23455 réponses à ce sujet

[Theronyll Itholien]

LiarasShield wrote...

by the way anyone who shot mordin is a **** lol

Yeah, about that..

BioWare put too many resources in choices about 0,5% of the games would make. Proof of that is actually obvious if you watch the PAX vid and see how many people did this or that choice. And then at the end.. they screw up with 3 almost identical choices.

Ridiculous. FFS!

[Karate Dan87]

Changer the Elder wrote...

I'm sorry, but your metaphor rings a bit hollow with everyone knowing a bit more about Titanic than it being a 1997 hit movie. Sinking of the Titanic was a bit more difficult matter than the captain being an arrogant ******. It was a coincidental combination of events. Edward J. Smith did everything pretty much right (or at least right by that time's standards) and in the end, went down with his ship like a good captain should.

Plus, he didn't even keep his "navigation integrity", as the ship went even more south that was required by the protocol, just for the extra safety. It didn't help, of course, but Smith tried to avoid it.

I'm not trying to draw an exact parallel, simply to highlight that there are some things that in hindsight should have been handled better. Using the captain as an example is for simplicity, not historical accuracy. To go into all the details of that journey, most of which I'm sure I'm ignorant of, is not useful for this discussion. You can argue historical accuracy, or address the intent to which the comparison was made, which was to highlight that Bioware would likely want to avoid a scenario where except for acknowledging a change needs to be made, their ship would be lying on the bottom of the ocean.

This was an easy example to mention as everyone does in fact know the basic premise of what happened and can appreciate the moral of the story.

Modifié par Karate Dan87, 12 avril 2012 - 06:11 .

[kylejhendrickson]

Please Listen to these reviews when making the DLC

It helps when people who get paid to write and
explain things, mirror the types of things you wish you could express better.
Here are some articles that hit the nail so well on the head, that me trying to
paraphrase them would be a diservice.



"When bringing a beloved story to a close, it is inevitable that a creator
will fail to please all their fans. Writing what you believe to be the natural
outcome of the world you’ve created, regardless of how pleasant the experience
is, will naturally cause people to fluster. Just ask any random person how they
feel about “19 years later” and you’ll see what I mean. But when an author
uncompromisingly ends their story as they see fit, yet still manages to honor
the themes they’ve explored and the universe in which the story is set, love or
hate the ending, you still respect where they went with it. When they fail to
do so, it can make it impossible to enjoy revisiting that world."

www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right/5/



"Indeed, the more the player understands about the Mass Effect
universe, the worse the ending seems. For a game series that had a rich
backstory conveyed through dialogue, detailed factsheets, and miles of text,
disregarding the lore is a significant act of disrespect towards the invested
player. It argues that their interest in the world does not matter, not even to
the world's originators."

kotaku.com/5898743/mass-effect-3s-ending-disrespects-its-most-invested-players



"Normally, I’d find it wrong to support consumer demand altering authorial
intent just to fit the vociferous opinion. Except in this case, the authors
simply aren’t justified by the “statement” made. Aside from being a hackneyed
mess of bad ideas running counter to everything this series has stood for, the
sheer tonal shift prevents absorption for someone paying attention – the inability to convey intent is the definition
of failed art"


http://calitreview.com/24673



"Bioware is a company. Making their stories into
games is their business model. Hiding behind some kind of “but it’s art, so
we’re not changing it” defense is insulting, disingenuous, and flat-out stupid.
Worse, it perpetuates the idea that the creator’s output is in some stupid way
sancrosant and, as art, cannot be “wrong” or “bad”. If you as a creator
imagine that to be the case — if you think that kind of argument is going to
defend your right to never do a rewrite or a revision or line edits or to ever
alter, in any way, your precious Artistic Process — discard that notion.Or
become accustomed to a long life as an “undiscovered talent”."

http://doycetesterma...tistic-process/



I really think everyone should read these, sorry
if they have been posted already before. Bioware. Take heed from these.

[Waldschatten]

I read the BioWare blog entry about the DLC earlier, they may have heard, but they sure don't seem to have listened.

[LittleBlueChildrenNow]

Changer the Elder wrote...

Yes, I have. It means you're going to hate it anyway, because you're going to get "just more cutscenes" and "clarification meaning the fans are seen as dumb".

