407 réponses à ce sujet

[Argentoid]

dreamgazer wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

LoU and Infinite where able to get the players talking without having a ending that was bs. Just saying Casey.

Depends on who you talk to about Infinite.

Infinite is awfully written, but that's another story. 

[Wolfva2]

shingara wrote...

The ending wasnt polorizing, it peeved off alot of peeps but far from polarizing. The ending can only be a dream from the point you get knocked out by harbringer. Its obvious destroy is the only ending. Not all synthetics are destroyed, EDI for example doesnt show up on the ones you have lost at the end. She shows up right after the choice with the ones you love or have great feelings for but not in the roll of the people lost along the way like thane and legion.

Not to mention shep wakes up on the ground after, and that synthetic includes something as powerful as a coffee machine with a computer inside to be an alarm clock and to start boiling the water in the moring for you. All the ships work, the quarians are still alive even though there suits run on VI's and kasumi is alive.

So full of holes its like bluepeter put out a comp to see who could have the best ending and simon age 7 from over there won it and they decided to put him into the game just because they were bored.

1) Look up the definition of 'polarizing'.  I do not think that word means what you think it means.

2) The Epilogues prove your IT theory to be completely wrong.  Since the epilogue is for the PLAYERS edification, and not SHEPARDS, it tells you exactly what DOES happen.  If you pick synth or control, Shepard becomes one with the reapers or controls them. 

[shingara]

Wolfva2 wrote...

shingara wrote...

The ending wasnt polorizing, it peeved off alot of peeps but far from polarizing. The ending can only be a dream from the point you get knocked out by harbringer. Its obvious destroy is the only ending. Not all synthetics are destroyed, EDI for example doesnt show up on the ones you have lost at the end. She shows up right after the choice with the ones you love or have great feelings for but not in the roll of the people lost along the way like thane and legion.

Not to mention shep wakes up on the ground after, and that synthetic includes something as powerful as a coffee machine with a computer inside to be an alarm clock and to start boiling the water in the moring for you. All the ships work, the quarians are still alive even though there suits run on VI's and kasumi is alive.

So full of holes its like bluepeter put out a comp to see who could have the best ending and simon age 7 from over there won it and they decided to put him into the game just because they were bored.

1) Look up the definition of 'polarizing'.  I do not think that word means what you think it means.

2) The Epilogues prove your IT theory to be completely wrong.  Since the epilogue is for the PLAYERS edification, and not SHEPARDS, it tells you exactly what DOES happen.  If you pick synth or control, Shepard becomes one with the reapers or controls them. 

 1, polarizing is the wrong word as it didnt cause people to polarize over it, infact it made alot of people theorize over it but not to polarize over it.

2, What i said had nothing todo indoctrination. Its proven throughout all the games shepard is not and never has been indoctrinated. The prothean VI's who can sense indoctrinated people states the fact they arnt. If you watch the cutscenes you shall see that its anderson who destroys, its TIM who controls.

 That wafty black smoke on the citidel ye that looks real, Shep being shot in the exact same part of the body as Anderson, thats fluky wondnt you say. Everything that runs on computers and the mass effect engines still working shows not all things related to the reapers of synthetics are dead and destroyed. Kasumi goto is prime evidence of this.

 Its stated throughout the whole trilogy that the reapers are organic/synthetic machines run by Nanides. That is what was destroyed. Not computers, not synthetics and not anyone with implants.

 How you came up with what i said has todo with indoctrination i do not know but feel free to tell me how a dream scene and indoctrination have anything todo with each other.

 Edit, infact i would say honestly the ending was a lack of direction or arguments within Bioware of how the trilogy should end and as as no one had the idea or strength to complete it for us they simply bottled it and gave us no ending at all.

Modifié par shingara, 05 août 2013 - 05:00 .

[3DandBeyond]

StreetMagic wrote...

Reminds me of a kid who wipes out on his bike and gets up... "I meant to do that."

Yeah.  For so many reasons the whole truth of all that happened will never be known.  It's likely that BW was throwing around ideas, had no ending really fully planned, released the original cut, waited for fan debate, and then looked to see what fans might accept and did the bare minimum for the EC. 

Facts remain that they always said some things, promised a lot, delivered little if any of what was promised and had no way to dig themselves out of it because no one could get EA to go along.  The idea of MP tied to SP is straight out of an EA playbook and even in that BW could not get it straight and kept insisting it was not needed until they had to admit it was but only by changing it.

Fundamentally why I keep pushing the issue, though I've been away for awhile is because EA and BW both got us to fight each other over this.  Even those who sort of like or can live with the endings really have to take a look at all that happened and clearly see that our in-fighting worked to their favor and not ours.  Look at the direction of gaming and then see if we aren't poor consumers who really willingly throw our money at gaming companies.  And, then when we get less than we're set to expect do we really act like our money matters?  This for me has been a big part of what this is all about - when do consumers/customers of a gaming company have the right to complain and what is the most they should expect from that complaining?

