299 réponses à ce sujet

[Sundance31us]

So this thread is about people who don’t like the ending not being able to accept that there are other people who do like the ending?

[BlameTheTank]

So again, what exactly did EC have that people are so grateful for? It makes the ending maing me scratch my head even more.... More strange stuff than before.

Sundance31us wrote...

So this thread is about people who don’t like the ending not being able to accept that there are other people who do like the ending?

It`s about me being amazed how can anyone accept the endings and be fine with it even thought it didn`t solve anything but just added more "huh?" moments. 

Modifié par BlameTheTank, 20 mars 2013 - 08:58 .

[Dr_Extrem]

phillip100 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

phillip100 wrote...

He had to because all fleets were ordered to disengage and evacuate after the Crucible was armed. Also, nobody knew exactly how the Crucible worked, which is why they had to evacuate.

and that makes no sense at all. what if the crucible only had overloaded the reapers barriers?

if you dont know what happens, you wait until you know it and react accordingly.

What if the Crucible backfired and destroyed the entire fleet? Would you wait knowing that it might happen?

when you see that the crucible powers up, you move into a position, from where you can observe and react - you just dont high tail out. bs like this, can ruin the entire operation.

[Cainhurst Crow]

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Joker would never run away. 

Not trying to be rude, but this is arrogance speaking. That's like telling a writer that a character that THEY wrote would never do something THEY made them do. I personally would find it very offensive.

In short, yes he would have, because he did--the people that wrote him wrote him doing that.

We've already seen in ME3 the writers didn't keep the characters consistent, and Joker was one of them. Also, several characters (including Joker) had different writers in ME3 than they did any other time in the series. Just because a writer wrote something for a character doesn't mean it's in-character. (Since when was Joker ever bothered by regs? Mr. Never-shave, Eff-you-Alliance-I'm-joining-Cerberus-and-Shepard...)

Joker would never put the normandy's safety over everyone elses...except the times he did in ME2.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 20 mars 2013 - 09:17 .

[Liamv2]

BlameTheTank wrote...

So again, what exactly did EC have that people are so grateful for? It makes the ending maing me scratch my head even more.... More strange stuff than before.

Sundance31us wrote...

So this thread is about people who don’t like the ending not being able to accept that there are other people who do like the ending?

It`s about me being amazed how can anyone accept the endings and be fine with it even thought it didn`t solve anything but just added more "huh?" moments. 

So as you can see. Yes

[CronoDragoon]

BlameTheTank wrote...
1. Fixing some plot holes while making new ones

Like what? And don't say Joker retreating or Harbinger not shooting the Normandy, because those aint plot holes.

2. Reworking Catalyst dialogue which still makes no sense

Makes sense to me. Perhaps you simply don't want it to make sense? The Catalyst needs no further explanation after Leviathan and the EC. He is what he is.

3. Adding Normandy evac scene which makes no sense

It actually does make sense, though it doesn't make complete sense. This isn't an all or nothing thing. Explanations for the scene exist, you just choose to disregard them and dwell on the negative, which is your problem.
 

4. Adding blood on Tali, who would no be able to survive that

I've seen the discussion about Tali in this thread, but you realize of course that it's a standard "effed up" model that they slapped over every character for that scene right? If it bothers you so much then it's not her blood. Not a big deal, dawg, and especially not a big deal considering the dialogue you get in that scene.

5. I didn`t see any scenes of planets celebrating, just few meaningles pictures of some people standing/sitting

The asari/krogan soldiers celebrating as the Reapers crashed to the ground.

6. Normandy leaving a planet (where to) on which it crash landed (why?)

1. Back to Earth and the Citadel and 2. My best guess is that frying EDI disrupted the system, causing them to crash. 

So what exactly did the ending fix for you?

A lot of things, as even I'm sure you can see past your snark-filter.

It seems you are discovering for the first time that anyone can find something to complain about in any given scene in any given story. If you'd like me to demonstrate, please tell me your favorite Mass Effect scene so I can make you feel bad for liking it. I don't want to, though, because I don't actually care about tearing down what other people like just because I don't like it.

[archangel1996]

It's amazing how some people try to justify this crap
You like it, we get it, but please don't try to give some sense to it when we all know it is utterly stupid

[MegaSovereign]

Does it really bother you that some people don't hate the ending?

[archangel1996]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Does it really bother you that some people don't hate the ending?

