Your biggest "Fuck you" to the audience

[Schlorgan]

Star Wars The Force Unleashed 2. Most of the game in general was pretty terrible but then I saw the dark side ending and I wanted to throw my controller and yell at the screen.

 

[Olas]

One thing that happens in the movie Serenity.

Spoiler

Wash's death. His death didn't mean anything to the story, it was just a giant "fuck you, we need a sad thing to happen"

The only thing in that movie that I really had a problem with.

I always felt that the point of that scene was to show that since it was almost certainly the shows swan song, nobody is safe. The following showdowns are supposed to be given an extra edge by it.

But I hoped that it would have meant something, it was so random and so out of nowhere, it felt so pointless.

That IS the point, if the movie had suddenly stopped and given us the whole Disney melodrama it would have taken you out of the scene and removed the sense of danger and brutality that it created. Up till that point the only main character who had been killed off was Book, who was kinda a stereotypical Obi-Wan character anyway, Wash on the other hand is probably the least likely person you'd expect to be killed. I guess I can see how if you were a fan of the character it might seem like dick move, but it wasn't like Whedon did it out of disrespect for the character. Personally I liked it.

 

[Amnesiac Pigeon]

The DmC: Devil May Cry mop hair. You can't really get a more obvious "fuck you" than that. If it hadn't been for the controversy surrounding the new Dante and the way Ninja Theory responded, it might have been a humorous reference to the older games. But given the context surrounding the scene, I really can't help but feel that Ninja tried, and failed, to get a rather childish last laugh.

That was more of a nod to the fact that in the future he will have white hair. Like he does at the end of the game.

I felt like the entirety of the game Limbo was whispering "fuck you" at me.

 

[DANEgerous]

Spoiler: For me personally?

Really, that took the magic out of it. That didn't need an explanation, it was better when it was more mysterious and vague.

That's just me though. Cue the argument, I honestly don't care anymore. -.-

Yeah... yeah... I coincide I mean you force power being hinged on anything other than will or say some other noble trait is rather... yeah. I mean after the force went from "You are a hero because you want to be a hero" to "Woot genetics" it just was so unlike the previous version I was just like like "FUCK MATA CHLORINES" (and yeah fuck em so hard fuck their name) so yeah fuck meta chlorines, fuck Lucas and fuck the force.

 

[Olas]

For me, it was Star Trek: Into Darkness. As in, the whole movie.

Care to elaborate? I didn't really care for it too much either, mostly because I'd rather the new Star Trek try to be something original rather than a quasi-remake of another film. but I don't see it as a "fuck you" to the audience so much as a bad attempt to appeal to them.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Video Game: Mass Effect 3 ending. Just...just a giant c*ck slap to the face.

Movie: Any of the Tim Burton Batmans, especially after Burton said in an interview that he didn't read comics at all and thought they were stupid. And it shows in what he thought was a Batman story.

Cartoon: Technically this is from a movie, but a cartoon movie; The deaths of the almost all the Autobots from the '86 Transformers Movie.

And I don't really have a book or anime. I know this thread is basically another GoT venting spot, but i never thought they were good books to begin with. And the show takes some liberties, but its more or less loyal to the books. In my opinion that's kinda' the problem - they weren't good books. And now there's a show that's just like the not very good books. If you can't deal with your favorite 'good' characters getting horribly murdered and/or raped, then you have no business near Game of Thrones.
Its like watching DBZ, but not really like fight scenes or magic powers. That's kinda the show.

 

[Isra]

TLDR right away! What was, in your opinion, the biggest "FUCK YOU" to the audience that you ever witnessed in a movie, tv show, book, video game, anime, manga etc.

Okay then, let's talk about last episode of Game of Thrones!
I am seething with rage and infuriation. And don't get me wrong, I'm not against good characters getting killed. I think that the Red Wedding was brilliantly done and felt not forced and even somewhat natural in the flow of events as a whole. But the conclusion of that fucking fight between Viper and The Mountain just really felt like a giant "FUCK YOU" to the whole audience! Here we have an amazing new character with interesting backstory portrayed by a very good actor. And now he's gonna get brutally murdered by a FUCKING CARICATURE whose actor was replaced two times! And don't even get me started on how freaking bullshit that death was! You telling me that someone with skills and reflexes of Oberyn wouldn't be able to just roll away quickly after getting knocked down? Or that he wouldn't be able to block one hit to the face? And that even Mountain would be able to do all that after getting hamstrung, pierced through the chest AND poisoned?! It all just felt forced! Like Martin was thinking "There's no way I can just let more skillful warrior win! Let me check up my ass... oh, here it is!"

