58 réponses à ce sujet

[Matt VT Schlo]

Did he actually have to provide his resume? Did he write a series of children's books and somehow has an Aunt at Bioware that got him job as head writer?

He is my number one concern? Where the heck is Drew within Bioware? he should have been made head writer over everything there...that man has talent

Mac, you suck! 

[Rittmeister64]

who knows. his ME3 'dialogue' with Caspar the suicidal ghost surely doesn't make any frikkin sense, same as the ending choices.

[dreamgazer]

What is it about Drew's writing that you like so much?

[Mcfly616]

Because Drew moved on. Other than that, who knows...

[Mcfly616]

who knows. his ME3 'dialogue' with Caspar the suicidal ghost surely doesn't make any frikkin sense, same as the ending choices.

Both made sense just fine.

[Rittmeister64]

this isn't writer A vs writer B. I don't care who wrote what.

All I know is - Caspar the suicidal ghost stucks with his completely illogical statements that you have to listen to, and the endings suck as well.

And being the last part of the series, I don't get why they couldn't also put in a happy ending and let players chose and experience for themselves what they want instead of force feeding crappy endings to everybody.

[Rittmeister64]

Both made sense just fine.

 

if you ignore logic and the lore of the whole series only. see the video above.

[Mcfly616]

I don't need to see the video. I've played through the trilogy over 30 times. It's logic is sound. And it fits with the lore. I could understand if your complaint was of how shitty the choices were implemented (shoot the tube, grab the rods or jump into the beam), but you're talking about the writing. And it makes sense.

 

 Shepard saved the galaxy and provided an actual future for everything in it for the first time in millions of (if not a billion) years. And all my squadmates survived. Seems like a happy ending to me.

 

 

 

Maybe try to explain why you think it doesn't make sense....

[Rittmeister64]

 

 

you just refused to watch a total debunking of the "logic" and "good storytelling", so don't tell me you want a written answer from me, Caspar.

I'm not in the mood to start a new debate with fanboys who ignore the obvious.

[dreamgazer]

I'm not in the mood to start a new debate with fanboys who ignore the obvious.

At least you're honest about not wanting to have an actual discussion. Saved Mcfly a lot of time.

[Mcfly616]

This guys opening line completely removes any reason to take him seriously. He's clearly biased. And we know how biased analysis' go. Pretty much like anything on Fox news.

 

 

Okay, so now I'm 5 minutes in and all he's doing is babbling on about stuff he doesn't like about the game. He's insulted lol ok......is this guy ever going to make a point on how the Catalysts logic is not sound? Is he going to state how it doesn't fit the lore?

 

It seems the answer is "no". Just a bunch of babbling still 10 minutes in about his own rules of storytelling. If you can't do it yourself, please post a video that actually points out how it doesn't fit or make sense, otherwise you're just propping up the unsatisfied idiot in the video.

 

 

You don't like it. He didn't like it. In no way does that prove that it didn't make sense logically or within the context of the lore.

[Jimbo_Gee79]

 

 

you just refused to watch a total debunking of the "logic" and "good storytelling", so don't tell me you want a written answer from me, Caspar.

I'm not in the mood to start a new debate with fanboys who ignore the obvious.

Heres the problem Ritt, people are saying the mass effect ending sucked. They're not actually letting us all know why it sucked or what was wrong with it. Kind of like going to a mechanic and when he asks you whats wrong you reply "well, its broken isnt it".

 

He gets the idea its broken but if nobody tells him how its broken nothing can be fixed. Of course someone not liking something doesnt actually mean it sucks it just means its sucks FOR YOU.

 

Good writing takes many forms. Writers like Terry Prattchett and Ian M banks are favourites of mine because they keep me engaged in story telling. Ian M banks doesnt always write happy endings. Sometimes the main character dies at the end. Thats good writing. It means you are not afraid to upset/shock your audience. Just because the ending wasnt everyone holding hands and singing kumbaya, it doesnt equate to a bad ending. Nor does it equate to fanboyism. Just because you didnt understand the ending the same applies.

