57139 réponses à ce sujet

[KevShep]

OdanUrr wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

It's clever because of the Bioware taking advantage of the players naivety. The player doesn't expect to be tricked because most of the series has been straightforward, as you just said. That takes effort, tricking the player, and it isn't something that is done easily, but since this was a role-playing game, it had to be done for the supposedly ramped-up indoctrination process to work. You are Shepherd and make Shepherd's decisions for him/her. For it to work, you had to be tricked.

Where does that leave newcomers, I wonder?

I like that they (Bioware) are not dumbing down the series just to cater to the new people to ME (like all other game devs do). I like that they mite give an edge to the LONG time FAN. It would be a nice change of pace!

[n00bsauce2010]

balance5050 wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

It's clever because of the Bioware taking advantage of the players naivety. The player doesn't expect to be tricked because most of the series has been straightforward, as you just said. That takes effort, tricking the player, and it isn't something that is done easily, but since this was a role-playing game, it had to be done for the supposedly ramped-up indoctrination process to work. You are Shepherd and make Shepherd's decisions for him/her. For it to work, you had to be tricked.

Where does that leave newcomers, I wonder?

Noobs are usually the ones who are like "what's the deal with the endings? they weren't THAT bad."

The more invested the player was with the rest of the franchise.. the more likely they were to be pissed off about the ending. Newcomers are much easier to fool because they don't understand what has been set in place with the previous entries.

[OdanUrr]

@KevShep: Guess we'll have to wait for the EC for the answers.

@n00bsauce2010: IT is not very "natural entry point" friendly to newcomers.

@balance5050: You're saying Bioware planned this since ME1?

[Big Bad]

OdanUrr wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

KevShep wrote...
Your not understanding...If shepard is being indoctrinated then they (Bioware) need the PLAYER to think that Shepard is NOT indoctrinated so that it does play out that way.

I don't understand why other people don't comprehend that the ending is a long con by Bioware on the player.

Even if it were, there isn't any real merit to it. Bioware would have been able to con us in the last ten minutes of the franchise due to the fact it never deceived us in the previous 12,000 minutes (rough estimate) and thus we didn't expect to be deceived. How's that clever?

I agree to some extent.  I think based solely on in-game content, IT is a pretty solid explanation for the ending.  But once you factor in the real world consequences of IT, things seem somewhat hazier.

I am not sure which of these things I find to be more unlikely:

A) Despite how awesome and well-written the rest of the series (and the rest of ME3!) has been; and despite what Bioware said about the ending prior to the game's release; and despite the fact that the ending is both heartless and devoid of logic, reason or basis in the ME universe's lore, Bioware thought that the ending we got was satisfactory.

Bioware is pulling a long con.  They are weathering the ****storm they created because they believe (or initially believed before the game was released) that it will ultimately pay off once everything is revealed.


Both of those things seem very unlikely to me.  However, given the in-game evidence and the fact that I would really prefer A) to be the more unlikely scenario, I am going with IT until either it is revealed to be false or an acceptable alternative is put forward, though I have no idea what this alternative could possibly be.

[OdanUrr]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

The more invested the player was with the rest of the franchise.. the more likely they were to be pissed off about the ending. Newcomers are much easier to fool because they don't understand what has been set in place with the previous entries.

But isn't that the market Bioware hoped to gain? If you fool your new customers, do you really think they'll stick around? It doesn't seem to be a sound strategy to retain customers.

[DirtyPhoenix]

But why didn't I see my LI (Garrus) in that end slide?? *crying panda face*

[BatmanTurian]

OdanUrr wrote...
@balance5050: You're saying Bioware planned this since ME1?

I think it's possible for reasons I stated earlier. Passive indoctrination was already performed by Sovereign on Eden Prime in the very first mission of the series. It set the tone.

Now do I think they actually had it sketched out that early? I think they may have had a vague idea and connected the dots later after the Dark Energy thing was dropped.

[OdanUrr]

Big Bad wrote...

I agree to some extent.  I think based solely on in-game content, IT is a pretty solid explanation for the ending.  But once you factor in the real world consequences of IT, things seem somewhat hazier.

I am not sure which of these things I find to be more unlikely:

A) Despite how awesome and well-written the rest of the series (and the rest of ME3!) has been; and despite what Bioware said about the ending prior to the game's release; and despite the fact that the ending is both heartless and devoid of logic, reason or basis in the ME universe's lore, Bioware thought that the ending we got was satisfactory.

