Mr. Big Pimpin wrote...
I see those two issues as being connected, actually.Sparkky wrote...
When will people realize that everyone is not upset about it not being a happier ending... They are upset about the ending not reflecting any of their choices over the 3 games.
DirectorStormchaser1 wrote...
Asnine112 wrote...
The Protheans were:
1) A single, unified civilization
2) Masters of the galaxy at the time
3) Much, much more advanced than the current state of galactic affairs
Also,
1) So who DOES open the Citadel for the Crucible? You know, so that the Reapers don't just wipe out the combined fleets / military capability of all the major races gathered at Earth?
Except Protheans were on their own. The Protheans did not unify the galaxy at all. They were in there self deluted Empire. And, did not drag the Galaxy into the war.
You can be the most advanced, but if the advanced culture like Rome become Self Deluted they crumble by a much lethal and larger force which would be Barbarians.
If it was indoctrination as the dream Shepherd had of Normandy. Was more than likely the fleet turning tail and retreating to figure a new way to get Crucible connected onto the Citadel. They heard Shepherd and Anderson went done in final fight anyone smart enough would have retreated and regrouped to fight another day. Admiral Hackett would never sacrifice all the ships for an unwinnable situation. If you remember all the Admiral Hackett missions in Mass Effect 1 he gave missions which he knew Shepherd could do. But, in Mass Effect 3 he was uncertain and doubting Shepherd could win this war.
This is the start of a war which Reaper Wars last 100-150 years, according to Protheans.
pharsti wrote...
Ill come over here and congratulate BW when you can explain to me what just happened with the Normandy and my teleporting squadmates.... because other than that, ill agree that the endings were actually really good (well, the control ending felt meh).
I dont agree with the controversy about your choices not mattering, we all get to the same point, the only difference is how and who we are by that time and im fine with it.
But unless you can come up with a reason why the Normandy was doing something so nonsensical (running from an "explosion") with my squadmates there then this is as rainbow and ponies as ive ever seen! Theyre supposed to have been vaporized by Harbinger... or at least be on earth, not magically flying off into a tropical planet without me!
Seriously, explain just that and ill put this down as one of the best endings ive seen.
DirectorStormchaser1 wrote...
Asnine112 wrote...
So everything you did didn;t actually matter because the Reapers won and will now proceed to harvest all the aforementioned races?
Who said Reapers winning yet. Shepherd got the ball rolling. Mass Effect 4. A new Legend and one which can win and finish the war.
Remember how long Protheans fought the Reapers for???? Over 100 years.
Why less than a year. Wars are not won in a year. Would be a few years with heroes emerging like Real Life.
Mass Effect 1-3 was Shepherd's Story. And, I think Bioware stated that Multiple times. Many are crying because they interpreted it the end of the Reapers. When it is actually the end of Shepherd's Story.
Modifié par DnVill, 14 mars 2012 - 07:03 .
Asnine112 wrote...
I'm sorry, there are so many holes in your logic here that it's almost laughable.
1) Comparing the Protheans to the Roman Empire is a good comparison, except for the part where the Roman Empire was brought down by barbarians. This is a terrible example for the following reasons:
- The Roman's were brought down by INNER problems. These inner problems were what lead to the Roman's losing to barbarians
- The barbarians (Reapers) in this case would also be light years ahead of the Romans in technology....so yeah, that doesn't fit.
- Read the lore on Protheans. They had incorporated many different races into their Prothean Empire, already fought off and presumably defeated a synthetic race, etc.
2) Concerning Hackett and retreating the fleet - what's that going to do? All that'll happen is that you'll take more losses retreating, and considering that you essentially lost all of your ground forces in the assault on London what're you going to open the Citadel with?
The only way your thing / theory makes sense is if ME4 comes out and the protagonist is someone from the ground assault force in London. But even then, that still doesn't excuse an ending which completely ignores the choices you've made throughout the game(s).
DnVill wrote...
1.) The cycle ended before the war even reached a year. Reapers are either gone or destroyed.
2.) Mass Effect refers to the Mass Relays in which enable galaxy travel without using conventional FTL. Mass Relays are now destroyed.
3.) The Galaxy fleet if they survived the shockwave that the Normandy tried to escape, they would all be stranded on Sol. With Earth's over populated and limited resources They'll all eventually die off.