 

Sometimes the ending is never explained and the viewer/reader is left to make their own mind up about what happened. Again not bad writing. Just different. To use the world logic in a video game that does nothing but flout the laws of science is a bit silly. Good story telling is subjective.

[Mcfly616]

At least you're honest about not wanting to have an actual discussion. Saved Mcfly a lot of time.

 just a little...

[Rittmeister64]

 

Good writing takes many forms.  It means you are not afraid to upset/shock your audience. Just because the ending wasnt everyone holding hands and singing kumbaya, it doesnt equate to a bad ending. Nor does it equate to fanboyism. Just because you didnt understand the ending the same applies.

 

this isn't a novel with only one ending, it's an interactive experience, and we already have 4+ endings. They should have made a happy ending too. So if you love the Transhumanist Ray Kurzweil crap, go for it, but don't ****** off millions of fans by not giving them a happy ending too, and don't make all what you did obsolete - like making peace between Geth and Quarians, and then kill them off if you chose Destroy Ending.

 

As for the Caspar logic - I don't see any logic in committing Galactic GENOCIDE in order to avoid a potential future war between humans and machines.

[Mcfly616]

Again, whether it's 'happy' is completely subjective. Which is funny you posted the video that you did because he starts it out by taking a big dump all over anybody who simply wanted their happy ending.

 

 

And the Geth were collateral in the Destroy ending. It wasn't like it was malicious intent (especially if you had already saved them earlier in the game). It was a consequence of that particular choice. No way anybody could've seen it coming. It's called sacrifice. 

[Rittmeister64]

introducing Caspar the suicidal ghost in the last act is just bad storytelling, and what he says is complete bull and illogical. It's like he tells you "I need to cut off your foot to prevent you from stepping on glas." what the hell.

[Mcfly616]

Plenty of stories reveal the wizard behind the curtain at the very end. Many stories also wait until the end to take everything you thought you knew and turn it on its head. Plenty of renowned novels and films, I might add.

 

 

 

And you really shouldn't refer to the moron in the video, it's not helping your case. I would say it was hurting it, but it really can't get any worse. You have yet to make a single point....

[Rittmeister64]

Plenty of stories reveal the wizard behind the curtain at the very end. Many stories also wait until the end to take everything you thought you knew and turn it on its head. Plenty of renowned novels and films, I might add.

 

 

 

And you really shouldn't refer to the moron in the video, it's not helping your case. I would say it was hurting it, but it really can't get any worse. You have yet to make a single point....

 

Caspar the ghost is not a "wiz behind the curtain", it is a Deus ex machinima. It is generally deemed undesirable in writing and often implies a lack of creativity on the part of the author. The reasons for this are that it does not pay due regard to the story's internal logic.

 

Turning everything on it's head is called a "twist" plotdevice, but it still must abide to logic, which the Starkid does not.

 

You say I yet have to make a single point, so why did you ignore twice what I wrote about the logic of killing off the whole galaxy in order to avoid a potential war between man and machine? Does that make any sense to you?

[Mcfly616]

Caspar the ghost is not a "wiz behind the curtain", it is a Deus ex machinima. It is generally deemed undesirable in writing and often implies a lack of creativity on the part of the author. The reasons for this are that it does not pay due regard to the story's internal logic.

 

Turning everything on it's head is called a "twist" plotdevice, but it still must abide to logic, which the Starkid does not.

 

You say I yet have to make a single point, so why did you ignore twice what I wrote about the logic of killing off the whole galaxy in order to avoid a potential war between man and machine? Does that make any sense to you?

 The Catalyst most certainly is the wizard behind the curtain. It's the one pulling the strings. It is the central consciousness of all Reapers. And Deus Machina and "wizard behind the curtain" can often be found to be one in the same. Again, its logic is sound. 

