333 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


Which ME1 and ME2 also had but they choose to ignore.

Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.

It didn't matter in me1 and 2 because the narrative was plausible at the end of the day all of it didn't really matter, regardless if badly written or not.

Me3 depended on the narrative to a huge degree to the point where its the only thing that matters, For example the crucible in all its various explanations does not make sense, a secret hidden weapon found on mars (convient) which we don't know how it works built by a contingency of  races (why build a portion of a weapon? That in itself does not make any sense) over the eons, the weapon itself has 3 uniques functions (how those functions work, who cares right ) that drastically alter the way the universe and the people living in it works..... I could go on....
but even my head is about to explode from the maddness of a game in a series that prides it self on plasibility

The crucible is the main driving point of the plot it moved the story forward. The story of all 3 games depended on me3, so as a result the entire series depended on the one game that didn't even remotely reach peoples expectations. That is the problem, me1 and me2 are the struggles we as players went through with our friends (shepard, garrus, talli, ect) we still enjoyed it despite its flaws. But in me3 those flaws are so bad so detrimental to our experience that it wrecked the experience for the entire series

Bioware made a series on emotional investment, the game depended on the player to care about what was happening, otherwise it would have been a lesser experience. But when it was time for the emotional payoff, when it was time for bioware to deliever on the ever so important promise "your choices will matter" they floundered.

And that is why people could not handle mass effect 3, it was a betrayal of the gravest kind....It did not matter that me2 and 1 had bad writing because it was not detrimental to the game... Me3 on the hand failed when it should have succeeded.

It broke the silent contract that every "artist" has with its audience. In this case they simply could not wrap up the experience in anyway that made the "sacrifices" we went through worth it.

I think that sums it up nicely..... It just was not worth it.

To sum up my post here nicely...you didn't get it.

Your choices DID matter...but they matted throughout the plot...not just the ending.

Sorry but the game is not going to betray its themes, which require a bittersweet ending because of the theme being "victory through sacrifice", to give you a super happy ending because you made choices well.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 02 juin 2013 - 12:42 .

[AlanC9]

FlamingBoy wrote...
Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. It looks like you're saying that plausibility can't be a problem until we get to he last part of the trilogy. Meaning that you'd swallow anything along the way and just hope that the conclusion would somehow make it all make sense?

[FlamingBoy]

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


Which ME1 and ME2 also had but they choose to ignore.

Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.

It didn't matter in me1 and 2 because the narrative was plausible at the end of the day all of it didn't really matter, regardless if badly written or not.

Me3 depended on the narrative to a huge degree to the point where its the only thing that matters, For example the crucible in all its various explanations does not make sense, a secret hidden weapon found on mars (convient) which we don't know how it works built by a contingency of  races (why build a portion of a weapon? That in itself does not make any sense) over the eons, the weapon itself has 3 uniques functions (how those functions work, who cares right ) that drastically alter the way the universe and the people living in it works..... I could go on....
but even my head is about to explode from the maddness of a game in a series that prides it self on plasibility

The crucible is the main driving point of the plot it moved the story forward. The story of all 3 games depended on me3, so as a result the entire series depended on the one game that didn't even remotely reach peoples expectations. That is the problem, me1 and me2 are the struggles we as players went through with our friends (shepard, garrus, talli, ect) we still enjoyed it despite its flaws. But in me3 those flaws are so bad so detrimental to our experience that it wrecked the experience for the entire series

Bioware made a series on emotional investment, the game depended on the player to care about what was happening, otherwise it would have been a lesser experience. But when it was time for the emotional payoff, when it was time for bioware to deliever on the ever so important promise "your choices will matter" they floundered.

And that is why people could not handle mass effect 3, it was a betrayal of the gravest kind....It did not matter that me2 and 1 had bad writing because it was not detrimental to the game... Me3 on the hand failed when it should have succeeded.

It broke the silent contract that every "artist" has with its audience. In this case they simply could not wrap up the experience in anyway that made the "sacrifices" we went through worth it.

I think that sums it up nicely..... It just was not worth it.

To sum up my post here nicely...you didn't get it.

Your choices DID matter...but they matted throughout the plot...not just the ending.

Sorry but the game is not going to betray its themes, which require a bittersweet ending because of the theme being "victory through sacrifice", to give you a super happy ending because you made choices well.

This is the problem. Stop making out the games problem to be my problem, its not how a debate works. I asure that I "got" the ending. I got it was concept that was executed like a poorly cut fugu.

Stop degrading my opinion to serve yourself, its a disgraceful. If the game was anygood defend the game based on it own merits but don't attack me to try and debunk my opinion it just does not work that way
I attack the game but you attack me personally, it is wrong.

[txgoldrush]

FlamingBoy wrote...

ioannisdenton wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


Which ME1 and ME2 also had but they choose to ignore.

Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.

It didn't matter in me1 and 2 because the narrative was plausible at the end of the day all of it didn't really matter, regardless if badly written or not.