A lot of devs want pre-puberty males whose parents use games as baby sitters to be their fans and that's because they won't return bad games.  They'll ask their parents for another.

Sure I do believe BW wanted fans to get talking-just as they always have, they wanted fans to help give them ideas.  But it's really doubtful they wanted this kind of debate about it where quite often it dropped down to which was the worst part of the ending and just what garbage meaning could you imagine from it that you hate?  When they saw just how poorly received it was, they helped foment hostility between fans.  Instead of creating a truly quality ending to a mostly great story and ideas, they created a minimalist ending, asked for speculation, didn't like the direction of the speculation, and enjoyed the fan on fan anger.  How much easier would it have been had they merely released ME3 as ME3, Part 1 and then used more time to create a Part 2?

[David7204]

Calling the Extended Cut the 'bare minimum' is stupid. The 'bare minimum' would have been doing nothing at all.

Calling the ending 'minimalist' is stupid. ME 3 with the Extended Cut has a longer ending than 99% of games in existence. Nearly all games end within two minutes of fighting the final boss or whatever.

Nor can they just decide to cut ME 3 into two parts. It's isn't anywhere even remotely close to that simple.

Nor is this an issue about money. At least for anyone spending time posting here.

Modifié par David7204, 05 août 2013 - 05:50 .

[3DandBeyond]

shingara wrote...



 1, polarizing is the wrong word as it didnt cause people to polarize over it, infact it made alot of people theorize over it but not to polarize over it.

2, What i said had nothing todo indoctrination. Its proven throughout all the games shepard is not and never has been indoctrinated. The prothean VI's who can sense indoctrinated people states the fact they arnt. If you watch the cutscenes you shall see that its anderson who destroys, its TIM who controls.

 That wafty black smoke on the citidel ye that looks real, Shep being shot in the exact same part of the body as Anderson, thats fluky wondnt you say. Everything that runs on computers and the mass effect engines still working shows not all things related to the reapers of synthetics are dead and destroyed. Kasumi goto is prime evidence of this.

 Its stated throughout the whole trilogy that the reapers are organic/synthetic machines run by Nanides. That is what was destroyed. Not computers, not synthetics and not anyone with implants.

 How you came up with what i said has todo with indoctrination i do not know but feel free to tell me how a dream scene and indoctrination have anything todo with each other.

 Edit, infact i would say honestly the ending was a lack of direction or arguments within Bioware of how the trilogy should end and as as no one had the idea or strength to complete it for us they simply bottled it and gave us no ending at all.

Well, yes it was polarizing in that some people, who knows how many but some, did defend the original endings and did like them.  The situation got out of hand and was furthered by all the extraneous stuff that came to play but the endings themselves were polarizing.  Or there never would be one camp calling others whiners, haters, entitled, and so on and the other camp doing their own level best at times to be as obnoxious as possible-generalities because this in no way describes everyone but some of the big mouths that took over this site.

Whatever you say about IT and how it can't happen can always be dismissed if a writer chooses to write it.  I'm not a big IT adherent but I will always defend their right to apply it given what the game showed.  In fact, it seems people assign IT to head canon and tell people that didn't like the endings to head canon something they do like, but then don't think they should be allowed to head canon IT.  Yes, that makes sense.  There are now rules as to what is allowed to be imagined.  Just so we get that straight.

In your example the Prothean VI says no indoctrinated are nearby.  Ok sure.  However, if appropriately written that could be explained away.  I know it wasn't but simply saying that's proof does not make it so.  A dream or brainwashing or hallucinations could mean that whole incident never happened.  Had they written it that way.  The point is that nothing in the game until a final stamp was put on it to say "it's over" ever debunked indoctrination.  Everything shown in it could be explained away with appropriate writing.

The cutscene shows Anderson Destroying and TIM controlling, but Destroy is the red/renegade choice and control is the blue/paragon.  The implication you are making is that Destroy is the "right" choice but don't tell that to someone who thinks Control or Synthesis is.  It's the idea that Control is still the indoctrinated choice but someone could make the case that this whole thing is a double fake like in the wine poisoning scene in the Princess Bride.  So what you think is right may be wrong because you're shown it's seemingly right in order to get you to pick it but it's the bad choice or is it?

I defy you to go through the Destroy ending and make any sense of what the kid says will happen and what it means.  It is not possible.  He says all tech will be damaged.  Understand that implants are tech-all tech is synthetic, not all synthetics are tech.  I think if you have a pacemaker and understand destroy will damage all tech, you will be screwed.  And people in ME are way more dependent upon tech (in ME2 Jacob alludes to this when asking Shepard about upgrades).  The kid says the crucible will target all synthetics-he does not specify synthetic life.  He further says even Shepard is part synthetic.  Again tech is synthetic but not all synthetics are tech.  So if you go by the reapers as part organic and part synthetic well anyone with an implant is too.  So is Shepard.  Nowhere does he specify nanites or any such thing.  And nowhere in the game does anyone say the reapers are made of nanites-they actually are made up of people goo.  That goo is then somehow processed perhaps it's rendered down to its base elements, in order to be used to make reapers.  Now it can be assumed that there are nanites at work within the reaper variants and all that, but still even in the story of the Collectors they are indoctrinated-Mordin says they're all tech but doesn't say nanites.