 

 

And this is the first time you made a coherent statement as to why you think it doesn't make sense, instead of the jibber jabber analogies like "cut off your foot so you don't step on glass" speak you were throwing around.

 

 

 

And now it all comes to fruition on why you think it doesn't fit the lore and is illogical. It's because you clearly didn't listen to (or understand) what the Catalyst says. The Catalyst is not killing off the "whole galaxy" to prevent a war. It's harvesting advanced civilizations so that they don't cause the extinction of all life in the galaxy forever. It's giving other less advanced lifeforms time to grow and evolve without the threat of being wiped out by the advanced civilizations creations. 

 

Why would that happen? Because advanced civilizations create AI. AI in turn reaches and exceeds our level of intelligence, and when this happens organics lose control of their creations. It is in organics nature to destroy their creations when this threshold is met. Naturally, once AI's reach that level of intelligence they are sentient and they're not interested in dying (just as any living thing wouldn't be). The inherent eternal conflict ensues, which if left unchecked would result in the death of all life everywhere. The Catalyst created the cycles to ensure that it never reaches that point, and to give it time to find a solution for the inherent eternal conflict between organics and synthetics. It's a stalling pattern. The Reapers are merely its thralls, tools it uses to carry out the harvest.

 

 

Shepard is the anomaly. He presents the solution. He renders the the Cycles obsolete. And the Catalyst acknowledges it right to your face by asking you to choose the fate of the galaxy. It literally hands over the keys to the car.

 

 

 

You really didn't think that the Reapers didn't have a purpose or motivation, did you? You didn't think that purpose/motivation wouldn't be revealed before it was all said and done? You just thought they were mindless robots killing 'just because'? That's rather odd. There would've been a hell of a lot bigger backlash/outcry from fans if there was no point to the Reapers and they were just left as unexplained monsters.

[Vazgen]

I don't think there would've been large outcry. Still, the explanation we got in the ending is logical and fits with the rest of the trilogy. You might not believe the Catalyst in regards to its "solution" (in fact you should not) but the probem it describes is present in Mass Effect universe and is confirmed by different sources in the games.

[Rittmeister64]

 

And this is the first time you made a coherent statement as to why you think it doesn't make sense, instead of the jibber jabber analogies like "cut off your foot so you don't step on glass" speak you were throwing around.

 

 

You are very condescending really. The analogy was quite alright. The starchild's (and your) argument are simply wrong, because they are based on pseudo-facts - assumptions presented as facts.

Even the Geth did not chose to wipe out all biologic life, they retreated beyond the veil. Not all superiors wipe out inferiors. It's all nonsense assumptions. The Allies didn't wipe out the Nazis, Europeans didn't wipe out Blacks in Africa.  etc. When you have superior intelligence and power, it is not necessary to wipe out anybody. So the Starchild's story is pure bull. And, on top, the starchild's voice is annoying like hell. I just can stand hearing his nonsense, especially in that kiddy voice.

 

Also, he doesn't hand you over the keys at all, he gives you 4 choices - all of them bad and unsatisfying to probably millions of players. Anyway, the whole point is: Bioware could have created the most epic Trilogy in SciFi and gaming history, but they failed - because of the lame ending that apparently most players hated.

[Mcfly616]

 

 

You are very condescending really. The analogy was quite alright. The starchild's (and your) argument are simply wrong, because they are based on pseudo-facts - assumptions presented as facts.

Even the Geth did not chose to wipe out all biologic life, they retreated beyond the veil. Not all superiors wipe out inferiors. It's all nonsense assumptions. The Allies didn't wipe out the Nazis, Europeans didn't wipe out Blacks in Africa.  etc. When you have superior intelligence and power, it is not necessary to wipe out anybody. So the Starchild's story is pure bull. And, on top, the starchild's voice is annoying like hell. I just can stand hearing his nonsense, especially in that kiddy voice.

