333 réponses à ce sujet

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

ContinentTurtle wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

And most of this board really does not get the Catalyst's character and his fatal character flaw. Its actually a subtle one, but one that is telling. The Catalyst simply does not truly understand organic life.

I don't think thats true

If it understood organic life, why doesn't it give us a chance to prove ourselves. Sure, other galactic civilizations began to destroy themselves,  but the Catalyst gave nobody else a chance for what might be a billion years. A BILLION YEARS. 

No, I meant the statement that "most of this board really does not get the Catalyst's character and his fatal character flaw".

[Argentoid]

DinoSteve wrote...

ContinentTurtle wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

And most of this board really does not get the Catalyst's character and his fatal character flaw. Its actually a subtle one, but one that is telling. The Catalyst simply does not truly understand organic life.

I don't think thats true

If it understood organic life, why doesn't it give us a chance to prove ourselves. Sure, other galactic civilizations began to destroy themselves,  but the Catalyst gave nobody else a chance for what might be a billion years. A BILLION YEARS. 

No, I meant the statement that "most of this board really does not get the Catalyst's character and his fatal character flaw".

I disagree Steve. It's kinda telling around here.

[spirosz]

txgoldrush wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

It's a decent Mass Effect game with subpar writing in many areas.

And ME1 and ME2 also had subpar writing in many areas....

stop ignoring ME1 and ME2's faults to bash ME3.

The entire ME2 main plot was subpar.....even critics who gave that game high ratings mention this.

I've never ignored ME or ME2's faults, but they didn't phase me like ME3 did at the time, as I was still able to replay ME and ME2 regardless of the flaws and still enjoy them both, while the case was not the same for ME3. 

Stop generalizing. 

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

spirosz wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

It's a decent Mass Effect game with subpar writing in many areas.

And ME1 and ME2 also had subpar writing in many areas....

stop ignoring ME1 and ME2's faults to bash ME3.

The entire ME2 main plot was subpar.....even critics who gave that game high ratings mention this.

I've never ignored ME or ME2's faults, but they didn't phase me like ME3 did at the time, as I was still able to replay ME and ME2 regardless of the flaws and still enjoy them both, while the case was not the same for ME3. 

Stop generalizing. 

I think ME1's and ME2's flaws are like speed bumps while annoying they won't spoil the journey but ME3's flaws are like a giant pot hole you don't see coming until you hit it and break the axel of your car.

[Ticonderoga117]

DinoSteve wrote...

spirosz wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

It's a decent Mass Effect game with subpar writing in many areas.

And ME1 and ME2 also had subpar writing in many areas....

stop ignoring ME1 and ME2's faults to bash ME3.

The entire ME2 main plot was subpar.....even critics who gave that game high ratings mention this.

I've never ignored ME or ME2's faults, but they didn't phase me like ME3 did at the time, as I was still able to replay ME and ME2 regardless of the flaws and still enjoy them both, while the case was not the same for ME3. 

Stop generalizing. 

I think ME1's and ME2's flaws are like speed bumps while annoying they won't spoil the journey but ME3's flaws are like a giant pot hole you don't see coming until you hit it and break the axel of your car.

I liken ME3 to a very bumpy road that has a 3 foot thick concrete wall at the end.

There are warning signs along the way that things won't do well, but you don't care because hey, it'll all turn out well in the end. Might be a bit bumpy but there are great things to see and people to chat with along the way. Then out of no where this giant concrete wall appears and you're going 60 mph. You slam into that wall and there is no more road behind it.

You die, everyone dies, and your car is ruined because some schmuck thought it would be artful to place a concrete wall on a forest road behind a blind turn.

Modifié par Ticonderoga117, 03 juin 2013 - 04:24 .

[txgoldrush]

DinoSteve wrote...

spirosz wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

It's a decent Mass Effect game with subpar writing in many areas.

And ME1 and ME2 also had subpar writing in many areas....

stop ignoring ME1 and ME2's faults to bash ME3.

The entire ME2 main plot was subpar.....even critics who gave that game high ratings mention this.

I've never ignored ME or ME2's faults, but they didn't phase me like ME3 did at the time, as I was still able to replay ME and ME2 regardless of the flaws and still enjoy them both, while the case was not the same for ME3. 

Stop generalizing. 

