CannibalCorpses said:
The Heik said:
I've got to disagree with the need to analyse the plot holes.
This statement right here undermines your original post. You say nothing is wrong with the game and now you say that you don't think that it should be held accountable for its flaws. That's insane. That's a salesman selling you a broken car then then being insulted when you ask why it won't turn on. Things must be critiqued in order for society to learn what was done right and wrong and improve on later products.
Your statement also raises the question as to why you'd consider that analysis should not be done on the subject when you made the post on a forum, a format that is ostensibly designed for analysis and discussion. Seems a bit counter-intuitive
BTW the cycle is every 50,000 years. Just so you know
CannibalCorpses said:
All the story offers is an excuse to fight your way through various situations and should be judged as such. It worked, i was interested all the way to the end and when it all finished i sat back and thought i had enjoyed the experience. If there hadn't been good gameplay i wouldn't have got past the first game and the story would have been irrelevant. I think it boils down to what people wanted. For some, they didn't want the story to end at all and that colours their opinion on the ending. People like me realised it had to end and as long as it wasn't totally stupid it would be fine...which it was.
2 things with this:
1)Gameplay is not the ME series greatest strengths. ME1 I could beat on the higher difficulties with just one gun and one ability (excluding the occasional medi-gel). Me2, while more tactical, was still an middle of the class graduate of the Sir Wally McChesthigh school of shooters. Me3, while certainly the best combat of the 3 games, was still average in quality when compared to other shooters. While none of the games were bad in terms of combat, the characters and story were what most people got hooked on, and simply dismissing it as a secondary facet seems silly given the context.
2)Generally people are fine with something ending, so long as it's done well (LOTR and Star Wars original trilogy being two examples that spring to mind as being generally considered good endings). I knew that the Mass Effect galaxy as I knew it was going to end with ME3, and I was even expecting that Shepard wouldn't make it out of the final conflict alive. I was fine with that. My issue (and the issues of many other gamers) is that it was done so poorly. And a lot of the problems with the ending aren't just from the "it didn't happen the way I wanted it" way of thinking. There are a lot of fundamental and technical issues that exist with the ending that lessen the quality of the product. Considering that Me3 was the end of the story arc, ending it badly was a stupid move as it (justifiably) colours peoples' opinions of it ,and the final impression of something is what ultimately sticks
CannibalCorpses said:
Flame war? Really? For having an opinion that flies in the face of what the sheep bleat?
This is a prime example of what I meant by flame war inspiring stuff. You have to learn a little bit of discretion when it comes to posting stuff, otherwise you'll just piss people off. With your original post you could have started with "I personally think" which makes it a subjective view and will be considered as such, but you decided to portray that opinion of yours as set-in-stone fact, which pretty much gives every person from here to the moon permission to dis-abuse you of such notions if they disagree. That's what starts a flame war.
