An exaggeration is, by definition, deliberate dishonesty...
... which is what the general anti-ending crowd has perpetrated time and again.
Lobbying for a new, better ending is acceptable. The conduct of these "fans" during that time, though, was frankly embarrassing to those who count themselves among this fanbase ... and, appreciate a more reasonable and level-headed approach to things.
Both sides are guilty of it.
Both sides are guilty of it.
hehe, I love when people make this assumption.
It's like, "well, there was a lot of vitriol, so it had to be coming from both sides. Right?"
I think a majority of us have seen such comments from people who liked and support the ending.
I've seen such comments on this board's history and other people who liked and support the ending admit to it as well.
I think a majority of us have seen such comments from people who liked and support the ending.
I've seen such comments on this board's history and other people who liked and support the ending admit to it as well.
There were (are) jackholes on both "sides", absolutely.
There certainly were, but one thing that pro-enders never did that I always found bothersome was that some of the fan invective was often directed at the developers themselves. Far too often did I see nonsense about how so-and-so is a hack. I really hate that kind of crap, and in their place I'd be reluctant to bother with this forum at all.
Okay, let's think this one out carefully...
The "anti-enders" were upset about the ending, hence they acted the way they did towards BioWare as a result. The "pro-enders" were not upset about the ending. Do you think they also participated in that circus that was "Retake ME3" when they were okay with the ending as it was?
At worst, pro-enders told anti-enders to shut up, rudely. Not saying that's excusable, but, are you seriously saying that the difference between "GAH!!! BIOWARE @$#@#! $&#&** @&% @^#%@ #%&#!!!" and "OMG shut up, dude" is just semantics? Hell, if these sites had moderation worth a damn then virtually any/all conflict between pro- and anti- would not have been a thing.
I was a non-participant in the entire affair, because what came from both sides was pretty nauseating when it hit the extreme.
It has nothing to do with semantics. Directing vitriol at fellow BSN members is no more or less acceptable than directing it at the developers. They're all people, not just the ones that worked on the game.
But the fans were angry. I remember the pitch "no A, B, or C ending," and "16 wildly different endings."
What did we get: You die, the relays explode, and the Normandy crashes. The only difference was the color of the explosions on your screen. There may have been some subtle differences like the Tower of London and Earth burning. Or the Normandy being destroyed, but who really cared about that stuff? There wasn't a significant enough difference between them. They wanted to see Tali, Liara, Samantha, Garrus, or Miranda again after it was over.
That's what the devs forgot about when they did the ending. They forgot about what we cared about: the characters. Because the story really wasn't that great. The player was coming off Mass Effect 2 which had no real plot.
That's why the devs decided to do The Citadel DLC. That DLC saved ME3 for those of us who were left. Sure it was cheesy, but it gave us that opportunity to say goodbye.
Okay, let's think this one out carefully...
The "anti-enders" were upset about the ending, hence they acted the way they did towards BioWare as a result. The "pro-enders" were not upset about the ending. Do you think they also participated in that circus that was "Retake ME3" when they were okay with the ending as it was?
At worst, pro-enders told anti-enders to shut up, rudely. Not saying that's excusable, but, are you seriously saying that the difference between "GAH!!! BIOWARE @$#@#! $&#&** @&% @^#%@ #%&#!!!" and "OMG shut up, dude" is just semantics? Hell, if these sites had moderation worth a damn then virtually any/all conflict between pro- and anti- would not have been a thing.
I thought we were talking about exaggerations and conduct in general, not just how people treated BioWare.
I was a non-participant in the entire affair, because what came from both sides was pretty nauseating when it hit the extreme.
It has nothing to do with semantics. Directing vitriol at fellow BSN members is no more or less acceptable than directing it at the developers.
Okay, let's think this one out carefully...
The "anti-enders" were upset about the ending, hence they acted the way they did towards BioWare as a result. The "pro-enders" were not upset about the ending. Do you think they also participated in that circus that was "Retake ME3" when they were okay with the ending as it was?
At worst, pro-enders told anti-enders to shut up, rudely. Not saying that's excusable, but, are you seriously saying that the difference between "GAH!!! BIOWARE @$#@#! $&#&** @&% @^#%@ #%&#!!!" and "OMG shut up, dude" is just semantics? Hell, if these sites had moderation worth a damn then virtually any/all conflict between pro- and anti- would not have been a thing.
Oh, my, I needed that laugh!
You were here back then, right?