All synthetics will be targeted-for what purpose, just to have a look see?  The implication is targeted and shot at.  No, he does not say this.  But EDI is dead.  No slides of the geth appear in this version.  The implication is pretty clear.  Ok then the kid says something like there will be losses but no more than have already occurred.  Huh?  EDI dies. I think that's more than already occurred.  And when those dying reapers hit the ground they land on something.  Ok and just why would it matter that Shepard was targeted too?  The whole thing smells like last week's fish and Shepard goes, "yup, sounds good to me.  How close do I have to get to the blast so my gun can shoot a target as big as a car?"

[Argetfalcon]

Well Casey you got what you wanted 17 months later and people are still talking about how much the ending sucks. And how much you suck for letting it happened

[Wolfva2]

shingara wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

shingara wrote...

The ending wasnt polorizing, it peeved off alot of peeps but far from polarizing. The ending can only be a dream from the point you get knocked out by harbringer. Its obvious destroy is the only ending. Not all synthetics are destroyed, EDI for example doesnt show up on the ones you have lost at the end. She shows up right after the choice with the ones you love or have great feelings for but not in the roll of the people lost along the way like thane and legion.

Not to mention shep wakes up on the ground after, and that synthetic includes something as powerful as a coffee machine with a computer inside to be an alarm clock and to start boiling the water in the moring for you. All the ships work, the quarians are still alive even though there suits run on VI's and kasumi is alive.

So full of holes its like bluepeter put out a comp to see who could have the best ending and simon age 7 from over there won it and they decided to put him into the game just because they were bored.

1) Look up the definition of 'polarizing'.  I do not think that word means what you think it means.

2) The Epilogues prove your IT theory to be completely wrong.  Since the epilogue is for the PLAYERS edification, and not SHEPARDS, it tells you exactly what DOES happen.  If you pick synth or control, Shepard becomes one with the reapers or controls them. 

 1, polarizing is the wrong word as it didnt cause people to polarize over it, infact it made alot of people theorize over it but not to polarize over it.

2, What i said had nothing todo indoctrination. Its proven throughout all the games shepard is not and never has been indoctrinated. The prothean VI's who can sense indoctrinated people states the fact they arnt. If you watch the cutscenes you shall see that its anderson who destroys, its TIM who controls.

 That wafty black smoke on the citidel ye that looks real, Shep being shot in the exact same part of the body as Anderson, thats fluky wondnt you say. Everything that runs on computers and the mass effect engines still working shows not all things related to the reapers of synthetics are dead and destroyed. Kasumi goto is prime evidence of this.

 Its stated throughout the whole trilogy that the reapers are organic/synthetic machines run by Nanides. That is what was destroyed. Not computers, not synthetics and not anyone with implants.

 How you came up with what i said has todo with indoctrination i do not know but feel free to tell me how a dream scene and indoctrination have anything todo with each other.

 Edit, infact i would say honestly the ending was a lack of direction or arguments within Bioware of how the trilogy should end and as as no one had the idea or strength to complete it for us they simply bottled it and gave us no ending at all.

Lessee.  Shepard dreamed the whole thing, or  Shepard was brainwashed into thinking it was real.  Well, I really don't see the difference between the two.  Especially since many IT theorists seem to believe that IT IS a dream state.  How they came to that conclusion, I dunno.  But logic doesn't seem to be a strong point with them.  

In any case, none of that matters.  The point being, the epilogues show that it ISN'T a dream sequence.  The Starbrat isn't really Anderson's Autistic kid shaking a Normandy snowglobe and making the whole story up.  Shepard isn't indoctrinated, nor is he dreaming.  The epilogues tell US...the PLAYERS...what happened after your Shep makes his decision.

Edited to add....It IS a polarizing issue.  Considering how much fighting has gone on in this forum with people taking sides, it's the text book definition of polarising.  Polarising comes from the world Polar, meaning 'going towards the Poles', or opposite ends of an argument in this case.  Many people went pro, many went anti.  Text book definition.

Modifié par Wolfva2, 05 août 2013 - 06:06 .

[3DandBeyond]

David7204 wrote...

Calling the Extended Cut the 'bare minimum' is stupid. The 'bare minimum' would have been doing nothing at all.

Calling the ending 'minimalist' is stupid. ME 3 with the Extended Cut has a longer ending than 99% of games in existence. Nearly all games end within two minutes of fighting the final boss or whatever.

Nor can they just decide to cut ME 3 into two parts. It's isn't anywhere even remotely close to that simple.

Nor is this an issue about money. At least for anyone spending time posting here.