Bioware is pulling a long con.  They are weathering the ****storm they created because they believe (or initially believed before the game was released) that it will ultimately pay off once everything is revealed.


Both of those things seem very unlikely to me.  However, given the in-game evidence and the fact that I would really prefer A) to be the more unlikely scenario, I am going with IT until either it is revealed to be false or an acceptable alternative is put forward, though I have no idea what this alternative could possibly be.

Only want to point out that the writing for ME2 at least isn't that good when you think about it or, rather, the idea behind ME2 wasn't very good. I thought that the natural progression would be something like this: identify the threat (ME1); find a means to stop the threat (ME2); stop the threat (ME3). However, this is not what we have. In ME2 we waste time stopping the Collectors when we should have been searching for a means to stop the Reapers (i.e. searching for the plans for the Crucible).

[KevShep]

Big Bad wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

KevShep wrote...
Your not understanding...If shepard is being indoctrinated then they (Bioware) need the PLAYER to think that Shepard is NOT indoctrinated so that it does play out that way.

I don't understand why other people don't comprehend that the ending is a long con by Bioware on the player.

Even if it were, there isn't any real merit to it. Bioware would have been able to con us in the last ten minutes of the franchise due to the fact it never deceived us in the previous 12,000 minutes (rough estimate) and thus we didn't expect to be deceived. How's that clever?

I agree to some extent.  I think based solely on in-game content, IT is a pretty solid explanation for the ending.  But once you factor in the real world consequences of IT, things seem somewhat hazier.

I am not sure which of these things I find to be more unlikely:

A) Despite how awesome and well-written the rest of the series (and the rest of ME3!) has been; and despite what Bioware said about the ending prior to the game's release; and despite the fact that the ending is both heartless and devoid of logic, reason or basis in the ME universe's lore, Bioware thought that the ending we got was satisfactory.

Bioware is pulling a long con.  They are weathering the ****storm they created because they believe (or initially believed before the game was released) that it will ultimately pay off once everything is revealed.


Both of those things seem very unlikely to me.  However, given the in-game evidence and the fact that I would really prefer A) to be the more unlikely scenario, I am going with IT until either it is revealed to be false or an acceptable alternative is put forward, though I have no idea what this alternative could possibly be.

The in-game evidence points right at I.T.. The biggest one for me at lest (and there is alot of evidence) is that FACT that shepard is saying the same things that the catalyst is saying in the back ground of the catalyst's own voice ( repeating what he is saying by wispering it). It hard to hear over the catalyst voice but if you use one head hpone at a time you can hear maleshep on the right rea peice and femshep on the left one.

[balance5050]

OdanUrr wrote...


@balance5050: You're saying Bioware planned this since ME1?

How are you deriving that from what I said?

[OdanUrr]

balance5050 wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...


@balance5050: You're saying Bioware planned this since ME1?

How are you deriving that from what I said?

I'm not deriving, I'm asking because I'm not sure. Hence the smiley.

[BatmanTurian]

OdanUrr wrote...
...
In ME2 we waste time stopping the Collectors when we should have been searching for a means to stop the Reapers (i.e. searching for the plans for the Crucible).

We were stopping the Reapers, or at least slowing them down, by going after the collectors and stopping the Human Reaper from being finished. The collectors are servants of the Reapers so we might as well just lump them in and say technically we were still fighting the Reapers. One of them (Harbinger) even gets an obsessive crush on Shep and ASSUMES DIRECT CONTROL and Shep kills his avatar over and over.

[balance5050]

OdanUrr wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...


@balance5050: You're saying Bioware planned this since ME1?

How are you deriving that from what I said?

I'm not deriving, I'm asking because I'm not sure. Hence the smiley.

I think they had it planned since "The arrival"

[Emperor_Ike]

OdanUrr wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

KevShep wrote...
Your not understanding...If shepard is being indoctrinated then they (Bioware) need the PLAYER to think that Shepard is NOT indoctrinated so that it does play out that way.

I don't understand why other people don't comprehend that the ending is a long con by Bioware on the player.

Even if it were, there isn't any real merit to it. Bioware would have been able to con us in the last ten minutes of the franchise due to the fact it never deceived us in the previous 12,000 minutes (rough estimate) and thus we didn't expect to be deceived. How's that clever?

It doesn't have to be clever. It could even be evil, and spiteful, and they'll still be awesome for it if IT comes out true.