I think ME1's and ME2's flaws are like speed bumps while annoying they won't spoil the journey but ME3's flaws are like a giant pot hole you don't see coming until you hit it and break the axel of your car.

No, you just didn't get it....and many of the main flaws in ME3 have been addressed. This is not so in ME2.

Sorry, but you simply flat out ignored what the game was telling you....the ending did not come out of nowhere, you simply were not paying attention.

ME3 is actually the LEAST flawed when it comes to storytelling...yes, it is still has flaws, but it doesn't neglect character development for most of the story like ME1 does, and is no where near as contrived and ridiculous as ME2's main story.

[txgoldrush]

Redbelle wrote...

How many points were made in favour of destroy where Shep acknowledged it was a good idea?

How many point where control was acknowledged as a good idea?

The thematic point of control is overshadowed by the theme of destroying the Reapers or die trying. That was the theme, begun at the start and carried through.

TIM is consistently being told he's crazy for thinking he could control the Reapers. And as for EDI. Her situation is indeed a much needed mirror for Shepard to stop and consider the implication's of control. But it's steamrolled over in favour of the pacing of the B plot.

For control to become a thematic concept that can be scrutinised, the idea needed to be discussed with a character who is not in direct opposition to Shepard. And who is smart or has a unique perspective on how it could be accomplished. This however, could not be done in a game that has spent two previous games drilling home the point that Reapers cannot be controlled. And spends the majority of it's dialogue, refusing to allow Shepard, and by that I mean the player, to acknowledge control as a potential option before the Cat shows up.

The Cat's introduction and 10 minute spiel only works if you disregard everything you know of the Reapers from all 3 games and take the Cat at face value. This is not a case of missing context. It's a case of poor narrative pacing mixed with a failure to wind the theme's of the ending into the plot in a way that Shepard can appreciate them and interrogate them. RBG was dropped on us the first time people did their first run through. A year on people have warmed to the concepts, it would appear, but that does nothing for the fact that ending's have taken a year to appreaciate. They should have been developed to be understood on playthrough 1. Having to rely on BSN and forums to develop an understanding of a game ending after the game has ended is a failure of writing to convey an idea. That's the problem. And it's the problem I'd like to see BW resolve to address before someone think's making the Catalyst a squadmate is a good idea........... just because someone wrote it down on a to do list.

TIM is a bad advocate for control because he aligns himself against Shepard. He makes himself the enemy and uses Cerberus against Shepard. For all his insight, he is effectively an enemy. And like many have said about the Cat, why take advice from the enemy when you are opposed to the enemies end goals?

That said. I think if TIM had met the Cat, along with Shepard and Anderson, and discovered he really cannot control the Reapers. Then suddenly he has to argue for Shep to make the choice he is unable too. In doing so his pro human stance and views would conflict with Anderson's and the Cat's. Thereby allowing Shepard the great debate needed to decide which option would best serve the galaxy.

You really do not get it.

There are many stories where the protagonist can believe something, but at the end, he can be proven wrong. There is no arbitrary rule against this. He argues for destroy (and not really if he is renegade) because that's all he knows, that's all he is told. And once again, as I have told you, Shepard at one point CAN express doubts to Hackett (Where he will respond..kill him (TIM), that's an order).

And you really failed to even get the argument between Shepard and TIM....it really wasn't about Destroy and Control, it was about his methods and the fact that he is working with the enemy. The real conflict is INDOCTRINATION, not "he wants to control the Reapers and that is bad"

Once again, like the rest of the board, you fail to grasp the true conflict between TIM and The Catalyst. The conflict with TIM is NOT about destroy and control, and the conflict with the Catalyst is NOT about organics and synthetics...those are CONTEXT, not the CONFLICT. The conflict with both antagonists are METHODS, their forceful sacrifices of others lives to further their goals...fitting the MAIN THEME of ME3.

And Control and Synthesis were FORESHADOWED. The Reaper attack on the Horizon facility is a huge hint that the Reapers can actually be controlled. That was foreshadowing. And you can tell by the Reapers, hybrids of organic and synthetic, would favor synthesis by them telling you that they are the pinnacle of evolution.

[Redbelle]

No, the endings were not foreshadowed. The narrative never made Shepard seriously consider anything other than destroy. You are mistaking the grasp on the concept's you developed over the year for your grasp on the concepts from a year ago.