Wow aren't you precious.  The original endings were minimalist and have often been described by many as such and like falling off a cliff.  Greater minds than mine have said there was no exposition in them and as to the EC great writers, writing analysts, writing students, writing teachers, paid writers-authors and paid writing reviewers have stated it in no way was enough (that's putting it mildly based on what they've said).  Functionally, it had no resolution so you're right it wasn't the bare minimum-it wasn't even any kind of minimum which at least would have had that.

I have no idea what the rest of your post even means.  Since you just want to argue and have made that patently obvious you are not even attempting to make sense anymore.  Of course they could have cut it into two parts and instead of giving us stupid (see I can use that word but as yet have not applied it to you) fetch quests we could have had real missions.  And they could have taken more time to truly flesh out some great endings.

You have no idea if this was about money or not but it's very likely it was.  Every game has a lot of decisions about  it made due to financial concerns.  It's a huge part of it.  ME3 already had been delayed.  EA and all big companies like games delivered on schedule and EA did use ME3 as a springboard to announce their love of Day One DLC, Microtransactions, and that from now on every game they release will have MP.  They have even tried before with games to make players be online at all times even for SP games.  In fact, one big problem that cropped up in ME3 for people had to do with not being able to play the DLC for the single player game unless they were online. 

I'd think you'd have better things to do other than to chase around my posts and continually insult me because we disagreed in another thread, but whatever. 

[shingara]

Well first up, trolls will be trolls and bsn is full of them, there are specific people here who wiull say anything to get a rise out of others. The fact that the writing in this game is so bad isnt even funny. The child makes no sense at all to anyone and who ever thought that up should be fired. A geth does show up on the people who are dead, he is called legion. As for the fact of edi its a case that edi/eva are one and the same yet the normandy is also edi. So if evas body goes splat edi is still alive and kicking, edi is a collection of programs only of which her cyberwarfare programs are infact reaper tech.

On that note all tech beyond the geth prior to the reaper code are reaper tech based upon the mass relays which are infact reaper tech. The whole of the end of this game is a massive joke and what got EA voted the worst company in the world the 1st time around. The first ever option was destroy and its like they copy pasted whilst panicing because they realised the ending was stupid. Also the fact that the player made ending mehem is better put together then the endings bioware have given us.


The child and the ending were both a mistake. If they went back into ME3 and removed the child and gave us a real ending where we fight a boss and it goes thanks for playing then ME3 would be 100 times better becuase the child, those dreams with the child and the messed up endings do nothing for the trilogy but disrupt it.

And it says alll synthetics will be target, even you as you are part synthetic, Thats false simply on the fact kasumi survives. Bad writing, bad direction and no leadership on mass effect 3 and that is all at the feet of casey. It doesnt matter what he spews out now to try and dig himself out of it. They made a mess of a perfectly great Trilogy and not only that they have scewed what should be the next trilogy based within the mass effect universe simply because right now nothing they do will please people as everyone is still wanting a solid cannon edning to this trilogy.

[David7204]

That is moronic.

Mass Effect 3 is full of 'real missions.' You're acting as if all side missions were somehow scrapped in favor of fetch missions. Did you somehow forget about looking around for rocks on cookie-cutter planets in ME 1? Or the planet scanning in ME 2? No. The side missions in ME 3 are generally well done enough that they aren't even considered side missions at all. Hence your ridiculous accusation.

Secondly, no, you really cannot just split a game in half and have everything be peaches and cream. If nothing else, then for the very obvious reason that ME 4 or whatever wouldn't be out until the next generation of consoles is released. Which means it's either not going to hold up graphically, or there's going to be all sorts of import issues and other nonsense.

Thirdly, your clumsy insuinuations that EA ripped you off do nothing but undermine your own argument. Yes, money is obviously also a factor for developers. But it's not much of a factor for you in regards for Mass Effect. I know exactly why you and countless others on the BSN bring it up, and I'm very unimpressed by the dishonesty.

Modifié par David7204, 05 août 2013 - 06:19 .

[3DandBeyond]

Wolfva2 wrote...

Lessee.  Shepard dreamed the whole thing, or  Shepard was brainwashed into thinking it was real.  Well, I really don't see the difference between the two.  Especially since many IT theorists seem to believe that IT IS a dream state.  How they came to that conclusion, I dunno.  But logic doesn't seem to be a strong point with them.  

In any case, none of that matters.  The point being, the epilogues show that it ISN'T a dream sequence.  The Starbrat isn't really Anderson's Autistic kid shaking a Normandy snowglobe and making the whole story up.  Shepard isn't indoctrinated, nor is he dreaming.  The epilogues tell US...the PLAYERS...what happened after your Shep makes his decision.

I think you're interpreting what has been said by some a bit wrong.  Some theorize that the whole thing could be a dream but not necessarily an indoctrination induced one.  And please don't even try to assume logic has any meaning if you accept the endings at face value.  Logic is not their strong suit.