Nah, it's just amazing that some people try to justify it, they don't defend it, cuz they can't, they TRY TO JUSTIFY it
If you like it, good for you, i personally wouldn't give a crap cuz i don't know you, but God, why justify it when it is unjustifiable?

Modifié par archangel1996, 20 mars 2013 - 09:50 .

[BlameTheTank]

CronoDragoon wrote...

BlameTheTank wrote...
1. Fixing some plot holes while making new ones

Like what? And don't say Joker retreating or Harbinger not shooting the Normandy, because those aint plot holes.

2. Reworking Catalyst dialogue which still makes no sense

Makes sense to me. Perhaps you simply don't want it to make sense? The Catalyst needs no further explanation after Leviathan and the EC. He is what he is.

3. Adding Normandy evac scene which makes no sense

It actually does make sense, though it doesn't make complete sense. This isn't an all or nothing thing. Explanations for the scene exist, you just choose to disregard them and dwell on the negative, which is your problem.
 

4. Adding blood on Tali, who would no be able to survive that

I've seen the discussion about Tali in this thread, but you realize of course that it's a standard "effed up" model that they slapped over every character for that scene right? If it bothers you so much then it's not her blood. Not a big deal, dawg, and especially not a big deal considering the dialogue you get in that scene.

5. I didn`t see any scenes of planets celebrating, just few meaningles pictures of some people standing/sitting

The asari/krogan soldiers celebrating as the Reapers crashed to the ground.

6. Normandy leaving a planet (where to) on which it crash landed (why?)

1. Back to Earth and the Citadel and 2. My best guess is that frying EDI disrupted the system, causing them to crash. 

So what exactly did the ending fix for you?

A lot of things, as even I'm sure you can see past your snark-filter.

It seems you are discovering for the first time that anyone can find something to complain about in any given scene in any given story. If you'd like me to demonstrate, please tell me your favorite Mass Effect scene so I can make you feel bad for liking it. I don't want to, though, because I don't actually care about tearing down what other people like just because I don't like it.

You see the thing is, the EC didn`t help with anything - Catalyst and all his reasoning makes still no sense, all his motivation makes no sense. Normandy scene makes little sense - how it happened and the reason it happened.
Blood on Tali, another example why EC didn`t help with anything, just made it more "huh". Normandy crashes on the planet even when Edi lives. It is too much stuff to write man, if you want watch or rewatch the vids I posted at the beginning, listen to it carefully and then tell me the EC fixed anything. Cuz it didn`t....

[Mr.House]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Joker would never run away. 

Not trying to be rude, but this is arrogance speaking. That's like telling a writer that a character that THEY wrote would never do something THEY made them do. I personally would find it very offensive.

In short, yes he would have, because he did--the people that wrote him wrote him doing that.

Joker had a diffrent writer in ME3, this writer made him OOC in the ending because Bioware didn't want Shepard to be rescued, instead have her in a pile of rubble somewhere where she will die, alone.

[CronoDragoon]

BlameTheTank wrote...
You see the thing is, the EC didn`t help with anything - Catalyst and all his reasoning makes still no sense, all his motivation makes no sense. Normandy scene makes little sense - how it happened and the reason it happened.
Blood on Tali, another example why EC didn`t help with anything, just made it more "huh". Normandy crashes on the planet even when Edi lives. It is too much stuff to write man, if you want watch or rewatch the vids I posted at the beginning, listen to it carefully and then tell me the EC fixed anything. Cuz it didn`t....

If you want to claim the Catalyst didn't make sense, then I want you to post reasoning behind this claim, so we can discuss it. I am of the opinion that the EC Catalyst dialogue makes much more sense, and maybe I can help you there if you're still confused about it. That's one of the purposes of message boards, right?

Good point about the Normandy crashing no matter what. For the record I believe they should have just removed the jungle planet scene. Still, it is a notable improvement that they eliminated the "dark age for thousands of years, Normandy crew lives on that planet till they die and/or start a colony there" interpretation of the OEs, which I found unbearably depressing.

That combined with retconning the relay destruction are big reasons why the EC is an improvement. Saying "the EC didn't fix anything" is analogous to saying that you didn't care if the interpretation I suggested above was true, that you don't care that the relay destruction means isolation and starvation for billions of people across the galaxy that formerly depended on the relays for economic sustainability.

The EC didn't fix some things, some important things mind you, but there's no reason to hyperbolize and claim it didn't do anything, because that just makes me and more importantly BioWare tune you out.