[OdanUrr]

BatmanTurian wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...
...
In ME2 we waste time stopping the Collectors when we should have been searching for a means to stop the Reapers (i.e. searching for the plans for the Crucible).

We were stopping the Reapers, or at least slowing them down, by going after the collectors and stopping the Human Reaper from being finished. The collectors are servants of the Reapers so we might as well just lump them in and say technically we were still fighting the Reapers. One of them (Harbinger) even gets an obsessive crush on Shep and ASSUMES DIRECT CONTROL and Shep kills his avatar over and over.

And what was the point of the Human-Reaper? In fact, what was the point of ME2? Like I said, in ME1 you identified the threat. In ME3 you find the means to stop the threat and also end it (depending on whether or not you believe IT). So what's ME2's contribution?

[OdanUrr]

balance5050 wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...


@balance5050: You're saying Bioware planned this since ME1?

How are you deriving that from what I said?

I'm not deriving, I'm asking because I'm not sure. Hence the smiley.

I think they had it planned since "The arrival"

But new players who don't import a savegame into ME3 didn't canonically play Arrival. Instead of Shepard being sent to deal with Dr. Kenson, a team of Alliance marines are sent.

[balance5050]

OdanUrr wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...
...
In ME2 we waste time stopping the Collectors when we should have been searching for a means to stop the Reapers (i.e. searching for the plans for the Crucible).

We were stopping the Reapers, or at least slowing them down, by going after the collectors and stopping the Human Reaper from being finished. The collectors are servants of the Reapers so we might as well just lump them in and say technically we were still fighting the Reapers. One of them (Harbinger) even gets an obsessive crush on Shep and ASSUMES DIRECT CONTROL and Shep kills his avatar over and over.

And what was the point of the Human-Reaper? In fact, what was the point of ME2? Like I said, in ME1 you identified the threat. In ME3 you find the means to stop the threat and also end it (depending on whether or not you believe IT). So what's ME2's contribution?

HAHA, furthering the story in every way?

[balance5050]

OdanUrr wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...


@balance5050: You're saying Bioware planned this since ME1?

How are you deriving that from what I said?

I'm not deriving, I'm asking because I'm not sure. Hence the smiley.

I think they had it planned since "The arrival"

But new players who don't import a savegame into ME3 didn't canonically play Arrival. Instead of Shepard being sent to deal with Dr. Kenson, a team of Alliance marines are sent.

IT really isn't for newcomers, it's for "dedicated" fans.

[BatmanTurian]

OdanUrr wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...
...
In ME2 we waste time stopping the Collectors when we should have been searching for a means to stop the Reapers (i.e. searching for the plans for the Crucible).

We were stopping the Reapers, or at least slowing them down, by going after the collectors and stopping the Human Reaper from being finished. The collectors are servants of the Reapers so we might as well just lump them in and say technically we were still fighting the Reapers. One of them (Harbinger) even gets an obsessive crush on Shep and ASSUMES DIRECT CONTROL and Shep kills his avatar over and over.

And what was the point of the Human-Reaper? In fact, what was the point of ME2? Like I said, in ME1 you identified the threat. In ME3 you find the means to stop the threat and also end it (depending on whether or not you believe IT). So what's ME2's contribution?

From a literary perspective, ME2 is dying and coming back to life, making Shep practically a christ figure, THEN, he goes to a place with a bunch of loyal companions where noone comes back from which could metaphorically be compared to hell or the underworld, and then returns victorious (or not). The classic Hero's journey always has some kind of journey to the underworld, whether literal or metaphorical. It's a trope that's as old as dirt and is reinvented over and over.

[KevShep]

OdanUrr wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...
...
In ME2 we waste time stopping the Collectors when we should have been searching for a means to stop the Reapers (i.e. searching for the plans for the Crucible).

We were stopping the Reapers, or at least slowing them down, by going after the collectors and stopping the Human Reaper from being finished. The collectors are servants of the Reapers so we might as well just lump them in and say technically we were still fighting the Reapers. One of them (Harbinger) even gets an obsessive crush on Shep and ASSUMES DIRECT CONTROL and Shep kills his avatar over and over.

And what was the point of the Human-Reaper? In fact, what was the point of ME2? Like I said, in ME1 you identified the threat. In ME3 you find the means to stop the threat and also end it (depending on whether or not you believe IT). So what's ME2's contribution?

Now your getting to it. There is a reason for there intrest in humans and for some unknown reason in ME3 we only matter to the reapers just like any other race. Sovereign tried to kill off all other races in the galaxy with the rachni. Why would he do this if the reapers needed them to save/harvest?