Sigh... anyway, what about you people?

=/ I feel exactly the same as you for exactly the same reasons.

Spoiler

But it's not even about realism for me. Here you have a brand new, interesting (not to mention handsome and LGBT friendly) character with a lot of potential killed off by a really, really incredibly boring one. One who is so flavorless I can't even muster a hatred for him. He's closer to a walking can opener than even the basest human being, so in lieu I just end up hating Martin.

I saw it coming because I had read the books a long time ago and already had the same reaction back then, so I thought I was prepared. But seeing it play out so... graphically... I did keenly feel that shit eater grin that Martin must have had on his face. Another interesting character gone to make room for more boring/shitty characters stepping in. There's a point where the whole "good guys don't always win" message starts to wear really thin. Sometimes they fucking do. More than anything, it just feels like a wasted opportunity to inject a little more life into the increasingly dull cast. I was actually holding out hope that the producers would change it.

 

[McKitten]

Okay then, let's talk about last episode of Game of Thrones!



Sigh... anyway, what about you people?

Keep in mind that GoT was very heavily inspired by the actual War of the Roses. I.e. Martin said he wants to write something that's a lot more like a fictionalization of a history book than a typical heroic saga. And in reality, everybody can die, and cheap and stupid deaths happen all the time. There is no plot armour, and things quite often don't really make sense. Some terrorist shoots a Duke and a little time later WWI is in session with most of the World going WTF?
The Pope bribes the Holy Roman Emperor because he wants to cut Venice down to size and his own senate wouldn't let him. Three years later he has to beg the Venetians to defend him against a French invasion. And two more years later France and Venice are allied and fighting the Pope, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire.
Maccabeus wants to kill king Antiochus, tries to kill the elephant the king is riding on, but picks the wrong elephant, manages to kill it and gets squished by the elephant corpse.

If you are going to continue watching GoT, "Shit happens" is the motto you need to firmly keep in mind at all times.

 

[Sutter Cane]

I think your problem is that your standards were set ridiculously high.There was no way that they were going to make drastically different levels for all of the choices that you made in the previous games (hell Skryim can't even have characters react to shit you've done within that same game. I mean I can be the archmage of the college at winterhold,the head of the theives guild and the listener for the dark brotherhood and it basically has no effect on anything outside their respective questlines. I know that has nothing to do with ME3 but it just really annoys me), and it's not like they have no effect on anything either. You get different dialogue, and different outcomes to the scenarios themselves. Also I don't really understand your point about character death. Sure you don't really see certain characters after a certain point, but in that case (and especially in the case of mordin) it's usually the end of their character arc. You might as well say that it doesn't matter if characters die at the climax of a film from a ramatic perspective, because the film is basically over and you never hear from them again (Unless there's a sequel). The death of well known characters is a legitimate consequence whether you want to admit it or not.

I think when playing a game that was built and sold 3 times on the promise that our choices would effect the fate of the universe, expecting some of those choices to come up, especially (ESPECIALLY!) the 2 at the climaxes of the previous games
Choosing the council seat and destroying/keeping the collector base. which were arguably the two most disregarded decisions in the series to at least have the most minute effect on literally any aspect of the story.

I actually agree with this. This was also one of my biggest problems with mass effect 2. The end game choice doesn't matter for either game.

That was my standard going in to Mass Effect 3. if those two decisions were respected I probably would have let 75% of what they did slide, because I would have at least felt like they acknowledged the fact that the first 2 games existed.
When a character died in the suicide mission Bioware took that as an opportunity to write less, not differently, just less. or they replaced them with a character who was functionally the same


There's a mission where you fight Mirands's dad
and if Miranda survived ME2 she kills him
if she's dead you get to choose whether he lives or dies, but it doesn't matter because nothing he does comes up again
he doesn't continue working on the husk thing, you don't get to work with him, nothing.

