692 réponses à ce sujet

[FlamingBoy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Wait, why are we trying to demystify the keepers again?

More chaff being thrown up about things irrelevant to the plot.

The keepers, a race that maintains a space station in which all galactic powers sit. Not only that they maintain part of the "machine" which drives the plot. And somehow they are irrelevant.

[chemiclord]

I don't think it's ever going to be possible to have an "objective" look at ME3's ending. Even IF fans would be able to eventually detach their emotional reaction to it, I'm not convinced there's enough of a connected narrative in which TO process it objectively.

[AlanC9]

chemiclord wrote...

I don't think it's ever going to be possible to have an "objective" look at ME3's ending. Even IF fans would be able to eventually detach their emotional reaction to it, I'm not convinced there's enough of a connected narrative in which TO process it objectively.

Impossible topic? That never stopped us before.

[Almostfaceman]

c091n87 wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

I don't think it's ever going to be possible to have an "objective" look at ME3's ending. Even IF fans would be able to eventually detach their emotional reaction to it, I'm not convinced there's enough of a connected narrative in which TO process it objectively.

Agreed. Most of their responses to the ending are an emotional one, rather than logical. They will demand a new ending, even after Bioware has officially ended development on this game back in March 2013. Despite the game no longer being in development, they still try to demand a new ending. WTB logical response, instead of "I care too much about the game. I'm not going to give up until we get the ending this great game deserves, because I spent 100s of hours in it and am the biggest Mass Effect fan ever" (slight sarcasm, like my other reply about the ponies. People didn't think it was sarcasm). 

Logical response would be, "I understand Mass Effect 3 is no longer in development, and that the ending is pretty much not going to be changed or expanded upon. Hopefully the next game will be better".

You're not even talking about anything that anyone is talking about. Nobody here is saying that they expect Bioware to pony up a new ending now. Why do you keep bringing that up? Discussing/complaining about the ending =/= expecting a new ending from Bioware.

[ImaginaryMatter]

StreetMagic wrote...

I say bring back the original ending and just give me a better Priority Earth

The ending itself isn't that bad. It's so vague it doesn't matter anyways. You can read a lot into it.

I would like a different Prologue: Earth mission. That to me, was possibly the most disappointing part of the game.

[Almostfaceman]

c091n87 wrote...

Complaining about the ending after 2 years? Move on with your life. Go play a game you do enjoy instead of complaining about the ending. They already gave you the EC, as well as other DLCs, and you're still complaining. If you're still complaining (not expecting, see I can read), then take your business elsewhere and don't buy anymore of their games. That's how its done. Gamers need to vote with their wallets more, instead of hanging around here complaining about endings and hating on a series that ended 2 years ago.

Right, still doesn't change the fact you were just talking about something nobody was bringing up. I've seen folks talking about how they reacted back then, or how they like/don't like the endings now, but I don't see another "Hold the Line" movement. Fans have moved on to other games or, like me, I'm enjoying the games again with fan mods.

If folks want to discuss the ending two years later, praise it, complain, ****, whatever, they can. If you don't like it, move on. 

I really don't see anyone hating on a series... I bought the entire series. I dig it, and now that there's some mods out I'm playing it again. Enjoying what I paid for, and if I want to discuss old times and the game, I will. 

[NeonFlux117]

c091n87 wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...
If folks want to discuss the ending two years later, praise it, complain, ****, whatever, they can. If you don't like it, move on. 

I don't hate the series. I just don't understand why people would still complain about stuff after Bioware gave them all that DLC, etc. Just, if people keep it up, they may go into the next game with all this hate and anger bottled up from the ending fiasco and it'll affect their viewpoint of the next game. 

This is a great leap of faith. 

You think the next "mass effect" game will be as good as the original trilogy..... (Especially ME1 or ME2 good)

The series is already meh. The endings are a great example of "torch the series and run" type of thing. 

[AlanC9]

StreetMagic wrote...
It's a step back from the suicide mission. It's more like ME1's ending run on the Citadel - which also sucks. I have no nostalgia about it. I'm an equal opportunity hater.

Oh, absolutely. Except that ME3's mission is way uglier, which does count for something. OTOH, I think P:E is a little shorter, which also counts for something.

[Almostfaceman]

c091n87 wrote...

