1483 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

I remember how the Synthesis and Control Support threads actually had people discussing the merits of their endings in a logical and concise manner with a Destroy supporter stopping by one in a while to **** on the thread because they were ass holes. 
 
The Destroy support thread reached about 18 pages and could be summed up as "Our ending is the best, everyone else is Indoctrinated. I wonder when those Synthesis and Control Supporters will **** on our thread like we did to theirs!".

that's a bit of a broad label right there....


I prefer Destroy....I don't have any problem with Controllers or Synthesizers.....


And unless I'm forgetting some deep dark part of my BSN past, I don't recall ever bashing anybody for their ending choice.

[Eterna]

that's a bit of a broad label right there....


I prefer Destroy....I don't have any problem with Controllers or Synthesizers.....


And unless I'm forgetting some deep dark part of my BSN past, I don't recall ever bashing anybody for their ending choice.

 

I did not personally call you out. 

[Mcfly616]

So your one of the me1 was the best game in the trilogy kinda of people? All I gotta say is if I had played me1 first I would never have even played the rest of the trilogy. After all the praise it's story got on bsn I thought it would be amazing... Let's just say i was severly unimpressed.

fair enough....


But taking into account the fact that ME1 actually had a plot and ME2 didn't.....ME1's story was amazing in comparison. If you haven't noticed, long time Bioware fans are a bit different from the rest of the gaming community. While story is important to most gamers, usually gameplay is the number 1 priority. With BW fans story is at the forefront of our minds.

[Mcfly616]

I did not personally call you out.

I know, I guess I was just saying that not all Destroyers are jerks that hate other peoples preferred ending.....look at me.

[CronoDragoon]

"Story" is a broad topic that includes characters in my book though, and for me ME2 does characters much better than ME1 did. I also find the plot arcs of places like Noveria and Feros to be a boring slog to get through. But I will agree that the "main" arc of ME1 is more intricate and interesting than ME2's Collector arc.

[archangel1996]

fair enough....


But taking into account the fact that ME1 actually had a plot and ME2 didn't.....ME1's story was amazing in comparison. If you haven't noticed, long time Bioware fans are a bit different from the rest of the gaming community. While story is important to most gamers, usually gameplay is the number 1 priority. With BW fans story is at the forefront of our minds.

 

Pretty much. I actually put ME1 and 2 on the same level because even if the 2nd one lacked a little in plot it was better of ME1 in other departments(IMHO)

ME3 on the other hand.........

[Iakus]

So your one of the me1 was the best game in the trilogy kinda of people? All I gotta say is if I had played me1 first I would never have even played the rest of the trilogy. After all the praise it's story got on bsn I thought it would be amazing... Let's just say i was severly unimpressed.

 

 

Yes I am.

 

I'm also one of those people who, if I had played ME3 first, I'd have run like hell fro the trilogy.

[jtav]

I think ME1 is easily the worst of the bunch. It feels like warmed over KOTOR with the worst batch of companions since NWN: OC.

[Iamjdr]

I definatly understand what you mean and I'm not trying to bash me1 cause I happened to still like all three games. I was just expecting something more.. I dunno how to say it.. Maybe less campy I guess? Me1 gave off a very cpt Kirk Star Trek feel, where me2 was a lot darker and that made it much more interesting to me.

[Catastrophy]

[..]

 

Man, did I just get too attached to the character over 3 games? I seriously need therapy here....

Sorry, I just had to get this off my chest.

 

M.

 

Pretty normal situation that. And feeling like being kicked in the quad is pretty much inevitable once you grew attached. At least you got to play the EC, vanilla was ... - let's just say it made me go directly for the MP button after the first playthrough.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Ya, I'm thinking that might be it....maybe they underestiimated how much some people would grow attached to the shep character. I don't mind (usually) when the protagonist dies in games, but this one seemed to affect me on a much deeper level. Probably because it was one played over the course of years real time (2009 to now). And will the series really be the same without shep? Kinda like bourne without jason bourne....not sure if it will be the same, or if people will just get to see characters they have grown to care about die in ME4. I wonder if in ME4 they forgo all of the endings and just do a prologue...Anderson running around in the first contact war? Don't know. ME3 just left me feeling really negative at the end because of how things ended for shep...in all of the endings..

 

No they didn't underestimate that at all. It was that they wanted to throw a twist at the end of the story. I also think that they didn't know another way to end it. An unprepared galaxy fighting against a massive invincible enemy. A six foot tall human vs impossible odds. 

 

Solution? Write your own ending and publish it on FanFiction.net. Make it a good one and one that will be real to you, and forget the pile of crap ending. 5 years. I played the first two games 13 times with all the DLC. I played ME3 three times. The first time with my original Shepard. I'd planned to go through in order, but after that ending I didn't see a point. The second play was for the EC which did nothing for me - I still had the same empty feeling, and the third for Citadel and Omega. I watched Leviathan and it simply justified the existence of the Starbrat.

[Catastrophy]

fair enough....


But taking into account the fact that ME1 actually had a plot and ME2 didn't.....ME1's story was amazing in comparison. If you haven't noticed, long time Bioware fans are a bit different from the rest of the gaming community. While story is important to most gamers, usually gameplay is the number 1 priority. With BW fans story is at the forefront of our minds.

 

That holds some truth - however if someone asked me, I'd tell him to play ME3 MP because of the combat mechanics.

[wright1978]

Enjoyed me1 but it was unpolished diamond IMO. Loved me2. Then me3 rolled in disappointing me often and then crushing everything that came before in its awful ending debacle.