I fail to see how that is necessarily a story problem. He was left with no research data and no resources to start up his research again, and it wouldn't make sense for him to join shepard given that he/she is actively fighting cerberus.

People will accuse Mass Effect 2 of Cerberus railroading, but at least that was narrative justified. Mass Effect 3 has crucible railroading, which is stupid because it's the one option you know nothing about and it's the only option you're allowed to work towards (Wait choices... character deaths...right)

Don't even try to downplay how bad te ceberus railroading was in the 2nd game. My shepard had the sole survivor background, so cerberus was directly responsible for his entire unit (save for himself and one other person) on Akuze, and yet i'm given no option but t work with them. On the other hand, while the idea of the crucible is introduced rather abruptly at the start of the game, the decision to focus resources on building it makes perfect sense. I mean theres zero chance of beating the reapers in a straight up fight, and while there's no guarantee that it will work, it's the only option left with any chance of working at all. It's desperation time for the milky way galaxy, and the crucible is the hail mary pass at the end of the game. Makes sense to me

uh... when you first land on Rannoch with Tali her and Shepard have a really romantic scene regardless of you romanced her, or whether she was even loyal at the end of mass effect 2....

I actually wouldn't know about that since i've romanced tali on both of my playthroughs of the series

I mean if Tali is alive and an admiral (Which doesn't make sense) the Quarians shouldn't be at war with the Geth because her, Rahn and Corris all say they appose war and only Garrel and Xen are in favor of it. that's 3>2 how did Bioware get that wrong?

I seem to recall that Raan was undecided on the issue of war with the geth in ME2 which would have left the Admiralty board in a deadlock with 2 for, two against, and one undecided. this also makes since given the reason tali states in the game for going along with the invasion plans, which was to avoid a public disagreement that would divide the fleet.

Ashley/Kaiden are both written out of the first half of the game
Daag and Grunt are the same character

I diagree. While they serve the same role they are different characters. Daag is a grizzled combat veteran and acts accordingly, while grunt is, well grunt. He has a very distinct personality that i'm finding a hard time putting into words, but it is very destinct.

Legion and Legion VI are literally the same character

well of course the geth vi is gong to be similar to legion since they are both geth and don't really have much of an individual personality

Thane dies in such a stupid scene that it's impossible to feel anything for him

In the words of the immortal dude. That's just like, your opinion man

Anyway my point about Mordin is that saving him is hard to do (It's not, but what ever)
You need to keep Wrex alive and save the data in a renegade run. You need to make at least 1 decision that's outside your character's base. So it seems like it would be important.
But doing it nets you the same option as shooting Mordin in the back You get "Slarian numbers" instead of Krogan numbers"

That's really the core of it, everything is numbers, they're not people they're not choices they don't have any moral weight they're just numbers. they took all the emotional weight you invested in the first 2 games and boiled them down to math.

First off I've never understood playing purely paragon or renegade just for the sake of playing purely paragon or renegade. I always actually try to roleplay in my games, so picking a choice from different alignments doesn't really ever bother me. Secondly, as I said before, that mission was the end of mordin's arc. It finally resolves his lingering guilt and doubts about the work he did on the genophage, or alternatively Shepard betraying one of his/her own team mates and causing their death. In the first case, there isn't really a necessary reason to keep him around anymore, and in either scenario, he's got his resolution. Sure the game boils down consequences to numbers, but it's never just numbers. The characters take focus, and each of their appearances is related to their ongoing character arcs rather than shoehorned in cameos as well, and because of this focus on character I personally feel that whether these characters live or die is a big deal even if we don't see them again after their individual missions.

 

[Zontar]

Because of all the good ones already stated, I'll go with one which is lower on my list but hasn't been stated.

The "Hail to the King" Marvel one-shot.

While plenty of people where upset with Iron Man 3, the only thing that one-shot solved was the only irrelevant criticism which can be dismissed out of hand that was the embodiment of both fanboyism and fake fans in one bow. They have a one-shot released with each movie, and they wasted Thor 2's on caving to people who wanted to see a character next to none of them even liked or even knew about very well, if at all, before the movie was made.

 

[Gluzzbung]

Evangelion. I haven't watched the films, and I don't particularly care for them because I'll always know that the story that they wanted to tell had been told, and it was shit. Also, the film; "The End of Evangelion," made no fucking sense with regards to the rest of the series. WRD?