And again the endings could all have been part of a drug induced coma for all we know had the story been written that way.  The epilogs tell us garbage.  They show some things meant to make unhappy fans feel better about the sadly demented ending choices.  And that's because of the dark and demented original endings that should have shown a totally annihilated galaxy because of all the things BW said inside the game and outside the game.  Fans were aghast over a galaxy that should have featured stranded fleets (near Earth) and people starving (if still alive after the relays explode).  They found it stupid and depressing.  So someone said let's do shadow puppets, er I mean slide shows. That'll show them that everything is bunnies and rainbows.  It's far from authentic, lacks any sort of true feeling of consequences, or anything "real".

And again, if I say I don't like the endings people tell me that's what head canon is for, so I'm told to imagine what I'd like.  ITers are told to shove it, stop imagining things and straighten up.  And BW did at one point intend that the story feature a prominent indoctrination story line.  So sue them for finding some very odd things in the game (go over James' dialogue a few times and see the inconsistencies) and wondering what it all meant.  And as for James, all you have to do is look at his dialogue with Shepard on the Citadel when they first get there and they talk near the embassies and then back on the Normandy afterward.  Go through the game and you make sense of all the odd crap BW put in it.  Then go back and look at the number of times Shepard has been really close to reaper stuff.  The Arrival.  And then tell me people don't have some reason to think indoctrination is possible.  Even so, sure once BW ended it all they finally decided to slap ITers in the face and tell them to shut up.  Prior to that BW thought it was cute to act as if IT was possible and kept telling them it was.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 05 août 2013 - 06:17 .

[3DandBeyond]

David7204 wrote...

That is moronic.

Mass Effect 3 is full of 'real missions.' You're acting as if all side missions were somehow scrapped in favor of fetch missions. Did you somehow forget about looking around for rocks on cookie-cutter planets in ME 1? Or the planet scanning in ME 2? No. The side missions in ME 3 are generally well done enough that they aren't even considered side missions at all. Hence your ridiculous accusation.

Secondly, no, you really cannot just split a game in half and have everything be peaches and cream. If nothing else, then for the very obvious reason that ME 4 or whatever wouldn't be out until the next generation of consoles is released. Which means it's either not going to hold up graphically, or there's going to be all sorts of import issues and other nonsense.

Huh.  ME4 isn't going to be out until the next gen consoles are out and they've very likely been designing it with the new capabilities in mind-they may even have prototypes at some point to do testing on for all we know.   And what kind of import issues are you talking about?  You do know that you won't be using your  ME3 save game for any new ME game right?  They may decide to release a version of whatever new game they make for the current gen consoles but I doubt they will ignore the next gen since Destiny and a slew of other games are set to release on the next gens, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

And I never said they should just arbitrarily have split it in two-in fact many many people have suggested ways they could have done it. 

No I didn't forget the Mako missions of ME1-a lot of people liked them and they were far more extensive than reaper chases that look like 1980's arcade games used to find whole fleets and used as substitutes for even some type of real mission.  And compared to those fetch quests ME1 and 2's missions seem like DLC content rather than sidequests.

I've made no accusations but boy do you have issues.  Words like stupid and moronic are really endearing.  I really have no idea what your problem is but you need a break.

[shingara]

Wolfva2 wrote...

shingara wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

shingara wrote...

The ending wasnt polorizing, it peeved off alot of peeps but far from polarizing. The ending can only be a dream from the point you get knocked out by harbringer. Its obvious destroy is the only ending. Not all synthetics are destroyed, EDI for example doesnt show up on the ones you have lost at the end. She shows up right after the choice with the ones you love or have great feelings for but not in the roll of the people lost along the way like thane and legion.

Not to mention shep wakes up on the ground after, and that synthetic includes something as powerful as a coffee machine with a computer inside to be an alarm clock and to start boiling the water in the moring for you. All the ships work, the quarians are still alive even though there suits run on VI's and kasumi is alive.

So full of holes its like bluepeter put out a comp to see who could have the best ending and simon age 7 from over there won it and they decided to put him into the game just because they were bored.

1) Look up the definition of 'polarizing'.  I do not think that word means what you think it means.

2) The Epilogues prove your IT theory to be completely wrong.  Since the epilogue is for the PLAYERS edification, and not SHEPARDS, it tells you exactly what DOES happen.  If you pick synth or control, Shepard becomes one with the reapers or controls them. 

 1, polarizing is the wrong word as it didnt cause people to polarize over it, infact it made alot of people theorize over it but not to polarize over it.

2, What i said had nothing todo indoctrination. Its proven throughout all the games shepard is not and never has been indoctrinated. The prothean VI's who can sense indoctrinated people states the fact they arnt. If you watch the cutscenes you shall see that its anderson who destroys, its TIM who controls.

 That wafty black smoke on the citidel ye that looks real, Shep being shot in the exact same part of the body as Anderson, thats fluky wondnt you say. Everything that runs on computers and the mass effect engines still working shows not all things related to the reapers of synthetics are dead and destroyed. Kasumi goto is prime evidence of this.

