What would have solved anything?
Not introducing a semi-omniscient character in the last ten minutes, for one. That's a storytelling 101.
Have the endings determined by choices made during the main story, rather than by an by picking a metaphorical button to push.
At the very least, having important plot information in the game itself, rather than in a $15 dlc released four months later.
I'm asking them to solve ME3's problems. I'm criticizing their mistakes in the hope they don't repeat them.
You clearly stated above that you want them to "own up to it." (and you have a very specific picture in your head as to what it is they should own up to).
It's obvious that no one here wants them to repeat their mistakes... there is, however, a lot of disagreement as to what exactly those mistakes actually were.
After 4 years, there is no point now in Bioware owning up to anything. Bioware AND us collectively just need to move forward.
Not introducing a semi-omniscient character in the last ten minutes, for one. That's a storytelling 101.
Have the endings determined by choices made during the main story, rather than by an by picking a metaphorical button to push.
At the very least, having important plot information in the game itself, rather than in a DCL released four months later.
I think making Andromeda is as close as you're gonna get to them "owning" up to it.
It's a reset... more or less.
Which is why I'm still not excited about Andromeda. I never asked for it. It wasn't meant for me.
I think making Andromeda is as close as you're gonna get to them "owning" up to it.
It's a reset... more or less.
Which is why I'm still not excited about Andromeda. I never asked for it. It wasn't meant for me.
I agree. Conversely, I am excited about it, though... and that should be OK for both us.
People seem to be assuming that I want Bioware to personally apologize to me. That's not it. Bioware owes me nothing.
I'm criticizing Bioware's response to negative feedback to ME3. Rather than accept criticism, they deflected it.
It implies that they think players who didn't like ME3's ending were wrong for not liking their product. Blaming the audience is never a good attitude for a content creator.
lol... well what is it then? Why am I (mostly) satisfied and you aren't.... after all this time?
There's lots of things:
The biggest one for me is the consequences. They are, to me at least, evil. All of them. Genocide, slavery, or eugenics. This is not hyperbole. ANd in a sense EC makes the endings worse for me because people are celebrating these atrocious acts. But would it be better if the entire galaxy died? people sneer. Well, for me, maybe? That's not a good ending. But to me it's hardly worse.
Then there's the space magic aspect. I know people like dreamgazer snicker and point out all the space magic that the trilogy already has. ANd to a certain degree, this is true. But ME3 put it into overdrive. It's a bridge too far. I'm full up on BS, the bag is overflowing. We get a literal magic wand that magically does...stuff...to end the Reaper threat.
Then there's the fact that the galaxy didn't do a d*mn thing to stop the Reapers on its own. We were building some mysterious alien magic wand we had no clue how to use or even what it does. But hey, we've got nothing better to do while the Reapers harvest the galaxy! And let's not forget that the Reapers are so numerous and OP that if they were at all intelligent they could have ended it all as soon as they entered Council space. In the end, they let us "win" (for a given value of winning)
And yes, the fact that Shepard dies in virtually every permutation of the game. This was our character (or so we were told) yet our character gets railroaded into dying for...what? Feels? And as noted above, there wasn't even an ending worth dying for (or living, for that matter) It's base emotional manipulation that serves no purpose other than to force "bittersweet" into an ending, no matter how poorly it fits.
If they gave a rat's *$$ about "player choice" or agency, there would have been endings where Shepard lived or died.
And those are just the major issues. These endings failed on so many levels it's not even funny.
There's lots of things:
The biggest one for me is the consequences. They are, to me at least, evil. All of them. Genocide, slavery, or eugenics. This is not hyperbole. ANd in a sense EC makes the endings worse for me because people are celebrating these atrocious acts. But would it be better if the entire galaxy died? people sneer. Well, for me, maybe? That's not a good ending. But to me it's hardly worse.
Then there's the space magic aspect. I know people like dreamgazer snicker and point out all the space magic that the trilogy already has. ANd to a certain degree, this is true. But ME3 put it into overdrive. It's a bridge too far. I'm full up on BS, the bag is overflowing. We get a literal magic wand that magically does...stuff...to end the Reaper threat.
