If the game had ended 5 minutes earlier, it'd be finewolverine4262
Marauder Shields kills Shepard.
The End.
Perfect.
What went wrong with ME3...
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Uhh..not really. A team can easily make excellent story line and a single writer can just as easily make somethin that ends up gargled and f*cked.AdrianWerner
You obviously never read serialized comics before.
[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]Uhh..not really. A team can easily make excellent story line and a single writer can just as easily make somethin that ends up gargled and f*cked.Pariah_001
You obviously never read serialized comics before.
You obviously never watched a good tv show before. Propably haven't read many novel series either.[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]Uhh..not really. A team can easily make excellent story line and a single writer can just as easily make somethin that ends up gargled and f*cked. and if you want to prove your point, Mac Walter's decision not to flesh out the Catalyst at all was a huge mistake. And in the original ending because of this, I do agree that the Catalyst lacked thematic connection to the rest of the series. But with his origin backstory now there and his motives more fleshed out in the Extended Cut (as his lack of understanding of organic life), he definitely fits thematically with the rest of the series.[QUOTE="Pariah_001"]
That's what happens when you have a team of writers working on a single story. It ends up gargled and f*cked.
texasgoldrush
The biggest problem with ME3's ending that remains is that it was very anticlimatic and not having a confrontation with Harbringer was a clearly a broken promise on BioWare's part and those always hurt the perception of the whole story, even if it's otherwise ok.
You obviously never watched a good tv show before. Propably haven't read many novel series either.AdrianWerner
Sure I have. But even the best television show I've watched has tended to be hampered by contradictory writing. And this is, of course, due primarily to multiple writers/directors getting their piece in. And every decent novel series I've read has also been done by a single author.
Manga, for all its downsides has always had consistently stronger storytelling elements than western comics because their graphic novels are started and and ended by one author.
As I already mentioned before, switching writers is the primary reason Dexter turned sour after season 4.
and if you want to prove your point, Mac Walter's decision not to flesh out the Catalyst at all was a huge mistake. And in the original ending because of this, I do agree that the Catalyst lacked thematic connection to the rest of the series. But with his origin backstory now there and his motives more fleshed out in the Extended Cut (as his lack of understanding of organic life), he definitely fits thematically with the rest of the series.[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]Uhh..not really. A team can easily make excellent story line and a single writer can just as easily make somethin that ends up gargled and f*cked.
AdrianWerner
The biggest problem with ME3's ending that remains is that it was very anticlimatic and not having a confrontation with Harbringer was a clearly a broken promise on BioWare's part and those always hurt the perception of the whole story, even if it's otherwise ok.
You did have an encounter with Harbinger, just not in the way you expect. And the confrontation with TIM is the climax.
The Lead Writer part is the biggest part of the problem. Remember when Reapers were unknown beings who were almost unkillable and you just couldn't explain them or understand them? "YOU EXIST BECAUSE WE ALLOW IT, AND YOU WILL END BECAUSE WE DEMAND IT" But then the other writers were like "DUH I DON'T THINK OUR AUDIENCES LIKE SUBTLETY, LETS JUST SAY THEY'RE SPACE TERMINATORS, OH AND THERE'S SMALLER ONES TOO".tagyhag
Not sure if you are criticizing that Bioware has decided to explain the intentions and origins of the Reapers, how they did it or both, but if it is the decision to explain the Reapers itself, then I would disagree.
It was fun and exciting to not know what the Reapers were about and searching for answers, but for me, it only worked because I expected those answers in the end. The stories without proper explanations can be just as underwhelming (e.g. Battlestar Galactica) as stories with poor explanations. Especially if the lack of explanations is related to motives of characters.
But if it's about how Bioware did it, I can relate to that...
On top of that, even IF your claims of what the true point of forcing the ghost child to exist and having its bullshit A B or C endings is true (which again, is something we CAN still complain about because they said it wouldn't end like that) you still can't justify forcing all the endings like this to just be "no you have to agree to this thing we just pulled out of our ass or you fail and get a game over". that 4th ending they wrote in for refusing was a giant middle finger to everyone who pointed out how bullshit it was that we had the entire galaxy united and we wanted to see if we could fight them. don't say "no they couldn't win" because they never even tried. shepard sits there like a goon and everyone gets destroyed even though we could clearly see beforehand if your readiness was high enough that the combined forces you assembled were able to hold their own and be destroying plenty of the reapers.handssss
Bioware's marketing (promises) was very misleading at times. I agree with that and shame on them for making claims like the decision about Rachni queen mattering and such.