[Mr.House]

Also how is Harbinger not destroying the Normandy not a plothole?

[CronoDragoon]

Mr.House wrote...

Also how is Harbinger not destroying the Normandy not a plothole?

There are a million threads about this and I have posted my reasoning in a few of them. I don't exactly buy the "Normandy Reaper IFF fools Harbinger" but I do buy the "Harbinger knows that if a single soldier reaches the beam they have lost" theory.

[archangel1996]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Joker would never run away. 

Not trying to be rude, but this is arrogance speaking. That's like telling a writer that a character that THEY wrote would never do something THEY made them do. I personally would find it very offensive.

In short, yes he would have, because he did--the people that wrote him wrote him doing that.

Let me understand this, Wrex would have kiss Garrus, cuz their writers said so?
You are right though, Joker had a change of heart(From "Commander, be carefull dwon there" to go away cuz Javik sayed so), the LI, who smiles in the green planet cuz Shepard is dead YAY, had one too, and well Wrex and Garrus probably would have a thing going on for all ME1, we just wouldn't know

[wright1978]

Mr.House wrote...

Also how is Harbinger not destroying the Normandy not a plothole?

Definite plothole caused by trying to unsucessfully fill in another plothole, why the crew isn't fighting on earth rather than doing a runner on the Normandy. Also manages to character assassinate Shep too. It was a truly awful sequence of the EC.

[archangel1996]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Also how is Harbinger not destroying the Normandy not a plothole?

There are a million threads about this and I have posted my reasoning in a few of them. I don't exactly buy the "Normandy Reaper IFF fools Harbinger" but I do buy the "Harbinger knows that if a single soldier reaches the beam they have lost" theory.

The Normandy explodes, everyone dies....NAH
But in the evac is quite good how Harbinger jsut stares at the Normandy while Shepard sayes goodbye, we all knew he was a stalker but wow

Modifié par archangel1996, 20 mars 2013 - 10:03 .

[Mr.House]

wright1978 wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Also how is Harbinger not destroying the Normandy not a plothole?

Definite plothole caused by trying to unsucessfully fill in another plothole, why the crew isn't fighting on earth rather than doing a runner on the Normandy. Also manages to character assassinate Shep too. It was a truly awful sequence of the EC.

Um wright, I'm not saying it's not a plothole, it is a pltohole. I'm asking how people  think it's not a plothole.

[Mr.House]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Also how is Harbinger not destroying the Normandy not a plothole?

There are a million threads about this and I have posted my reasoning in a few of them. I don't exactly buy the "Normandy Reaper IFF fools Harbinger" but I do buy the "Harbinger knows that if a single soldier reaches the beam they have lost" theory.

The blast from the Normandy would kill everyone near it, including Shepard. Harbinger also shoots extreamly fast. It's a plothole.

[Dr_Extrem]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Also how is Harbinger not destroying the Normandy not a plothole?

There are a million threads about this and I have posted my reasoning in a few of them. I don't exactly buy the "Normandy Reaper IFF fools Harbinger" but I do buy the "Harbinger knows that if a single soldier reaches the beam they have lost" theory.

yes .. i do as well.

an intellignet harbinger would use the normandy as a hovering a-bomb.

an exploding ship would whipe out everything that moves.

[CronoDragoon]

Mr.House wrote...
The blast from the Normandy would kill everyone near it, including Shepard. Harbinger also shoots extreamly fast. It's a plothole.

Everyone near it, which wasn't near the beam.

And no, a plothole isn't "this is a crappy reason for this scene."

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 20 mars 2013 - 10:08 .

[Mr.House]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
The blast from the Normandy would kill everyone near it, including Shepard. Harbinger also shoots extreamly fast. It's a plothole.

Everyone near it, which wasn't near the beam.

And no, a plothole isn't "this is a crappy reason for this scene."

Remeber that cruiser at the start of ME3 where the blast went so far it even impacted Shepard and Anderson? A frightrer would have a smaller blast radius but it would still be massive.  In one shot Harbinger could wipe out everyone going towards the beam and possible Major Coats if the impact raidus is big enough.

Modifié par Mr.House, 20 mars 2013 - 10:13 .

[BlameTheTank]

CronoDragoon wrote...

