It wouldn't be hard to explain how the squadmates got on the Normandy before the extended cut. I would like for Bioware to explain how Steve gets back on the Normandy
Here is a Youtube video showing the mask on. https://www.youtube....h?v=x1r6wqxJ8_g
I was watching a war movie the other day and wondered what it would be like if I tried to apply the same level of criticism to the war movie that many people apply to the game. So here goes:
1) That guy's plane was shot down. How did he make it back to the base the next day?
2) So they show the main actor fighting but what is the rest of the division doing? Where are they?
3) Only a partial force of Germans left the main group to defend the bridge. they knew it was important why didn't the whole army go there?
4) The main character had a great idea but the stupid general said no and he was forced to do it. Why didn't the guy just ignore it or why didn't the general explain in detail why he needed to follow orders?
5) The main character had to attack the bridge. This was suicide and dumb. Why not call in artillery or an air strike? It would have been much easier.
6) After crossing the bridge they just stopped and went no further. Why? The enemy was on the run and they could have done much more but just stayed there.
7) How dumb could those guys be. They had a mishap with that recon plane yet don't they realize that's exactly where the enemy would be at?
You know the funny thing is all of these are based on actual historical and real life examples.
Sometimes real life has even worse writers then these games.
Here is a Youtube video showing the mask on. https://www.youtube....h?v=x1r6wqxJ8_g
Where in the video does it show a mask?
Where in the video does it show a mask?
It's shown at 1:18, 1:23 and from 2:15 through 2:45 mark.
Search Youtube for "Liara Romance Goodbye Mass Effect 3 Extended Cut DLC". It was submitted by MysteriousEnigma.
It's shown at 1:18, 1:23 and from 2:15 through 2:45 mark.
Search Youtube for "Liara Romance Goodbye Mass Effect 3 Extended Cut DLC". It was submitted by MysteriousEnigma.
You mean the mask the character wears? What does any of that have to do with the post I made?
And no, frankly, I didn't like the ending because I think it's mostly bullshit. And that's my subjective opinion. But my objective reasons are what I have already stated several times - plotholes, inconsistencies, poor context, no climax, the writer not having proper understanding of what they're talking about, ending an action RPG trilogy with nothing but two long dialogues because otherwise it would be too "videogamey". I'm really glad they didn't try to avoid making the whole game too "videogamey". I have gone great lengths to explain that in many of my previous posts here and I sure as hell am not going to repeat myself and rant about it all over again because I think this thread has seen quite enough of me already. The posts are there. (Not to even mention that there are countless reviews out there made by people who are far more well-versed in literature, philosophy, and science than I, if you really did care to understand what some people's problem with the ending is.)
First I was not trying to prove that your wrong just because you used one word. I am old enough to know when someone thinks or not what he says? When I said that you don't understand the ending, it's because the no good and evil perspective is the basis of the ending.
Second, I have been quite harsh but I quoted the reason.
And that's my subjective opinion :
that's ok for me. You can dislike the game, the ending, I have no problem with that.
my objective reasons :
here I have a problem. Just like I said I work in literature, so the "objectives reasons" I know them. The problem is that those used by peopel who disliked the ending, these reasons are not objective. Why? Because they come from habit of reading that are created by Hollywood. Hollywood is trying to get people more and more stupid. The level of writing is lower every year.
Take a look at the objective reasons : it's what holywood says or rules on internet. It's never what great writers are saying now about what is writing, or reading.
plotholes, inconsistencies, poor context, no climax, the writer not having proper understanding of what they're talking about, ending an action RPG trilogy with nothing but two long dialogues because otherwise it would be too "videogamey" :
Sorry but "plotholes"? There are not as much as people say. "Inconsistencies"? the concept of consistency has to be redefine because popular reading doesn't have a good definition because of lack of knowledge about what makes something a masterpiece (I asked once on this forum to peopel who complained what is a masterpiece, the answer was ridiculous : no one could answer) Poor context? The writing of the trilogy is the context. "No climax"? This has to be redefined because there is a climax, it's not the way you are used to, but there is a climax (and the writing follow the classic formula). "The writer not having proper etc..."? that's very arrogant from someone who didn't understand the writing, who can't see the intention Bioware had, and it's ridiculously oversimplified.