 

[MrBrightside919]

I'm pretty surprised that I haven't seen this on here yet, but here goes...

The biggest fuck you I can think of that hasn't been said yet is...

"When a game company decides to change up a franchise and alienate their fans just because another certain franchise or series is popular and they think they can somehow sell tons of copies by mimicking something the franchise never was (aka [Insert Popular Game Franchise] is popular so we need our game to be more like it so we can sell teh mad copies yo)"

Some examples...

-Resident Evil: Yeah, RE4 had more action, but it was still intense as hell and the environments were still spooky. RE5 starts dropping things that were good in 4 for a more shooter like experience with a VERY limited inventory and ammo a plenty plus a really awkward environment and enemies that got borderline racist (in my opinion at least). RE6 just completely ditches everything and becomes a straight up shooter to "reach a wider audience" but ended up alienating an already alienated fanbase.

-Dead Rising: Remember how fun, colorful and surprisingly dark the first 2 Dead Rising games were? What could they do to top those in a third installment? Why not make it a brown/grey blob with a very forgettable setting that takes shots at political goings on in the real world like illegal immigration? Yeah, that's what the series needed...a stupid political story. Sure, there are TONS of zombies on screen now, but what's point? There's no mystery to solve, no colorful environment to explore, nothing interesting in general. Sure, there are TONS of zombies on screen now and you can craft vehicles now, but I don't feel like there is a point to killing zombies anymore.

(Fuck Capcom, am I right?)

-Almost Every First Person Shooter After Call of Duty 4: This one is self explanatory. Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare was a pretty big shake up of the franchise that mainly stuck to WW2. It did very well and worked really well too (in my opinion). After that game came out and did well, not only did they decide to milk the franchise for all it was worth, but everyone and their grandmother decided they needed to make a modern warfare shooter to try and capitalize on the fad, bringing dead franchises people used to love (Metal of Honor) out of their graves for a "reboot". Nowadays, Call of Duty is a dead horse they continue to beat and even they are trying to conform to another setting and theme...futuristic and sci fi like the popular Titanfall.
.
.
.
All that said, I know games can't stay the same forever. A franchise or series needs to evolve in order to stay fresh and keep drawing in people, but they also should keep the things that were good to begin with and can still be good in future installments...instead of just completely changing for the sake of "fitting in with the crowd". Shooters have regenerating health these days? They only let you carry 2 weapons? We need to do that too! (cough Duke Nukem Forever cough). This game has a unique conversation system? We should do that too, but let's not do it nearly as well as what we are mimicking. Oh man, this one game has a crazy online mode that is really popular! We need to shoe horn multiplayer into our game too even though it might be a completely single player experience! (cough Bioshock 2 cough cough God of War cough)

The biggest problem with this F@CK YOU is that gamers are the ones to blame for this. In the end, we don't want originality or uniqueness. We just want the same thing over and over again. It's actually true...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxhs-GLE29Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyXcr6sDRtw

Game Thoery did some EXCELLENT/depressing episodes on this so give em a watch if you are interested (blatant plug for a show I like but I don't care because Game Theory is awesome)...
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some general f^ck you moments that I thought of while typing this whole thing up...

-Current Final Fantasy Games: Why write interesting characters and an interesting story when it can all be completely one dimentional and boring? Why make a new story with new characters when we can continue a story no one liked with characters everyone hated?

-Fighting Game Final Bosses: Why test the player to use all the skills they've learned while playing the game on a tough opponent when we can be completely cheap and unfair instead?

-Getting People Excited For A Game And Then Cancelling It For Bullshit Reasons: I will never be OK with the cancellation of Mega Man Legends 3...ever...

(Fuck Capcom, am I right?)

-Pointless Sequels That Continue A FINISHED Story And Completely Ruin The Original: You enjoyed a game and it's story and were happy with it ending? Well TOO BAD...RETCONS FOR EVERYONE! Aliens Colonial Marines did this for example.

-On Disk DLC: Could there be a bigger F U than making someone pay for content again after they've already payed for it?

-Real Game Endings DLC: Why finish a story in game when we can charge for the ending?

-------------------------------------------------

Here are some NON GAMING F^CK YOUS I also thought of...

-Everything George Lucas has done recently with films i.e. Star Wars Prequels, Crystal Skull, etc.