 Its stated throughout the whole trilogy that the reapers are organic/synthetic machines run by Nanides. That is what was destroyed. Not computers, not synthetics and not anyone with implants.

 How you came up with what i said has todo with indoctrination i do not know but feel free to tell me how a dream scene and indoctrination have anything todo with each other.

 Edit, infact i would say honestly the ending was a lack of direction or arguments within Bioware of how the trilogy should end and as as no one had the idea or strength to complete it for us they simply bottled it and gave us no ending at all.

Lessee.  Shepard dreamed the whole thing, or  Shepard was brainwashed into thinking it was real.  Well, I really don't see the difference between the two.  Especially since many IT theorists seem to believe that IT IS a dream state.  How they came to that conclusion, I dunno.  But logic doesn't seem to be a strong point with them.  

In any case, none of that matters.  The point being, the epilogues show that it ISN'T a dream sequence.  The Starbrat isn't really Anderson's Autistic kid shaking a Normandy snowglobe and making the whole story up.  Shepard isn't indoctrinated, nor is he dreaming.  The epilogues tell US...the PLAYERS...what happened after your Shep makes his decision.

Edited to add....It IS a polarizing issue.  Considering how much fighting has gone on in this forum with people taking sides, it's the text book definition of polarising.  Polarising comes from the world Polar, meaning 'going towards the Poles', or opposite ends of an argument in this case.  Many people went pro, many went anti.  Text book definition.

  Your a funny man, the only person between us who are talking about IT is you. Bioware were to scared to kill shepard but also to scared to let them live as people would want another game involving them. They probably already set out to create another trilogy before ME3 was finished. Its a well known fact that within the ME2 writers the next stage was kill the reapers and engulf the universe within a dark energy problem which is what the reapers were trying to stop to bounce them onto the next trilogy.

  And the only polarzing is between who thought bioware did a good job and who thought they did a bad job. Because beyond the theorizing of what ifs there is no ending, polazring would revolve around facts which dont exists. The endings have caused adhorance and not much more.


This isnt a religion where they are following something upon a faith standing and its not science revolution. There is no canon of what happened within me3. Nothing to stick a pin in and go we go there from that.  And whilst i may not agree with others im not polarised in my opinions nor is anyone else simply for the fact there are no facts to base those opinions on. I could be right, they could be right. it could be like dallas and ME3 never happened.

 

Modifié par shingara, 05 août 2013 - 07:20 .

[GreatBlueHeron]

Working on a ME3 playthrough with all dlc and ec installed. Love the trilogy. Hate the endings.

The endings would be palatable if "artistic mystery" had been used elsewhere in the series. Changing style for the last 15 minutes was jarring---it simply doesn't gel with the rest of the storytelling. And astronaunt or not, the stargazer scene has got to go. We already know ME is a made up story, so why make a huge story (the entire trilogy) within an incredibly short and incomplete story (stargazer)? That crapped on immersion....and yeah, it's at the end, but I came away feeling like I'd heard grandpa's whopper of a tale rather than experienced a fantasy epic.

Modifié par GreatBlueHeron, 05 août 2013 - 07:35 .

[Wolfva2]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

Lessee.  Shepard dreamed the whole thing, or  Shepard was brainwashed into thinking it was real.  Well, I really don't see the difference between the two.  Especially since many IT theorists seem to believe that IT IS a dream state.  How they came to that conclusion, I dunno.  But logic doesn't seem to be a strong point with them.  

In any case, none of that matters.  The point being, the epilogues show that it ISN'T a dream sequence.  The Starbrat isn't really Anderson's Autistic kid shaking a Normandy snowglobe and making the whole story up.  Shepard isn't indoctrinated, nor is he dreaming.  The epilogues tell US...the PLAYERS...what happened after your Shep makes his decision.

I think you're interpreting what has been said by some a bit wrong.  Some theorize that the whole thing could be a dream but not necessarily an indoctrination induced one.  And please don't even try to assume logic has any meaning if you accept the endings at face value.  Logic is not their strong suit.

And again the endings could all have been part of a drug induced coma for all we know had the story been written that way.  The epilogs tell us garbage.  They show some things meant to make unhappy fans feel better about the sadly demented ending choices.  And that's because of the dark and demented original endings that should have shown a totally annihilated galaxy because of all the things BW said inside the game and outside the game.  Fans were aghast over a galaxy that should have featured stranded fleets (near Earth) and people starving (if still alive after the relays explode).  They found it stupid and depressing.  So someone said let's do shadow puppets, er I mean slide shows. That'll show them that everything is bunnies and rainbows.  It's far from authentic, lacks any sort of true feeling of consequences, or anything "real".