Me3 depended on the narrative to a huge degree to the point where its the only thing that matters, For example the crucible in all its various explanations does not make sense, a secret hidden weapon found on mars (convient) which we don't know how it works built by a contingency of  races (why build a portion of a weapon? That in itself does not make any sense) over the eons, the weapon itself has 3 uniques functions (how those functions work, who cares right ) that drastically alter the way the universe and the people living in it works..... I could go on....
but even my head is about to explode from the maddness of a game in a series that prides it self on plasibility

The crucible is the main driving point of the plot it moved the story forward. The story of all 3 games depended on me3, so as a result the entire series depended on the one game that didn't even remotely reach peoples expectations. That is the problem, me1 and me2 are the struggles we as players went through with our friends (shepard, garrus, talli, ect) we still enjoyed it despite its flaws. But in me3 those flaws are so bad so detrimental to our experience that it wrecked the experience for the entire series

Bioware made a series on emotional investment, the game depended on the player to care about what was happening, otherwise it would have been a lesser experience. But when it was time for the emotional payoff, when it was time for bioware to deliever on the ever so important promise "your choices will matter" they floundered.

And that is why people could not handle mass effect 3, it was a betrayal of the gravest kind....It did not matter that me2 and 1 had bad writing because it was not detrimental to the game... Me3 on the hand failed when it should have succeeded.

It broke the silent contract that every "artist" has with its audience. In this case they simply could not wrap up the experience in anyway that made the "sacrifices" we went through worth it.

I think that sums it up nicely..... It just was not worth it.

on the contrary i liked the crucible idea, if only the catalyst was absent or at least it had not assumed the image of that kid from vancouver..

Not the main thesis of what I previously wrote, but I will play:

Whenever if you liked the idea or not is irrelevant, The crucible as a narritive driving force in the story does not make sense, It just doesn't. Its an interesting concept, no doubt, but its function and existence does not make sense with in the story

So using the Reapers tech against them doesn't make sense?

All the Crucible really does is power an energy surge through the mass relay system.

[txgoldrush]

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


Which ME1 and ME2 also had but they choose to ignore.

Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.

It didn't matter in me1 and 2 because the narrative was plausible at the end of the day all of it didn't really matter, regardless if badly written or not.

Me3 depended on the narrative to a huge degree to the point where its the only thing that matters, For example the crucible in all its various explanations does not make sense, a secret hidden weapon found on mars (convient) which we don't know how it works built by a contingency of  races (why build a portion of a weapon? That in itself does not make any sense) over the eons, the weapon itself has 3 uniques functions (how those functions work, who cares right ) that drastically alter the way the universe and the people living in it works..... I could go on....
but even my head is about to explode from the maddness of a game in a series that prides it self on plasibility

The crucible is the main driving point of the plot it moved the story forward. The story of all 3 games depended on me3, so as a result the entire series depended on the one game that didn't even remotely reach peoples expectations. That is the problem, me1 and me2 are the struggles we as players went through with our friends (shepard, garrus, talli, ect) we still enjoyed it despite its flaws. But in me3 those flaws are so bad so detrimental to our experience that it wrecked the experience for the entire series

Bioware made a series on emotional investment, the game depended on the player to care about what was happening, otherwise it would have been a lesser experience. But when it was time for the emotional payoff, when it was time for bioware to deliever on the ever so important promise "your choices will matter" they floundered.

And that is why people could not handle mass effect 3, it was a betrayal of the gravest kind....It did not matter that me2 and 1 had bad writing because it was not detrimental to the game... Me3 on the hand failed when it should have succeeded.

It broke the silent contract that every "artist" has with its audience. In this case they simply could not wrap up the experience in anyway that made the "sacrifices" we went through worth it.

I think that sums it up nicely..... It just was not worth it.

To sum up my post here nicely...you didn't get it.

Your choices DID matter...but they matted throughout the plot...not just the ending.

Sorry but the game is not going to betray its themes, which require a bittersweet ending because of the theme being "victory through sacrifice", to give you a super happy ending because you made choices well.

This is the problem. Stop making out the games problem to be my problem, its not how a debate works. I asure that I "got" the ending. I got it was concept that was executed like a poorly cut fugu.

Stop degrading my opinion to serve yourself, its a disgraceful. If the game was anygood defend the game based on it own merits but don't attack me to try and debunk my opinion it just does not work that way
I attack the game but you attack me personally, it is wrong.

No, you really didn't get it...if you did, you would know WHY it ended that way.

Not all opinions are created equal...get over it.

[FlamingBoy]

AlanC9 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...
Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. It looks like you're saying that plausibility can't be a problem until we get to he last part of the trilogy. Meaning that you'd swallow anything along the way and just hope that the conclusion would somehow make it all make sense?

Simply put, me2 and me1 flaws were of no consequence. For the example the terminator reaper, a highly rejected concept by the fanbase, That said the terminator reaper did not break the spell, it did not ruin my understanding of the mass effect universe. Hence the falws of me2 and 1 did not matter, yes they were annoying but it was a pebble in a pond.

ME3 on the otherhand... That ending was a universe changed everything, it ramifications are so sweeping that it questions the past, present, and future of the series as we understand it.... and as a result it does not make any sense.

The ending of me3 was not just the ending of me3 but the ending of the entire trilogy, and it was a disaster

[FlamingBoy]

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


Which ME1 and ME2 also had but they choose to ignore.

Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.

It didn't matter in me1 and 2 because the narrative was plausible at the end of the day all of it didn't really matter, regardless if badly written or not.