Just to put you in perspective - the often scoffed "clarification" means the endings will most probably largely differ to reflect each and every... or at least most major decisions you've made for the game. It's going to be a big picture. Big picture made of little pictures. It's going to <enhance> the endings in more ways than one.

That's what, at least from how I understand it from PAX panel and original talks, understand "clarification". And that's why I find it a bit... shortsighted to disregard it completely.

But I suppose that as long as Catalyst remains, a lot of you will still want a head served on a silver plating, anyway...

I just accepted they are not going to change the ending, so at least I can see what really happens after the citadel explosion. (I still don't get why my crew left me behind, and that's one of the things that bother me more).
Yes, I would have preferred to have some gameplay in this dlc, but it's supposed you are going to have dialogs, not only cinematics.. I don't know, it seems I still have hope...  

[garytwine]

I never noticed something before until yesterday (I must of been reeling in shock from the destroy ending at the time). The citadel survives in the 'Control' ending. It closes up and remains intact. As for the mass relays, they start to spark and malfunction but the scene cuts out before they can fully explode like in the two other endings.

When asked if they were destroyed in the control ending via Twitter, Mike Gamble replied "disabled, yes".

Disabled. Could this be the canon ending for a continuation of the series?

[Macuoka]

Good game, stupid ending. I'm full paragon, and the only options is, tto destroy the galaxy in 3 way. Really nothing mattered. I saved everyone in the first 2 games, just to loose every1 in the last. Now i can say, the good got his "price".

Modifié par Macuoka, 12 avril 2012 - 08:10 .

[AmstradHero]

wolfwarp wrote...

I love the ending. It is a risky move from BioWare and I hope BioWare does stand its ground and don't change it at all.

It is an open ending that encourage discussion. People can form their interpretation and debate upon it. This is good.

I happen to love the indoctrination theory and I think BioWare is brilliant in getting players fooled by complying to the Reaper. Whatever extended cut you make, please leave the original art form intact. Thanks.

Unfortunately it's not an open ending that encourages discussions. It's a closed ending (because it effectively prescribes a single ending of utter isolation for everyone in the galaxy because of the destruction of the Mass Relays), that only invites discussion in the form of deconstruction (tearing apart all the details that make no sense).

It's not a risky move in a good sense. It's a risky move in that it doesn't adhere thematically or factually with the rest of the entire series. It's a risky move in that it's a sloppy and poorly executed mess that simply doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny without excessive amounts of handwaving.

The extended cut announcement basically said "Indoctrination Theory is false", so the hopes that BioWare would fix the ending and actually provide an ending that makes even the smallest amount of sense are all but gone.

There is nothing about the ending that is good, except that it is simply pointing out to BioWare and all other game developers that gamers will no longer simply accept sloppy writing in games.

[Changer the Elder]

garytwine wrote...

I never noticed something before until yesterday (I must of been reeling in shock from the destroy ending at the time). The citadel survives in the 'Control' ending. It closes up and remains intact. As for the mass relays, they start to spark and malfunction but the scene cuts out before they can fully explode like in the two other endings.

When asked if they were destroyed in the control ending via Twitter, Mike Gamble replied "disabled, yes".

Disabled. Could this be the canon ending for a continuation of the series?

.... Wait... I'm having a bit of a hard time to process that... you mean that there are people here willing to dissect and bissect the endings so they can rip apart every minute detail and sometimes grasp at pure straws (Sorry, the Walk is that, in my opinion) and haven't noticed THAT so far?! /editorial note: I meant this as a general thing, not directed at you in person, garytwine/

Wha-... I mean, how?!

Modifié par Changer the Elder, 12 avril 2012 - 08:36 .

[TsubakiYayoi]

It is as kotaku stated it: "The more you know about the Mass Effect Universe the less sense the endings makes."
Its really no surprise that people who didn´t take the time reading codex entries, trying different conversation options etc in all 3 games are getting along with Shepard being an amen to all saying idiot in the last 30 minutes.

[LittleBlueChildrenNow]

Changer the Elder wrote...

garytwine wrote...
I never noticed something before until yesterday (I must of been reeling in shock from the destroy ending at the time). The citadel survives in the 'Control' ending. It closes up and remains intact. As for the mass relays, they start to spark and malfunction but the scene cuts out before they can fully explode like in the two other endings.
When asked if they were destroyed in the control ending via Twitter, Mike Gamble replied "disabled, yes".
Disabled. Could this be the canon ending for a continuation of the series?