If so, I assume you recall all the "crybaby" accusations? "Waifu" and "husbando"? Accusations of people just wanting power fantasies? "You just don't get it"? There were people who openly savaged mods like MEHEM as being against "the vision" of Mass Effect.
Granted there weren't as many of them around. But I'd chalk that up to there simply not being as many people who liked the endings enough to defend them.
So yeah, that's a pretty little glass house there.
I assume you recall all the "crybaby" accusations? "Waifu" and "husbando"? Accusations of people just wanting power fantasies? "You just don't get it"? There were people who openly savaged mods like MEHEM as being against "the vision" of Mass Effect.
So, like I said, just another day on BSN, side irrelevant. Post-ME3 was certainly not the first time I had heard any of those things.
"Retake ME3" was basically the worst of BSN on a world-tour (LOL).
Besides which, it was not the backlash I was calling exaggerated. I was saying the "badness" of the ending is.
Kinda disappointed as well as glad that I wasn't around for the worst of it when ME3 was done with. The atmosphere was still pretty dark from the asteroid strike though.
So, like I said, just another day on BSN, side irrelevant. Post-ME3 was certainly not the first time I had heard any of those things.
"Retake ME3" was basically the worst of BSN on a world-tour (LOL).
Besides which, it was not the backlash I was calling exaggerated. I was saying the "badness" of the ending is.
Why is the badness exagerated? Because you happen to not agree?
Kinda disappointed as well as glad that I wasn't around for the worst of it when ME3 was done with. The atmosphere was still pretty dark from the asteroid strike though.
There was one point where the entire spoiler section, every single thread, was locked down for an afternoon, things got so heated.
Why is the badness exagerated? Because you happen to not agree?
Because I've seen cases where what they claim is factually false.
Like, people headcanoning bad things about it and then saying "OMG [my headcanon] happens in the ending!"
There was one point where the entire spoiler section, every single thread, was locked down for an afternoon, things got so heated.
I've seen the history of that; glad I only turned up in 2013.
Because I've seen cases where what they claim is factually false.
Like, people headcanoning bad things about it and then saying "OMG [my headcanon] happens in the ending!"
And there are claims made by the pro-ending crowd that are factually false. Or are, at the bare minimum, industrial-strength headcanon.
So yeah, I guess claims of the endings being good are a blatant exageration too.
Of course, given EC's attempts to draw smiley faces on everything not exactly being a roaring success may indicate there was something more than that was wrong with the endings. 
And there are claims made by the pro-ending crowd that are factually false. Or are, at the bare minimum, industrial-strength headcanon.
So yeah, I guess claims of the endings being good are a blatant exageration too.
Of course, given EC's attempts to draw smiley faces on everything not exactly being a roaring success may indicate there was something more than that was wrong with the endings.
Generally speaking, the pro-ending crowd is mostly just okay with the ending, and the really zealous ones are the small minority of the overall group because, well, let's face it, that ending was very poorly executed. With the anti- crowd, it's the just the opposite: zealous is the vast majority, and ambivalent is the small minority. So the reason the pro- zealots are not an issue is because there are not enough of them to really be one. Anti- zealots, on the other hand...
Apart from that, it's also just plain asinine to respond with "well they do it too!" because you are not only admitting guilt, and also admitting it is bad, but showing clear double-standards with whom you apply that to.
Which is exactly what I said, so... thank you for agreeing with me?
However, you had that vitriol between both sides (which unfortunately was just par for the course in the poorly-moderated BSN)... and then you had the vitriol exclusively from the angry fanboy crowd which was much louder, nastier, and more public. Let's not go acting like it's just the same thing(though I can see why many would want to tell themselves such).
Nope... you're still saying that vitriol towards fellow members was normal and acceptable, and that only the vitriol towards the devs counts as unacceptable.
Nothing I said agrees with that, and vitriol against either group is the same thing. Everyone is a person deserving of respect, not just the developers. Agreeing with one side doesn't make everything they say acceptable.
Generally speaking, the pro-ending crowd is mostly just okay with the ending, and the really zealous ones are the small minority of the overall group because, well, let's face it, that ending was very poorly executed. With the anti- crowd, it's the just the opposite: zealous is the vast majority, and ambivalent is the small minority. So the reason the pro- zealots are not an issue is because there are not enough of them to really be one. Anti- zealots, on the other hand...
Apart from that, it's also just plain asinine to respond with "well they do it too!" because you are not only admitting guilt, and also admitting it is bad, but showing clear double-standards with whom you apply that to.