-Prometheus in general

-Movie Remakes That Change Everything Good About The Original (cough EVERY horror movie remake cough)

 

[Kinitawowi]

The finale of Faking It. (Doesn't air until next Tuesday, but it's leaked out already.)

You'd have thought I'd learned my lesson from Skins; they told us all that Fire was going to be about the depth of Naomi and Emily's love, then ignored it completely and killed Naomi out of what I remain convinced is author's spite.

They told us that we'd be pleasantly surprised by Faking It's finale. The episode took a giant dump on virtually every. Single. Character.

Spoiler: Burnt Toast - seriously, SPOILERS ALL UP IN THIS NUT

The exception? Prize douchebag Liam.

Look, I get it. The show's called Faking It; it's all about the lies people tell each other - and themselves - and how that eventually comes back to bite us in the arse. And Liam is a dick, but with scant exception he's rarely pretended to be anything else. Karma hides her relationship with Liam from Amy and ends up losing both. Lauren hides her pill addiction from Tommy and loses him for it. Amy hides her love for Karma and ends up lost, drunk and alone. (Well, alone except for Liam, who has succeeded in his original stated quest to bed both lesbians*.) Absolutely none of this is pleasant, and less is surprising.

The worst part is that this would all be fine if we knew there'd be a second season to sort things out. Amy trying to shag away the gay (which some part of her thinks probably worked for Karma, after all; and if it didn't, it's still a pretty good way to lash out at her)? Karma forced to stop being an inconsiderate cow and start thinking about what she really wants? That's all logical enough. The show's premise, fun as it was, was never going to last forever, and it would have to shake things up considerably to carry through a next season. But there's no indication from anywhere as yet that a second season is even going to happen; this could quite conceivably be the way it all ends, and it's no way to end a show.

 

[Mikeyfell]

There's a mission where you fight Mirands's dad
and if Miranda survived ME2 she kills him
if she's dead you get to choose whether he lives or dies, but it doesn't matter because nothing he does comes up again
he doesn't continue working on the husk thing, you don't get to work with him, nothing.

I fail to see how that is necessarily a story problem. He was left with no research data and no resources to start up his research again, and it wouldn't make sense for him to join shepard given that he/she is actively fighting cerberus.

It's really more of a base level problem.
you said Shepard is "Actively fighting Cerberus"
that's the story problem. There is no reason for Shep to be fighting Cerberus especially if you went Renegade in ME2.

It's like a big ol' "Script says so" moment

People will accuse Mass Effect 2 of Cerberus railroading,

Don't even try to downplay how bad te ceberus railroading was in the 2nd game. My shepard had the sole survivor background, so cerberus was directly responsible for his entire unit (save for himself and one other person) on Akuze, and yet i'm given no option but t work with them. On the other hand, while the idea of the crucible is introduced rather abruptly at the start of the game,

The Cerberus Railroading was pretty bad, but at the time it felt like a means to an end.
I mean you spend the whole first game with the alliance, you spend the whole second game with Cerberus.
I thought (And I'm sure at least a couple other people thought) that was setting up a choice for the third game of whether you side with Cerberus or the alliance to take down the reapers. That was not the case.

the decision to focus resources on building it makes perfect sense. I mean theres zero chance of beating the reapers in a straight up fight, and while there's no guarantee that it will work, it's the only option left with any chance of working at all. It's desperation time for the milky way galaxy, and the crucible is the hail mary pass at the end of the game. Makes sense to me

My problem with this is that's just what they told you.
Bioware made up The Crucible, and them made up that there's no way to beat the reapers conventionally.
They introduced a new contrivance to justify the first one.

They killed Sovereign. they know for a fact that enough guns can kill a Reaper
So throwing all their resources into the Crucible doesn't actually make sense. (I mean it could have been presented as a valid option, do you throw all your resources into the Hail Mary option or throw all your resources into the 1% certainty that a big enough fleet can take down the reapers)

I mean if Tali is alive and an admiral (Which doesn't make sense) the Quarians shouldn't be at war with the Geth because her, Rahn and Corris all say they appose war and only Garrel and Xen are in favor of it. that's 3>2 how did Bioware get that wrong?

