3578 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

I can't recall any other mixed bag" that has caused so much backlash

[Vanilka]

Rather seen the posts on the forums that the ending would have been perfect if they cut basically all the part on the Citadel and just had the Crucible blow the Reapers up. Compared to what you got in game were the creators gave the Reapers and the ending a little bit of depth to them. They would have the game be so shallow if it was a puddle I wouldn't even get my shoes wet standing in it.
 
The very complaints that show up again and again are all based on the game not doing things perfectly? Why do so many people not like the Catalyst? Because he wasn't introduced perfectly into the game. Or at least their own interpretation of perfectly into the game. Why do people not like the options you are given at the end? In regards to them thinking the Crucible should just kill Reapers and do nothing else? Because to their perceptions the options were not introduced perfectly into the game.
 
Hell 90% of the complaints about the writing is based on the idea in their head that the writers at BioWare thought the game was 110% perfection incarnate. And use proof of the EC needing to exist and proof they are really shitty writes because they feel the original version was 100% intended and they saw it as 100% perfect.

 
Sure. Argue about one word that was not even meant to be taken literally. Make three nonsensical paragraphs about it. 
 
I asked for proof. You deliver nothing and proceed to make up ridiculous claims nobody said.
 
I'm going to quote myself:

 

Wanting it to be good isn't the same as wanting it to be flawless.

[Vanilka]

The fact that Citadel fits so poorly into ME3's narrative is exactly why it's so much fun.  I finish the party and don't want to go back to the main story.

Personally, I like to play it at the very end of the game because I can't see my Shepard being able to relax with the apocalypse going on and it really throws my experience out of balance by being so light-hearted and carefree in comparison with the rest of the game. My Shepard gives too much of a damn about what's going on to go on holiday during the war. So the Citadel DLC is the last thing I play, modded in after the ending, and I find it to be a nice farewell to the franchise. When I played it for the first time, I grinned like an idiot non-stop.

[rossler]

I can't recall any other mixed bag" that has caused so much backlash

 

When you're passionate about something, emotions tend to fly off the handle.

[Natureguy85]

Except that nobody said that it was perfect...

 

And yet the near constant complaint is that because it isn't perfect it is bad. So figure of speech that many use literally. Demanding the game be perfect to be good.

 

If it's not perfect, then why do you fanboys try to defend it against every single criticism?

 

 

 

Rather seen the posts on the forums that the ending would have been perfect if they cut basically all the part on the Citadel and just had the Crucible blow the Reapers up. Compared to what you got in game were the creators gave the Reapers and the ending a little bit of depth to them. They would have the game be so shallow if it was a puddle I wouldn't even get my shoes wet standing in it.

 

The very complaints that show up again and again are all based on the game not doing things perfectly? Why do so many people not like the Catalyst? Because he wasn't introduced perfectly into the game. Or at least their own interpretation of perfectly into the game. Why do people not like the options you are given at the end? In regards to them thinking the Crucible should just kill Reapers and do nothing else? Because to their perceptions the options were not introduced perfectly into the game.

 

Hell 90% of the complaints about the writing is based on the idea in their head that the writers at BioWare thought the game was 110% perfection incarnate. And use proof of the EC needing to exist and proof they are really shitty writes because they feel the original version was 100% intended and they saw it as 100% perfect.

 

Ever heard of Pandora's Box? Sometimes you open up something and, after seeing what's inside, you wish you hadn't. The Reapers didn't need depth or detailed motivation because they and their history were not the focus of the story. The story was about Shepard and his crew. That's why it's such a problem that Shepard got so little character development.

 

It's not that the Catalyst wasnt inserted perfectly; it's that it was shoved in poorly. It's not that the Crucible doesn't just destroy the Reapers. Lots of us would have been happy with the idea that the Crucible was actually another Reaper trap. At this point I'm not sure if you're purposely diminishing the arguments so you can argue against your strawman or if you really just don't comprehend these things.

[gothpunkboy89]

 
Sure. Argue about one word that was not even meant to be taken literally. Make three nonsensical paragraphs about it. 
 
I asked for proof. You deliver nothing and proceed to make up ridiculous claims nobody said.
 
I'm going to quote myself:

 

 

And I repeat the flaws are what people complain about. If the flaws did not exist people would not complain.

 

Very simple cause and effect stuff here. People see the imperfections and complain about them because they effect the over all story the game is telling. They want to remove those imperfections or improve on them to make the game perfect. At least their idealized version of perfection.

 

That is why some people state they should remove or never added in the Catalyst into the game. They see it as a flaw that causes a problem for them. Or that they way the Catalyst is handled is a flaw that causes problems for them and if it was only handled differently it would be perfect to them.