.... Wait... I'm having a bit of a hard time to process that... you mean that there are people here willing to dissect and bissect the endings so they can rip apart every minute detail and sometimes grasp at pure straws (Sorry, the Walk is that, in my opinion) and haven't noticed THAT so far?! /editorial note: I meant this as a general thing, not directed at you in person, garytwine/

Wha-... I mean, how?!

So what do you think is the right ending? Control or Destroy? 

[TsubakiYayoi]

LittleBlueChildrenNow wrote...

Changer the Elder wrote...

garytwine wrote...
I never noticed something before until yesterday (I must of been reeling in shock from the destroy ending at the time). The citadel survives in the 'Control' ending. It closes up and remains intact. As for the mass relays, they start to spark and malfunction but the scene cuts out before they can fully explode like in the two other endings.
When asked if they were destroyed in the control ending via Twitter, Mike Gamble replied "disabled, yes".
Disabled. Could this be the canon ending for a continuation of the series?

.... Wait... I'm having a bit of a hard time to process that... you mean that there are people here willing to dissect and bissect the endings so they can rip apart every minute detail and sometimes grasp at pure straws (Sorry, the Walk is that, in my opinion) and haven't noticed THAT so far?! /editorial note: I meant this as a general thing, not directed at you in person, garytwine/

Wha-... I mean, how?!

So what do you think is the right ending? Control or Destroy? 

Id think the red Anderson option "Destroy" but seriously how can THAT be the right ending by destroying the Geth?

By turning Shepard in the new Spacechild with the blue TIM option? Nah no way what would my blue children think if daddy Shepard terrorises the Galaxy with Reapers.

[Jassu1979]

LittleBlueChildrenNow wrote...

So what do you think is the right ending? Control or Destroy? 

Neither. Control goes against everything Shepard believes in, contradicting the very speech she made when confronted by the Illusive Man mere moments previously.

As a matter of fact, pretty much everything you say and do after the star child appears is *exactly* what the Illusive Man wanted to do all along, whether it's controlling the reapers or leading humanity to the "next step in evolution".

Now, Destroy *may* look like the best option in this light, as it signifies that you do not give in to the lure of power and heroic martyrdom - but then, you have to deal with exploding mass relays and the potential extermination of a whole race.

[Changer the Elder]

LittleBlueChildrenNow: There is no "right" or "wrong" ending. In all of them, you have to sacrifice something at the expense of something else. And your scales are going to slide based on your own ideas and your own choices made during the game (i.e. if you hate the geth, you're obviously going to be less torn about them getting torched in the Destroy ending)
But I personally went with Control.

TsubakiYayoi wrote...

It is as kotaku stated it: "The more you know about the Mass Effect Universe the less sense the endings makes."
Its really no surprise that people who didn´t take the time reading codex entries, trying different conversation options etc in all 3 games are getting along with Shepard being an amen to all saying idiot in the last 30 minutes.

I myself contradict that claim. I believe most people here can now, despite disagreeing with me on the opinion regarding the endings, vouch for me being quite well-read in the small nuances of the universe. I took almost forty hours completing the third game. I wasn't spending that time standing on teh observation deck, staring outta window... And yet, I still find sense in it. So claiming things like "the more you know about it/the more of a fan you are, the more you hate it" is a false premise.

[LittleBlueChildrenNow]

But in the control ending the citadel doesn't explodes and the relays are not destroyed... I fear BW thinks that's the right ending...

[Jassu1979]

Changer the Elder wrote...


I myself contradict that claim. I believe most people here can now, despite disagreeing with me on the opinion regarding the endings, vouch for me being quite well-read in the small nuances of the universe. I took almost forty hours completing the third game. I wasn't spending that time standing on teh observation deck, staring outta window... And yet, I still find sense in it. So claiming things like "the more you know about it/the more of a fan you are, the more you hate it" is a false premise.

And yet, the only argument I've heard from you so far is "it just feels right and fitting to me" - unless I've missed a more elaborate line of reasoning in the last 50+ pages?
I've given very specific arguments as to why I feel the final five minutes fail on so many different levels, and so have many others, but I have yet to see you make a cohesive argument as to how exactly it's *not* broken.

[Changer the Elder]

Jassu1979 wrote...