I seem to recall that Raan was undecided on the issue of war with the geth in ME2 which would have left the Admiralty board in a deadlock with 2 for, two against, and one undecided. this also makes since given the reason tali states in the game for going along with the invasion plans, which was to avoid a public disagreement that would divide the fleet.

She talks about how bad of an idea it was in ME3, maybe it's hindsight. But I still don't remember her saying she voted in favor of war.

Daag and Grunt are the same character

I diagree. While they serve the same role they are different characters. Daag is a grizzled combat veteran and acts accordingly, while grunt is, well grunt. He has a very distinct personality that i'm finding a hard time putting into words, but it is very destinct.

Narrative they do the same things. The story isn't effected by having Dagg do the same things Grunt would have done if he were alive.
I didn't mean to imply they were written the same but having one over the other doesn't make a difference in the way events fold out

Thane dies in such a stupid scene that it's impossible to feel anything for him

In the words of the immortal dude. That's just like, your opinion man

If you thought Thane's death scene wasn't stupid... watch it again and count out loud how many seconds Shepard and Co stood stock still and did nothing while Thane risked his life to save the councilor.

Yes it is my opinion, but that opinion is based on a very tangible fact

Anyway my point about Mordin is that saving him is hard to do (It's not, but what ever)
You need to keep Wrex alive and save the data in a renegade run. You need to make at least 1 decision that's outside your character's base. So it seems like it would be important.
But doing it nets you the same option as shooting Mordin in the back You get "Slarian numbers" instead of Krogan numbers"

That's really the core of it, everything is numbers, they're not people they're not choices they don't have any moral weight they're just numbers. they took all the emotional weight you invested in the first 2 games and boiled them down to math.

First off I've never understood playing purely paragon or renegade just for the sake of playing purely paragon or renegade. I always actually try to roleplay in my games, so picking a choice from different alignments doesn't really ever bother me. Secondly, as I said before, that mission was the end of mordin's arc. It finally resolves his lingering guilt and doubts about the work he did on the genophage, or alternatively Shepard betraying one of his/her own team mates and causing their death. In the first case, there isn't really a necessary reason to keep him around anymore, and in either scenario, he's got his resolution. Sure the game boils down consequences to numbers, but it's never just numbers. The characters take focus, and each of their appearances is related to their ongoing character arcs rather than shoehorned in cameos as well, and because of this focus on character I personally feel that whether these characters live or die is a big deal even if we don't see them again after their individual missions.

Mordin's arc is the most easily defended part of the game (I'm not going to say "best" because I'm a spiteful man)
Mordin is the only one who got any resolution at all. If all the characters got a send off like that I probably could have stomached the plot a little better.

The plot of ME2 was bad, but I liked the characters and all their arcs were handled well.

But saving him loses all it's weight if he doesn't do anything.
He works on the crucible, but the crucible gets completed by the end of the game regardless of what you did (In any part of any of the games)

My problem with the numbers is that means there's a "best" way to do it.
If the Krogans give you 800 numbers and the Salarians give you 600 numbers you want the Krogans.
It's not Mordin's a genius it's Mordin's 25 extra points.

The Geth are 600 and The Quarians are only 550, but Peace is 1150, so I definitely want peace.(I made up all those numbers)

The numbers don't even have units the Krogan don't give you 800 army and the Salarians don't give you 600 science. there's no decision making there's just numbers You don't have to pay attention to them, but why are they even there?

The bad just piles up on it's self and compounds and folds in on it's self. The bad design clashes with the bad writing in a way that makes both of them worse all the characters became comic over the top caricatures. Jack was the deepest character in Mass Effect 2, she was a joke in ME3. Garrus was even a caricature in the first 2 games and they couldn't even get him right in 3. Just everything. It feels scientifically constructed to be the worst thing ever, and that includes the tiny bits of decency (Like Mordin or Samantha Traynor) that make people like you (no offense) defend it. and if you just take a step back and look at it and think to your self "That is a story that a living breathing human being decided to tell" there is no conceivable justification for it other than malice.

Hey I tied it back in to the theme of the thread! that's an extra 10 numbers that go towards building the crucible.