That aside. I can't relate to the rest of that paragraph.
Happy or even victorious endings are not a prerequisite for good stories. Not in books, not in movies and not even in videogames. The lack of victory on Shepard's / player's terms (i.e. not being forced to make decisions which player does not like) is one of very few complaints about which even the critics are arguing among themselves.
That's because it's a very subjective thing - e.g. when someone criticizes a story for not making sense, it's possible to examine such claim and by using logic, common sense, knowledge about the story and the rules established by the lore judge whether the story indeed does not make sense or somehow does. That's not possible when someone is criticizing story for being too sad, depressing, dark, tragic,... There's no rule that would prevent authors from giving their audience some hope only to crush it afterwards. And thank god for that. Otherwise plenty of compelling stories would not have seen the light of the day.
As for 4th ending, as a fan of dark / depressing stories, I would have loved to see more cutscenes depicting how everything went downhill. But given the outcry from some fans about how the endings are too dark / depressing as they are, I sort of understand if Bioware was afraid to go that route (though, maybe they were just lazy / in a hurry).
And even if you were to fail in the end, at least we could see all our hard work pay off. No, readiness and ALL of our decisions leading up to that point were basically never shown save for but a few differences in cutscenes. Yes, extended endings showed more, but we never saw rachni helping or geth ships attacking the reapers. We never saw anything but a few ship lasers at the beginning of the fight and then fighting some husks and whatnot on the ground with maybe a few humans in the background.
Now with that, I can totally agree. I would have loved to see more variety in cutsecenes depending on our choices throughout the series. With my previous point in mind though, I have to say that I would not have liked if the range of Shepard's success varied more. Shepard has pulled off plenty of seemingly impossible things as it was...
Sure I have. But even the best television show I've watched has tended to be hampered by contradictory writing. And this is, of course, due primarily to multiple writers/directors getting their piece in. And every decent novel series I've read has also been done by a single author.
Manga, for all its downsides has always had consistently stronger storytelling elements than western comics because their graphic novels are started and and ended by one author.
As I already mentioned before, switching writers is the primary reason Dexter turned sour after season 4.
Pariah_001
British tv shows are the only ones where you can find each season written solely by one person. Every single other tv show ever made has been collaborative effort of multiple writers. So it obviously can be done and done well.
And plenty of novel series turned into nonsense in later volumes.
Also..Dexter has been switching writters since S1. So using your logic it should have gone sour after first episode.
So bassicaly your idea that ME3 sucks because they've changed writers is completely baseless. it sucks because the new writer sucked. That's all. If they would get a good writer it wouldn't. Simple as that.
[ You did have an encounter with Harbinger, just not in the way you expect. texasgoldrushYes and that was a broken promise, because we got encounter instead of confrontation. It was even worse than Borderlands' ending.
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]and ambigious doesn;t mean its bad....the Last of US ending is ambigious and is better for it.
Pariah_001
Don't even begin to conflate the two. They are not comparable at all.
i have to admit, TGR always knows what to say to make me facepalm, comparing last of us ending with mass effect 3 ending now. Oh well another day in system wars, another bioware thread destroyed by texas unhealthy obsesion.
Every single other tv show ever made has been collaborative effort of multiple writers. So it obviously can be done and done well. AdrianWerner
The only thing that's obvious is that a show's luck eventually runs out a lot faster the longer its format is forced to support multiple writers. British shows do tend to have higher quality, and that is primarily the reason: one cook in the kitchen. Your example is only a testament to American media's failures in writing.
And plenty of novel series turned into nonsense in later volumes.AdrianWerner
How much later are you talking about on average? Obviously, single writer or no, everyone burns out on a long enough timeline. But what I'm saying is that, in general, singular writers will tend to yield higher quality writing more consistently for at least his or her initial story arcs--as they tend to be the most organized and well-planned regardless of how decent/crappy the story is.
