Uh... I think you want Grey, not me.
All I did was link to another comic relating to the ending.
Really? Weird. Must've clicked 'quote for the wrong post. Apologies.
No, you didn't.
The joke which you're not getting is based on comic irony. It establishes a preposition and then reveals it to be false, deriving comic effect from the breaking of expectation between what the viewer initially perceived and reality.
In this case, the comic opens with the aforementioned accusation, which is then revealed to be part of a cynical (and fictional) marketing campaign to sell T-shirts. It's a satire on how a collective outpouring of emotion, like RME, can be exploited for financial gain.
Seriously, there is nothing worse than explaining a joke, and this joke should not require me to explain it.
That would make sense...if not for a couple things.
1) It goes against half of the other content posted by regulars of this site back when they were giving their two-cents on the subject. Yahtzee wrote about how great the endings were based on the underlying themes of the series, Moviebob ranted about the value of artistic integrity and how it rendered the endings impervious to fan input, etc. In other words, pattern recognition would paint this as more of the same, and the little paragraph below that normally provides more details amounts to a 'U mad bro?' in bullet format.
2) You talk about how RME was "exploited for financial gain." I'm not entirely sure how you think Child's Play works, but it certainly isn't a way for someone to make a profit from other people's outrage.
3) You're ending it by saying that you're "explaining a joke." That would require there to be a joke first. If it was meant to be funny, then it didn't do a very good job of it. Most jokes aren't built as "Insult Insult Insult Punchline," especially when they're told at a time when that insult is going around an awful lot without any intended irony. If you spend 75% of the setup offending your audience (or at least a big chunk of it), you're probably not going to make them laugh even if it's a legitimately good punchline.
Alright, so maybe you're still really hurt. But that's not an excuse, is it?
I can understand all the rant threads. But dude.. this is 3 months down the line, it's totally unrelated, the guy even specifically addressed your position within the piece itself. Do you still have to throw this shit at people when it's not related? Are you that self absorbed that it honestly makes you feel better?
...right, maybe you missed the part where I related it to the comic. Because that was a rather integral part of my original post. And it probably helped that the guy attempting to pluck at our heartstrings was also the one who published the etc, etc, moving on.
One more time, since you clearly have trouble believing this. I did not like the ending. What happened is that I got over it. I found that I didn't have to writhe around on the floor three months down the line still screaming at everyone who dares to bring up mass effect. I found that I could put my feelings about the ending to one side and appreciate the fun which I had had without abrogating either experience.
And thus, when Grey here goes to the trouble to co-produce a really excellent piece of art and distribute it free for my entertainment, I find I have the basic decency to do as is specifically requested and leave my issues with the ending at the door long enough to appreciate it. That it not too much to ask.
Right, again, I can live with lousy 'endings' to series. I enjoyed Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs without even bothering to go past a few dozen pages in either of the other two, because they were just hundreds of pages of Hannibal Lecter gruesomely murdering people. They didn't affect the ones I liked, and that's what was important.
Did you know there was almost a sequel to Casablanca? It was almost made, too. It would've revealed that Rick and Renault were American agents the whole time, undermining literally every action they took or, perhaps more importantly, didn't take during the original. It would've done other stupid, stupid things, but the one I mentioned stood out for me for the same reason ME3's ending has a special place in my Hall of Infamy. It wasn't just bad: it was retroactively bad, and did so after a stellar first installment. At least prior to yesterday, the endings of ME3 were brightly colored variations of "Rock falls, all die."
See, what's actually bad about the ending is that it tells us almost nothing. It doesn't explain whether the galaxy adapts to the loss of all the reaper tech. It doesn't explain the fate of the population, or indeed any individual characters within the population.
1) We saw the detonation of a mass relay in The Arrival. It looked like a sun going supernova.
2) We blew up the Citadel. Even if there were survivors (in spite of the mounds of mutilated corpses), it still exploded.
3) Until yesterday, nobody who was in the Sol system left it when the Catalyst went off. Ergo, nobody left it, except Joker, because (again, until yesterday) he's apparently a cowardly deserter. Because even if they survived the apocalyptic supernova, their ships aren't capable of independent FTL travel.
So yes, on one level, you're right: the lack of information was horrible. The next level up, however, is the one where we're supposed to fill in the blanks with conjecture based on information we already know. I didn't assume that everything worked out just fine in spite of the lack of information because seemingly every piece of info we're given prior to that point indicated otherwise.
But no, that simple ignorance can't possibly do justice to quite how awful this whole experience is for you people, so instead you simply insert your own version of events based on imagination.
Replace 'imagination' with 'evidence presented by the writers' and you're spot on.