4.) Limited resources will cause conflict between species and they'll probably just fight each other for scraps of resources (Yet another war).
5.) People are not upset because its the end of the Reapers but because of all the plotholes in the ending.
6.) Shepard didn't really accomplish anything but put the Galaxy in even more chaos than before.
7.) When a species is so used to a certain techonolgy they themselves become dependent of that technology to survive. Without that technology survival is a big question mark.
8.) Mass Effect 1-3 was supposed to be Shepard's story but Bioware killed off the one thing that made the Mass Effect universe... The Mass Relays. I dont mind Shepard dying and ****.
DirectorStormchaser1 wrote...
Asnine112 wrote...
I'm sorry, there are so many holes in your logic here that it's almost laughable.
1) Comparing the Protheans to the Roman Empire is a good comparison, except for the part where the Roman Empire was brought down by barbarians. This is a terrible example for the following reasons:
- The Roman's were brought down by INNER problems. These inner problems were what lead to the Roman's losing to barbarians
- The barbarians (Reapers) in this case would also be light years ahead of the Romans in technology....so yeah, that doesn't fit.
- Read the lore on Protheans. They had incorporated many different races into their Prothean Empire, already fought off and presumably defeated a synthetic race, etc.
2) Concerning Hackett and retreating the fleet - what's that going to do? All that'll happen is that you'll take more losses retreating, and considering that you essentially lost all of your ground forces in the assault on London what're you going to open the Citadel with?
The only way your thing / theory makes sense is if ME4 comes out and the protagonist is someone from the ground assault force in London. But even then, that still doesn't excuse an ending which completely ignores the choices you've made throughout the game(s).
You do realize Barbarians were actually the Huns which was a very well equipped Nomadic group, like The Reapers. Reapers doubted Technologically advanced. They were only stronger and had superior weapons and shields and Nomadic. They did not have a dwelling place. They slept in deep space. Huns were like that should read up on the Huns.
The DLC which came stated they did not incorporate other beings in the Galaxy into the Empire. It was stated by Javik. And, Javik basicly implied that is why we lost the war. Including those within the Inner Structure of Civiliation were indoctrinated. If you saw all those indoctrinated in Eden Prime video scenes no other races except Protheans. They were quite racist when Javik referred to other species when they were evolving.
Hackett retreating would not cost more lives. Remember what Hackett said "Hit and Runs was the best tactic they had against Reapers". Since Reapers are like British they march single file down a line and would never expect an ambush and tactics of Militia.
Shepherd did the impossible. Unite the Galaxy. That is what was needed to make this war into a winning war.
Why does everyone want a Cinderella ending. War does not last a few days. War is years of bloody losses and no happy ending at all. And, countless heroes. Shepherd should have a story with other heroes in this war. Why does it just have to be Shepherd????
GodChildInTheMachine wrote...
healed1337 wrote...
GodChildInTheMachine wrote...
But you would literally have to be brain dead to accept the ME3 ending for its (lack of) complexity and narrative logic.
Uh, being literally brain dead would mean that your brain doesn't function at all. It means that you can't even comprehend the difference between red and blue even if your eyes can sense the difference.
Don't get me wrong, the ending does have problems, but I appreciate the concept behind it and haven't seen many complaints that can't be defended against.
I can see how one would appreciate the concept behind the ending, and I could too if they were delivered in a different context.
But there really isn't a solid defense for the ending on a critical level.
Just to define the terms by which I am judging the ending, here is a quote from Aristotle's Poetics:In the characters too, exactly as in the structure of the incidents, [the poet] ought always to seek what is either necessary or probable, so that it is either necessary or probable that a person of such-and-such a sort say or do things of the same sort, and it is either necessary or probable that this [incident] happen after that one. It is obvious that the solutions of plots too should come about as a result of the plot itself, and not from a contrivance... A contrivance must be used for matters outside the drama—either previous events which are beyond human knowledge, or later ones that need to be foretold or announced... There should be nothing improbable in the incidents; otherwise, it should be outside the tragedy...
Emphasis placed on the part which I think has the most bearing to my argument.