Also..Dexter has been switching writters since S1. So using your logic it should have gone sour after first episode.AdrianWerner
I'm not talking about individual episodes. I'm talking about the head writers switching hands (like Mac Walters did with Drew Karpyshyn during ME2). Cerone left after season 2 and there was a fairly noticeable difference--still decent mind you. But after season four, Melissa Rosenberg and Clyde Phillips left the show and it took an entirely different, more campy direction that completely ignored what the final death scene in season 4 was going to lead up to in the following season. The quality took a serious hit and it only got worse.
I don't really like that indiviual episodes trade hands either, but as long as they're following guidelines established by a writer heierarchy, then that disconnect is somewhat mitigated. In this particular instance it worked out okay for the first few seasons, but that's not always the case.
If we were to suppose that Dexter had only been written by just Cerone or Phillips from the get-go (preferably Cerone), we'd see a more unified and coherent vision of the character and series that wouldn't have suffered the many downgrades that have been forced on it.
Oy, people are still bitching about the ending? Yes it was poorly done, but its been well over a year now. Move on.
Besides, if we're able to forgive the sh1tfest that's the original Mass Effect, then I'm sure we can find a place in our hearts to forgive the last 10 minutes of Mass Effect 3.
Not sure if you are criticizing that Bioware has decided to explain the intentions and origins of the Reapers, how they did it or both, but if it is the decision to explain the Reapers itself, then I would disagree.
It was fun and exciting to not know what the Reapers were about and searching for answers, but for me, it only worked because I expected those answers in the end. The stories without proper explanations can be just as underwhelming (e.g. Battlestar Galactica) as stories with poor explanations. Especially if the lack of explanations is related to motives of characters.
But if it's about how Bioware did it, I can relate to that...SciFiRPGfan
I would have been fine with 2 solutions,
1. Don't try to explain the Reapers, yes I understand that's in poor form in most cases but these are supposed to be nearly godlike killing machines. We are supposed to be but ants to them. When we step on an ant we don't explain ourselves to them, we just do. It added to their mysteriousness and the futility of our actions, nothing is scarier than a monster you can't explain or reason with.
2. If you have to explain them, give an amazing explanation. Though I can't fault Bioware for this since their writers are video game tier so I'm sure they tried their best. It's only a shame Drew Karpyshyn wasn't able to realize his full vision, maybe then the Reapers could have had a worthy send-off.
DAY ONE DLC!!! Not just something cosmetic or insignificant. They intentionally left out a character who was important to the story (not to mention he's the only other Adept in the game). Right out the gate, the game had issues. But then these fools had no real Boss climax and the ending sucked balls. Ugh
Playing through ME1 right now. Expecting the disappointment thanks to the internet.Blabadon
But ME1 is great.
ME2 is a little more streamlined and overall it improves most everything. Its at least just as good as 1 if not better. Although I missed the more 1980's scifi feel the first one had..
ME3 was god awful to me because it felt terribly rushed. You can see every returning character before they surprise you, you can see every character death coming from a mile off, the game lacked its sense of exploration because I felt like I was constantly being drug along by the game like a kid being guided by his mother holding his hand, all the side missions felt kind of flat and very uninteresting like they were forced in just because the other games had them, new characters felt generic and really uninspired like that that new mexican guy who sounds like a white doing a bad impression of a mexican by talking in his normal voice but constantly using the word "loco" in a mexican accent, and a dozen other reasons why I didnt like it.
The ending was just the capper because it personified how I felt through the entire game. I felt like it was rushed, unloved, and like it was just a meal ticket. The entire game felt like they were saying "Ok guys this is it. Lets wrap this up so we can get home in time for dexter". And thats what the ending felt like also, they were done so they rushed and got lazy. I mean the entire series is based on creating these characters, having a big expansive story to tell, having a lot of dialouge and so on but at the end they just pulled the plug on it and ran the credits.
Did you magically forget about the bad running animations?Nothing. It was a fine game.Wasdie
Playing through ME1 right now. Expecting the disappointment thanks to the internet.BlabadonME1 was repetitive but had the better story than 2 and 3, by quite a lot.
Mass Effect 3 was GREAT until the last 15 minutes. Ending was disappointing, but I won't let ruin the entire series for me. I think the Extended Cut, Leviathan and Citadel were all great DLCs that added a lot to the game as well.
[QUOTE="Blabadon"]Playing through ME1 right now. Expecting the disappointment thanks to the internet.PhazevarianceME1 was repetitive but had the better story than 2 and 3, by quite a lot.