And again, if I say I don't like the endings people tell me that's what head canon is for, so I'm told to imagine what I'd like.  ITers are told to shove it, stop imagining things and straighten up.  And BW did at one point intend that the story feature a prominent indoctrination story line.  So sue them for finding some very odd things in the game (go over James' dialogue a few times and see the inconsistencies) and wondering what it all meant.  And as for James, all you have to do is look at his dialogue with Shepard on the Citadel when they first get there and they talk near the embassies and then back on the Normandy afterward.  Go through the game and you make sense of all the odd crap BW put in it.  Then go back and look at the number of times Shepard has been really close to reaper stuff.  The Arrival.  And then tell me people don't have some reason to think indoctrination is possible.  Even so, sure once BW ended it all they finally decided to slap ITers in the face and tell them to shut up.  Prior to that BW thought it was cute to act as if IT was possible and kept telling them it was.

The epilogues aren't 'garbage'. they're meant to tell the gamer what happens next.  Not the characters, the gamer.  Just because YOU don't like something doesn't mean it's garbage; it simply means YOU don't like it.  If 1000 people agree with you, it means 1000 people think it's garbage.  The fact remains that there are people who DO like it.  Why you persist in insulting every person who disagrees with you by claiming they like garbage is beyond me. 

Having said that, boiled down much of your post seems to be nothing more then you worrying about what other people think.  So what?  When all is said and done, this is just a stupid little game designed for people to play and have fun.  If you enjoyed yourself, buy the next one.  If you didn't, accept that you won't enjoy every game out there and avoid the next one.  Life goes on.  And STOP worrying so much about what other people think, or say, or do.  After all, if someone likes something YOU don't, it doesn't invalidate your feelings one whit.   Don't be so defensive.

You suggested I go through the game and make sense of it.  Nope.  Not going to do it.  Why?  Because IT IS A GAME.  It's not a documentary.  It's not a history of the Universe dictating what actually happened.  It's the product of a couple of flawed people (we ALL are flawed, none of us are perfect) who put their heads together and wrote stories...and like all such compilations there will be differences; characters will be written slightly differently, things will happen that may not make sense.  It's the nature of the beast, whether it be a game, a movie, or an anthology collection of books (Thieves World comes to mind, and is a great example to use if you're conversant with it).  I see movies and play games to have fun.  I'm not about to nit pick every single possible flaw of something I enjoy JUST so I can get angry.  That's what work is for.

Honestly, some of ya'll take games WAY to seriously.

[FlamingBoy]

"its a game" argument really just does not fly. Yes not everything has to make sense. The point is none of it makes any sense.

Modifié par FlamingBoy, 05 août 2013 - 07:47 .

[Element Engine]

Wolfva2 wrote...

Honestly, some of ya'll take games WAY to seriously.

Yep.

[o Ventus]

I don't see how wanting something to be polarizing could ever be a good thing.

Why is intentionally alienating part of your fanbase a positive thing?

Modifié par o Ventus, 05 août 2013 - 07:52 .

[FlamingBoy]

o Ventus wrote...

I don't see how wanting something to be polarizing could we be a good thing.

Why is intentionally alienating part of your fanbase a positive thing?

Yeah it literally means I wanted half (or a significant portion) to be unhappy with the experience. It was a major PR blunder.

[Wolfva2]

shingara wrote...

  Your a funny man, the only person between us who are talking about IT is you. Bioware were to scared to kill shepard but also to scared to let them live as people would want another game involving them. They probably already set out to create another trilogy before ME3 was finished. Its a well known fact that within the ME2 writers the next stage was kill the reapers and engulf the universe within a dark energy problem which is what the reapers were trying to stop to bounce them onto the next trilogy.

  And the only polarzing is between who thought bioware did a good job and who thought they did a bad job. Because beyond the theorizing of what ifs there is no ending, polazring would revolve around facts which dont exists. The endings have caused adhorance and not much more.


This isnt a religion where they are following something upon a faith standing and its not science revolution. There is no canon of what happened within me3. Nothing to stick a pin in and go we go there from that.  And whilst i may not agree with others im not polarised in my opinions nor is anyone else simply for the fact there are no facts to base those opinions on. I could be right, they could be right. it could be like dallas and ME3 never happened.

 

Odd.  You take one small part of a small paragraph and claim the entire post is about it.  Whatever dude.

The writers already mentioned multiple times that the Dark Energy theme was just ONE possible scenario they were thinking of using, but decided early on not to use.  Maybe it would have been better.  Maybe it wouldn't have.  But the fact remains, THEY were the ones writing it, therefore they have EVERY right to write whatever they want. You didn't like it.  Good.  Now you know not to buy the next game and to avoid anything they put out in the future since they made something you personally don't like.


"And the only polarizing is between who thought Bioware did a good job and who thought they did a bad job." 
Why YES.  Exactly right.  So, the issue is....what exactly?  Lessee, OP said it was polarising. I said it was polarising.  You said it wasn't, but now you admit it was.  Case closed.

Just as a reminder, though.  The topic wasn't, "Shingara is POLARISED!".  So whether or not YOU were has nothing to do with the topic.  It was about Hudson's comments on wanting to, and succeeding in, polarising the base.