Anyway I'll stop bothering you but all your "objectives reasons" are wrong. It can be proven that they are all wrong. But first you'll have to understand a lot of things about writing, reading and how a text works. I respect people who respect what Bioware did. The problem is that you don't respect what they have done.
-snip-
Okay, sorry, but basically what you're saying is that I can't provide any valid criticism just because I disliked something and my arguments, no matter what they might be, are automatically irrelevant. That is very unfair and I don't think that's how discussions, criticism, arguments, or anything else really works. Everybody should be allowed to participate in the discussion. If only people with positive views contribute, then it gets really one-sided, doesn't it? And I really do not think that people with either positive or negative views necessarily have to be biased. Just because you feel one way or another doesn't mean you can't analyse various aspects.
You also need to realise that while you might as well have a point or might even be right in some things, I can never agree with you or see your point because you do not provide me with any counterarguments:
"Poor context? The writing of the trilogy is the context. "No climax"? This has to be redefined because there is a climax, it's not the way you are used to, but there is a climax."
These words are absolutely hollow, as is the whole post. There is nothing, no information, I can take from any of it to help me see your point. Well, except that you will simply defend the ending at all costs. I understood as much. While I'm far from perfect, I like to think I'm not unreasonable, but you really give me nothing here. So, no, I really can't see how I'm wrong and while I might accept this idea from somebody else, I won't accept it from you with this kind of explanation and with you claiming nothing more than that I simply "don't get it" and am "wrong" and "don't understand writing" and "Hollywood makes people stupid". My sincere apologies, but those aren't arguments and definitely not arguments that would persuade me to see the errors of my ways.
I do agree on one thing, though. We should just stop this. I don't think there's any possibility we could ever sway each other, either.
Regardless of this post, just have a nice day.
You mean the mask the character wears? What does any of that have to do with the post I made?
Well in post #356 of this thread you specifically mention that you never saw it so I was showing it to you. She is wearing her breather on Earth.
Well in post #356 of this thread you specifically mention that you never saw it so I was showing it to you. She is wearing her breather on Earth.
So why didn't you quote that post? It still has nothing to do with the post you quoted.
So why didn't you quote that post? It still has nothing to do with the post you quoted.
Because I hit quote on the wrong one and didn't realize it till after you mentioned it. But I was just trying to be nice and show you the video where she wears the mask.
Well the problems are more or less all over the trilogy. Let´s start with ME 2 where we gather 12 special hardcore killerdudes, -gals and pick up a robot on the way to assault the Collector homeworld before we find out that it´s actually a base we can actually blow apart.
Then let´s move over to ME 3 where the admirals responsible for defending Earth ask you how to defend Earth and Shep goes Hollywood inspiring speech time. After being held there for 6 months, they ask the guy who was in the council tower while the fleet was shooting Sovereign.
There is some stuff like the dreadnought who is actually unable to enter an atmosphere getting shot down or the plotshields of the Normandy in full force for the first time with the Reaper shooting down the two shuttles just in front of you while completely ignoring the tasty frigate. Is that too nitpicky? Hm, probably. 
Then we move to the plot where every time you hear Cerberus, you know the logic goes and takes a long and deep nap. From Hollywood superhacking, downloading data and deleting it from a device that actually works completely different twice, Shepard patiently waiting for the robot to call home, to Shepard doing Hollywood mook markmanship by closely missing the enemy with his pistol, besides having a 1000 different options, to fighting Cerberus troops with swords who think they are ninja. And throw in some nazi in the mix, by getting their own concentration camp with a soap machine. 
I think there are also some glaring plotholes in the whole Thessia arc but well that´s the part where I get away from the computer to make myself some coffee and go outside for a smoke until all this autodialogue is done.
Edit: totally forgot this massive plothole of where did Cerberus get all these ships. I get the soldiers if I don´t look to closely and the equipment if we assume that fabricating smaller stuff is rather easy in the 22nd century. But Shep was assaulting the collector base six months ago with a measly frigate and now Cerberus has friggin dreadnoughts and cruiser fleets?