I thought gameplay was what mattered to people on here. :cool:
ME1 was repetitive but had the better story than 2 and 3, by quite a lot.[QUOTE="Phazevariance"][QUOTE="Blabadon"]Playing through ME1 right now. Expecting the disappointment thanks to the internet.StrongBlackVine
I thought gameplay was what mattered to people on here. :cool:
It seems like when an RPG is brought up Gameplay goes right out the window and the story & lore have to shoulder the burden.I would have been fine with 2 solutions,1. Don't try to explain the Reapers, yes I understand that's in poor form in most cases but these are supposed to be nearly godlike killing machines. We are supposed to be but ants to them. When we step on an ant we don't explain ourselves to them, we just do. It added to their mysteriousness and the futility of our actions, nothing is scarier than a monster you can't explain or reason with.tagyhag
I don't know... I am not an expert on this stuff. I know that a fairly decent amount of people for example give a lot of credit to H.P. Lovecraft for writing stories like that so there must be something compelling about it. From what I have read tho (not sure if it was Call of Cthulhu or At the Mountains of Madness, probably the first one) I did not find it all that scary or entertaining.
For me, the aura of mysteriousness usually only works as a build up, but not as the sole purpose. And even more so in a story like Mass Effect, where those unknowable monsters were supposed to be stopped once and for all instead of just being delayed or instead of main protagonists escaping from them for the time being. I mean, I can almost imagine Mass Effect characters being like "Hmm... one has to wonder what did those Reapers want tho... Oh well, doesn't matter now. We've stopped them..." which would have felt extremely unsatisfying to me.
Or would you have changed the Reaper related plot (and maybe endings) as well?
2. If you have to explain them, give an amazing explanation. Though I can't fault Bioware for this since their writers are video game tier so I'm sure they tried their best. It's only a shame Drew Karpyshyn wasn't able to realize his full vision, maybe then the Reapers could have had a worthy send-off.
Yeah. Definitely would have loved the "2." to be the case.
I can even understand people prefering no explanation to the bad one. But to me, it sounds like a short term philosophy.
Sure, the game (movie, book) in question may not be as bad thanks to that, but the authors will learn nothing from that and either they will be bound to make those mistakes eventually or they will have to stick to those few things they are completely sure that they can pull off. As a big fan of innovation (both the player and the process :P), I would rather see the writers to not be affraid to try out new things even if it means that they will sometimes screw up.
[QUOTE="StrongBlackVine"][QUOTE="Phazevariance"] ME1 was repetitive but had the better story than 2 and 3, by quite a lot.Lulu_Lulu
I thought gameplay was what mattered to people on here. :cool:
It seems like when an RPG is brought up Gameplay goes right out the window and the story & lore have to shoulder the burden.i would say its 50/50, mass effect is weak in the gameplay but had great story (except for the end ofc) great lore and interesting characters.
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]They wrote themselves into a corner. That's what went wrong with the plot. The gameplay? They never really made it anything more than a solid shooter with some powers. Wickerman777
Let's not overstate things. The game was excellent until the ending. But that ending was beyond lame ... it was catastrophically bad. You spend 3 games fighting the Reapers and at the last minute some all-powerful ghost-kid shows up out of nowhere and finishes them off for you. It couldn't have been any more anticlimactic if they tried.
No, the game had serious flaws with dialogue and persona--especially once you reached the halfway point.[QUOTE="SciFiRPGfan"]
Not sure if you are criticizing that Bioware has decided to explain the intentions and origins of the Reapers, how they did it or both, but if it is the decision to explain the Reapers itself, then I would disagree.
It was fun and exciting to not know what the Reapers were about and searching for answers, but for me, it only worked because I expected those answers in the end. The stories without proper explanations can be just as underwhelming (e.g. Battlestar Galactica) as stories with poor explanations. Especially if the lack of explanations is related to motives of characters.
But if it's about how Bioware did it, I can relate to that...tagyhag
I would have been fine with 2 solutions,
1. Don't try to explain the Reapers, yes I understand that's in poor form in most cases but these are supposed to be nearly godlike killing machines. We are supposed to be but ants to them. When we step on an ant we don't explain ourselves to them, we just do. It added to their mysteriousness and the futility of our actions, nothing is scarier than a monster you can't explain or reason with.