 

Everyone has their own definition of perfect. Perfection is subjective not objective.

[gothpunkboy89]

If it's not perfect, then why do you fanboys try to defend it against every single criticism?

 

 

Ever heard of Pandora's Box? Sometimes you open up something and, after seeing what's inside, you wish you hadn't. The Reapers didn't need depth or detailed motivation because they and their history were not the focus of the story. The story was about Shepard and his crew. That's why it's such a problem that Shepard got so little character development.

 

It's not that the Catalyst wasnt inserted perfectly; it's that it was shoved in poorly. It's not that the Crucible doesn't just destroy the Reapers. Lots of us would have been happy with the idea that the Crucible was actually another Reaper trap. At this point I'm not sure if you're purposely diminishing the arguments so you can argue against your strawman or if you really just don't comprehend these things.

 

 

Your constant complains about everything is proof of it's imperfection. If those issues that you have did not exist it would be perfection to you.

 

BTW Reapers did need detailed motivation and history. They are the main antagonist of the trilogy and thus need a bit more back story then goon 8694-B that you mow down without a second thought.

[Vanilka]

And I repeat the flaws are what people complain about. If the flaws did not exist people would not complain.

 

Very simple cause and effect stuff here. People see the imperfections and complain about them because they effect the over all story the game is telling. They want to remove those imperfections or improve on them to make the game perfect. At least their idealized version of perfection.

 

That is why some people state they should remove or never added in the Catalyst into the game. They see it as a flaw that causes a problem for them. Or that they way the Catalyst is handled is a flaw that causes problems for them and if it was only handled differently it would be perfect to them.

 

Everyone has their own definition of perfect. Perfection is subjective not objective.

 

Do you understand the concept of things not being complete extremes? That's why we have nice adjectives like mediocre, decent, good, great, etc. I'm not going to repeat myself any longer. I've made my point already. People are talking about how they'd improve the game and what they consider to be its flaws. That's it. That you draw ridiculous conclusions out of it and put words into people's mouths just for the sake of having a pointless argument about things that do not matter is not my problem. Sometimes I feel like you disagree just for the sake of disagreeing regardless of whether it has anything to do with anything. There's no point in having this conversation as it adds absolutely nothing to this thread.

 

 

Ever heard of Pandora's Box? Sometimes you open up something and, after seeing what's inside, you wish you hadn't.

 

For a sec I thought you were talking about posting in this thread...

[Shechinah]

The fact that Citadel fits so poorly into ME3's narrative is exactly why it's so much fun.  I finish the party and don't want to go back to the main story.

 

I do not know if you know this but I believe you can use a version of the MEHEM mod alongside a mod that basically makes the Citadel DLC the playable epilogue of the maingame.
 

[gothpunkboy89]

Do you understand the concept of things not being complete extremes? That's why we have nice adjectives like mediocre, decent, good, great, etc. I'm not going to repeat myself any longer. I've made my point already. People are talking about how they'd improve the game and what they consider to be its flaws. That's it. That you draw ridiculous conclusions out of it and put words into people's mouths just for the sake of having a pointless argument about things that do not matter is not my problem. Sometimes I feel like you disagree just for the sake of disagreeing regardless of whether it has anything to do with anything. There's no point in having this conversation as it adds absolutely nothing to this thread.

 

 

 

For a sec I thought you were talking about posting in this thread...

 

Yes I do yet players here always bring things to the extreme.

 

Ikaus claims them putting shooting the Catalyst as BioWare clearly must be hate trolling players because of the videos of them shooting the Catalyst in it.

 

Monica21 swears that how the game was made was 100% the 100% way BioWare wanted it even though there are very noticeable moments particularly at the end that the EC addressed. That give the impression of them being rushed for time or budget or both and tried to get the main themes they wanted in. Claiming the standard apology that a GM would do when work is criticized as 100% proof for her that they did everything they wanted how they wanted. Even though the final level doesn't have the same pacing or flow as the rest of the game.

 

QuarianMasterRace posted a fairly long reply about the battle of Rannoch which I am waiting for the reply to my post but some of the bits in it are extremes such the Quarians are really some master strategist by hiding behind a large celestial body in this case the sun. Which in the event of siding with Geth over Quarians the Geth beat the Quarians by attacking that hidden rear forcing them need to retreat under fire from the main force catching them between the two bodies. Or claiming Tali does nothing when siding with Geth which again ignores Tali attempts to call off the fleets but is ignored by Gerrel.