And yet, the only argument I've heard from you so far is "it just feels right and fitting to me" - unless I've missed a more elaborate line of reasoning in the last 50+ pages?

Yes, in fact, you have missed quite a few. I doubt I responded to you personally, but there was a pretty much identical post to yours a few pages back (okay, quite a few pages back, considering how fast this discussion is growing) if I remember correctly which stated the "plot holes in logic" to which I responded with possible explanation. But since I got turned down along the lines of "yeah, that's a possibility, but that's not how I see it", I didn't press the topic further.

And considering my posts on that regard were usually a mile long, it's no wonder you skipped them, since they were not even directed at you Point is, I have given my reasons as soon as someone asked a particular question. Other than that, I could give just "otherwise it just feels right and fitting to me" because without seeing what should be wrong, I cannot really pinpoint what I don't see.

[TsubakiYayoi]

LittleBlueChildrenNow wrote...

But in the control ending the citadel doesn't explodes and the relays are not destroyed... I fear BW thinks that's the right ending...

It does so do the Mass Relays.

[Changer the Elder]

TsubakiYayoi wrote...

LittleBlueChildrenNow wrote...

But in the control ending the citadel doesn't explodes and the relays are not destroyed... I fear BW thinks that's the right ending...

It does so do the Mass Relays.

I'm sorry, I don't know what kind of ending did you have in your game, but with the Crucible intact (enough war assets), the Citadel closes up instead of exploding and the relays are seen only cracking, instead of being blasted apart as it is with the other two options, as you can see here: 

Edit - Adding Synthesis ending from the same player for direct comparison:

Modifié par Changer the Elder, 12 avril 2012 - 10:25 .

[LittleBlueChildrenNow]

TsubakiYayoi wrote...

LittleBlueChildrenNow wrote...

But in the control ending the citadel doesn't explodes and the relays are not destroyed... I fear BW thinks that's the right ending...

It does so do the Mass Relays.

No... They didn't. Search the video on YouTube

[Jassu1979]

Spare me the condescension. I'm more than willing to read lengthy posts, and I can certainly hold my own in terms of literary analysis. (It's my JOB, you know?)

The thing is: plot holes and contradictions can be rationalized, no matter how glaringly obvious they may be. That's how apologetics work: you twist an obvious contradiction until it somehow fits the bill, all because you do not want to see the alternative.

But it all boils down to this: if the text itself (or in this case: the game itself) does not contain *any* indication that would merit such a rationalization, then you do not have a case at all, and what you are doing is just you inventing new material on the fly to somehow fill in the gaping holes.
If it's not in the text/game, then it's invalid.

Best example: the mass relay explosions. There's nothing in the game to suggest that these are any different from the cataclysmic destruction we saw in "the Arrival". No hint, no suggestion, nothing. For all that we know, these *are* supernova-level explosions, ripping apart every single civilization in the galaxy.
To say that these are somehow different is mere speculation that cannot be substantiated by anything we saw or read in the game, and is only carried by people's desire for less dire consequences.

Now, contrast this with the clues and arguments that have gone into supporting the Indoctrination theory, and you see the difference between blind assertions/rationalization and a concise argument based on the interpretation of textual clues. That's not to say that the IT is any more correct than the assertion that the relays did not destroy the galaxy - but at the very least, it is founded on something that can be found in the text/game.

[garytwine]

TsubakiYayoi wrote...

LittleBlueChildrenNow wrote...

But in the control ending the citadel doesn't explodes and the relays are not destroyed... I fear BW thinks that's the right ending...

It does so do the Mass Relays.

Actually, with high Ems, in the control ending the citadel doesn't explode (it closes) an you don't see the mass relays fully explode like in the other two endings. They only Part explode before it cuts to another scene.

[Changer the Elder]

Jassu1979 wrote...

Spare me the condescension. I'm more than willing to read lengthy posts, and I can certainly hold my own in terms of literary analysis. (It's my JOB, you know?)

It wasn't condescension, it was on my part honestly answering the question. You asked whether you missed a few posts regarding the topic, I answered that yes, you have.
I'm sorry, but in this case, I'm going to get defensive right back at you and state that unless you're unable to read anything but the worst intentions from my words, your talent as a literary analytic is not at its best shape today.