2. If you have to explain them, give an amazing explanation. Though I can't fault Bioware for this since their writers are video game tier so I'm sure they tried their best. It's only a shame Drew Karpyshyn wasn't able to realize his full vision, maybe then the Reapers could have had a worthy send-off.
You didn't get it. 1. You missed the point, the all important twist about the Reapers. While at first, it is set up as the Reapers being unknowable, that's a ploy to hide the twist that in actuality, the Reapers don't understand organic life. And the Catalyst has to explain itself to Shepard after Shepard "altered the variables" with the Crucible allowing for new options. 2. Good riddance to Drew Karpshyn, the most overrated writer in video game history. Look what he did to Revan for SWTOR, Nevermind Avellone's Exile. And really, Drew is a very bad character writer, the characters suffered in character development when he was lead writer.
[QUOTE="tagyhag"][QUOTE="SciFiRPGfan"]
Not sure if you are criticizing that Bioware has decided to explain the intentions and origins of the Reapers, how they did it or both, but if it is the decision to explain the Reapers itself, then I would disagree.
It was fun and exciting to not know what the Reapers were about and searching for answers, but for me, it only worked because I expected those answers in the end. The stories without proper explanations can be just as underwhelming (e.g. Battlestar Galactica) as stories with poor explanations. Especially if the lack of explanations is related to motives of characters.
But if it's about how Bioware did it, I can relate to that...texasgoldrush
I would have been fine with 2 solutions,
1. Don't try to explain the Reapers, yes I understand that's in poor form in most cases but these are supposed to be nearly godlike killing machines. We are supposed to be but ants to them. When we step on an ant we don't explain ourselves to them, we just do. It added to their mysteriousness and the futility of our actions, nothing is scarier than a monster you can't explain or reason with.
2. If you have to explain them, give an amazing explanation. Though I can't fault Bioware for this since their writers are video game tier so I'm sure they tried their best. It's only a shame Drew Karpyshyn wasn't able to realize his full vision, maybe then the Reapers could have had a worthy send-off.
You didn't get it. 1. You missed the point, the all important twist about the Reapers. While at first, it is set up as the Reapers being unknowable, that's a ploy to hide the twist that in actuality, the Reapers don't understand organic life. And the Catalyst has to explain itself to Shepard after Shepard "altered the variables" with the Crucible allowing for new options. 2. Good riddance to Drew Karpshyn, the most overrated writer in video game history. Look what he did to Revan for SWTOR, Nevermind Avellone's Exile. And really, Drew is a very bad character writer, the characters suffered in character development when he was lead writer.Don't you ever get tired of the raging douchebag schtick? Or is the plan to get as many people on this forum to hate you as possible?
It seems like when an RPG is brought up Gameplay goes right out the window and the story & lore have to shoulder the burden.[QUOTE="Lulu_Lulu"][QUOTE="StrongBlackVine"]
I thought gameplay was what mattered to people on here. :cool:
Krelian-co
i would say its 50/50, mass effect is weak in the gameplay but had great story (except for the end ofc) great lore and interesting characters.
That Breaks my Heart alil. Personaly I think this problem is not only in the game, I think this problem can be traced all the way back to the genre itself, specificaly the Action-RPG genre. It needs to be revised and fixed.[QUOTE="Blabadon"]Playing through ME1 right now. Expecting the disappointment thanks to the internet.Gargus
But ME1 is great.
ME2 is a little more streamlined and overall it improves most everything. Its at least just as good as 1 if not better. Although I missed the more 1980's scifi feel the first one had..
ME3 was god awful to me because it felt terribly rushed. You can see every returning character before they surprise you, you can see every character death coming from a mile off, the game lacked its sense of exploration because I felt like I was constantly being drug along by the game like a kid being guided by his mother holding his hand, all the side missions felt kind of flat and very uninteresting like they were forced in just because the other games had them, new characters felt generic and really uninspired like that that new mexican guy who sounds like a white doing a bad impression of a mexican by talking in his normal voice but constantly using the word "loco" in a mexican accent, and a dozen other reasons why I didnt like it.
The ending was just the capper because it personified how I felt through the entire game. I felt like it was rushed, unloved, and like it was just a meal ticket. The entire game felt like they were saying "Ok guys this is it. Lets wrap this up so we can get home in time for dexter". And thats what the ending felt like also, they were done so they rushed and got lazy. I mean the entire series is based on creating these characters, having a big expansive story to tell, having a lot of dialouge and so on but at the end they just pulled the plug on it and ran the credits.