 

[prpshrt]

I'm not sure if this counts but having really fun looking MMO's with subs AND a $60+ box fee. I feel like that's a gigantic middle finger to a lot of players who enjoyed the beta and were given the payment model and box price after they got hooked
And at this point if you're really invested in a character in GoT, almost guaranteed to die. Characters like Bran Stark who I honestly don't give two shits about survives extreme temperatures, what seems like a 50 foot fall, an assassination attempt, a kidnapping, and ANOTHER kidnapping.

 

[Gerardo Vazquez]

The ENTIRE 7th season of Doctor Who. Never have I been so appalled by a tv show then when I watched that pathetic excuse of a season. I still think Russel T. Davies and Matt Smith should go and die a slow horrible death.

Not that I'm defending this season or anything (I don't actually watch Doctor Who), but this feels more like you not liking something on a personal level, rather than feeling trolled by a creator via a BS resolution of events(The ending of ME3), the badly handled death of a major character (Ted Kord), or (as in the ending of Wanted) you are, in one form or another, being literally insulted by the author. You can't just go "I thought this whole thing was bad, therefore a "fuck you" to me.", since it's not exactly the topic of this forum, and just comes off as whining. That being said if you do have bad things to say about the 7th season of Doctor Who you can just as easily reference a specific moment where the story jumped the shark, or did any of the other things I mentioned above, just don't use it as a means of complaining about a whole topic.
Good Example: "The ending of Day Of The ________ was a "fuck you to the audience", because the ending made no sense and came out of nowhere."
Bad Example: "The ______ Doctor was a "fuck you to the audience", because of how terrible he was.".

 

[Icehearted]

The ending to Panty and Stocking is the biggest one I can think of.

Oh, Gainax.

I see this a lot, but in all honesty the epilogue struck me more as a gag than the actual ending. Like Gainax just felt like messing around with the characters for kicks. The epilogue was so totally out of sync with everything else that it just seems detached. That's all of course my own view, and I'm not 100% about it, but it makes more sense than anything else I've seen going against that series' conclusion.

My vote goes to Final Fantasy 8; that game became illogical nonsense early on and just got worse as the story went on. If the Squall is dead theory was more than just fan speculation it would actually be so messed up it's genius, but alas i chalk it up to just really bad video games writing as usual.

The halo 2 ending is a very close second, and Mass Effect 3 is not too far behind that.

 

[Varanfan9]

The first episode of the second season of House of Cards, when Frank Underwood...

Spoiler

Pushes Zoe Barnes in front of a train. Personally, I didn't care for the character, but she was a favorite of a lot of people and she was essentailly one of the main cast with how much she showed up.

 

[Sutter Cane]

It's really more of a base level problem.
you said Shepard is "Actively fighting Cerberus"
that's the story problem. There is no reason for Shep to be fighting Cerberus especially if you went Renegade in ME2.

It's like a big ol' "Script says so" moment

Actually Shepard continuing to work for cerberus makes less sense than him leaving the group given that we know Cerberus is the type of group that seriously looks into the possibility of using thorian creepers as biological weapons, and has no issue with performing torturous experiments on people on multiple occasions, or in setting a thresher maw on a unit of alliance soldiers basically for shits and giggles. Not even renegade shepard is cold enough to support stuff like that.

The Cerberus Railroading was pretty bad, but at the time it felt like a means to an end.
I mean you spend the whole first game with the alliance, you spend the whole second game with Cerberus.
I thought (And I'm sure at least a couple other people thought) that was setting up a choice for the third game of whether you side with Cerberus or the alliance to take down the reapers. That was not the case.

see above. Actively siding with Cerberus makes little to no sense given the type of group they are shown to be.

My problem with this is that's just what they told you.
Bioware made up The Crucible, and them made up that there's no way to beat the reapers conventionally.
They introduced a new contrivance to justify the first one.

They killed Sovereign. they know for a fact that enough guns can kill a Reaper
So throwing all their resources into the Crucible doesn't actually make sense. (I mean it could have been presented as a valid option, do you throw all your resources into the Hail Mary option or throw all your resources into the 1% certainty that a big enough fleet can take down the reapers)

See I actually agree that the crucible is a complete ass pull at the start of ME3, but i feel it was an inevitable one. It took the combined council and alliance fleets to take down a single reaper at the end of the first mass effect game. If the third game had you take on an army of full on reapers in a straight up fight and win, that would have been a much bigger story issue that the crucible was.