Me3 depended on the narrative to a huge degree to the point where its the only thing that matters, For example the crucible in all its various explanations does not make sense, a secret hidden weapon found on mars (convient) which we don't know how it works built by a contingency of  races (why build a portion of a weapon? That in itself does not make any sense) over the eons, the weapon itself has 3 uniques functions (how those functions work, who cares right ) that drastically alter the way the universe and the people living in it works..... I could go on....
but even my head is about to explode from the maddness of a game in a series that prides it self on plasibility

The crucible is the main driving point of the plot it moved the story forward. The story of all 3 games depended on me3, so as a result the entire series depended on the one game that didn't even remotely reach peoples expectations. That is the problem, me1 and me2 are the struggles we as players went through with our friends (shepard, garrus, talli, ect) we still enjoyed it despite its flaws. But in me3 those flaws are so bad so detrimental to our experience that it wrecked the experience for the entire series

Bioware made a series on emotional investment, the game depended on the player to care about what was happening, otherwise it would have been a lesser experience. But when it was time for the emotional payoff, when it was time for bioware to deliever on the ever so important promise "your choices will matter" they floundered.

And that is why people could not handle mass effect 3, it was a betrayal of the gravest kind....It did not matter that me2 and 1 had bad writing because it was not detrimental to the game... Me3 on the hand failed when it should have succeeded.

It broke the silent contract that every "artist" has with its audience. In this case they simply could not wrap up the experience in anyway that made the "sacrifices" we went through worth it.

I think that sums it up nicely..... It just was not worth it.

To sum up my post here nicely...you didn't get it.

Your choices DID matter...but they matted throughout the plot...not just the ending.

Sorry but the game is not going to betray its themes, which require a bittersweet ending because of the theme being "victory through sacrifice", to give you a super happy ending because you made choices well.

This is the problem. Stop making out the games problem to be my problem, its not how a debate works. I asure that I "got" the ending. I got it was concept that was executed like a poorly cut fugu.

Stop degrading my opinion to serve yourself, its a disgraceful. If the game was anygood defend the game based on it own merits but don't attack me to try and debunk my opinion it just does not work that way
I attack the game but you attack me personally, it is wrong.

No, you really didn't get it...if you did, you would know WHY it ended that way.

Not all opinions are created equal...get over it.

I will get over something when I damm well please, and you will like it. If the game was anygood it would be defended, but you don't defend it you attack me personally, hence you resort to Ad-hominen because your incapable of doing anything else.

Simply not getting it, is not a good enough excuse for bioware, if I didn't get it then its the writers fault I didn't get it. That is how it works....

[txgoldrush]

FlamingBoy wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...
Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. It looks like you're saying that plausibility can't be a problem until we get to he last part of the trilogy. Meaning that you'd swallow anything along the way and just hope that the conclusion would somehow make it all make sense?

Simply put, me2 and me1 flaws were of no consequence. For the example the terminator reaper, a highly rejected concept by the fanbase, That said the terminator reaper did not break the spell, it did not ruin my understanding of the mass effect universe. Hence the falws of me2 and 1 did not matter, yes they were annoying but it was a pebble in a pond.

ME3 on the otherhand... That ending was a universe changed everything, it ramifications are so sweeping that it questions the past, present, and future of the series as we understand it.... and as a result it does not make any sense.

The ending of me3 was not just the ending of me3 but the ending of the entire trilogy, and it was a disaster

Sounds to me like you are not whining because its flawed, you are whining because you simply didn't like it or like what the game had to say. LOL

And it sounded like you really didn't understand the trilogy.

[FlamingBoy]

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

ioannisdenton wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


Which ME1 and ME2 also had but they choose to ignore.

Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.

It didn't matter in me1 and 2 because the narrative was plausible at the end of the day all of it didn't really matter, regardless if badly written or not.

Me3 depended on the narrative to a huge degree to the point where its the only thing that matters, For example the crucible in all its various explanations does not make sense, a secret hidden weapon found on mars (convient) which we don't know how it works built by a contingency of  races (why build a portion of a weapon? That in itself does not make any sense) over the eons, the weapon itself has 3 uniques functions (how those functions work, who cares right ) that drastically alter the way the universe and the people living in it works..... I could go on....
but even my head is about to explode from the maddness of a game in a series that prides it self on plasibility

The crucible is the main driving point of the plot it moved the story forward. The story of all 3 games depended on me3, so as a result the entire series depended on the one game that didn't even remotely reach peoples expectations. That is the problem, me1 and me2 are the struggles we as players went through with our friends (shepard, garrus, talli, ect) we still enjoyed it despite its flaws. But in me3 those flaws are so bad so detrimental to our experience that it wrecked the experience for the entire series

Bioware made a series on emotional investment, the game depended on the player to care about what was happening, otherwise it would have been a lesser experience. But when it was time for the emotional payoff, when it was time for bioware to deliever on the ever so important promise "your choices will matter" they floundered.

And that is why people could not handle mass effect 3, it was a betrayal of the gravest kind....It did not matter that me2 and 1 had bad writing because it was not detrimental to the game... Me3 on the hand failed when it should have succeeded.

It broke the silent contract that every "artist" has with its audience. In this case they simply could not wrap up the experience in anyway that made the "sacrifices" we went through worth it.

I think that sums it up nicely..... It just was not worth it.

on the contrary i liked the crucible idea, if only the catalyst was absent or at least it had not assumed the image of that kid from vancouver..

Not the main thesis of what I previously wrote, but I will play:

Whenever if you liked the idea or not is irrelevant, The crucible as a narritive driving force in the story does not make sense, It just doesn't. Its an interesting concept, no doubt, but its function and existence does not make sense with in the story

So using the Reapers tech against them doesn't make sense?