We also have awesome visuals in the space battles where Bioware ignored more or less everything they wrote about space battles in their codex besides being not really good tactics but the cinematics look cool and Shepard can yell Fire like in Zulu. I waited for the "wait until you see the white in their eyes." 
I mean Reapers have eyes. 
Isn´t that pure Hollywood, style over substance? And yes that stuff is substance. They pretend to write military scifi after all.
Then the whole mess of Mission Earth, I heard some people found the beam run immersive, some people think Anderson is the biggest idiot who ever yelled a command but well Mikefest is here, he can elaborate if he wants to. Myself I thought, I feel like a pyjak on Tuchanka.
And then we entered the exalted presence of the Catalyst who told us in his first few sentences "I am the Catalyst, the Citadel is my home," which turned the whole plot of ME 1 into nonsense...at the same very place where Sovereign was hugging the tower to open the relay three years ago. I mean, really, they just opened this big question about one third of the trilogy and not even one sentence about it even in the EC? About the rest, see above.
Sorry that I am not blown away by Hudson´s matrix architect ripoff. 
It seems to me that ME 3 was more similar to hollywood media than the previous parts and sacrificed quite a lot for drama.
Then the whole mess of Mission Earth, I heard some people found the beam run immersive, some people think Anderson is the biggest idiot who ever yelled a command but well Mikefest is here, he can elaborate if he wants to. Myself I thought, I feel like a pyjak on Tuchanka.
I am not a fan of Priority: Earth, to say the least, but the beam run is probably my favorite part of the whole mission (tied somewhere with the beginning Reaper Cannon). It's the one part where you aren't a badass space marine who can turn enemies into explosives to kill other enemies. It's desperate and it has an air of finality to it since you are finally so close to the Conduit, I always feel the tension, even though I know the beams can't hurt me because the rest of it is built up well. Yes, it doesn't make much sense, but in a way it makes it better -- for me at least - since it's all the more desperate. The part I dislike about the EC the most is that it ruins this part of the game.
Additionally, it can also become one of the more comedic scenes if you decide to troll it.
I wanted a hoverboard. 
Savior of the galaxy, got nearly everyone who actually fights here to join the fight and you don´t even get a bike. 
Well the beam run is evocative, it´s also style over substance again. Yeah I get desperate charge, gave all we got, sacrifice, futility in face of the Reapers, crushing the hope etc. It´s still nonsense.
Oh forgot the biggest Cerberus plothole, the Cerberus armada. Edited it in.
Well the beam run is evocative, it´s also style over substance again. Yeah I get desperate charge, gave all we got, sacrifice, futility in face of the Reapers, crushing the hope etc. It´s still nonsense.
Oh certainly. I completely understand and agree with why people dislike it.
I'm just weird and enjoy it.
Oh I do, too. I always scream Run little pyjaks, run, when I am there. But well I am silly sometimes.
my objective reasons :
here I have a problem. Just like I said I work in literature, so the "objectives reasons" I know them. The problem is that those used by peopel who disliked the ending, these reasons are not objective. Why? Because they come from habit of reading that are created by Hollywood. Hollywood is trying to get people more and more stupid. The level of writing is lower every year.
Take a look at the objective reasons : it's what holywood says or rules on internet. It's never what great writers are saying now about what is writing, or reading.
No offense but look at the ending (the original ending, not the fan service EC) and you can pull it apart second by second if you look at the ending as a literal one. It's terrible in every way shape and form if you look at it literaly. It's so unfulfilling. So out of place with the narrative. It's so disjointed and poorly edited. A virtual clone of the deus-ex ending.
Then again I'm an ITer so I see the ending as it was, with all it's flaws as a work of utter genious.
It's so unfulfilling.
Hm, strange, as it was fulfilling to me.
No offense but look at the ending (the original ending, not the fan service EC) and you can pull it apart second by second if you look at the ending as a literal one. It's terrible in every way shape and form if you look at it literaly. It's so unfulfilling. So out of place with the narrative. It's so disjointed and poorly edited. A virtual clone of the deus-ex ending.
Then again I'm an ITer so I see the ending as it was, with all it's flaws as a work of utter genious.
Honestly, I'm still not convinced that the AI is the catalyst. Is there a valid reason why we should trust a glowing AI boy when you're half dead yourself?
Actually the form is really coherent. The crucible is the basis of Mass effect 3.... Mass effect is postmodernism. Sovereign speech is a clone of star control. There are many moments you will say "here is this reference" but though it as a similar form to deus ex, it has nothing else in common.
Disjointed and poorly edited ? You have to develop.
Wow, I have so seriously underestimated the writers...I thought that
1) the "crucible" stems from Sol Stein's book "Stein on Writing", chapter 8, "The Crucible: A Key to Successful Plotting" and
2) the "catalyst" stems from the catalyst of the three-act structure (see https://en.wikipedia...e-act_structure, aka "inciting incident"),
and that the writers understood these, well, too literally? (Like: "Hey, Stein says we need a crucible in our story, so...") But of course ME3 is instead a postmodern deconstruction of established patterns of storytelling, brilliant 
...too bad it does not work on the naive (literal) level and left so many fans disappointed, though.
Wow, I have so seriously underestimated the writers...I thought that
1) the "crucible" stems from Sol Stein's book "Stein on Writing", chapter 8, "The Crucible: A Key to Successful Plotting" and
2) the "catalyst" stems from the catalyst of the three-act structure (see https://en.wikipedia...e-act_structure, aka "inciting incident"),
and that the writers understood these, well, too literally? (Like: "Hey, Stein says we need a crucible in our story, so...") But of course ME3 is instead a postmodern deconstruction of established patterns of storytelling, brilliant
Well the problems are more or less all over the trilogy. Let´s start with ME 2 where we gather 12 special hardcore killerdudes, -gals and pick up a robot on the way to assault the Collector homeworld before we find out that it´s actually a base we can actually blow apart.
Then let´s move over to ME 3 where the admirals responsible for defending Earth ask you how to defend Earth and Shep goes Hollywood inspiring speech time. After being held there for 6 months, they ask the guy who was in the council tower while the fleet was shooting Sovereign.
There is some stuff like the dreadnought who is actually unable to enter an atmosphere getting shot down or the plotshields of the Normandy in full force for the first time with the Reaper shooting down the two shuttles just in front of you while completely ignoring the tasty frigate. Is that too nitpicky? Hm, probably.
Then we move to the plot where every time you hear Cerberus you know, the logic goes and takes a long and deep nap. From Hollywood superhacking, downloading data and deleting it from a device that actually works completely different twice, Shepard patiently waiting for the robot to call home, to Shepard doing Hollywood mook markmanship by closely missing the enemy with his pistol, besides having a 1000 different options, to fighting Cerberus troops with swords who think they are ninja. And throw in some nazi in the mix, by getting their own concentration camp with a soap machine.
Edit: totally forgot this massive plothole of where did Cerberus get al these ships. I get the soldiers if I don´t look to closely and the equipment if we assume that fabricating smaller stuff is rather easy in the 22nd century. But Shep was assaulting the collector base six months ago with a measly frigate and now Cerberus has friggin dreadnoughts and cruiser fleets?
We also have awesome visuals in the space battles where Bioware ignored more or less everything they wrote about space battles in their codex besides being not really good tactics but the cinematics look cool and Shepard can yell Fire like in Zulu. I waited for the "wait until you see the white in their eyes."
Then the whole mess of Mission Earth, I heard some people found the beam run immersive, some people think Anderson is the biggest idiot who ever yelled a command but well Mikefest is here, he can elaborate if he wants to. Myself I thought, I feel like a pyjak on Tuchanka.
And then we entered the exalted presence of the Catalyst who told us in his first few sentences "I am the Catalyst, the Citadel is my home," which turned the whole plot of ME 1 into nonsense...at the same very place where Sovereign was hugging the tower to open the relay three years ago. I mean, really, they just opened this big question about one third of the trilogy and not even one sentence about it even in the EC? About the rest, see above.
Sorry that I am not blown away by Hudson´s matrix architect ripoff.
It seems to me that ME 3 was more similar to hollywood media than the previous parts and sacrificed quite a lot for drama.
Honestly you are expecting WAY WAY too much. Every single Sci-Fi ever written or movie made has things that don't make sense. And here's another thing. Real life has way more things that don't make sense.
Lord of the Rings why not have the Eagles fly Frodo and the ring to Mt. Doom?
Independence Day (movie) something that big in orbit would impact the rotation of the Earth and cause massive tides.
Tell you what. Why don't you list your favorite Sci-Fi or fantasy game, movie or book and I guarantee I can shred it to bits.
Bottom line is there are problems because it is IMPOSSIBLE not to have problems in Sci-Fi or fantasy.
Honestly, I'm still not convinced that the AI is the catalyst. Is there a valid reason why we should trust a glowing AI boy when you're half dead yourself?
Wow, I have so seriously underestimated the writers...I thought that
1) the "crucible" stems from Sol Stein's book "Stein on Writing", chapter 8, "The Crucible: A Key to Successful Plotting" and
2) the "catalyst" stems from the catalyst of the three-act structure (see https://en.wikipedia...e-act_structure, aka "inciting incident"),
and that the writers understood these, well, too literally? (Like: "Hey, Stein says we need a crucible in our story, so...") But of course ME3 is instead a postmodern deconstruction of established patterns of storytelling, brilliant
"The climax is the scene or sequence in which the main tensions of the story are brought to their most intense point and the dramatic question answered, leaving the protagonist and other characters with a new sense of who they really are."
yeah like that happened in the ending..
nah.. still like IT. It works on every level when you look at everything from Shepard waking up from his last dream before Cronos Station.
But it wasn't Shepard who got himself indoctrinated.... It was any player who sided with the reapers and didn't blow their squiddy asses to kingdom come. Yes you the player who chose Control or Synthesis. You are indoctrinated.
I had a conversation with my oldest son about the endings. He played the games a few years ago and told me that he didn't like the endings at all (original and extended cut). I pressed him on it to try and get to the real issues. At first he listed all of the usual complaints about plot holes, writing whatever. Then I found out why he really didn't like it.
There was no ending boss fight. He wanted to fight Harbinger toe to toe or something along those lines. He didn't want to fight the AI kid but the very first and oldest Reaper. This was the real enemy in his mind. He did not like a "story" ending. Didn't matter how it was done or what could have been written differently. It would never fit his wants here. Even the destruction ending wasn't satisfying as he couldn't participate int the fight.
This was pretty insightful for me. I wonder how many others actually fall into this exact same situation. Only a real fight would fulfill their needs. All the rest is a cover or excuse for this.
I had a conversation with my oldest son about the endings. He played the games a few years ago and told me that he didn't like the endings at all (original and extended cut). I pressed him on it to try and get to the real issues. At first he listed all of the usual complaints about plot holes, writing whatever. Then I found out why he really didn't like it.
There was no ending boss fight. He wanted to fight Harbinger toe to toe or something along those lines. He didn't want to fight the AI kid but the very first and oldest Reaper. This was the real enemy in his mind. He did not like a "story" ending. Didn't matter how it was done or what could have been written differently. It would never fit his wants here. Even the destruction ending wasn't satisfying as he couldn't participate int the fight.
This was pretty insightful for me. I wonder how many others actually fall into this exact same situation. Only a real fight would fulfill their needs. All the rest is a cover or excuse for this.
So... you basically dismissed all his arguments and opinions except the one that you personally liked. How were the other things not relevant? What makes the lack of boss battle the only acceptable and, according to you, truthful statement? Why do you dismiss all his other arguments as invalid? That seems like a pretty unfair way to have a discussion to me. From there, you proceed to draw an incorrect conclusion as you cherry picked the one thing that you liked and that was convenient for you in order to invalidate other people's arguments and opinions. While I appreciate you tried to have a discussion with your son about it and find it totally awesome, I don't think that's how you have a proper discussion and it's not a way to gather data objectively. Reread your post and realise you just said that you pushed him until you heard what you liked.
Retour en haut