BlameTheTank wrote...
You see the thing is, the EC didn`t help with anything - Catalyst and all his reasoning makes still no sense, all his motivation makes no sense. Normandy scene makes little sense - how it happened and the reason it happened.
Blood on Tali, another example why EC didn`t help with anything, just made it more "huh". Normandy crashes on the planet even when Edi lives. It is too much stuff to write man, if you want watch or rewatch the vids I posted at the beginning, listen to it carefully and then tell me the EC fixed anything. Cuz it didn`t....

If you want to claim the Catalyst didn't make sense, then I want you to post reasoning behind this claim, so we can discuss it. I am of the opinion that the EC Catalyst dialogue makes much more sense, and maybe I can help you there if you're still confused about it. That's one of the purposes of message boards, right?

Good point about the Normandy crashing no matter what. For the record I believe they should have just removed the jungle planet scene. Still, it is a notable improvement that they eliminated the "dark age for thousands of years, Normandy crew lives on that planet till they die and/or start a colony there" interpretation of the OEs, which I found unbearably depressing.

That combined with retconning the relay destruction are big reasons why the EC is an improvement. Saying "the EC didn't fix anything" is analogous to saying that you didn't care if the interpretation I suggested above was true, that you don't care that the relay destruction means isolation and starvation for billions of people across the galaxy that formerly depended on the relays for economic sustainability.

The EC didn't fix some things, some important things mind you, but there's no reason to hyperbolize and claim it didn't do anything, because that just makes me and more importantly BioWare tune you out.

There is no point writing what doesn`t make sense about the Catalyst cuz basically all he says it`s total BS.
It would take ages to write it all down. That`s why I posted the vids again, it`s all here
 

Starting at about 4:00

[Cainhurst Crow]

Mr.House wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
The blast from the Normandy would kill everyone near it, including Shepard. Harbinger also shoots extreamly fast. It's a plothole.

Everyone near it, which wasn't near the beam.

And no, a plothole isn't "this is a crappy reason for this scene."

Remeber that cruiser at the start of ME3 where the blast went so far it even impacted Shepard and Anderson? A frightrer would have a smaller blast radius but it would still be massive.  In one shot Harbinger could wipe out everyone going towards the beam and possible Major Coats with the impact raidus is big enough.

That isn't the same type of situation. One was firing on a ship, a very large ship high in the air, which than exploded, and thus caused the shockwave from that explosion.

I think if the normandy would get hit, it would have a very easy time probably crashing somewhere out of the way of the troops. But again, wouldn't firing on the normandy, a ship with the capability to manuver easily, take away from firing at the troops below while it keeps trying to land the multiple shots needed to down the normandy?

Also, something else that bothers me. Why are the reapers beams just giant shots of molten metal?

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 20 mars 2013 - 10:20 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

BlameTheTank wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

BlameTheTank wrote...
You see the thing is, the EC didn`t help with anything - Catalyst and all his reasoning makes still no sense, all his motivation makes no sense. Normandy scene makes little sense - how it happened and the reason it happened.
Blood on Tali, another example why EC didn`t help with anything, just made it more "huh". Normandy crashes on the planet even when Edi lives. It is too much stuff to write man, if you want watch or rewatch the vids I posted at the beginning, listen to it carefully and then tell me the EC fixed anything. Cuz it didn`t....

If you want to claim the Catalyst didn't make sense, then I want you to post reasoning behind this claim, so we can discuss it. I am of the opinion that the EC Catalyst dialogue makes much more sense, and maybe I can help you there if you're still confused about it. That's one of the purposes of message boards, right?

Good point about the Normandy crashing no matter what. For the record I believe they should have just removed the jungle planet scene. Still, it is a notable improvement that they eliminated the "dark age for thousands of years, Normandy crew lives on that planet till they die and/or start a colony there" interpretation of the OEs, which I found unbearably depressing.

That combined with retconning the relay destruction are big reasons why the EC is an improvement. Saying "the EC didn't fix anything" is analogous to saying that you didn't care if the interpretation I suggested above was true, that you don't care that the relay destruction means isolation and starvation for billions of people across the galaxy that formerly depended on the relays for economic sustainability.

The EC didn't fix some things, some important things mind you, but there's no reason to hyperbolize and claim it didn't do anything, because that just makes me and more importantly BioWare tune you out.

There is no point writing what doesn`t make sense about the Catalyst cuz basically all he says it`s total BS.
It would take ages to write it all down. That`s why I posted the vids again, it`s all here
 

Starting at about 4:00

So how much would your reasons have differed from those of smudboy's? Or are they one in the same?