What you fail to grasp is that the narrative never pushed control or synthesis into the active plot for Shepard and the player to consider. The only people to talk to Shepard about an ending concept was Hackett and Anderson. TIM also spoke of an ending concept too, but did so in abstract, and in direct opposition to Shepard, in what control would deliver in terms of consequences.

Destroy was pushed, not only by the alliance, but also by everyone who didn't want to be killed by the Reapers. Shepard may have wanted to talk about TIM's idea with Hackett. But Hackett shot it down..... Had TIM been given face time in the war room to talk to Shepard about the practicalities and actual beneifts of control, rather than discuss abstracts, Shepard may have been given a more even exposure to the concept.

As for the theme's of ME3. There were many theme's. And the one involving the narrative of solving the synthetic/organic problem was resolved at Rannoch. The narrative of the Catalyst and the Reapers is a repeat of that narrative whose action's have the potential to undo it. This is not the same as resolution to Tchunka which, regardless of choice, is not undone.

The point you fail to grasp is that the writing of the final mission does not stack up to the quality of past titles, or even ME3's past missions. Manufacturing context by ignoring the active main context the game provides, and supprting the minor context which was never given the air time it needed before the Catalyst showed up to function as an exposition engine demonstrates a failure to give the player the information in a proper setting.

Much of what you said above it accurate to a degree. But much of what you are talking about only occurs on the periphery of the narrative. And it's here that ME suffers from having less dialogue wheel action. Characters who have stock repsonses when clicking on them could have been given dialogue to bring D/C/S into the arena of charater 'DEBATE'.

Mass Effect's strength is it's dialogue and characters. Much of this interaction occurs on Normandy where you are placed in a familier setting with people you trust as squadmates. If they had started discussing aspects of D/C/S Shep could have walked into the Cat chamber with a better grasp of what the Cat was asking him to do. Not have to suffer an info dump brought on by a unknown character. Just because players have had a year to come to terms with the Cat, doesn't make the Cat a good character.

As for the theme of sacrificing others to further goals..... that may be the Cat's and TIM's goal. It is not Shepards. He can sacrifice others, but he can also 'not want' to sacrifice others.TIM and Cat do not have the option to 'not want to' sacrifice others. They are set in stone.

Shepard is not. Yet can only develop intent once the information he needs is given. The Tchunka Dalatrass and the option to tell Eve about her offer illustrates the power Shepard wields as a player character's avater.

Modifié par Redbelle, 03 juin 2013 - 08:49 .

[Fixers0]

dreamgazer wrote...
What else are they going to say at this point? They're done with the DLC cycle, the game has already sold as many units as the first game, they won plenty of awards, and Montreal is working on the next game while Edmonton develops a new IP. 

That's just the on surface, but if you analyse their behaviour you will see what i mean, in fact, Edmonton pulling away from Mass Effect and letting Montreal, the B-team so to speak, continuing the franchise in most likely the safest way enough possible to make money is good sign of that very fact I was talking about.

Modifié par Fixers0, 03 juin 2013 - 11:06 .

[FlamingBoy]

I have created a drinking game based on how many times txgoldrush says the phrase and its variations "you do not get it" or you "missed the point"

Any one want to play, I have counted 5 so far. Vodka for everyone!

[spirosz]

txgoldrush wrote...
No, you just didn't get it 

My mind is blown away, thanks. 

[crimzontearz]

Good game? Sure

Good ending? Nope

Good handling of the backlash? Nope

We will see what they do with ME4 but my first question to Bioware will be "why should I invest in your game again? Who is to say you are not gearing up to force feed me your art and kick me in the quad at the end because Mac thinks it would be awesome and uplifting?"

[FlamingBoy]

spirosz wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
No, you just didn't get it 

My mind is blown away, thanks. 

Yeah absouletly the way he juxtaposed the argument "you just didn't get it" with the venacular of ancient roman origins of "you failed to grasp", or that it was your fault, or that YOU are the problem, YOU, YOU,YOU,YOU,YOU,YOU,YOU,YOU,YOU, PANDAS!YOU,YOU,YOU.............



YOU!


(obviously if you disagree with me you just didn't get it and its your fault, why because YOU!)

Modifié par FlamingBoy, 03 juin 2013 - 12:43 .