Then there's the fact that the galaxy didn't do a d*mn thing to stop the Reapers on its own. We were building some mysterious alien magic wand we had no clue how to use or even what it does. But hey, we've got nothing better to do while the Reapers harvest the galaxy! And let's not forget that the Reapers are so numerous and OP that if they were at all intelligent they could have ended it all as soon as they entered Council space. In the end, they let us "win" (for a given value of winning)
And yes, the fact that Shepard dies in virtually every permutation of the game. This was our character (or so we were told) yet our character gets railroaded into dying for...what? Feels? And as noted above, there wasn't even an ending worth dying for (or living, for that matter) It's base emotional manipulation that serves no purpose other than to force "bittersweet" into an ending, no matter how poorly it fits.
If they gave a rat's *$$ about "player choice" or agency, there would have been endings where Shepard lived or died.
And those are just the major issues. These endings failed on so many levels it's not even funny.
I think you were doing OK explaining some things, but you started speaking for everyone... when you admit none of the choices grab you personally. So how could you know how it affects others? You say there wasn't an ending worth dying for, but clearly, that's not the case for some people.
Also, Shepard isn't dead 
Shepard can live or die in ME3's ending. Agency preserved!
Shepard might live in one ending.
Shepard definitely dies in every other outcome. No agency there.
Which is moot for me because "evil" and "hyperbole" My Shepards wouldn't want to live anyway.
I think you were doing OK explaining some things, but you started speaking for everyone... when you admit none of the choices grab you personally. So how could you know how it affects others? You say there wasn't an ending worth dying for, but clearly, that's not the case for some people.
Also, Shepard isn't dead
Hmm, I tried to make it clear that these were my reasons. I know there are people who dislike the endings for different reasons. Or who share some of my reasons and not others. At any rate, put an imo in front of all that.
Also see above about Shepard being dead or not.
I believe Iakus's position is that it doesn't feel like Shepard lives in high-EMS Destroy, even though intellectually we all know it to be true.
Also see above.
Though also even in that one ending where Shepard "survives" they don't even do us the courtesy of showing Shepard's face. It's just a faceless, armless torso. Alone, hurt, no one but the LI even believing he/she is alive. And in an unexplored part of the Citadel. Not exactly a good final image of our character.
I'm criticizing Bioware's response to negative feedback to ME3. Rather than accept criticism, they deflected it.
We’re working hard to maintain the right balance between the artistic integrity of the original story while addressing the fan feedback we’ve received.
Shepard might live in one ending.
Shepard definitely dies in every other outcome. No agency there.
Which is moot for me because "evil" and "hyperbole" My Shepards wouldn't want to live anyway.
Hmm, I tried to make it clear that these were my reasons. I know there are people who dislike the endings for different reasons. Or who share some of my reasons and not others. At any rate, put an imo in front of all that.
Also see above about Shepard being dead or not.
Also see above.
Though also even in that one ending where Shepard "survives" they don't even do us the courtesy of showing Shepard's face. It's just a faceless, armless torso. Alone, hurt, no one but the LI even believing he/she is alive. And in an unexplored part of the Citadel. Not exactly a good final image of our character.
Fair enough.
So my only difference is I think Shepard can live... and I don't have the same qualms about ending AI. Genocide, as you put it. Sigh.
Now it's 2016... 4 years since the game ended... and this somehow made all the difference. You're still as disappointed as ever. 
It must suck though where you really do think that about all the AI choices. You're screwed. Truly. I can't offer any advice.
Wait, Iakus, a literal magic wand?
I'm not being snarky, just clarifying, are you using the word literally for emphasis or are you comparing the catalyst to a wand?
I still don't see the difference between the magic portals the series is built around and the abilities of the catalyst. It all seems equally like space magic to me. Not that I agree that there's anything wrong with that.
Which is moot for me because "evil" and "hyperbole" My Shepards wouldn't want to live anyway.
Hey it's not our fault your Shepard is weak
Wait, Iakus, a literal magic wand?
I'm not being snarky, just clarifying, are you using the word literally for emphasis or are you comparing the catalyst to a wand?
I still don't see the difference between the magic portals the series is built around and the abilities of the catalyst. It all seems equally like space magic to me. Not that I agree that there's anything wrong with that.
Hey it's not our fault your Shepard is weak
Maybe I was too hard on Jenkins. He was too eager to impress me afterwards.
My Shepards haven't been able to live with themselves since the fatal ending choice of ME1.
Hell, maybe they could've said something different to save Jenkins. That haunts their nightmares.
My Shepard can't live with the fact that her only outfit for going out is a crappy black dress that has N7 on it.
My Shepard can't live with the fact that her only outfit for going out is a crappy black dress that has N7 on it.