I don't hate the series. I just don't understand why people would still complain about stuff after Bioware gave them all that DLC, etc. Just, if people keep it up, they may go into the next game with all this hate and anger bottled up from the ending fiasco and it'll affect their viewpoint of the next game. 

It's just people chewing the fat over stuff. It's a normal thing, about things we do and don't like. People keep making topics for discussion on the board. If I'm around and in the mood, I'll throw in my two cents.  I haven't even been around for a long time, just came back for the mod community and to see if there's any news on DA Inquisition and ME4. 

The mod community is actually proof of fans of the series doing something positive with what they do like. People won't mod games they're not interested in. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

c091n87 wrote...

I would like a different Prologue: Earth mission. That to me, was possibly the most disappointing part of the game.

What was so bad about it? Seemed fine to me. They were just getting things warmed up.

A few things. In a game that is, apparently, primarily geared towards retaking Earth the prologue fails to establish any personal or emotional connection to the planet, other than the fact that it happens to be labeled Earth. Half the people that Shepard meets are one dimentional idiots and everyone else ends up leaving with the Normandy. Anderson is too much of a seperate character and the kid was hamfisted. The mission is rushed and crammed with exposition, tutorial mechanics, grinding fights, etc that there is no time to feel anything. Which brings me to my second point.

The mission tries to introdice too many concepts at the same time. This mission should have soley focused on developing a connection with Earth and the feeling of loss and terror that happens when the Reapers arrive. Instead there's a lot of awkward expostion that doesn't really explain anything and most of the mission is spent learning the mechanics. These really aren't story issues, but rather game play issues. It's just too much too soon.

For returning players (and much of this could be blamed on ME2) the exposition doesn't really answer any questions. Why is Shepard on Earth? Why are they keeping a Reaper 'expert' around when no one believes in the Reapers? Is Shepard under arrest, why hasn't he done anything to stop the Reapers during this time? Etc. During the mission itself there is no real sense of urgency.

Honestly, most of the mission's problems I would say are mechanical/development issues.

[Dean_the_Young]

FlamingBoy wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

I have significant knowledge about history, especially 2000 years ago (roman empire being among my personal favorites). Thank you for the implication.

Ooh, goody. Let's qualify signficiant.

Do you know the governors of your local city? His son? Do you know the slave revolts and taxation records? What was the public perception on the Roman transition to Empire?

Maybe that's not significant enough. How about De Orthographia: De Obscuris Catonis? The rituals of Saturnus? Can you at least describe the contents of Rereum memoria dignarum libri?

If you can't, why can't I claim your knowledge is insignificant?

My stance on knowledge of the crucible is the same. There is not enough.

How not? Your questions were answered. You were given enough information to support the plot as necessary.

Knowing the original species name of the Keepers doesn't affect the plot. Knowing the first species to call the Crucible a Crucible doesn't change its role or purpose.


The key words, both here and in the roman question, is 'significant.' Most people will take a position that significant information will change priorities and policies if known. Significant information changes your actions. So far, you have not made any such justification for your questions, which is why we are calling them unimportant.

Do you know the governors of your local city? His son? Do you know the
slave revolts and taxation records? What was the public perception on
the Roman transition to Empire?

1. One yes I know the governor to my local city, but unwilling to share that information on the internet.
2. No I do not know the son of the governor of my local city. But if I did I would not say, same as above.
3. Slave revolts, Yes I do. The most significant being that of spartacus who was defeated by crassus (part of the first trimutative, died in parthia in a historical defeat)
4. Taxation records, no I do not know much about that.

Congratulations: by vague, arbitrary standards you have insignificant knowledge.

The following will take alot of time, so I kept it short.
5. public perception of the roman transition is a complicated one (I mean what isn't in roman politics). While yes augustus was emperor (he called it "first citizen) he made great pains to keep the illusion that the roman republic was still in place. Augustus was literally in the roman eyes son of a god (due to julius being considered a god) hence he was highly popular, the libertories were largely killed off.

I'm not asking a historical overview. I'm asking specific to your area. Who were the opinion brokers of the day.

How about De Orthographia: De Obscuris Catonis? The rituals of Saturnus? Can you at least describe the contents of Rereum memoria dignarum libri?