So the pro-ending crowd is a bunch of reasonable pepole with a few nutcases. But the anti-ending crowd is a bunch of raging lunatics. Gotcha. No double standards there at all 
Besides which, if there are so many people who "zealously" dislike the ending, and so few who are "just okay" with them, you know, maybe there's actually something to it?
I think what HYR 2.0 is trying to say is that people who support the endings on these forums are generally more elaborate on the reasons they do so and don't come with "The endings are awesome, you just don't understand". On the other hand, those who dislike endings usually come up with "It's crap, they ruined the franchise". Surely there are exceptions for both sides, but based on my time here, I can say that today this is largely true. Was not a member during the original backlash, so can't comment on the situation back then. Also, a lot of pro-ending people I've conversed with here agree that the execution of the endings was lacking and Bioware could've done a much better job. I too hold the same opinion, but I'm okay with endings as they are, with Extended Cut, Leviathan, Citadel DLCs and my own headcanon filling the gaps.
I guess perspective is everything. From my limited POV it seems like the foks that like the endings don't seem to have "reasons that I consider logical" to do so -- they just do. Also from my limited POV the folks that don't like the endings can go ON & ON about the failures in specific instances, problems with the overall story structure, with a failure in "narrative cohesiveness", etc.
Honestly I believe that's human nature so I'm not holding it against folks one way or the other in terms of what they perceive.
Also from my limited POV the folks that don't like the endings can go ON & ON about the failures in specific instances, problems with the overall story structure, with a failure in "narrative cohesiveness", etc.
Problem with the overall structure? Failure with narrative cohesiveness? Can you tell us about these problems?
@Angel Fear: I could summarize some of the basic points being made but if you're willing to slog through some YouTube videos there are those that address some of these points more elegantly than I could. The "understated nerd rage" and some of the Smudboy videos are some of the more famous examples where folks take the events of the series and analyze plot structure, story elements, shifts in the central conflict, etc.... You may have to ignore some unwarranted / inaccurate attacks or similar but there are some real nuggets to take away from these efforts. [IMHO ... YMMV]
To summarize [poorly]:
-- The central conflict for most of the series was basically "We must stop the Reapers from killing us all". The central conflict shifts in the last 10 minutes to something similar to "We must stop the cycle of organics creating AIs that inevitably rise up to kill their creators"
-- The genre conventions / internal lore is abandoned in places at the end to invent things like Synthesis [basically Green Space Magic] without much in the way of lore backing this up as being possible ; and explanation made so we understand what it does & why ; etc.
-- By Narrative Cohesiveness I'm referring to making sure that events that happen in the game are well explained and supported well by what comes prior in the game itself. While you can certainly forgive some instances of "that wasn't supported by lore or by what happened earlier but it was so dramatically cool I'm willing to overlook it" there's a lot of unanswered questions like why did the Reapers conduct such a passive war, why did they allow construction of the Crucible, if there was a controlling AI on the citadel why did the keepers need to "send the signal", etc. When you build up a lot of issues like this the story can unravel and you're left with a mess.
-- In terms of story conventions you can view ME1 as setting the initial premise / inciting incident(s) / explaining the rules / etc. It does a pretty good job of this. ME2's logical job would be to provide / continue the "Rising Action" part of the plot structure. This part of the plot consists of the hero fighting any obstacle(s) and conflict(s) in the way of reaching his goal. Most importantly the events [and solutions thereof] logically lead to the climax of the series. I would argue that, at best, ME2 is just an interesting set of stalling actions that do NOT contribute to the climax of the series. In ME3 they introduce a fix from on-high that is largely unrelated to anything we found in ME2 thus making ME2 a waste in terms of contributing to the overall arch of the story.
-- In ME3 because we stumbled onto the fix a lot of the sense of agency is lost because we don't even know what the thing does, how it does it, or even if we should really build it. As another poster put it recently the Protheans saved our butts in ME1, ME2 was a set of stalling tactics, and ME3 was an exercise in paint-by-numbers and hope for the best.
Honestly I'm sure there are a lot of other criticisms but this is what I can think of at 2 AM.
FYI: While I'm still disappointed in how the ME trilogy turned out I have recently found that I "miss" the universe that BW created. So while I cry & moan & b|t** about a lot of stuff I think BW was on the verge of creating something REALLY special -- possibly THE RPG series by which all other series in our generation would be measured by.
Retour en haut