No, ME3 is the best...why? Its the only game in the series to have both a strong plot progression AND strong character development. ME1 had a strong plot progression, but the characters were lacking in development. They were talking codex entries instead of characters that grew throughout the journey, except for Wrex. Here is the deal, the worst offenders, Tali and Liara were written by Drew Karpyshyn himself, while the characters with the most development, Wrex and Garrus, were written by Mac Walters. And the non party members outside of Anderson had absolutely NO development at all. Joker was a talking codex as well. ME2 had great character development but the weakest plot in the series. In fact, the characters saved the entire game, because ME2's opening and closing were the weakest moments. ME3 had both character development and a strong plot. All your characters grew as time went on, some like EDI and Javik, under your influence. It was the riskiest of the three games and more brave with its themes, and it was not afraid to pull things that were unpopular to many players, like the deaths of some characters. I will let GameNexus review of ME3 take it away.... "So how do the denizens of the galaxy handle such news? Well, at least as far as Shepard and her cronies are concerned, they finally live, not only as in-universe characters, but as out-of-universe avatars whose job it is to guide the player through a series of feelings and emotions as they play. Thanks to BioWares amazing ability to breath life into these characters in a way they havent quite done before, Mass Effect 3 is far and away the most emotional game of, not only the Mass Effect series, but every console RPG BioWare has put out in the last ten years or so. Im routinely entertained by the dialogue and character interaction in BioWare games, but Mass Effect 3 is the first time Ive ever been moved by the dialogue and character interactions in a BioWare game. The fear, sadness, and despair these characters are feeling as their homeworlds burn and their families remain lost is palpable, and when they do get to experience brief moments of joy, its made all the more sweet. And its not just when you talk to them, but its also expressed in the way they interact with each other. That is, by far, Mass Effect 3s greatest accomplishment. All the familiar characters, from old teammates like Tali and Garrus to background characters like Joker and Dr. Chakwas sparkle with this newfound humanity. No longer are they digital mannequins that spout compelling and/or humorous dialogue. Now they are true characters with individual personalities that I could relate to in ways I couldnt in previous BioWare titles. I find it fascinating that it took their darkest title in a long long time to allow them the space (or motivate them) to wind the characters up into something greater than theyve ever been before. It took the end of everything to force the characters to finally live, and maybe it took writing about the end of everything that forced BioWare to finally live as well. " You can't argue with thisYou didn't get it. 1. You missed the point, the all important twist about the Reapers. While at first, it is set up as the Reapers being unknowable, that's a ploy to hide the twist that in actuality, the Reapers don't understand organic life. And the Catalyst has to explain itself to Shepard after Shepard "altered the variables" with the Crucible allowing for new options. 2. Good riddance to Drew Karpshyn, the most overrated writer in video game history. Look what he did to Revan for SWTOR, Nevermind Avellone's Exile. And really, Drew is a very bad character writer, the characters suffered in character development when he was lead writer.Don't you ever get tired of the raging douchebag schtick? Or is the plan to get as many people on this forum to hate you as possible? And anti enders like yourself aren't doing the douchebag schtick? Get real.[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="tagyhag"]
I would have been fine with 2 solutions,
1. Don't try to explain the Reapers, yes I understand that's in poor form in most cases but these are supposed to be nearly godlike killing machines. We are supposed to be but ants to them. When we step on an ant we don't explain ourselves to them, we just do. It added to their mysteriousness and the futility of our actions, nothing is scarier than a monster you can't explain or reason with.
2. If you have to explain them, give an amazing explanation. Though I can't fault Bioware for this since their writers are video game tier so I'm sure they tried their best. It's only a shame Drew Karpyshyn wasn't able to realize his full vision, maybe then the Reapers could have had a worthy send-off.