 

The very reply from Natureguy you quoted is using an extreme or absolute. Stating the Reapers didn't need any sort of back story just exist. Which again is an extreme. That is what 90% of any discussion about the story is. People taking extremes in though and declaring it fact and when someone disagrees with them and mores specifically disagrees with them in favor of BioWare because holy cow someone might think a bit differently then the cliche that has developed on the forums they much clearly be a fan boy kissing BioWare's ass. Which is another extreme.

 

A good example is the beam run that I using the logic in game attempted to show were it isn't a completely stupid action. To the avail of nothing as everyone continued to claim I was pure head cannoning everything, I don't know what I'm talking about and the entire run set up is still completely and utterly idiotic.

 

Extremes are this forum's native tongue.

[Vanilka]

Yes I do yet players here always bring things to the extreme.

 

Ikaus claims them putting shooting the Catalyst as BioWare clearly must be hate trolling players because of the videos of them shooting the Catalyst in it.

 

Monica21 swears that how the game was made was 100% the 100% way BioWare wanted it even though there are very noticeable moments particularly at the end that the EC addressed. That give the impression of them being rushed for time or budget or both and tried to get the main themes they wanted in. Claiming the standard apology that a GM would do when work is criticized as 100% proof for her that they did everything they wanted how they wanted. Even though the final level doesn't have the same pacing or flow as the rest of the game.

 

QuarianMasterRace posted a fairly long reply about the battle of Rannoch which I am waiting for the reply to my post but some of the bits in it are extremes such the Quarians are really some master strategist by hiding behind a large celestial body in this case the sun. Which in the event of siding with Geth over Quarians the Geth beat the Quarians by attacking that hidden rear forcing them need to retreat under fire from the main force catching them between the two bodies. Or claiming Tali does nothing when siding with Geth which again ignores Tali attempts to call off the fleets but is ignored by Gerrel.

 

The very reply from Natureguy you quoted is using an extreme or absolute. Stating the Reapers didn't need any sort of back story just exist. Which again is an extreme. That is what 90% of any discussion about the story is. People taking extremes in though and declaring it fact and when someone disagrees with them and mores specifically disagrees with them in favor of BioWare because holy cow someone might think a bit differently then the cliche that has developed on the forums they much clearly be a fan boy kissing BioWare's ass. Which is another extreme.

 

A good example is the beam run that I using the logic in game attempted to show were it isn't a completely stupid action. To the avail of nothing as everyone continued to claim I was pure head cannoning everything, I don't know what I'm talking about and the entire run set up is still completely and utterly idiotic.

 

Extremes are this forum's native tongue.

 

 

This reply has nothing to do with our discussion up to this point. At this point you're pulling posts of random people that I'm not even sure that you've interpreted precisely and slapping "and that's an extreme, too!" on them regardless of whether it makes sense. (It really doesn't.) And what purpose does it serve exactly? Considering my previous post, I'd say that none because it's no counterargument to anything I said. I'd suggest you learn to hold a thought and stay on topic instead of jumping from an idea to an idea just because you see an interesting word within a post.

 

Now can we please get back on the damn topic? Which is ME3's ending and not semantics.

[Monica21]

Monica21 swears that how the game was made was 100% the 100% way BioWare wanted it even though there are very noticeable moments particularly at the end that the EC addressed. That give the impression of them being rushed for time or budget or both and tried to get the main themes they wanted in. Claiming the standard apology that a GM would do when work is criticized as 100% proof for her that they did everything they wanted how they wanted. Even though the final level doesn't have the same pacing or flow as the rest of the game.

Nuh uh.

[Iakus]

I do not know if you know this but I believe you can use a version of the MEHEM mod alongside a mod that basically makes the Citadel DLC the playable epilogue of the maingame.
 

Yeah, I know about it.  And it's pretty much the only way I can do Citadel without just giving up after the party.

 

Even MEHEM can't really draw me back after the party.

[iM3GTR]

I can't recall any other mixed bag" that has caused so much backlash

Much like half of Cerberus' cells, there seems to be a rogue speech mark in there.

[rossler]

BTW Reapers did need detailed motivation and history. They are the main antagonist of the trilogy and thus need a bit more back story then goon 8694-B that you mow down without a second thought.

 

That's what makes the Reapers so interesting.

[sveners]

Extremes are this forum's native tongue.

No. Just yours.

[Monica21]

No. Just yours.

Agreed. I'm not 100% about anything, and have never claimed to be. At this point I feel like I should be offended at the continued misreading of my posts, but it's just tiresome. And I have more interesting things to do with my time.

[gothpunkboy89]

 

 

This reply has nothing to do with our discussion up to this point. At this point you're pulling posts of random people that I'm not even sure that you've interpreted precisely and slapping "and that's an extreme, too!" on them regardless of whether it makes sense. (It really doesn't.) And what purpose does it serve exactly? Considering my previous post, I'd say that none because it's no counterargument to anything I said. I'd suggest you learn to hold a thought and stay on topic instead of jumping from an idea to an idea just because you see an interesting word within a post.