[Legion of 1337]

ME3 is actually the only game in the series I consistently replay without skipping sections of the game I don't like (except the end, it's hard to skip the end). I can attribute this to a number of reasons, and in fact it makes ME3 kind of the "complete package" that makes it, I think, as good as any of the other games. I think anyone who tries to argue ME3 is the worst game in the trilogy is still just pissed about the ending and isn't looking at things objectively.

Now, by the standards of TPSs, ME3 is mediocre but the difference that still makes it fun is Shepard himself. It's not just a "pop up from cover and shoot a guy" kind of game, you're like Superman with a bunch of badass powers. Biotic Charge + Nova combos, Invisible assassinations, lift grenades, biotic/tech combos, it's just fun the various ways you can kill things. That's why, to everyone's surprise, people liked the obviously tacked-on multiplayer. It makes ME3 far more enjoyable from a gameplay standpoint than the previous two.

Aside form that, the character interaction (the main reason anyone plays these games) is at least as good as if not better than ME2 because it wasn't just "go to room, have a chat, leave" and never interact anywhere else or do anything else outside of combat. Conversations and situations with characters feel more natural and organic than in ME1 and 2 where it was this robotic "oh, I did a plot mission, better go around to each room the characters apparently never leave and check for a new convo option". And the dialogue was still well written.

And of course the plot was better than ME2s because a) it actually mattered; was coherent; and c) wasn't full of holes (until the end). I admit some plot points are contrivances (like Legion's death, the Crucible, Thessia, etc) and some things were not explained as well as they should have been even though clearly there was a reason for them (Legion's death, the Citadel Coup, Cerberus on Sur'Kesh), but overall it was a well-structured plotline. ME2 was propped up solely on character interaction, whereas ME3 has a solid plot as backup.

And the ending? Yeah, it's stupid. But at least it's foreshadowed in Leviathan. Because of Leviathan, people who pick up ME3 today will be far less likely to devolve into a non-sensible rage about the ending and condemn the whole game because of it, they'd just say "Enh, I wouldn't have done it this way" and move on. And honestly, everything that comes before it is so good I can't really bring the whole game down because it had a Gainax Ending. Infact, as people have said, if you cut out the convo with the Catalyst, the game works just fine if you skip to the destroy ending. So really, the ending almost works, sort of, it's just that one-off conversation with the Catalyst that throws everything off. I'm not going to hate the game and never play it again because of that.

[spirosz]

Too be honest Legion, it is the worst in the trilogy for me because it just leaves me with a feeling of disconnect and I'm strictly speaking from the vanilla experience. My Shepard didn't feel the same, the character creator left him looking nothing like in ME/ME2, the auto-dialogue killed the replayability for me and the whole treatment of the squad I preferred, it just didn't work for me. The atmosphere was well done, I always point that out, but I just didn't care for that squad selection in ME3.

Overall, the package was a good game, just not what I personally wanted out of it, but I'll still point out the positives that worked for me, like the score for example.

[FlamingBoy]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

ME3 is actually the only game in the series I consistently replay without skipping sections of the game I don't like (except the end, it's hard to skip the end). I can attribute this to a number of reasons, and in fact it makes ME3 kind of the "complete package" that makes it, I think, as good as any of the other games. I think anyone who tries to argue ME3 is the worst game in the trilogy is still just pissed about the ending and isn't looking at things objectively.

Now, by the standards of TPSs, ME3 is mediocre but the difference that still makes it fun is Shepard himself. It's not just a "pop up from cover and shoot a guy" kind of game, you're like Superman with a bunch of badass powers. Biotic Charge + Nova combos, Invisible assassinations, lift grenades, biotic/tech combos, it's just fun the various ways you can kill things. That's why, to everyone's surprise, people liked the obviously tacked-on multiplayer. It makes ME3 far more enjoyable from a gameplay standpoint than the previous two.

Aside form that, the character interaction (the main reason anyone plays these games) is at least as good as if not better than ME2 because it wasn't just "go to room, have a chat, leave" and never interact anywhere else or do anything else outside of combat. Conversations and situations with characters feel more natural and organic than in ME1 and 2 where it was this robotic "oh, I did a plot mission, better go around to each room the characters apparently never leave and check for a new convo option". And the dialogue was still well written.