The thing is: plot holes and contradictions can be rationalized, no matter how glaringly obvious they may be. That's how apologetics work: you twist an obvious contradiction until it somehow fits the bill, all because you do not want to see the alternative.

I'm probably going to get this thrown back at me as being completely irrelevant, but when I use that logic and hyperbolize it, killing someone can be seen as a direct contradiction to the law and respect to life. Until you make it self-defense or defending someone close to you. When you twist that obvious contradiction to add more context, it can become something completely different.

If it's not in the text/game, then it's invalid.

Best example: the mass relay explosions. There's nothing in the game to
suggest that these are any different from the cataclysmic destruction we
saw in "the Arrival". No hint, no suggestion, nothing. For all that we
know, these *are* supernova-level explosions, ripping apart every single
civilization in the galaxy.
To say that these are somehow different
is mere speculation that cannot be substantiated by anything we saw or
read in the game, and is only carried by people's desire for less dire
consequences.

I do believe that in this case, a writers' word, also known in the troper world as Word of God, counts. Patrick Weekes, among others, stated that yes, overloading the relays is a different case than smacking them with a giant boulder.
And in the opening statement, I must disagree. Just because you're not blatantly told, it doesn't mean it's not there. Lot of writers, in fact, utilize reading between the lines and hints rather than being captain obvious.

Now, contrast this with the clues and arguments that have gone into supporting the Indoctrination theory, and you see the difference between blind assertions/rationalization and a concise argument based on the interpretation of textual clues. That's not to say that the IT is any more correct than the assertion that the relays did not destroy the galaxy - but at the very least, it is founded on something that can be found in the text/game.

Indoctrination theory is just that. A theory. I see no point how it shoud be less or more valid than any other explanation that puts the pieces in a certain order.

Modifié par Changer the Elder, 12 avril 2012 - 10:40 .

[TGSP]

I managed to refrain from reading or watching anything about the endings until I had finished the game and then had a look through a few articles. While not being very happy with the endings I was quite happy to find that no new ones were being added. I just hope the extended cut answers more questions than it generates.

As they stand there are a lot of questions not just about what happens to various characters and the affect that the choices you made over the course of the triloigy have had, but also about the inconsistancy in the established universe and lore. The one that I haven't seen in any articles though, it might have been pointed out as there are so many discussions about the ending, is the starchild controling the reapers, should, effectively nulify the entire series.

I say should because it's not a MUST happen event but it would make everything the reapers do or try, infinitly easier to achieve. As such I'd assume they would implement it if there goal is actually to preserve civilizations by converting them to reapers as it would prevent a war when they arrived to do the convertion, it might not totally prevent resistance but the casualties to all sides would be reduced drastically even in the worst case scenarios. Allowing more people from each civilization to be converted.

[Jassu1979]

Changer the Elder wrote...

I do believe that in this case, a writers' word, also known in the troper world as Word of God, counts. Patrick Weekes, among others, stated that yes, overloading the relays is a different case than smacking them with a giant boulder.

Then they should have made that clear in the game. They did not.
As you seem to be so fond of comparisons, that's like writing an incomplete essay that misses a crucial piece of information and then defending your sloppy work by stating that exactly this missing piece of information is what you aimed for all along. It doesn't make your work any less sloppy: your essay failed to include that information.

And in the opening statement, I must disagree. Just because you're not blatantly told, it doesn't mean it's not there. Lot of writers, in fact, utilize reading between the lines and hints rather than being captain obvious.

Okay, I'll bite.
Tell me exactly which hints and allusions between the lines point towards the mass relay explosions being less catastrophic than what we see in "the Arrival". Be specific.

Indoctrination theory is just that. A theory. I see no point how it shoud be less or more valid than any other explanation that puts the pieces in a certain order.

I explained the difference:
In the case of the mass relays, you just jump to conclusions without having *any* textual evidence to offer (and yes, that includes reading between the lines). And no, an author supplying the missing information afterwards does not absolve a text from a crucial omission.

Basically, most of your rationalizations go along the lines of: "No, Hamlet did not die at the end of Shakespeare's play. He took an antidote and only fell into a deathlike slumber, waking up the next day and reuniting with Ophelia, who faked her suicide in order to escape from the court."

There's nothing in the text to suggest that this is what happened. And if Shakespeare had written afterwards that this is what he aimed for, it'd turn "Hamlet" into a shoddily written play.