I do not mind that the ending attempted to be profound or "tragic" if you can define it that way. I often enjoy fiction that tries to communicate complex messages, but it is very easy for such an attempt to fail if it disregards the internal consistency of the narrative in favor of some grander artistic statement.
The reason the ending is poor is because it does not rise naturally out of the threads that lead to it, nor does it conclude them that way.
It introduces a new character, who by the narrative of the logic is the prime antagonist, without any ceremony or explanation. Instead of showing through the events of the narrative who this character is and what its motivations are, it has to explain them itself through expositionary dialogue. That kind of exposition needs to be done earlier in the story and is almost universally avoided in the final act.
This mysterious antagonist then issues a new understanding of the fictional world which runs counter to what has been naturally revealed to the audience by the events of the preceding story. To this end it applies logic which can demonstrably be proven false and thoughtless.
(i.e. I heard you didn't want to be killed by synthetics, so I created synthetics to kill you every 50k years so you don't have to be killed by synthetics)
The tone and theme of its message directly contraverts the themes explored in the Mass Effect series, the most of which in my eyes are the ideas of free will, unity, tolerance and what it means to be alive or sentient. It goes so far as to tell you in no uncertain terms that what you have accomplished and the things you have seen (i.e. the peace of the Geth and Quarians and the friendship of EDI) is in fact false or meaningless. (You could honestly make the arguement that this thing is an illogical little space Hitler)
And of course, the protagonist turns from an uncomprimising type of person who will do things by his/her terms or not at all, into a complacent and unscrupulous sucker who does not even question what he is being told when it has the highest consequences ever.
How would you reply to that in defense of the ending?
DirectorStormchaser1 wrote...
It is not to hard to figure out when Harbinger landed he was emitting a signal which was boring in your head. Indoctrination.
Modifié par Nu-Nu, 14 mars 2012 - 11:09 .
kaotician wrote...
GodChildInTheMachine wrote...
This mysterious antagonist then issues a new understanding of the fictional world which runs counter to what has been naturally revealed to the audience by the events of the preceding story. To this end it applies logic which can demonstrably be proven false and thoughtless.
(i.e. I heard you didn't want to be killed by synthetics, so I created synthetics to kill you every 50k years so you don't have to be killed by synthetics)
The tone and theme of its message directly contraverts the themes explored in the Mass Effect series, the most of which in my eyes are the ideas of free will, unity, tolerance and what it means to be alive or sentient. It goes so far as to tell you in no uncertain terms that what you have accomplished and the things you have seen (i.e. the peace of the Geth and Quarians and the friendship of EDI) is in fact false or meaningless. (You could honestly make the arguement that this thing is an illogical little space Hitler)
And of course, the protagonist turns from an uncomprimising type of person who will do things by his/her terms or not at all, into a complacent and unscrupulous sucker who does not even question what he is being told when it has the highest consequences ever.
How would you reply to that in defense of the ending?
I have seen a point you've raised here many times before, on multiple threads, and have emboldened it for extra clarity.
Isn't it the case that the hive minds of each individual reaper represent each species uplifted at some point in the galaxy's history? If so, in what way do the reapers actually cause extinction, as distinct from preservation? The reapers (as we call them) are not about extinction, but the saving of organic species - by saving their DNA and their consciousness'? Shepherd's argument here is that we refute the idea that our extinction otherwise is inevitable at the hands of AI, and that we can and should be allowed to work it out. So the argument as presented isn't quite so self-contradictory as it's been characterised as.
we refute the idea that our extinction otherwise is inevitable at the hands of AI, and that we can and should be allowed to work it out.
Sparkky wrote...
When will people realize that everyone is not upset about it not being a happier ending... They are upset about the ending not reflecting any of their choices over the 3 games.
Asnine112 wrote...
You are seriously going to sit here and tell me the ****ing Huns were more technologically advanced than the Roman Empire in their prime?
I'm sorry, your knowledge of history has been proven to be just wrong. Your laughable knowledge base has been shown and exposed, and I'm done trying to have a substantiated conversation with you. I'm glad your feeble mind can enjoy the ending. Take care.
And nowhere did I say I wanted a Cinderella ending. So stfu about that. I just want an ending where the choices I made throughout the games actually contributed to the the ending.
Modifié par DirectorStormchaser1, 14 mars 2012 - 04:27 .
Retour en haut