However, what you have conveniently forgotten is that you are not a writer. Your youtube buddies are not writers. The actual writers employed by Bioware could systematically wipe out every little theory and piece of speculation you have about the setting by simply saying that something different happens. They may well do so in about a weeks time.
Oh, the wonderful appeal to authority. If I'm posting criticism of a pair of writers online, then my criticism obviously is completely invalid because I'm not being paid to write it. Tell me: what is it that makes fan speculation less valid than creator silence? Because that's like saying that the work of an amateur craftsman will always be inferior to the non-work of a more experienced one. Or maybe this is just a variation of the "If you don't like it, why haven't you done something better" argument.
But that being said, I'm offended that you claim I'm not a writer. I've written many things! Surely you've heard of Julius Caesar and Macbeth? Because I can claim with just as much validity to be the ghost of William Shakespeare as you can claim that I, with absolute certainty, am not a writer.
That wouldn't mean you have to accept it. It may be that suspension of disbelief has been permanently ruined for you, and fair enough. But the point is that noone is obligated to care about what you think, no theory you produce or idea you come up with has any bearing whatsoever on Mass Effect, and it never will.
Ah, and therein lies the inherent hypocrisy: I'm allowed to have my opinion on a subject, as long as I never relate it to a discussion of said subject for fear of raining on your parade. Because otherwise, you'll be forced to drop everything to tell me, at length, how little you care about what I'm saying.
I'm a bit confused now, though. If no one is obligated to care about what I think (which is true), why are you going to such lengths to hammer that in? Or is this the part where you reveal that you're my Tyler Durden-esque alter ego?
...come to think of it, that would actually seal this argument for you quite nicely.
This is why your argument has not been taken seriously (beyond your utter failure to realize what is and isn't an appropriate forum for your bitching) because it's not a real argument. A real argument would be to point out that the ending is inadequate because it is not conclusive, because it doesn't provide any detail, because it is full of plot holes.
I remember three particularly noticeable plotholes, and they were all technically just one type of plothole: How did Person X get to Location Y? It happens with Anderson, the Illusive Man, and your squadmates after Harbinger attacks. Unless you count bad writing as a plothole, I can't think of many more beyond that. I suppose you can count the Catalyst's physical appearance, too, but that's about it.
But that wouldn't be enough for you, so you have to insert events which weren't even mentioned in the ending and then you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously when you've clearly based your opinion on things you have imagined.
Okay then, let's take one part of my 'imaginary' argument: Ereba's status at the end of the game. Now, you would say that we have absolutely no way of knowing what happened to her because we didn't specifically get an email saying she died. I would say:
-She was living on the Citadel.
-The Citadel was invaded by Reapers.
-The next time we see the Citadel, it was filled with mutilated corpses.
-And then we blow up the Citadel.
-And we blow up the mass relays. Thessia is not accessible from Sol by any means other than mass relay travel.
I say that we have reasonable grounds to believe that she died, and we're presented to evidence to the contrary. What's your counterargument? Is she Shroedainger's Character? Both alive and dead until we get an email telling us which one?
But I'm aware I'm feeding the trolls here and probably making it worse, so unless the response is mindblowing I suspect this will be my last word on the subject. Maybe give it some thought though, you might earn more sympathy.
...hang on, what? Earn sympathy from who? How? That doesn't make any sense.
Okay, I have just one question, WHY DID YOU WRITE ANY OF THIS? This isn't even remotely related to the ending (the commic, if you want to talk about his comment say so and he never tried to join the supporters to retake mass effect), this is incredibly late as well, why even bother trying to dig up stuff on the guy as opposed to stuff he puts out now,
Because I think that people should be judged on the actions of their recent past, especially if they provide context to their actions in the present.
unless they are connected, which these aren't.
I brought up an opinion he had on the ME3 ending in the discussion of a comic he did in which he posts a fair aside about the ME3 ending.
Yeah. Totally unrelated.
Even more confusing, you are not the devils advocate, you are not defending something everyone else is demonizing,
Nice job Googling "Devil's Advocate." You even had the sense to look at the secondary definition, rather than calling me out for not being the appointed defender for someone being put on trial.
Unfortunately, you didn't really get the nuances of the term. Playing devil's advocate can be as simple as taking the opposing side of something for argument's sake, or simply arguing for an unpopular point of view because it warrants representation.
you are crying about events that have no relation to this one, and finally, if you don't care, then what is the point of writing a comment saying that you don't care?
I'll just stop you right there, because it's almost hilariously clear that you missed the point of my post. If you can't tell the difference between posts reading "I don't care about Mass Effect" and "I'm pissed that the ending took away the emotional investment I had in Mass Effect," then it ain't my duty to explain it.