" is your oppinion, not an absolute truth.

[wright1978]

Greylycantrope wrote...

No not because it was sad OP, but because it was moronic.

Yep moronic drivel delivered appallingly and labelled as art.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

wright1978 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

No not because it was sad OP, but because it was moronic.

Yep moronic drivel delivered appallingly and labelled as art.

it wasnt moronic and you're dismissive  :wizard:



it was lacking though.