 

Now can we please get back on the damn topic? Which is ME3's ending and not semantics.

 

It has everything to do with this discussion. I point out that the game isn't perfect because people complain about those perfections.

 

Do you understand the concept of things not being complete extremes? That's why we have nice adjectives like mediocre, decent, good, great, etc.

 

 I use the many examples of players going to extremes on subject and now you claim it isn't part of this discussion? Because these are examples of people going to extremes. And uses those extremes to validate their complain that X event or writing is terrible. In fact players like Iakus I don't think I've ever seen post a positive thing about this game in the 6 months + I've been on the forums for this game.

 

You complain about me going to extremes or using extremes and I try to point out that I'm not the only one guilty of this. Yet when I point out other players suddenly it isn't relevant anymore? Seems to so a fair degree of bias.

[gothpunkboy89]

Why wouldn't we? Here's another quote from the apology: As co-founder and GM of BioWare, I’m very proud of the ME3 team; I personally believe Mass Effect 3 is the best work we’ve yet created.
 
And then later: I believe passionately that games are an art form, and that the power of our medium flows from our audience, who are deeply involved in how the story unfolds, and who have the uncontested right to provide constructive criticism. At the same time, I also believe in and support the artistic choices made by the development team. The team and I have been thinking hard about how to best address the comments on ME3’s endings from players, while still maintaining the artistic integrity of the game.

There's no reason not to believe that the pre-EC ending is exactly what they wanted. There's no reason not to believe that Bioware thought the Catalyst was well-implemented. There's no reason not to believe that they wanted us to believe that there will always be conflict between organics and synthetics, and oh, surprise!, that's the story you've been playing all along, whether you brokered peace on Rannoch or not.

So it's less, "players are assuming that that's what Bioware intented" and more, "Bioware explicitly told us that that's what they intended."

 

Misread it huh? Seems pretty black and white.

[Monica21]

Misread it huh? Seems pretty black and white.

I think you should learn not to skip stuff just because you don't understand it.

[gothpunkboy89]

I think you should learn not to skip stuff just because you don't understand it.

 

I quoted your entire post.

 

My entire point was that the EC was what they wanted to show rather then what was shown do to any number of difficulties. You were firmly against that feeling claiming they showed exactly what they wanted to show. And the original ending was everything they wanted to do.

 

So what part did I skip exactly?

[Monica21]

I quoted your entire post.

You did.
 

My entire point was that the EC was what they wanted to show rather then what was shown do to any number of difficulties. You were firmly against that feeling claiming they showed exactly what they wanted to show. And the original ending was everything they wanted to do.

I can see how my post could be interpreted that way, so let me explain this to you. And pay attention. Nobody gets 100% of what they want. I didn't claim "100%" so stop twisting words and meanings. What I said was that Bioware's artistic vision was conveyed the way they intended in the original endings. There is no game company that gets 100% of what they want. There was a linked post earlier where Mac Walters talked about a dialogue he had to cut. While I do believe the artistic vision was to leave a "galactic wasteland" (to quote another poster, so don't say that I said that), I don't think that Bioware was able to do everything they wanted to do.

I understand that you may think there's nuance to this, so just tell me yes or no if you understand it. Because I'm unlikely to reply to anything else. I'm also unlikely to reply to a "no, I don't understand it" because I just don't care anymore.
 

So what part did I skip exactly?

The part where I said "Bioware got 100% of what they want."

[rossler]

I don't think that Bioware was able to do everything they wanted to do.

 

No company does. That's business.

[gothpunkboy89]

You did.
 

I can see how my post could be interpreted that way, so let me explain this to you. And pay attention. Nobody gets 100% of what they want. I didn't claim "100%" so stop twisting words and meanings. What I said was that Bioware's artistic vision was conveyed the way they intended in the original endings. There is no game company that gets 100% of what they want. There was a linked post earlier where Mac Walters talked about a dialogue he had to cut. While I do believe the artistic vision was to leave a "galactic wasteland" (to quote another poster, so don't say that I said that), I don't think that Bioware was able to do everything they wanted to do.

I understand that you may think there's nuance to this, so just tell me yes or no if you understand it. Because I'm unlikely to reply to anything else. I'm also unlikely to reply to a "no, I don't understand it" because I just don't care anymore.
 

The part where I said "Bioware got 100% of what they want."

 

You seem to be agreeing with me now.

[Monica21]

You seem to be agreeing with me now.

 

About what?