It is. Strange dreams are noted in the Cerberus team logs on the derelict Reaper. So are hallucinations which the kid and the Harbinger convo are. And, no, the Reaper dialog is not clear. Unless you speak Reaperese. Go listen to that clip again. Start at 51 secs. I see you conveniently ignored that.
The only reference to dreams on the derelict Reaper (unless I missed a log) is the last one where the scientist refers to the Reaper as dreaming when talking about how Indoctrination still occurs even when the Reaper is dead. The only hallucination is one guy seeing something pop out of the wall and disappear. There is nothing as vivid and real as seeing and talking to a person. Which Harbinger conversation is a hallucination? Arrival isn't. That's a fun way to look at it and could work, but it's not what was intended. A log in Arrival will talk about having a dream, but it sounds more horrific than the ones Shepard has.
That video is ambient noise. There are some points that sound like they could be muffled speech, but considering it's in the background and drowned out by other dialogue, I don't think there is any significance to it. It's a red flag when you have to manipulate the game to make a point. It seems a stretch, much like the IT claim that Harbinger says "serve us" before blasting Shepard.
Yeah, if the weight of the world was on my shoulders I'd be dreaming about some random kid I saw one time instead of all the people I actually care about. That totally makes more sense /sarcasm.
This criticism should be directed at the writers, not me, if it's even valid, which is questionable. They decided that this kid was going to be the representation of Shepard's concern for Earth and humanity. Remember, they decided for ME3 that Earth was super special for some reason. Arrival got that ball rolling by having Shepard declare in Arrival "because that's what humans do!" This focus on humans in a series about uniting different galactic species was strange. Then again, we'd been working with Cerberus all game.
The dreams do include people important to Shepard, as the lines of dead friends can be heard.
Anyhoo, the end of Arrival it establishes that Shepard has been affected to the point where he can be made to see Reaper induced hallucinations. He was chilling in the presence of a Reaper artifact that indoctrinated an entire station crew. But I guess the Reapers turned it off when Shepard arrived, right?
Shepard only sees a vision of the Arrival from the artifact. That vision is said and shown to be similar to the vision from the Prothean beacon. It ends quickly and Shepard snaps back to reality. That doesn't happen in Mass Effect 3 unless you count waking up from the dreams. The dreams are not similar to that vision though.
Your sarcastic question is foolish because Shepard was affected, so obviously no.
Yes, which is evidence of his mind slipping. When he's talking to TIM on the Citadel what do you think is happening? You think all those electronic sounds and whispering aren't the Reapers using TIM's body to amplify their indoctrination attempts. None of it makes any sense outside of the Reapers trying hard to indoctrinate him.
Seeing the child and the dreams were already evidence of Shepard's mind slipping. The noises in the confrontation with TIM are from what TIM is doing to control Shepard and Anderson. TIM is Indoctrinated, but like Saren, he has a certain level of control over himself still. The Reapers trying to Indoctrinate Shepard would make sense in this story, but that is not evidence that it actually is occurring. Remember that Indoctrination is slow unless you just want a useless husk, like that group of Salarians in the cell on Virmire.
I'm not interested in debunking IT for the millionth time.
Now you're just straight up lying.
TIM's eyes have a hollow center, three dots surround it in a triangle pattern and additional curved segments in a circular pattern between the dots.
Shepard's eyes have a solid center and three dots in a different orientation than TIM's. And that's it.
Shepard's eyes turn into the TIM eyes. Bioware specifically put that into the game. They did not have to do that, but made a conscious choice to change his eyes and the color of his synthetics. Even if the only difference was color and being upside down it would still be a change. You're in denial.
The comics are canon. So are the books. Try again. You clearly aren't interested in an honest discussion and will just say anything, ignore anything and straight up lie to yourself rather than acknowledge the facts.
I did not lie. I acknowledged the differences and do not give them any significance. I saw both as having synthetic eyes.
The books and comics may be canon, but should not contain plot critical information. Secondary media, or side media, is great for fleshing out stories that add to the universe. For example, I think one book deals with the Cerberus attack on the Quarian fleet that Prazza mentions on Freedom's Progress. Another deals with Anderson's run in with Kai Leng. Those are good uses since they flesh out something that was mentioned in the games, but they don't affect our understanding of the games. If something plot critical to the games was put in side media, they did it wrong. That's unfair and is bad writing. So I don't take any of that into account when analyzing the games. They should stand entirely on their own merit. If I need to know something to understand the games' plots, that information must be in the games.
Themes? Mass Effects themes have nothing to do with Refuse. Making a baseless assertion is not an argument. Where is your evidence? Where are your examples? Exactly. There are none. You're now trying to ignore everything else and merely mention "the basics of writing" as if that phrase can dig you out of the hole you've dug. As if all the concrete indisputable facts I've beat you across the head with don't exist. What? Are the game files lying? LOL.
You called yourself a nutcase. I don't believe you honestly believe the things you say. You're just too prideful to admit your 100% wrong. I destroyed you. I have pictures and sound files from the game proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you straight up lied. And you KNOW this. That's why you shut your trap and didn't respond because you KNOW you are beaten. It's best you follow Xilizhra's example and stay down. To do otherwise will only further your embarrassment.
Mass Effect was all about bringing together diverse people to achieve a common goal and species having the freedom to forge their own path. It was also about Shepard and company overcoming seemingly impossible odds. So it was entirely consistent with the rest of the series for Shepard to tell the Catalyst t go pound sand and that they were going to fight the Reapers. Even the idea of dying for that chance was mentioned before. Saren asked Shepard "Is submission not preferable to extinction?" The answer was a clear "No!" That's what Refuse ultimately is.
I encourage you to read the "All were thematically revolting" post in my signature. It's written by a literature professor and is very good. It's pre-EC, so he didn't have Refuse, but he lays out why all three other endings violate the themes of the series.
Excuse me for having a life outside of dealing with a clown like you. I do have time for it, but not every minute of every day. It's funny, if disgusting, to think of you sweating all over your keyboard as you freak out that someone online dare disagree with you.
(As you can see here, Natureguy85, the subject is now scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Look at Xilizhra. She is unapologetically ignorant on just about every aspect of the game. That is how pride looks AFTER the fall. Don't be that. Don't embarrass yourself.)
Yes, she was wrong about several things. However, I have no problem correcting her and prefer talking with her because she hasn't been a complete ass.
I'm not looking to make friends. I'm just looking to leave a trail of bodies. Two confirmed kills so far.
Well that's after your initial plan of having everyone tell you how genius you were failed. Now you're trying to save face.
Your tone has remained consistently passive aggressive.
You are a shining example of exactly what I mentioned to Hadeedak. You're caught in this way of thinking in which the existence of one idea negates the existence of another. I respect your opinion that the writers are incompetent. I think it's a valid conclusion and I certainly don't go around indirectly sassing you by commenting about you to other forum members. If I have something to say to you I say it directly to you. It has become clear to me that people are arguing that the writers are incompetent when the discussion, as far as I'm concerned, is in the context that the writers aren't incompetent, but merely made some bad decisions. This inability for people to acknowledge that the two ideologies can mutually coexist is the problem.
I'm not arguing that you or any Bad Writing type are wrong. I'm arguing that within a narratively consist game written by people who don't deserve to be fired, that certain events must be a certain way because of X, Y and Z. If you don't believe in a narratively consistent Mass Effect then it doesn't infringe upon that belief. I've come to the conclusion that both Xilizhra and Natureguy85 are arguing for the very legitimacy of Bad Writing, to the exclusion of "good writing" (and I use that term very loosely); As if my viewpoint's mere existence someone negates theirs. My error is not realizing this sooner and theirs is trying to apply reason to something that doesn't work within the framework of reason. If it's a matter of terrible writing due to incompetent writers it isn't beholden to be reasonable. I.e. there should be no conflict.
Can't we all just get along?
Emphasis mine.
As opposed to your just regular aggressive posts. Alan hasn't been passive aggressive. Challenging you isn't any kind of aggressive.
Whether the writers are incompetent or just made bad decisions is irrelevant. Either way, the end result was poor writing. The bold part shows where our problem is. That does not exist. Mass Effect is not a narratively consistent game series. You're imposing things onto the narrative to make it so. That's fine for your personal enjoyment, but it's another thing to go around screaming at everyone that it's the game as it actually exists.
That the one person being a jerk says "Can't we all just get along?" shows a horrific lack of self awareness.
Ugh, that control pic is so ugly. So is synthesis. I would not choose them just for that alone. Best to leave a pretty corpse, if you can help it.
It captures the inhumane aspect of it all though.
I agree. It's impossible to create a perfect work of fiction, after all."Poor writing" is an easy criticism, though. Anything can be deemed poor writing if looked at through the right lens.
Retour en haut