And of course the plot was better than ME2s because a) it actually mattered; was coherent; and c) wasn't full of holes (until the end). I admit some plot points are contrivances (like Legion's death, the Crucible, Thessia, etc) and some things were not explained as well as they should have been even though clearly there was a reason for them (Legion's death, the Citadel Coup, Cerberus on Sur'Kesh), but overall it was a well-structured plotline. ME2 was propped up solely on character interaction, whereas ME3 has a solid plot as backup.

And the ending? Yeah, it's stupid. But at least it's foreshadowed in Leviathan. Because of Leviathan, people who pick up ME3 today will be far less likely to devolve into a non-sensible rage about the ending and condemn the whole game because of it, they'd just say "Enh, I wouldn't have done it this way" and move on. And honestly, everything that comes before it is so good I can't really bring the whole game down because it had a Gainax Ending. Infact, as people have said, if you cut out the convo with the Catalyst, the game works just fine if you skip to the destroy ending. So really, the ending almost works, sort of, it's just that one-off conversation with the Catalyst that throws everything off. I'm not going to hate the game and never play it again because of that.

Your argument is decent and actually tries to defend the game instead of attacking a person...
Well until..
"devolve into non-sensible rage..." it goes on from there...
Nonsensible is not actually a word (you probably meant Nonsensical), which is irrelevant , I would assume you would mean foolish, stupid, lacking intelligent meaning, essentially the antithesis of sensible.

Is no one able to defend this bloody game with an argument that goes beyond simple "nerd rage" or "haters' or god forbid "entitled"...
How many more insane labels we need to create to put eachother down.

[Legion of 1337]

spirosz wrote...

Too be honest Legion, it is the worst in the trilogy for me because it just leaves me with a feeling of disconnect and I'm strictly speaking from the vanilla experience. My Shepard didn't feel the same, the character creator left him looking nothing like in ME/ME2, the auto-dialogue killed the replayability for me and the whole treatment of the squad I preferred, it just didn't work for me. The atmosphere was well done, I always point that out, but I just didn't care for that squad selection in ME3.

Overall, the package was a good game, just not what I personally wanted out of it, but I'll still point out the positives that worked for me, like the score for example.

I'm guessing you're one of those people who had their favourite ME2 characters thrown under the bus?

Also autodialogue is just ME3's replacement for the dialogue options in ME1 where picking one of what appeared to eb three choices actually gave you the same dialogue no matter what you picked, and in ME2 where three different things were said but the other character responded the same way no matter what making the response pointless. ME3 is just up front about saying "yeah, we weren't going to let you pick these liens anyway".

Modifié par Legion of 1337, 03 juin 2013 - 01:24 .

[Iakus]

crimzontearz wrote...

Good game? Sure

Good ending? Nope

Good handling of the backlash? Nope

We will see what they do with ME4 but my first question to Bioware will be "why should I invest in your game again? Who is to say you are not gearing up to force feed me your art and kick me in the quad at the end because Mac thinks it would be awesome and uplifting?"

Yup.

Mamking the player thing they did something wrong in completing the game is not how you retain an audience.

[Legion of 1337]

FlamingBoy wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

ME3 is actually the only game in the series I consistently replay without skipping sections of the game I don't like (except the end, it's hard to skip the end). I can attribute this to a number of reasons, and in fact it makes ME3 kind of the "complete package" that makes it, I think, as good as any of the other games. I think anyone who tries to argue ME3 is the worst game in the trilogy is still just pissed about the ending and isn't looking at things objectively.

Now, by the standards of TPSs, ME3 is mediocre but the difference that still makes it fun is Shepard himself. It's not just a "pop up from cover and shoot a guy" kind of game, you're like Superman with a bunch of badass powers. Biotic Charge + Nova combos, Invisible assassinations, lift grenades, biotic/tech combos, it's just fun the various ways you can kill things. That's why, to everyone's surprise, people liked the obviously tacked-on multiplayer. It makes ME3 far more enjoyable from a gameplay standpoint than the previous two.

Aside form that, the character interaction (the main reason anyone plays these games) is at least as good as if not better than ME2 because it wasn't just "go to room, have a chat, leave" and never interact anywhere else or do anything else outside of combat. Conversations and situations with characters feel more natural and organic than in ME1 and 2 where it was this robotic "oh, I did a plot mission, better go around to each room the characters apparently never leave and check for a new convo option". And the dialogue was still well written.