[TheKingg]

Really doesn't make any sense. Why would your goal ever be to make something that only around 50% of fans like? Why wouldn't your goal be to make an ending that almost everyone thought was great?

[OnlyMrChill]

David7204 wrote...

Calling the Extended Cut the 'bare minimum' is stupid. The 'bare minimum' would have been doing nothing at all.

Calling the ending 'minimalist' is stupid. ME 3 with the Extended Cut has a longer ending than 99% of games in existence. Nearly all games end within two minutes of fighting the final boss or whatever.

Nor can they just decide to cut ME 3 into two parts. It's isn't anywhere even remotely close to that simple.

Nor is this an issue about money. At least for anyone spending time posting here.

So much truth in this post.

[shingara]

Wolfva2 wrote...

shingara wrote...

  Your a funny man, the only person between us who are talking about IT is you. Bioware were to scared to kill shepard but also to scared to let them live as people would want another game involving them. They probably already set out to create another trilogy before ME3 was finished. Its a well known fact that within the ME2 writers the next stage was kill the reapers and engulf the universe within a dark energy problem which is what the reapers were trying to stop to bounce them onto the next trilogy.

  And the only polarzing is between who thought bioware did a good job and who thought they did a bad job. Because beyond the theorizing of what ifs there is no ending, polazring would revolve around facts which dont exists. The endings have caused adhorance and not much more.


This isnt a religion where they are following something upon a faith standing and its not science revolution. There is no canon of what happened within me3. Nothing to stick a pin in and go we go there from that.  And whilst i may not agree with others im not polarised in my opinions nor is anyone else simply for the fact there are no facts to base those opinions on. I could be right, they could be right. it could be like dallas and ME3 never happened.

 

Odd.  You take one small part of a small paragraph and claim the entire post is about it.  Whatever dude.

The writers already mentioned multiple times that the Dark Energy theme was just ONE possible scenario they were thinking of using, but decided early on not to use.  Maybe it would have been better.  Maybe it wouldn't have.  But the fact remains, THEY were the ones writing it, therefore they have EVERY right to write whatever they want. You didn't like it.  Good.  Now you know not to buy the next game and to avoid anything they put out in the future since they made something you personally don't like.


"And the only polarizing is between who thought Bioware did a good job and who thought they did a bad job." 
Why YES.  Exactly right.  So, the issue is....what exactly?  Lessee, OP said it was polarising. I said it was polarising.  You said it wasn't, but now you admit it was.  Case closed.

Just as a reminder, though.  The topic wasn't, "Shingara is POLARISED!".  So whether or not YOU were has nothing to do with the topic.  It was about Hudson's comments on wanting to, and succeeding in, polarising the base.

 Your whole replys are based upon IT when talking to me, its the basis of your arguments so dont even go there. Fact is original writers threaded dark energy and the reapers deeply within ME1 and 2, the new writers threw that out and implanted a child ( which is what they wanted the original repo reaper ME2 tobe) and dreams and turned the citidel which is a hidden mass relay into the creator and controler of the reapers (Even though the reapers created all the mass relays hidden or not including the citidel, chicken or the egg anyone!!).

   And people arnt polarised on the endings, they are antagonised by the endings, they are adhoured by specific endings and choices which revolve around no canon ending at all.  This topic is about what hudson is stating he did the endings for which anyone with any sense would call BS on instantly and simply hudson trying to smooth the anger and set a new landbase for the next mass effect to roll out from.

 People trying to find some order from the chaos that they have introduced by the endings to justify for what is for some people years of playing and reading anything and erything todo with mass effect isnt polarising the player base. Its there way of reacting to the situation of no ending at all.

  And if anyone thinks Hudson set out to split the playerbase, some of which were loyal fans for years of bioware and now will not touch a bioware game with a 10 foot bargepole after ME3 are quite simply out of there mind. If his intention was to create a polazrized playerbase they would not have gone back and redone it all and they wouldnt have created a dlc simply to make people feel happy happy and all warm inside to try and placate the older fans.


 So dont confuse polarising with adhourance because this is exactly what you are doing.

     

Modifié par shingara, 05 août 2013 - 08:56 .

[Wolfva2]

FlamingBoy wrote...

"its a game" argument really just does not fly. Yes not everything has to make sense. The point is none of it makes any sense.

<shrug>  It flies for me.  And quite a bit about the game made sense to me; even the PTSD dreams Shep had; something we've debated in other posts ad nauseum. 

Now, let's take 'The Witcher', a game I think you like?  I didn't like it.  Didn't make to much sense to me, and I found it plain boring.  Does that make it a stinking peice of crap that no one likes?  Of course not.  It just means I didn't like it.  No biggie.  Which is the difference between me and many of the haters; they'll harp on a game they don't like for months or years.  I simply move on <shrug>.  I think if more people shared that attitude, the BSN would be a much less argumentive place.

And probably a LOT deader as well <LOL>.