[Mcfly616]

"Story" is a broad topic that includes characters in my book though, and for me ME2 does characters much better than ME1 did. I also find the plot arcs of places like Noveria and Feros to be a boring slog to get through. But I will agree that the "main" arc of ME1 is more intricate and interesting than ME2's Collector arc.

it's all preference. I guess it's the way I view them. Imo, ME1 is the campy sci-fi tv show, ME2 is the badass action movie, and ME3 was the war epic. I like all of them, but at any given time I prefer ME1s type of journey/experience.

Setting-wise, I loved Feros and Noveria. The ME1 Citadel is still my favorite hub. Those diverse settings along with the uncharted worlds we'd land on with the Mako, they added a sense of wonder and immersion that I haven't experienced in the series since. Most people around here love Omega in ME2. I flat out hate it. The hubs as well as the segmented mission design ruined my sense of wonder. The Citadel was the worst in ME2. Couldn't get enough of Illium though. I wish it could've been bigger. ME1 felt like an open RPG where we seamlessly come and go as we please. The sequels felt like mission-based shooters with some RPG elements. Bioware built its rep on making story-driven RPGs, not mission-based shooters.
(idc when the next game is set, but we damn sure better get some leisure time on each Council Homeworld. Not 1 measly mission)


Character-wise, while there wasn't a great deal of dialogue content, I found ME1's characters much more believable than ME2's. They seemed more grounded in reality, all with their own very different backgrounds. With ME2, I felt like I was recruiting 'Space X-Men: First Class" lol. Multiple people had ridiculously similar backgrounds, problems and/or motivations (mommy/daddy issues). Also, I felt the amount of characters contributed to each ones lack of diversity. Had there been less squadmates, the ones we had could've been more ambitious.


Narrative-wise, I always have more invested in the big picture. The characters can be great, but if the plot is pointless and without direction, then I'm going to be disappointed. This is probably why I prefer ME3 over ME2. The focus returns to the overarching Reaper Narrative and the ME1 characters I fell in love with.


Viewing ME2 as a standalone side-story, it's one of the best games I've ever played. Taking it for what it is, the middle installment of an epic space opera trilogy, and I'm thoroughly disappointed.

[Mcfly616]

That holds some truth - however if someone asked me, I'd tell him to play ME3 MP because of the combat mechanics.

combat mechanics are part of "gameplay"


ME3 had great gameplay in terms of combat.

[Catastrophy]

combat mechanics are part of "gameplay"


[...]

That's what I'm saying. I mean it changed quite my gaming preferences.

[von uber]

Illium (including the sections from lotsb) is my favourite location I think.
Actually feels like a place, shame it's not more connected together.
I also liked Noveria, that was well done.

[Darks1d3]

I actually wanted to explore Nos Astra a little bit more. A whole city pretty much filled with Asari, and I'm stuck at a Space Port(with the exception of Samara's and Thane's recruitment missions, along with Miranda's LM). LoTSB rectified that issue for the most part.

[Ieldra]

I'd bet money Ieldra would react the same way.
 
I've often suspected that Bio's writers took some inspiration from this work. However, Simmons was able to bring off the mumbo-jumbo in a way that ME's writers  really weren't.

Quite true. Also, while reading the Hyperion Cantos, I never felt I was expected to take the religious stuff literally as religious stuff. Things happened which could be interpreted within a religious framework, but you didn't need to do that to get a reasonably plausible story. The religious dimension was also always present so it had its roots in the story from the beginning and didn't feel alien to it. I didn't exactly like thie story, but it never made me go up the wall like ME3's implementation of the Synthesis.
 
I am reminded of Tolkien's famous statement about allegory vs. applicability: "[...] I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."

In ME3, the "purposed domination of the author" is all too tangibly present.

[Obadiah]

Er, I think the ending is just too open to interpretation to really be considered "domination". Confusing and unexplained maybe.

[Marauderrr]

Enjoyed me1 but it was unpolished diamond IMO. Loved me2. Then me3 rolled in disappointing me often and then crushing everything that came before in its awful ending debacle.

Ya...felt about the same on all fronts, although I did enjoy 3 for the most part. Combat was good and some writing was good also. It just made me like the characters even more..Garrus was my bud.

 

I think Angry Joe covered it all pretty good....the EC filled most plot holes he mentions but the whole starchild garbage still bugs me, and I guess I was wanting the possibility of a pretty pink bow ending...especially after scouring the entire known universe for assets. Just leaving Shep laying in the rubble wasn't enough after three games.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=6M0Cf864P7E

 

Sorry, I realise you guys have been over all of this a year or so before, but It's all fresh to me...I specifically avoided all vids dealing with the endings because I hadn't finished the series.

 

Thanks to all for being my therapy, and indulging me. 

 

M.

[Ieldra]

Er, I think the ending is just too open to interpretation to really be considered "domination". Confusing and unexplained maybe.

That applies to the outcomes, but not to the rationale and the implementation. If the ending presents makes themes dominant which weren't dominant in the story before and makes it incredibly hard to escape the impression you're supposed to take the allegorical level literally, then I feel justified in calling this wilful domination by the author.

Should I go on about Shepard's autodialogue and how ME3 took control of Shepard's characterization, often against the player's preference? That's another example.

[Bob from Accounting]

'Domination' huh?

 

Care to elaborate?

[Ieldra]

'Domination' huh?

 

Care to elaborate?

This refers to the statement by Tolkien I quoted a few posts above about authors forcing an allegorical level into their stories, rather than just telling the story and leaving it to the reader to find an allegory in it or not. He called the former "purposeful domination by the author" (which he disliked), and this is exactly what I think happened in several places in ME3.

[Bob from Accounting]

So why is allegory 'domination,' and if it is, why is such 'domination' a bad thing?

 

Furthermore, that just doesn't seem to make any sense. It seems to place a demand that the author be clueless about their own work and only use allegories accidentally. Allegory is okay, but only if the writer didn't intend to put it in? That just sounds like a demand for double-think.