And of course the plot was better than ME2s because a) it actually mattered; was coherent; and c) wasn't full of holes (until the end). I admit some plot points are contrivances (like Legion's death, the Crucible, Thessia, etc) and some things were not explained as well as they should have been even though clearly there was a reason for them (Legion's death, the Citadel Coup, Cerberus on Sur'Kesh), but overall it was a well-structured plotline. ME2 was propped up solely on character interaction, whereas ME3 has a solid plot as backup.

And the ending? Yeah, it's stupid. But at least it's foreshadowed in Leviathan. Because of Leviathan, people who pick up ME3 today will be far less likely to devolve into a non-sensible rage about the ending and condemn the whole game because of it, they'd just say "Enh, I wouldn't have done it this way" and move on. And honestly, everything that comes before it is so good I can't really bring the whole game down because it had a Gainax Ending. Infact, as people have said, if you cut out the convo with the Catalyst, the game works just fine if you skip to the destroy ending. So really, the ending almost works, sort of, it's just that one-off conversation with the Catalyst that throws everything off. I'm not going to hate the game and never play it again because of that.

Your argument is decent and actually tries to defend the game instead of attacking a person...
Well until..
"devolve into non-sensible rage..." it goes on from there...
Nonsensible is not actually a word (you probably meant Nonsensical), which is irrelevant , I would assume you would mean foolish, stupid, lacking intelligent meaning, essentially the antithesis of sensible.

Is no one able to defend this bloody game with an argument that goes beyond simple "nerd rage" or "haters' or god forbid "entitled"...
How many more insane labels we need to create to put eachother down.

First, I always though the word nonsensical made no sense since the opposite word is "sensible" not "sensical".

Second, no no no, you misunderstand: I know WHY they hate the ending, I understand that, but that doesn't make it a rational reaction, nor does it make their condemnation of the whole game in any way an objective or all too valid analysis of the game. If you remember the rage after the game first came out (and those are the people I refer to), those people were off their-rockers-mad and couldn't make an objective review of the game if they  tried.
Almost everyone still on this forum at least are only the die-hard fanbase that didn't rage quit the whole thing, and they have legitimate criticisms and reason for why they hate the ending or th egame or whatever. The ragers have all left.

[FlamingBoy]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

ME3 is actually the only game in the series I consistently replay without skipping sections of the game I don't like (except the end, it's hard to skip the end). I can attribute this to a number of reasons, and in fact it makes ME3 kind of the "complete package" that makes it, I think, as good as any of the other games. I think anyone who tries to argue ME3 is the worst game in the trilogy is still just pissed about the ending and isn't looking at things objectively.

Now, by the standards of TPSs, ME3 is mediocre but the difference that still makes it fun is Shepard himself. It's not just a "pop up from cover and shoot a guy" kind of game, you're like Superman with a bunch of badass powers. Biotic Charge + Nova combos, Invisible assassinations, lift grenades, biotic/tech combos, it's just fun the various ways you can kill things. That's why, to everyone's surprise, people liked the obviously tacked-on multiplayer. It makes ME3 far more enjoyable from a gameplay standpoint than the previous two.

Aside form that, the character interaction (the main reason anyone plays these games) is at least as good as if not better than ME2 because it wasn't just "go to room, have a chat, leave" and never interact anywhere else or do anything else outside of combat. Conversations and situations with characters feel more natural and organic than in ME1 and 2 where it was this robotic "oh, I did a plot mission, better go around to each room the characters apparently never leave and check for a new convo option". And the dialogue was still well written.

And of course the plot was better than ME2s because a) it actually mattered; was coherent; and c) wasn't full of holes (until the end). I admit some plot points are contrivances (like Legion's death, the Crucible, Thessia, etc) and some things were not explained as well as they should have been even though clearly there was a reason for them (Legion's death, the Citadel Coup, Cerberus on Sur'Kesh), but overall it was a well-structured plotline. ME2 was propped up solely on character interaction, whereas ME3 has a solid plot as backup.