All the Crucible really does is power an energy surge through the mass relay system.

Simple question what is the science (as defined by mass effect lore) behind the crucible?

This question can not be answered unfortunetly.

[txgoldrush]

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


Which ME1 and ME2 also had but they choose to ignore.

Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.

It didn't matter in me1 and 2 because the narrative was plausible at the end of the day all of it didn't really matter, regardless if badly written or not.

Me3 depended on the narrative to a huge degree to the point where its the only thing that matters, For example the crucible in all its various explanations does not make sense, a secret hidden weapon found on mars (convient) which we don't know how it works built by a contingency of  races (why build a portion of a weapon? That in itself does not make any sense) over the eons, the weapon itself has 3 uniques functions (how those functions work, who cares right ) that drastically alter the way the universe and the people living in it works..... I could go on....
but even my head is about to explode from the maddness of a game in a series that prides it self on plasibility

The crucible is the main driving point of the plot it moved the story forward. The story of all 3 games depended on me3, so as a result the entire series depended on the one game that didn't even remotely reach peoples expectations. That is the problem, me1 and me2 are the struggles we as players went through with our friends (shepard, garrus, talli, ect) we still enjoyed it despite its flaws. But in me3 those flaws are so bad so detrimental to our experience that it wrecked the experience for the entire series

Bioware made a series on emotional investment, the game depended on the player to care about what was happening, otherwise it would have been a lesser experience. But when it was time for the emotional payoff, when it was time for bioware to deliever on the ever so important promise "your choices will matter" they floundered.

And that is why people could not handle mass effect 3, it was a betrayal of the gravest kind....It did not matter that me2 and 1 had bad writing because it was not detrimental to the game... Me3 on the hand failed when it should have succeeded.

It broke the silent contract that every "artist" has with its audience. In this case they simply could not wrap up the experience in anyway that made the "sacrifices" we went through worth it.

I think that sums it up nicely..... It just was not worth it.

To sum up my post here nicely...you didn't get it.

Your choices DID matter...but they matted throughout the plot...not just the ending.

Sorry but the game is not going to betray its themes, which require a bittersweet ending because of the theme being "victory through sacrifice", to give you a super happy ending because you made choices well.

This is the problem. Stop making out the games problem to be my problem, its not how a debate works. I asure that I "got" the ending. I got it was concept that was executed like a poorly cut fugu.

Stop degrading my opinion to serve yourself, its a disgraceful. If the game was anygood defend the game based on it own merits but don't attack me to try and debunk my opinion it just does not work that way
I attack the game but you attack me personally, it is wrong.

No, you really didn't get it...if you did, you would know WHY it ended that way.

Not all opinions are created equal...get over it.

I will get over something when I damm well please, and you will like it. If the game was anygood it would be defended, but you don't defend it you attack me personally, hence you resort to Ad-hominen because your incapable of doing anything else.

Simply not getting it, is not a good enough excuse for bioware, if I didn't get it then its the writers fault I didn't get it. That is how it works....

Maybe because it isn't the game, its the fans who simply don't get it and want Bioware to dumb it down.

No, if you don't get it, it really isn't the writers fault...its YOU.

[FlamingBoy]

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...
Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. It looks like you're saying that plausibility can't be a problem until we get to he last part of the trilogy. Meaning that you'd swallow anything along the way and just hope that the conclusion would somehow make it all make sense?

Simply put, me2 and me1 flaws were of no consequence. For the example the terminator reaper, a highly rejected concept by the fanbase, That said the terminator reaper did not break the spell, it did not ruin my understanding of the mass effect universe. Hence the falws of me2 and 1 did not matter, yes they were annoying but it was a pebble in a pond.

ME3 on the otherhand... That ending was a universe changed everything, it ramifications are so sweeping that it questions the past, present, and future of the series as we understand it.... and as a result it does not make any sense.

The ending of me3 was not just the ending of me3 but the ending of the entire trilogy, and it was a disaster

Sounds to me like you are not whining because its flawed, you are whining because you simply didn't like it or like what the game had to say. LOL

And it sounded like you really didn't understand the trilogy.

Are you capable of defending a game without attacking me personally.

[FlamingBoy]

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


Which ME1 and ME2 also had but they choose to ignore.

Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.

It didn't matter in me1 and 2 because the narrative was plausible at the end of the day all of it didn't really matter, regardless if badly written or not.

Me3 depended on the narrative to a huge degree to the point where its the only thing that matters, For example the crucible in all its various explanations does not make sense, a secret hidden weapon found on mars (convient) which we don't know how it works built by a contingency of  races (why build a portion of a weapon? That in itself does not make any sense) over the eons, the weapon itself has 3 uniques functions (how those functions work, who cares right ) that drastically alter the way the universe and the people living in it works..... I could go on....
but even my head is about to explode from the maddness of a game in a series that prides it self on plasibility

The crucible is the main driving point of the plot it moved the story forward. The story of all 3 games depended on me3, so as a result the entire series depended on the one game that didn't even remotely reach peoples expectations. That is the problem, me1 and me2 are the struggles we as players went through with our friends (shepard, garrus, talli, ect) we still enjoyed it despite its flaws. But in me3 those flaws are so bad so detrimental to our experience that it wrecked the experience for the entire series

Bioware made a series on emotional investment, the game depended on the player to care about what was happening, otherwise it would have been a lesser experience. But when it was time for the emotional payoff, when it was time for bioware to deliever on the ever so important promise "your choices will matter" they floundered.