The answer is that we will find out soon because I dont think that they would want Shepard to know and this is why it is not present in the game....they are tricking him/her...but like you said we will have to wait and see!

[DJBare]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

The more invested the player was with the rest of the franchise.. the more likely they were to be pissed off about the ending. Newcomers are much easier to fool because they don't understand what has been set in place with the previous entries.

Yeah, but even a newcomer to the franchise has to question why Shepard recovers with only a pistol at hand, armor burnt off, slow moving husks, a marauder that can be killed in 3 shots from a pistol, that whole scene is inconsistant with everything the player experienced just moments earlier.

Modifié par DJBare, 18 avril 2012 - 04:46 .

[OdanUrr]

balance5050 wrote...

HAHA, furthering the story in every way?

It fleshes out the universe, sure, but what else? It's like the Reapers are put on hold when it would have been the perfect opportunity to search for the Crucible plans and convince the galaxy that the Reaper threat is real, all the while trying to deal with the question of what it means to be human and whether you're the same person you were before you died.

[Rifneno]

OdanUrr wrote...

@KevShep: Guess we'll have to wait for the EC for the answers.

@n00bsauce2010: IT is not very "natural entry point" friendly to newcomers.

@balance5050: You're saying Bioware planned this since ME1?

1)  Captain Obvious approves. (+15)
2)  Yeah, who doesn't hate continuity?  I prefer they just make up random crap every game.  They never should've had a game about the Reapers.  Forget the Reapers, newbies don't even know about them!  They don't get what a big deal it is.  This game should've been about a completely new threat that attacks new characters in a new way.
3)  Either they did, or they purposely used an existing red herring to make it look as if they did.  I'm leaning toward the former.

*sigh*  Got a toothache.  This sucks, I was hoping to live til my 80's.  My teeth are full of rot and all, sure, but on rare occasions a toothache can be redirected cardiac pain.  Guess I'm gonna die then.  AFK, making out my will.

[BatmanTurian]

KevShep wrote...

Now your getting to it. There is a reason for there intrest in humans and for some unknown reason in ME3 we only matter to the reapers just like any other race. Sovereign tried to kill off all other races in the galaxy with the rachni. Why would he do this if the reapers needed them to save/harvest?

The answer is that we will find out soon because I dont think that they would want Shepard to know and this is why it is not present in the game....they are tricking him/her...but like you said we will have to wait and see!

My pet theory is that humans are special because we possess all of the qualities of all of the other species in one package. We are destructive bastards like Krogan, intelligent and cunning like Salarians, diplomatic and possessing great ease in forging alliances like the Asari, clever merchants like the Volus, patient like the Elcor, great military tacticians like the Turians, and technically savvy and communal like the Quarians.

We are their worst nightmare, basically. It's why we make the other species crap bricks when they consider our place in the galaxy.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 18 avril 2012 - 04:53 .

[Big Bad]

OdanUrr wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

I agree to some extent.  I think based solely on in-game content, IT is a pretty solid explanation for the ending.  But once you factor in the real world consequences of IT, things seem somewhat hazier.

I am not sure which of these things I find to be more unlikely:

A) Despite how awesome and well-written the rest of the series (and the rest of ME3!) has been; and despite what Bioware said about the ending prior to the game's release; and despite the fact that the ending is both heartless and devoid of logic, reason or basis in the ME universe's lore, Bioware thought that the ending we got was satisfactory.

Bioware is pulling a long con.  They are weathering the ****storm they created because they believe (or initially believed before the game was released) that it will ultimately pay off once everything is revealed.


Both of those things seem very unlikely to me.  However, given the in-game evidence and the fact that I would really prefer A) to be the more unlikely scenario, I am going with IT until either it is revealed to be false or an acceptable alternative is put forward, though I have no idea what this alternative could possibly be.

Only want to point out that the writing for ME2 at least isn't that good when you think about it or, rather, the idea behind ME2 wasn't very good. I thought that the natural progression would be something like this: identify the threat (ME1); find a means to stop the threat (ME2); stop the threat (ME3). However, this is not what we have. In ME2 we waste time stopping the Collectors when we should have been searching for a means to stop the Reapers (i.e. searching for the plans for the Crucible).

Gotta disagree with you completely on this one.  I really enjoyed ME2.  Just because the story didn't follow your notion of what a natural progression is supposed to be doesn't mean that it is poorly written.