And the ending? Yeah, it's stupid. But at least it's foreshadowed in Leviathan. Because of Leviathan, people who pick up ME3 today will be far less likely to devolve into a non-sensible rage about the ending and condemn the whole game because of it, they'd just say "Enh, I wouldn't have done it this way" and move on. And honestly, everything that comes before it is so good I can't really bring the whole game down because it had a Gainax Ending. Infact, as people have said, if you cut out the convo with the Catalyst, the game works just fine if you skip to the destroy ending. So really, the ending almost works, sort of, it's just that one-off conversation with the Catalyst that throws everything off. I'm not going to hate the game and never play it again because of that.

Your argument is decent and actually tries to defend the game instead of attacking a person...
Well until..
"devolve into non-sensible rage..." it goes on from there...
Nonsensible is not actually a word (you probably meant Nonsensical), which is irrelevant , I would assume you would mean foolish, stupid, lacking intelligent meaning, essentially the antithesis of sensible.

Is no one able to defend this bloody game with an argument that goes beyond simple "nerd rage" or "haters' or god forbid "entitled"...
How many more insane labels we need to create to put eachother down.

First, I always though the word nonsensical made no sense since the opposite word is "sensible" not "sensical".

Second, no no no, you misunderstand: I know WHY they hate the ending, I understand that, but that doesn't make it a rational reaction, nor does it make their condemnation of the whole game in any way an objective or all too valid analysis of the game. If you remember the rage after the game first came out (and those are the people I refer to), those people were off their-rockers-mad and couldn't make an objective review of the game if they  tried.
Almost everyone still on this forum at least are only the die-hard fanbase that didn't rage quit the whole thing, and they have legitimate criticisms and reason for why they hate the ending or th egame or whatever. The ragers have all left.

I apologize, I wrote badly as if I was attacking you, this was not my intention. First I apologize for correcting your writing, I did for the purpose so I could define what your word meant, It was purely to define my response, I did not think of the implications of such an action.

As for the secound part, your using words like "rational", "rage", "off their-rockers-mad", "couldn't make an objective review". One needs to be careful in using these words to describe other individuals, its used to often on this thread alone, as you can see there are some individuals who believe that my understanding of the game is simply as a result of "not getting it" essentially the obvious implication is that I am a fool and people like myself are fools. Perhaps I am perhaps I am not, but its not how a debate works they go straight for the character of the individual regardless of the consequences.

[GreyLycanTrope]

txgoldrush wrote...
No, you just didn't get it....and many of the main flaws in ME3 have been addressed.

Did I miss a patch or something?

[Redbelle]

Personally, I can see the logic in some of the arguments of the pro enders. But the one I tend to talk about is a simple one.

When BW make a game they, naturally, cannot make everyone happy. But they can, at the very least, avoid splitting the fan community into factions with their content to the degree that the endings have done.

From this I point to the Citadel DLC and say that many of the anti enders used their anti ending stance to constructively suggest ways of improving the game in a variety of ways. I know I was among those who suggested a Vega pull up stand off and more mini games.

And the point is not to pat myself on the back because, I don't know if making those suggestions had them incorporated into the game. That's not the point.

The point is that fans made these suggestion's and someone at BW looked at them and thought they could be incorporated in some way. There was a 'synergy' between developer and fans that resulted in a good DLC, whereas previous DLC incorporated largely studio led game design. It's not about who did or suggesteed what. It's about the result that will be around for all time. After all, Pong and Pac Man are still around for download.

The wider perspective of the fans and the studio's acceptance of their feedback gave ME3 an enhanced sense of scale. It may be a break in the narrative of the war. But what people cannot escape is that ME3 is a game. It is supposed to entertain. And while playing in the arena might seem like a inappropriate waste of time when Reapers are attacking, so was playing Bltizball in FFX when the final boss was waiting down the hall.

Games are experiences led by the player. And if the player want's to take a step back from the intensity of the main narrative, a Citadel arena or arcade seems like jus the thing for the player to regain their gaming mojo.

Casey may be right in saying that sometimes a game shouldn't be to video gamey when you are trying to tell a story. But forcing Shep through events also forces the player through event's. And some players need downtime without breaking from the game. Heck. Tetra Master is still a time sink on the PS1 FF games.

Studio's need fans and vice versa. But they need to listen to one another. The anti enders seem more vocal in their critisism. And I would hold that it was this faction that gave BW the most feedback and suggestion's given that in order to say something is bad, they have to understand what went wrong, so they can suggest how to make it more right.

Modifié par Redbelle, 03 juin 2013 - 02:35 .