And that is why people could not handle mass effect 3, it was a betrayal of the gravest kind....It did not matter that me2 and 1 had bad writing because it was not detrimental to the game... Me3 on the hand failed when it should have succeeded.

It broke the silent contract that every "artist" has with its audience. In this case they simply could not wrap up the experience in anyway that made the "sacrifices" we went through worth it.

I think that sums it up nicely..... It just was not worth it.

To sum up my post here nicely...you didn't get it.

Your choices DID matter...but they matted throughout the plot...not just the ending.

Sorry but the game is not going to betray its themes, which require a bittersweet ending because of the theme being "victory through sacrifice", to give you a super happy ending because you made choices well.

This is the problem. Stop making out the games problem to be my problem, its not how a debate works. I asure that I "got" the ending. I got it was concept that was executed like a poorly cut fugu.

Stop degrading my opinion to serve yourself, its a disgraceful. If the game was anygood defend the game based on it own merits but don't attack me to try and debunk my opinion it just does not work that way
I attack the game but you attack me personally, it is wrong.

No, you really didn't get it...if you did, you would know WHY it ended that way.

Not all opinions are created equal...get over it.

I will get over something when I damm well please, and you will like it. If the game was anygood it would be defended, but you don't defend it you attack me personally, hence you resort to Ad-hominen because your incapable of doing anything else.

Simply not getting it, is not a good enough excuse for bioware, if I didn't get it then its the writers fault I didn't get it. That is how it works....

Maybe because it isn't the game, its the fans who simply don't get it and want Bioware to dumb it down.

No, if you don't get it, it really isn't the writers fault...its YOU.

Disgraceful behaviour...

[txgoldrush]

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

ioannisdenton wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


Which ME1 and ME2 also had but they choose to ignore.

Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.

It didn't matter in me1 and 2 because the narrative was plausible at the end of the day all of it didn't really matter, regardless if badly written or not.

Me3 depended on the narrative to a huge degree to the point where its the only thing that matters, For example the crucible in all its various explanations does not make sense, a secret hidden weapon found on mars (convient) which we don't know how it works built by a contingency of  races (why build a portion of a weapon? That in itself does not make any sense) over the eons, the weapon itself has 3 uniques functions (how those functions work, who cares right ) that drastically alter the way the universe and the people living in it works..... I could go on....
but even my head is about to explode from the maddness of a game in a series that prides it self on plasibility

The crucible is the main driving point of the plot it moved the story forward. The story of all 3 games depended on me3, so as a result the entire series depended on the one game that didn't even remotely reach peoples expectations. That is the problem, me1 and me2 are the struggles we as players went through with our friends (shepard, garrus, talli, ect) we still enjoyed it despite its flaws. But in me3 those flaws are so bad so detrimental to our experience that it wrecked the experience for the entire series

Bioware made a series on emotional investment, the game depended on the player to care about what was happening, otherwise it would have been a lesser experience. But when it was time for the emotional payoff, when it was time for bioware to deliever on the ever so important promise "your choices will matter" they floundered.

And that is why people could not handle mass effect 3, it was a betrayal of the gravest kind....It did not matter that me2 and 1 had bad writing because it was not detrimental to the game... Me3 on the hand failed when it should have succeeded.

It broke the silent contract that every "artist" has with its audience. In this case they simply could not wrap up the experience in anyway that made the "sacrifices" we went through worth it.

I think that sums it up nicely..... It just was not worth it.

on the contrary i liked the crucible idea, if only the catalyst was absent or at least it had not assumed the image of that kid from vancouver..

Not the main thesis of what I previously wrote, but I will play:

Whenever if you liked the idea or not is irrelevant, The crucible as a narritive driving force in the story does not make sense, It just doesn't. Its an interesting concept, no doubt, but its function and existence does not make sense with in the story

So using the Reapers tech against them doesn't make sense?

All the Crucible really does is power an energy surge through the mass relay system.

Simple question what is the science (as defined by mass effect lore) behind the crucible?

This question can not be answered unfortunetly.

Whats the science behind a lot of the Mass Effect universe? What is the science behind the Lazarus Project?

You are picking and choosing.

[txgoldrush]

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...
Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. It looks like you're saying that plausibility can't be a problem until we get to he last part of the trilogy. Meaning that you'd swallow anything along the way and just hope that the conclusion would somehow make it all make sense?

Simply put, me2 and me1 flaws were of no consequence. For the example the terminator reaper, a highly rejected concept by the fanbase, That said the terminator reaper did not break the spell, it did not ruin my understanding of the mass effect universe. Hence the falws of me2 and 1 did not matter, yes they were annoying but it was a pebble in a pond.

ME3 on the otherhand... That ending was a universe changed everything, it ramifications are so sweeping that it questions the past, present, and future of the series as we understand it.... and as a result it does not make any sense.

The ending of me3 was not just the ending of me3 but the ending of the entire trilogy, and it was a disaster

Sounds to me like you are not whining because its flawed, you are whining because you simply didn't like it or like what the game had to say. LOL

And it sounded like you really didn't understand the trilogy.

Are you capable of defending a game without attacking me personally.

Are you capable of getting the narrative so you can make a valid criticism?

[FlamingBoy]

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

ioannisdenton wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


Which ME1 and ME2 also had but they choose to ignore.

Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.