She talks about how bad of an idea it was in ME3, maybe it's hindsight. But I still don't remember her saying she voted in favor of war.

Not sure which person you're talking about here. If you're talking about raan, I was saying that she probably couldn't make up her mind. Tali does have a quote right after you encounter her again where shepard asks her why she went along with the war effort even if she was personally against it, and her reply is what I was referring to in my previous post

Narrative they do the same things. The story isn't effected by having Dagg do the same things Grunt would have done if he were alive.
I didn't mean to imply they were written the same but having one over the other doesn't make a difference in the way events fold out

See this just reslly doesn't bother me, especially since the missions that are focused around former companions for the most part flow organically from the plot anyway, and so shepard would likely be doing those same things whether said companion was alive or not. For example, you'd still need to bring the krogan into the alliance that you're forming at the primarch's request, and the krogan would still refuse unless the genophage was cured. What spurs shepard into meeting up with the group that grunt leads is the potential threat of rachnai, and what draws him to the school jack teaches at is cerberus faking a signal from the turians saying they're evacuating it. These are all things that shepard would likely be doing anyway, so it doesn't bother me that he ends up taking roughly the same actions either way, and that the main thing that gets affected is the fate of specific characters (well except in the case of whether you save the genophage data. I didn't the first time I played, but I did this time, and the character dynamics here are very different, even if the basic events are the same).

I mean I guess you could say that it's incredibly unlikely that Shepard would just happen to run into all of these people that he's met before, and that it maes the galaxy feel small, but that's just as big of a problem in mass effect 2 as well.

If you thought Thane's death scene wasn't stupid... watch it again and count out loud how many seconds Shepard and Co stood stock still and did nothing while Thane risked his life to save the councilor.

Yes it is my opinion, but that opinion is based on a very tangible fact

I will admit that I responded that way because I haven't seen the scene in quite a while, and i don't really remember much about it.

Mordin's arc is the most easily defended part of the game (I'm not going to say "best" because I'm a spiteful man)
Mordin is the only one who got any resolution at all. If all the characters got a send off like that I probably could have stomached the plot a little better.

The plot of ME2 was bad, but I liked the characters and all their arcs were handled well.

But saving him loses all it's weight if he doesn't do anything.
He works on the crucible, but the crucible gets completed by the end of the game regardless of what you did (In any part of any of the games)

My problem with the numbers is that means there's a "best" way to do it.
If the Krogans give you 800 numbers and the Salarians give you 600 numbers you want the Krogans.
It's not Mordin's a genius it's Mordin's 25 extra points.

The Geth are 600 and The Quarians are only 550, but Peace is 1150, so I definitely want peace.(I made up all those numbers)

The numbers don't even have units the Krogan don't give you 800 army and the Salarians don't give you 600 science. there's no decision making there's just numbers You don't have to pay attention to them, but why are they even there?

The bad just piles up on it's self and compounds and folds in on it's self. The bad design clashes with the bad writing in a way that makes both of them worse all the characters became comic over the top caricatures. Jack was the deepest character in Mass Effect 2, she was a joke in ME3. Garrus was even a caricature in the first 2 games and they couldn't even get him right in 3. Just everything. It feels scientifically constructed to be the worst thing ever, and that includes the tiny bits of decency (Like Mordin or Samantha Traynor) that make people like you (no offense) defend it. and if you just take a step back and look at it and think to your self "That is a story that a living breathing human being decided to tell" there is no conceivable justification for it other than malice.

Hey I tied it back in to the theme of the thread! that's an extra 10 numbers that go towards building the crucible.

I don't think that I really have an argument against that, other than that the concept of breaking down things into numbers to represent the abstract concept of "war readiness" just never bothered me personally, but i can totally see how that could rub people the wrong way.

I also disagree with your comments about people being written out of character. Sure Jack is different than she was in ME2 but it seemed clear to me that this was primarily a result of being able to finally start to put her past behind her, and how she's finally starting to forge her own identity instead of letting her past tragedies do it for her. Also i'm just completely clueless as to where you're coming from with your Garrus comments. He still seems like the same guy from ME 2 to me. I mean in either case it's not like the bullshit they pulled in Saints Row The Third where they took a likable and interesting character from the previous game in Shaundi and turned her into generic angry woman #1276 while also completely changing her character design for no discernible reason.