 

Also, he doesn't hand you over the keys at all, he gives you 4 choices - all of them bad and unsatisfying to probably millions of players. Anyway, the whole point is: Bioware could have created the most epic Trilogy in SciFi and gaming history, but they failed - because of the lame ending that apparently most players hated.

 

 You started with the condescension. But I don't care. It's whatever.

 

It's not an assumption. It's an established fact of the MEU. Before the Catalyst was created, time and time again, Leviathan observed that civilizations would fall to their creations one after the other like clockwork. Until finally the Leviathan created the Catalyst to find a solution to the problem. Because if nobody did, then everything would be destroyed. How many dominos need to fall before you accept that they're all going to? 

 

No, the Geth didn't choose to wipe out all organic life, but the conflict would have. They did just as all the other synthetics of previous cycles had. They defended themselves against their creators. In turn a war ensued. When that war gets out of hand, the two sides destroy eachother while using any means to survive. 

 

 

Ever seen War Games? Think of it as thermonuclear war. We launch a nuke, they launch a nuke, we launch a bunch more, they launch a bunch more, until none of our nukes and none of their nukes are left, resulting in nothing being left. We all die. The world ends.

 

 

The Catalyst didn't give you the choices. The Crucible (which was designed by organic civilizations over the course of numerous cycles) provided them for you. The Catalyst simply acknowledges that by docking the Crucible with the Citadel, and by Shepard reaching that point he has created new possibilities and rendered the Catalyst obsolete. 

 

 

 

You have no idea how "most players" felt. So don't pretend to.

 

 

Was the ending polarizing? Absolutely. Did the majority love or hate it? Nobody will ever know.

[Rittmeister64]

 

Ever seen War Games? Think of it as thermonuclear war. We launch a nuke, they launch a nuke, we launch a bunch more, they launch a bunch more, until none of our nukes and none of their nukes are left, resulting in nothing being left. We all die. The world ends.

 

You have no idea how "most players" felt. So don't pretend to.

so you're basing your argument on a bad movie script. I see why you support Caspar's failed logic - and the bad writing.

 

I have a very good idea how "most players" feel about the ending. No need to pretend, the internet is full of rants about the bad ending. People say they hate it so much, they don't even want to replay any part of the series anymore, others don't even want to start playing the game because of the ending. It looks to me, somebody at Bioware wanted to please his ego by implementing this transhumanist Ray Kurzweil nonsense mixed with some Neo-Jesus sacrifice, and after the massive outcry and petitions against the ending, they didn't even have the guts to fix it, just pour more dung on it to fix some plotholes.

[Mcfly616]

so you're basing your argument on a bad movie script. I see why you support Caspar's failed logic - and the bad writing.

 

I have a very good idea how "most players" feel about the ending. No need to pretend, the internet is full of rants about the bad ending. People say they hate it so much, they don't even want to replay any part of the series anymore, others don't even want to start playing the game because of the ending. It looks to me, somebody at Bioware wanted to please his ego by implementing this transhumanist Ray Kurzweil nonsense mixed with some Neo-Jesus sacrifice, and after the massive outcry and petitions against the ending, they didn't even have the guts to fix it, just pour more dung on it to fix some plotholes.

Nope. I'm basing it on the lore presented within the game. It's not an argument. It's a fact. No plotholes lol

 

You have no idea. As the players that take the time to go on the internet and express their feelings are merely a fraction of the amount of people that have played the game.

 

 

You clearly demonstrated how butthurt you are over the endings without debunking anything I've said. Just a bunch of babbling like your buddy in the video. Go get yourself some wet wipes bub. 

[Nohvarr]

 Ever seen War Games? Think of it as thermonuclear war. We launch a nuke, they launch a nuke, we launch a bunch more, they launch a bunch more, until none of our nukes and none of their nukes are left, resulting in nothing being left. We all die. The world ends.