It didn't matter in me1 and 2 because the narrative was plausible at the end of the day all of it didn't really matter, regardless if badly written or not.

Me3 depended on the narrative to a huge degree to the point where its the only thing that matters, For example the crucible in all its various explanations does not make sense, a secret hidden weapon found on mars (convient) which we don't know how it works built by a contingency of  races (why build a portion of a weapon? That in itself does not make any sense) over the eons, the weapon itself has 3 uniques functions (how those functions work, who cares right ) that drastically alter the way the universe and the people living in it works..... I could go on....
but even my head is about to explode from the maddness of a game in a series that prides it self on plasibility

The crucible is the main driving point of the plot it moved the story forward. The story of all 3 games depended on me3, so as a result the entire series depended on the one game that didn't even remotely reach peoples expectations. That is the problem, me1 and me2 are the struggles we as players went through with our friends (shepard, garrus, talli, ect) we still enjoyed it despite its flaws. But in me3 those flaws are so bad so detrimental to our experience that it wrecked the experience for the entire series

Bioware made a series on emotional investment, the game depended on the player to care about what was happening, otherwise it would have been a lesser experience. But when it was time for the emotional payoff, when it was time for bioware to deliever on the ever so important promise "your choices will matter" they floundered.

And that is why people could not handle mass effect 3, it was a betrayal of the gravest kind....It did not matter that me2 and 1 had bad writing because it was not detrimental to the game... Me3 on the hand failed when it should have succeeded.

It broke the silent contract that every "artist" has with its audience. In this case they simply could not wrap up the experience in anyway that made the "sacrifices" we went through worth it.

I think that sums it up nicely..... It just was not worth it.

on the contrary i liked the crucible idea, if only the catalyst was absent or at least it had not assumed the image of that kid from vancouver..

Not the main thesis of what I previously wrote, but I will play:

Whenever if you liked the idea or not is irrelevant, The crucible as a narritive driving force in the story does not make sense, It just doesn't. Its an interesting concept, no doubt, but its function and existence does not make sense with in the story

So using the Reapers tech against them doesn't make sense?

All the Crucible really does is power an energy surge through the mass relay system.

Simple question what is the science (as defined by mass effect lore) behind the crucible?

This question can not be answered unfortunetly.

Whats the science behind a lot of the Mass Effect universe? What is the science behind the Lazarus Project?

You are picking and choosing.

Yeah but the ending is everything, I pick and choose, but I pick and choose whats is with out a doubt the most important part. The ending is not only the most important part of me3 but the entire series

You can't defend something by pointing at something else and say "they did it too".

[txgoldrush]

FlamingBoy wrote...

Yeah but the ending is everything, I pick and choose, but I pick and choose whats is with out a doubt the most important part. The ending is not only the most important part of me3 but the entire series

You can't defend something by pointing at something else and say "they did it too".

And the ending fit the series, especially thematically.

You didn't like how It ended....tough.

[FlamingBoy]

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Yeah but the ending is everything, I pick and choose, but I pick and choose whats is with out a doubt the most important part. The ending is not only the most important part of me3 but the entire series

You can't defend something by pointing at something else and say "they did it too".

And the ending fit the series, especially thematically.

You didn't like how It ended....tough.

There is a tad bit of hipocrasy, you avoid large parts of my argument thoughout you smigit 2 line posts. Then you become supremely arrogant about it. It is fustrating.

[txgoldrush]

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Yeah but the ending is everything, I pick and choose, but I pick and choose whats is with out a doubt the most important part. The ending is not only the most important part of me3 but the entire series

You can't defend something by pointing at something else and say "they did it too".

And the ending fit the series, especially thematically.

You didn't like how It ended....tough.

There is a tad bit of hipocrasy, you avoid large parts of my argument thoughout you smigit 2 line posts. Then you become supremely arrogant about it. It is fustrating.

No I didn't..."you didn't get it" accounts for your entire argument of the ending.

And if you can't take some handwaving, don't be a sci fi fan.

An energy bursts through the relay system is plausible. Nevermind that lore stated that the Citadel is not only a relay coordinator, but a dark energy amplifier. The only thing that needs a big handwave is synthesis and it is one done well.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 02 juin 2013 - 01:08 .

[KaiserShep]

Personally, I never thought that the ending had such wide sweeping effects on the entire lore to the point that I just couldn't look at anything the same. But then, I could just head canon two of the choices as reaper fantasy and simply have a synthetic reset. I just can't share the white hot hatred some may have for the ending.

[FlamingBoy]

I have really one opinion left, speaking to anyone who may read this, If your opinion is that the other person simply did not "get it" and therefore is not worthy of a opinion. That is a failure, it is a failure both intellectually and to the thing which your trying to defend (in this case a product).

It is a critica thinking failure all it does is to try and avoid the issue by making your fellow man look bad, this behavour is disgraceful and we should expect better of ourselves. We are bounded by this forum by the fact we all love mass effect, I never doubted that anyone I debated with loved mass effect as much as I do.

But since this ending people have been drawing lines in the sand. A certain group of people, I know you know who they are, are trying to define what is a "true fan". Under their definition this fan is one who will submit blindy to bioware regardless how you as the player feel, regardless of your consumer rights. This is wrong.

Never doubt your passion of mass effect, and never doubt that you are a "true fan" of mass effect regardless of the labels these people put on you. Because its untrue.

[Hadeedak]

That's a very angry pile of quote pyramids up there.

Anyway.

I like the ending, myself. I don't love it -- it still suffers from some major pacing hiccups (even after the EC). I approve of the concepts, and I think thematically, it works. Things could have been explained better, certainly, but I honestly think if Leviathan and the Extended Cut had been in vanilla version, there'd be less quibbling. I like the fact that Mass Effect ends with a quatro of some classic science fiction BIG IDEAS, and I even like how open it is. To some extent, it feels to me like Shepard was bequeathed to the fans.

[Redbelle]

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Yeah but the ending is everything, I pick and choose, but I pick and choose whats is with out a doubt the most important part. The ending is not only the most important part of me3 but the entire series

You can't defend something by pointing at something else and say "they did it too".

And the ending fit the series, especially thematically.

You didn't like how It ended....tough.

There is a tad bit of hipocrasy, you avoid large parts of my argument thoughout you smigit 2 line posts. Then you become supremely arrogant about it. It is fustrating.

No I didn't..."you didn't get it" accounts for your entire argument of the ending.

And if you can't take some handwaving, don't be a sci fi fan.

An energy bursts through the relay system is plausible. Nevermind that lore stated that the Citadel is not only a relay coordinator, but a dark energy amplifier. The only thing that needs a big handwave is synthesis and it is one done well.

Ok...... if that is all true..... why was this information not brought out in the narrative instead of being tucked away in the Codex?

For that matter. if this information is in the codex, why was there no one who could talk about what the Crucible could do? Instead of repeatedly saying, we don't know what it does but we'll pin all our hopes on it anyway...... when before Liara was adament that it was a weapon of some kind. And Hackett said it was capable of releasing large amounts of energy?

It sounds as if you are a sci-fi fan of the Dune mentaity, where you don't have to know how things are plusible. You just give a mutant some spice and they catapult you, in a liner, across the universe.

As opposed to Star Trek, where a clone, showing signs of having the same memories as the original, can be explained away through saying "We may have just proven the theory that human memory is somehow tied to our genetics".

Or explaining how Shuttles can tow a ship (despite having never done so in any ST series), with the line. "Shuttles don't create that kind of thrust. We need to modify the engines to to move the mass the ship without blowing the shuttles".

It's all about carrying the viewer, or in this case player, with the narrative. Not leaving them behind. Sure you can skip an explanation under the right circumstances and not have it impact the narrative to heavily. But to do it time and time again in succession points to a script that a professional writer never allowed to mature in wood, or was submitted for peer review to gain perspective on their writing.

As for the endings being thematically correct. It's still a giggle to have the Catalyst say that you can control the Reapers, after spending a game arguing the opposite with TIM where minutes before you had convinced him to shoot himself in the head.

Shepard, in ME3, is heavily integrated with the Alliance Navy. At no point does Shepard argue with his collegaues that maybe we could control the Reapers. Or synthesise Synth and Org life. The message throughout the game is destroy the Reapers and Control is a concept that Shepard is dynamically opposed to on account of his position and the writing. The only pause for thought comes when the Cat says you have to kill EDI, at minimum.

Modifié par Redbelle, 02 juin 2013 - 12:55 .

[The Heretic of Time]

ioannisdenton wrote...

Now that the dust has settled and after i gave myself enough time out of these forums letting myself not beeing indoctrinated into hating every aspect of Me3 (i think i did) i wanna point out some things (replayed the WHOLE trilogy with Dlc from scratch; i am currently am on my Me3 playthrough) :

• Me3 had the best visual style of Me games. And not just because it is a more recent game, i am not talking about texture quality. Bioware put quite some time in visuals. People complain and whine about those 2d sprites (which actually is modeled after Jack) in the intro but reality is that the game looks fantastic. There are tons of details in the world!
  Different lighting , different lightining themes in various areas ; other are more blueish others more yellowish.
  Where me2 had TONS of coffeymakers everywhere, Me3 features a visual detail that surpasses Me2 and actually makes the world feel more alive. The citadel looks alive, surkesh, tuchanca ruins , Rannoch.. fantastic!!
• Music and sound effects. Again great detail!! You can even hear people typing in the interfaces. On citadel the various news announcements make the the world feel more alive again. All these people talking; their personal stories etc. Last but not least the normandy's war room, you can hear Vigil's theme via the normandy's engines. Whoever came up woth this is a genious.
• Me3 actually features the MOST story and this is a fact. Me1 which most people praise despite having a great main storyline, that storyline was really short. Same applies for Me2. On me3 this is not the case, almost every action you make has to do with the main storyline which is Cerberus and Reapers
  Now the quality of the story is not even half as bad as some here claim. Sure the original ending deserved the backlash, sure the choices do not matter as we thought they would, sure the catalyst was unexpected (i think bioware thought the cataluyst as the last minute story twist) but Me3 made me feel way more emotions that the previous ME games. This alone says a lot.

Been a while since i visited this forum and wanted to share my final thoughts about Me3.

1. True.

2. True.

3. The most story, sure, but also the worst story with the most inconsistencies and just blatantly aweful writing that more often than once contradicts previously established lore. This is why ME3 recieves so much negative feedback and this is why ME3 in my opinion sucks.

[GimmeDaGun]

Redbelle wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Yeah but the ending is everything, I pick and choose, but I pick and choose whats is with out a doubt the most important part. The ending is not only the most important part of me3 but the entire series

You can't defend something by pointing at something else and say "they did it too".

And the ending fit the series, especially thematically.

You didn't like how It ended....tough.

There is a tad bit of hipocrasy, you avoid large parts of my argument thoughout you smigit 2 line posts. Then you become supremely arrogant about it. It is fustrating.

No I didn't..."you didn't get it" accounts for your entire argument of the ending.

And if you can't take some handwaving, don't be a sci fi fan.

An energy bursts through the relay system is plausible. Nevermind that lore stated that the Citadel is not only a relay coordinator, but a dark energy amplifier. The only thing that needs a big handwave is synthesis and it is one done well.

Ok...... if that is all true..... why was this information not brought out in the narrative instead of being tucked away in the Codex?

For that matter. if this information is in the codex, why was there no one who could talk about what the Crucible could do? Instead of repeatedly saying, we don't know what it does but we'll pin all our hopes on it anyway...... when before Liara was adament that it was a weapon of some kind. And Hackett said it was capable of releasing large amounts of energy?

It sounds as if you are a sci-fi fan of the Dune mentaity, where you don't have to know how things are plusible. You just give a mutant some spice and they catapult you, in a liner, across the universe.

As opposed to Star Trek, where a clone, showing signs of having the same memories as the original, can be explained away through saying "We may have just proven the theory that human memory is somehow tied to our genetics".

Or explaining how Shuttles can tow a ship (despite having never done so in any ST series), with the line. "Shuttles don't create that kind of thrust. We need to modify the engines to to move the mass the ship without blowing the shuttles".

It's all about carrying the viewer, or in this case player, with the narrative. Not leaving them behind. Sure you can skip an explanation under the right circumstances and not have it impact the narrative to heavily. But to do it time and time again in succession points to a script that a professional writer never allowed to mature in wood, or was submitted for peer review to gain perspective on their writing.

As for the endings being thematically correct. It's still a giggle to have the Catalyst say that you can control the Reapers, after spending a game arguing the opposite with TIM where minutes before you had convinced him to shoot himself in the head.

Shepard, in ME3, is heavily integrated with the Alliance Navy. At no point does Shepard argue with his collegaues that maybe we could control the Reapers. Or synthesise Synth and Org life. The message throughout the game is destroy the Reapers and Control is a concept that Shepard is dynamically opposed to on account of his position and the writing. The only pause for thought comes when the Cat says you have to kill EDI, at minimum.

I think Dune is one of the coolest things that ever happened to sci-fi. 


You seem to be more of a fan of the techy-based nerdish "hard" sci-fi and less of a fan of the more philosophical, symoblist, and moralising "soft" sci-fi. I personally prefer the latter, not so much the former. To me it's not the explanaiton and the nerdy-techy side of things what is important (frankly I don't give a crap about the technical details and explainations), but what it wants to tell me, what it's message is. Well, ME is a mixture of both types of sci-fi families and I prefer the "softish" things in it, maybe that's why I like the ending too. It's not something really serious or philosophical, but it is definitely not about the "how it happens" but about the "what happens, and what questionst that may raise". It plays around with classic sci-fi cliches and aims to encourage you to speculate and play around with thoughts. To me it's a good thing. I prefer this over a very simple but technically well explained, straight-forward bang-bang->win, kiss type of ending. Maybe that's why I could never enjoy Star Trek at all. 

[Eryri]

At the risk of raising the temperature of this debate even further...

The ending did not fit thematically for me at all. Mass Effect has many themes, and "Victory through sacrifice" was never the most obvious or compelling one for me. Far more important, and obvious within the narrative, were themes of kindling trust between different groups, working together to accomplish more together than could be done apart. Self-determination was also an important theme for me, and the terrible consequences of trying to attain control of others.

Those themes were undermined by all three of the ending choices. Control seems like a vain attempt to impose Shepard's will on the galaxy. This is despite him spending most of the game telling TIM that he not only cannot control the Reapers, he shouldn't even if he could.

Synthesis is an attempt to attain a utopia by minimising diversity and forcing everyone into a happy-clappy hegemony. And destroy betrays Edi and the Geth's trust in Shepard, and treats them like disposable tools instead of people.

Also, synthesis is not the only facet of the ending that strains credulity. Destroy and control also require a liberal sprinkling of handwavium to be believable. Destroy, for example, is apparently able to differentiate between sentient, and non-sentient machinery. Perhaps the Crucible has a built in soul detector? The improbability of the Normandy pick-up, and Shepard's survival after being engulfed in red flame don't help matters either. Nor does the fact that relay explosions apparently don't roast every world around them after all, at least not any more. Or the sudden amnesia that afflicts the Reapers when they forget that their possession of the Crucible would allow them to shut down the relays and strand the Crucible far away from the Citadel.

However, even more problematic than dodgy space magic, are the unbelievable developments in Shepard's character. In order to successfully defeat the Reapers, Shepard has to accept, and act, on the instructions of a creature that admits to being their Commander in Chief. He has to activate the crucible in one of three ludicrous and lethal ways that seem to be part of some sort of dark joke. Why would he believe that the Catalyst is not trying to trick him into killing himself, sabotaging the crucible, or both?

The fact that the Catalyst was actually telling the truth doesn't make it any better. In fact it makes it worse. Both protagonist and antagonist are equally stupid. I almost think Shepard doesn't even deserve to succeed. Not just because of the morally dubious consequences of each choice, but because of how incredibly, naively, stupidly credulous he would have to be to pick one of them.