Vaasman
[QUOTE="Vaasman"]Don't you ever get tired of the raging douchebag schtick? Or is the plan to get as many people on this forum to hate you as possible? And anti enders like yourself aren't doing the douchebag schtick? Get real. Anti enders? Dude wut? Stop sucking Bioware's slong, ME3's ending sucked, hard. If you disagree then you are an idiot.[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] You didn't get it. 1. You missed the point, the all important twist about the Reapers. While at first, it is set up as the Reapers being unknowable, that's a ploy to hide the twist that in actuality, the Reapers don't understand organic life. And the Catalyst has to explain itself to Shepard after Shepard "altered the variables" with the Crucible allowing for new options. 2. Good riddance to Drew Karpshyn, the most overrated writer in video game history. Look what he did to Revan for SWTOR, Nevermind Avellone's Exile. And really, Drew is a very bad character writer, the characters suffered in character development when he was lead writer.texasgoldrush
You didn't get it. 1. You missed the point, the all important twist about the Reapers. While at first, it is set up as the Reapers being unknowable, that's a ploy to hide the twist that in actuality, the Reapers don't understand organic life. And the Catalyst has to explain itself to Shepard after Shepard "altered the variables" with the Crucible allowing for new options. 2. Good riddance to Drew Karpshyn, the most overrated writer in video game history. Look what he did to Revan for SWTOR, Nevermind Avellone's Exile. And really, Drew is a very bad character writer, the characters suffered in character development when he was lead writer.Don't you ever get tired of the raging douchebag schtick? Or is the plan to get as many people on this forum to hate you as possible? Texas has a point you know, but people aren't gona listen to him and he won't listen to them simply because both sides have too much pride to admit they're wrong. Both sides believe if they concede a tiny little argument they concede everysingle argument ever made before including ones that haven't been made yet. You gotta swallow your pride, ignore the insulting tone and you might just see his logic holds up. Otherwise. . . . well, I don't need to explain, this has been happening since before I got here.[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="tagyhag"]
I would have been fine with 2 solutions,
1. Don't try to explain the Reapers, yes I understand that's in poor form in most cases but these are supposed to be nearly godlike killing machines. We are supposed to be but ants to them. When we step on an ant we don't explain ourselves to them, we just do. It added to their mysteriousness and the futility of our actions, nothing is scarier than a monster you can't explain or reason with.
2. If you have to explain them, give an amazing explanation. Though I can't fault Bioware for this since their writers are video game tier so I'm sure they tried their best. It's only a shame Drew Karpyshyn wasn't able to realize his full vision, maybe then the Reapers could have had a worthy send-off.
Vaasman
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="Vaasman"]Don't you ever get tired of the raging douchebag schtick? Or is the plan to get as many people on this forum to hate you as possible?clyde46And anti enders like yourself aren't doing the douchebag schtick? Get real. Anti enders? Dude wut? Stop sucking Bioware's slong, ME3's ending sucked, hard. If you disagree then you are an idiot. ME3 ending sucked hard...only to the vocal minority.
[QUOTE="Vaasman"]Don't you ever get tired of the raging douchebag schtick? Or is the plan to get as many people on this forum to hate you as possible? And anti enders like yourself aren't doing the douchebag schtick? Get real.Even if they were, which almost all of them are not, no one could possibly reach the insane level of ultra douchiness that you have elevated yourself to. Stop being a dick and let people have opinions different from your own.[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] You didn't get it. 1. You missed the point, the all important twist about the Reapers. While at first, it is set up as the Reapers being unknowable, that's a ploy to hide the twist that in actuality, the Reapers don't understand organic life. And the Catalyst has to explain itself to Shepard after Shepard "altered the variables" with the Crucible allowing for new options. 2. Good riddance to Drew Karpshyn, the most overrated writer in video game history. Look what he did to Revan for SWTOR, Nevermind Avellone's Exile. And really, Drew is a very bad character writer, the characters suffered in character development when he was lead writer.texasgoldrush
Also lol anti enders. You must be foaming at the goddamn mouth at this point.
And anti enders like yourself aren't doing the douchebag schtick? Get real.Even if they were, which almost all of them are not, no one could possibly reach the insane level of ultra douchiness that you have elevated yourself to. Stop being a dick and let people have opinions different from your own. So I can't even challenge their opinions? Wow You are being the same thing you are accusing me of.[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="Vaasman"]Don't you ever get tired of the raging douchebag schtick? Or is the plan to get as many people on this forum to hate you as possible?
Vaasman
You didn't get it. 1. You missed the point, the all important twist about the Reapers. While at first, it is set up as the Reapers being unknowable, that's a ploy to hide the twist that in actuality, the Reapers don't understand organic life. And the Catalyst has to explain itself to Shepard after Shepard "altered the variables" with the Crucible allowing for new options. 2. Good riddance to Drew Karpshyn, the most overrated writer in video game history. Look what he did to Revan for SWTOR, Nevermind Avellone's Exile. And really, Drew is a very bad character writer, the characters suffered in character development when he was lead writer.texasgoldrush
If that twist was supposed to be impressive then I feel sorry for future Bioware games as someone who wants to see video game stories evolve.