 I cannot answer to the detail you require. I think its a fine example of "to much detail" and would not be required in mass effect 3.

Why are some of the most famous lost works of history 'too much detail', but not having a meaningless name without plot impact 'too little'?

May we continue this arrogance much longer...

Don't let me stop you.

as for the "answers to my question" due the quoting style I made no effort to read them. Which is why we are probably on different pages of importance.

Try reading, then. Other people's viewpoints will open your mind.

Context into why the crucible was built gives us a window into the minds of the creators. The same way the slave revolts give us a window in the following actions that took place after it.

If the only thing you know about a slave revolt is a name, it really doesn't. Since there have been thousands of cycles at the least, simply giving the names of everyone who worked on the Crucible offers no insight past 'that was a lot of people.'

Knowing the keepers (the only living species of cycles long before) is an interesting question and a obvious one.  I am just really curious about the species thats maintained a space station for an X number of years.

But that's just curiosity. It's not important, to the plot or the characterization of the plot's characters.

[Dean_the_Young]

AlanC9 wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...
It's a step back from the suicide mission. It's more like ME1's ending run on the Citadel - which also sucks. I have no nostalgia about it. I'm an equal opportunity hater.

Oh, absolutely. Except that ME3's mission is way uglier, which does count for something. OTOH, I think P:E is a little shorter, which also counts for something.

People don't like ME1's Citadel run?

Weird. Personally, I thought it was the best part of the game: what with the race against time, the use of off-screen reinforcements and delaying tactics always fit the Chase theme I felt the game was going for. Unlike the Suicide Mission, which was overhyped and under-delivered, the Citadel Run made no pretensions and so was even more tense. (If that makes any sense.)

Plus, running towards and under Sovereign at that scale did more than anything in any other game to emphasize the disparity between our soldier and the Reapers.

[chemiclord]

Dean_the_Young wrote..
]People don't like ME1's Citadel run?

Weird. Personally, I thought it was the best part of the game: what with the race against time, the use of off-screen reinforcements and delaying tactics always fit the Chase theme I felt the game was going for. Unlike the Suicide Mission, which was overhyped and under-delivered, the Citadel Run made no pretensions and so was even more tense. (If that makes any sense.)

Plus, running towards and under Sovereign at that scale did more than anything in any other game to emphasize the disparity between our soldier and the Reapers.

Count me as one of the people who considered it the worst final mission of the trilogy.  Race Against Time was TERRIBLE.  Redundant tedium at best.

Step 1: Walk down hallway that looks EXACTLY like the previous one.

Step 2: Fight a clump of geth.

Step 3: Repeat Steps 1 and 2 until you projectile vomit.

Step 4: Make passionless, cliched "there's still good in you" speech to final boss.

Step 5: Regardless of success in speech, fight final boss anyway.

Yeah, I've played ME1 once for each of the three characters I had; and never again.  That ending mission combined with the tedious game mechanics and clunky combat... ugh.  Nope.  Nope nope nope.

That's not to say that ME3's Priority: Earth was GOOD, mind (because it wasn't), but at least there was never a point where I was screaming at it like I was in a Monty Python sketch to "get on with it!"

Modifié par chemiclord, 16 janvier 2014 - 03:42 .

[dsl08002]

an objective approach would see in first glance that the ending of Mass effect 3 has nothing to do with the very core of the previous ME games, the thing that made all ME good.

That is something that the critics would have seen in the first place

Modifié par dsl08002, 17 janvier 2014 - 06:54 .

[voteDC]

I genuinely don't understand why some think it wrong that some demanded a 'better' ending.

If I've paid money for a product and I'm not happy with it, then I am sure as hell going to demand a better a one.

For me it is how people put across those demands that is key. Don't stamp your feet like a child throwing a tantrum. Put across what you don't like politely and calmly, then state in the same manner what improvements you'd like.

chemiclord wrote...
Step 5: Regardless of success in speech, fight final boss anyway.

Weird because when I succeed in that conversation, Saren shoots himself in the head.

Or did you mean fighting the reanimated, Soverreign controlled, Saren?

Modifié par voteDC, 16 janvier 2014 - 03:58 .

[Dr. Megaverse]

dreamgazer wrote...

time for an objective look

Riiiiiight.

I actually LOLed