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] You didn't get it. 1. You missed the point, the all important twist about the Reapers. While at first, it is set up as the Reapers being unknowable, that's a ploy to hide the twist that in actuality, the Reapers don't understand organic life. And the Catalyst has to explain itself to Shepard after Shepard "altered the variables" with the Crucible allowing for new options. 2. Good riddance to Drew Karpshyn, the most overrated writer in video game history. Look what he did to Revan for SWTOR, Nevermind Avellone's Exile. And really, Drew is a very bad character writer, the characters suffered in character development when he was lead writer.tagyhag
If that twist was supposed to be impressive then I feel sorry for future Bioware games as someone who wants to see video game stories evolve.
No, you just want the story to simply go your way......and that's the problem of Bioware's fanbase...they simply demand the story they want, and they believe choice is about getting what you want. But when the writers decide to challenge them and evolve their story, they scream and cry. But some of it is Bioware's fault because they stuck with the same formula and the same character archetypes for way too long. They are paying for it now.
[QUOTE="Vaasman"]Even if they were, which almost all of them are not, no one could possibly reach the insane level of ultra douchiness that you have elevated yourself to. Stop being a dick and let people have opinions different from your own. So I can't even challenge their opinions? Wow You are being the same thing you are accusing me of.Challenging an opinion is fine, dismissing an opinion as objectively wrong, or telling people constantly that they "didn't get it" are just a bunch of arrogant statements that a jackass makes because he couldn't possibly handle someone else with a different interpretation. It's especially pathetic when you start to bring up vague shit like themes and motifs when you have nothing concrete to fall back on.[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] And anti enders like yourself aren't doing the douchebag schtick? Get real.texasgoldrush
Holy **** what happened in here...
I guess to put in more cents I thought the ending of ME3 wasn't that great but at the same time it's about what I expected. Honestly did some of you actually think your decisions would weigh that heavily on the outcome? It just seemed like a wash from the get go.
So I can't even challenge their opinions? Wow You are being the same thing you are accusing me of.Challenging an opinion is fine, dismissing an opinion as objectively wrong, or telling people constantly that they "didn't get it" are just a bunch of arrogant statements that a jackass makes because he couldn't possibly handle someone else with a different interpretation. It's especially pathetic when you start to bring up vague shit like themes and motifs. The thing is the story does not allow for different interpretations for the most part, its extremely straightforward, especially now with the extended cut. Not all opinions are created equal and not all interpretations are. Once again, the theme is straightforward and the conflict is straightforward, and ending haters simply put, do not even recognize the conflict at all. And the fanbase is so bad about ambiguity and symbolism that they need Bioware to tweet them their meaning.[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="Vaasman"]Even if they were, which almost all of them are not, no one could possibly reach the insane level of ultra douchiness that you have elevated yourself to. Stop being a dick and let people have opinions different from your own.
Vaasman
The Uproar about ME3's ending is what made me not rush to get this title period. I still haven't played it. Young_Charter
I bought within a few weeks of release, but it off because of all the bad press. I finally got around to it about a month ago and it was an AMAZING game. Yes the last 15 minutes just about sucked the life out of me, but the first 50 hours(yes that long with the DLC) were some of most fun I have ever had playing video games.
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] You didn't get it. 1. You missed the point, the all important twist about the Reapers. While at first, it is set up as the Reapers being unknowable, that's a ploy to hide the twist that in actuality, the Reapers don't understand organic life. And the Catalyst has to explain itself to Shepard after Shepard "altered the variables" with the Crucible allowing for new options. 2. Good riddance to Drew Karpshyn, the most overrated writer in video game history. Look what he did to Revan for SWTOR, Nevermind Avellone's Exile. And really, Drew is a very bad character writer, the characters suffered in character development when he was lead writer.tagyhag
If that twist was supposed to be impressive then I feel sorry for future Bioware games as someone who wants to see video game stories evolve.
Yeah ! Lets ignore gameplay and focus on story even more ! That oughta show how awesome video games are ! :D LOL.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment