23455 réponses à ce sujet

[Holger1405]

3DandBeyond wrote...

@Holger1405 wrote...


My point is that given that this is what the reapers have been doing with organic life, Shepard wouldn't be convinced their puppet master, the star kid was telling the truth about anything.

Why not if he can destroy them?

3DandBeyond wrote...
And how is your Shepard different?  Did your Shepard never pick any
option and just agree with everybody?  No, Shepard was shown in the game
as someone who questioned most everything, no matter if Paragon or
Renegade.  At this point, I just don't know what game you've been
playing.   Shepard has no meaningful choice at the end.

Mass Effect 3, belief me...
I did questioned a lot of things, and in the end I made a choice, a choice I personally consider meaningful and a Victory. You disagree? That's OK. But my Games are about my Shepard's, so my Opinion counts.    

3DandBeyond wrote...
Seriously?  Shepard only used the Geth, really?  Actually, if Shepard wanted
an even better EMS (slightly), Shepard would not save the Geth at all.
At the point where Shepard spares them there are many things that point
to Shepard's feelings for at least Legion.  If you felt nothing about
that, then I'm sorry for you.  I don't understand it, but am sorry.

Simple wrong, Geth and Quarian's together bringing a much higher EMS score as the Quarian's alone.
And again, you are trying to force your belief system on me. If you are thinking that way it's fine, but don't tell me I have to thinking the same way.

3DandBeyond wrote...
TIM wasn't the only person to attempt to control the Reapers and he wanted to control everything from day one.  Saren did and he did so before being indoctrinated.  Once indoctrinated, he thought Synthesis made sense.

Saren intended to use the Reapers as a Weapons, as he realized how powerful they really are he planned to convinced them of the value of Organics so the Reapers might spare them.

3DandBeyond wrote...
And tell me, how you would Control anything when you are dead?

Because it is Science Fiction.

 

Modifié par Holger1405, 16 mai 2012 - 01:59 .

[Tingos]

The developers are misunderstanding (wishing) that the ending cinematic is the problem with Mass Effect 3...it isn't. The issue is much larger. The problem is we have fallen in love with a series that not only promised our choices would affect the outcome of that individual game but our own storylines would carry through an entire trilogy. You can play the entire series in complete opposite ways and the conclusion will be identical (plus/minus a few lines of dialogue). I had concerns for this game back when I read that the makers were attempting to appeal to a wider audience and rightly so. The finale to a phenomenal series was botched and, sadly, no simple patch will fix it.

[Impulse and Compulse]

Oh, you guys are listening? Good, I was getting worried for a while there that you guys were ignoring the front-page headlines everywhere about how angry people are about the ending.

We're glad to know that you acknowledged our existence.

[Archonsg]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

     Lol, yup, the thread's still going.  I imagine that it'll keep going until the legitimate problems with the "endings" are fixed.  And they are legitimate problems.

Depends.
Speaking for myself, I'll contribute to the "we are listening..." thread till the EC comes out. Then its moot whether they are listening or not.

Hence, giving Bioware the benefit of the doubt, as I would a friend of almost 20 years, I'll keep telling them what and why something is wrong till they act and prove that they won't listen and that relationship isn't there anymore.

[Archonsg]

Holger1405 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
And tell me, how you would Control anything when you are dead?

Because it is Science Fiction.

You mean science fantasy.

There is a difference, in that science fiction needs to abide by predetermined and existing rules set up by the author at the start of the narative and usually conforms to reality more then not but if an effect or "condition" needs to bend that reality, come up with a plausible way and explantion for said condition to exist.
Case in point, Ezo and the Mass Effect Fields.
Make no mistake, Mass Effect the series was SCIENCE FICTION for the most part but stops being so during the last 10-15 minutes.


In all three cases of the "choices" you get. NONE of them can be attributed to anything you know in game, explained in any logigcal way as to how and why they would happen.

Control COULD work though, had they "plugged" Shepard as a living mind, as a living computer, making him part of the Citadel, (similar to Project Overlord, ME2 DLC) but that would not kill or remove Shepard's physical form from the game.


Quoting Spyre2001 from a conversation about this very thing :

The problem is there are two kinds of genre and they both get Lumped under Science Fiction(SciFi). The first one is of course SciFi which Mass Effect series was right up until the end. In SciFi it is basically a Socratic exercise where everything must maintain internal logical consistency and the laws of nature/physics are the same few a few clearly defined differences. In the case of ME it was the addition of Ezzo element which allowed for the Mass Effect and all the tech that naturally flowed from the ability to manipulate gravity fields.

The other genre which gets lumped into SciFi is Science Fantasy(SciFa). This is a world of "Space Magic" where anything can happen and everything is just accepted with a hand wave. The original Star Wars movies are classic examples of SciFa. There is no attempt to explain how hyperdrive works, how the Death star can blow up a planet or what type of energy those beams are, cause they are not lasers. Heck even Luke's reaction to the Force when training with Yoda is that it's impossible because it makes no logical sense. Or what the lightsaber is and how it works. And so on with a ton of other things.

If you try to bring up any of these comments a lot of fans of SW would likely say "Who cares it's not real." and in this case they would be correct. In Science Fantasy where anything can happen, like a giant space worm that lives in an asteroid, the technology is there simply to propel the story forward. Hyperdrive to get them around, Lightsabers for futuristic sword fights, and Force for Futuristic space wizards. The details don't really matter in SciFa anymore then they do in Lord of the Rings where it's like how do the rings work, why does it matter if a human without male parts stabs a Nazgul, how does Souramon create a whole new race of Uriki out of mud, and so on. None of these questions matter because it's FANTASY where anything can happen and the excuse "It's magic" is completely acceptable.

There is an old writer's saying "The difference between writing Fiction and Non-Fiction is Fiction has to sound believable." This is met to express how real life can sometimes seem unbelievable but also goes to the heart of the problem with SciFi vs SciFa. There is a difference between Fiction and Fantasy which applies to all writing. When people go to the Fantasy section they know they are about to be submerged into a world of magic were the laws a physics and the real world need not apply. Where as someone going to the fiction section knows they are getting a story that is not real but it exist in a world similar to our own where the same rules apply.

However thanks in part to the SciFi and SciFa genres being new when stories involving space and futuristic tech starting coming out they were obviously works of fiction but didn't fit in the existing genres so the new one of SciFi was created. It has stayed pretty much stayed as one in the mindset of pop culture as those outside the genres don't really care and those within often overlap in their interest.

However this unclear divide is often the source of much debate between those who like SciFi and those who like SciFa. They don't agree on what makes good Science Fiction where you have some saying the details of the world matter, others say they don't matter cause it's not real, and so on. A lot of the comments made would the exact same if you heard fans of the Fiction and Fantasy genres arguing if they were all lumped under Fiction but we don't because it's clearly defined they are different and so both sides agree to do their own thing. SciFa fans often reference how they don't like curtain SciFi because it is too technical and not enough action. While SciFi fans often talk about SciFa as being boring action with lots of Space magic.

That is not to say that one group won't like anything in the other group's genre. Most people like stories from multiple genres even though they tend to have a favorite genre. In the case of SciFi vs SciFa though this ends up muddying the waters even more. As even a lot of writers don't know the difference an ultimate fall flat on their face by putting in elements that clearly don't belong. The most famous I think is George Lucus trying to add SciFi into SciFa by explaining what the force was as bacteria. It would be like Tolkin trying to explain with know physics how any of the magical things that existed in his world would work in our world.

The reverse can happen to as SciFa elements get thrown into a SciFi story. In most cases when this happens fans can overlook it if the element is small and not universe altering, they accept it as something slightly out of place but not worthy of further attention. However when these items are major universe altering introductions in a world based on laws and physics like our own the fans are right to demand details on just how exactly this item works. Because they are involved in a Science FICTION story and not a Science FANTASY story.

This is where the ending of ME3 falls flat on it's face as it's jump genres right at the end. It would be like going to a Romantic Comedy and at the end finding it out it was a Horror movie when Jason shows up and kills everyone. The studio and director can claim artistic integrity all they want but when they market the film as Romantic Comedy and then have a gory death for everyone at the end they shouldn't be surprised that people come out of the movie feeling bad and pissed that they were mislead.

I think this describes the SciFi vs SciFa pretty well. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy


So no, I do not agree that the act of dying, losing all your identity as alluded by the starchild, and in having your body disintegrated, allows you control of mechanical beings controlled by the very thing asking you to take this suicidal path just so it can release its control.

Familiar circular logic here?

If it is in control, it could just have easily have stopped the Reapers. Requiring your death isn't nescessary.

Modifié par Archonsg, 16 mai 2012 - 03:08 .

[SpawnedX]

At first I wasn't on board with all the people upset about the ending. Way back when, a lot of games did not have happy endings, the world isn't always a happy place. However, I have since changed my mind.

I know this has been heard a 100 thousand times, but I just want BioWare to know how I feel. I am genuinely upset that my Shepard and Tali will not finally enjoy peace together and be free to explore their love. I know these are only video game characters and they have no real emotions, but now you are playing with our emotions. I just would like to see something not so cliche as the hero sacrificing all to save the world. Believe it or not, I feel like you and Microsoft should have just gotten together and sent Master Chief and Shepard off to another dimension together. At least Microsoft is allowing us to continue our heroes story after casting him out alone just as he finally succeeded in his mission.

[Archonsg]

SpawnedX wrote...

At first I wasn't on board with all the people upset about the ending. Way back when, a lot of games did not have happy endings, the world isn't always a happy place. However, I have since changed my mind.

I know this has been heard a 100 thousand times, but I just want BioWare to know how I feel. I am genuinely upset that my Shepard and Tali will not finally enjoy peace together and be free to explore their love. I know these are only video game characters and they have no real emotions, but now you are playing with our emotions. I just would like to see something not so cliche as the hero sacrificing all to save the world. Believe it or not, I feel like you and Microsoft should have just gotten together and sent Master Chief and Shepard off to another dimension together. At least Microsoft is allowing us to continue our heroes story after casting him out alone just as he finally succeeded in his mission.

Except that in Mass Effect's case, it wasn't sacrifice. It was a death sentence suicide.
Sacrifice requires the participant to understand exactly why and what he is giving up his or her life for, and to do so knowing that he could have ran, or avoided said death. More so, a sacrifice alludes that the person did so in full knowledge that he or she is doing so in defense of something he or she believes in.

All three options given by the catalyst are tainted with a betrayal.

1) Control = Betrayal of the ideals of freedom and the believe that all beings should be able to choose their own path.
To impose your will, for the sake (as alluded in this case) of taking over a being's will, is slavery of the worst sort. Now had they shown Shepard to "take over the reapers, turn the tables on the Catalyst and ordered the Reapers to drag the citadel and himself and then fly everything into the sun (after evacuating any survivors on the citadel) ...THEN it would have been a sacrifice. But not in this case.

2) Destroy = Betrayal of Alliances, friendship (paragon) , genocide based on hate, prejudice (renegade)
Paragons bridged the synthetic / organic divide and brokered a peace between them like no other before. centuries of hate and prejudice set aside as Geth and Quarian fight side by side, the realization that a "soul" is not just property of organics and that machines can learn what it means to love.

On the renegade side, well, you have your prejudices but you are still committing a war crime in the vein of intolerance and hatred. Granted to the Renegade this might not seem too much of a betrayal, I mean, synthetics, pfffft! They are NOT really living things now are they? Are they?

3) Synthesis = Betrayal of one's right to be an individual.
No matter what your reasons are, Synthesis is really about making every living thing more "machine". More uniform. Less an individual.

It's not just that my character, John Shepard (using his default name) would not choose this, regardless of being paragon
or renegade, I, the player, as a person, find this abhorrent to the extreme.


So, coming back to those three choices, each a betrayal of an ideal that Shepard upheld, requires you to die. No choice. Is in no way a sacrifice. You didn't have a choice, and even if for argument sake you did, isn't a choice that your character would have died for.

If you do think that this is what you'll die for, you shot Mordin didn't you?

Modifié par Archonsg, 16 mai 2012 - 03:34 .

[SpawnedX]

Archonsg wrote...

SpawnedX wrote...

At first I wasn't on board with all the people upset about the ending. Way back when, a lot of games did not have happy endings, the world isn't always a happy place. However, I have since changed my mind.

I know this has been heard a 100 thousand times, but I just want BioWare to know how I feel. I am genuinely upset that my Shepard and Tali will not finally enjoy peace together and be free to explore their love. I know these are only video game characters and they have no real emotions, but now you are playing with our emotions. I just would like to see something not so cliche as the hero sacrificing all to save the world. Believe it or not, I feel like you and Microsoft should have just gotten together and sent Master Chief and Shepard off to another dimension together. At least Microsoft is allowing us to continue our heroes story after casting him out alone just as he finally succeeded in his mission.

Except that in Mass Effect's case, it wasn't sacrifice. It was a death sentance suicide.
Sacrifice requires the participant to to understand exactly why and what he is giving up his or her life for, and to do so knowing that he could have ran, or avoided said death. More so, a sacrifice alludes that the person did so in full knowledge that he or she is doing so in defense of something he or she believes in. 

All three options given by the catylst are tainted with a betrayal. 

1) Control = Betrayal of the ideals of freedom and the believe that all beings should be able to choose thier own path.
To impose your will, for the sake (as alluded in this case) of taking over a being's will, is slavery of the worst sort. Now had they shown Shepard to "take over the reapers, turn the tables on the Catalyst and ordered the Reapers to drag the citadel and himself and then fly everything into the sun (after evacuating any survivors on the citadel) ...THEN it would have been a sacrifice. But not in this case.

2) Destroy = Betrayal of Alliances, friendship (paragon) , genocide based on hate, prejudice (renegade)
Paragons bridged the synthetic / organic divide and brokered a peace between them like no other before. Centuaries of hate and prejudice set aside as Geth and Quarian fight side by side, the realization that a "soul" is not just property of organics and that machines can learn what it means to love.

On the renegade side, well, you have your prejuices but you are still commiting a war crime in the vein of intolerance and hatred. Granted to the Renegade this might not seem too much of a betrayal, I mean, synthethics, pfffft! They are NOT really living things now are they? Are they?

3) Synthesis = Betrayal of one's right to be an individual.
No matter what your reasons are, Synthesis is really about making every living thing more "machine". More uniform. Less an individual. 

Its not just that my character, John Shepard (using his default name) would not choose this, regardless of being paragon
or renegade, I, the player, as a person, find this abhorent to the extreme. 


So, coming back to those three choices, each a betrayal of an ideal that Shepard upheld, requires you to die. No choice. Is in no way a sacrifce. You didn't have a choice, and even if for argument sake you did, isn't a choice that your character would have died for.

If you do think that this is what you'll die for, you shot Mordin didn't you?

You are so determined to deny that people who spent their money are not satisfied is okay.

My Shepard is alive, he took a breath. I want him re-united with his squad and lover. I, and everyone else, has the right to feel that way, and if BioWare intends to continue getting our collective money, they better react.

[Archonsg]

SpawnedX wrote...

Archonsg wrote...

SpawnedX wrote...

At first I wasn't on board with all the people upset about the ending. Way back when, a lot of games did not have happy endings, the world isn't always a happy place. However, I have since changed my mind.

I know this has been heard a 100 thousand times, but I just want BioWare to know how I feel. I am genuinely upset that my Shepard and Tali will not finally enjoy peace together and be free to explore their love. I know these are only video game characters and they have no real emotions, but now you are playing with our emotions. I just would like to see something not so cliche as the hero sacrificing all to save the world. Believe it or not, I feel like you and Microsoft should have just gotten together and sent Master Chief and Shepard off to another dimension together. At least Microsoft is allowing us to continue our heroes story after casting him out alone just as he finally succeeded in his mission.

Except that in Mass Effect's case, it wasn't sacrifice. It was a death sentance suicide.
Sacrifice requires the participant to to understand exactly why and what he is giving up his or her life for, and to do so knowing that he could have ran, or avoided said death. More so, a sacrifice alludes that the person did so in full knowledge that he or she is doing so in defense of something he or she believes in. 

All three options given by the catylst are tainted with a betrayal. 

1) Control = Betrayal of the ideals of freedom and the believe that all beings should be able to choose thier own path.
To impose your will, for the sake (as alluded in this case) of taking over a being's will, is slavery of the worst sort. Now had they shown Shepard to "take over the reapers, turn the tables on the Catalyst and ordered the Reapers to drag the citadel and himself and then fly everything into the sun (after evacuating any survivors on the citadel) ...THEN it would have been a sacrifice. But not in this case.

2) Destroy = Betrayal of Alliances, friendship (paragon) , genocide based on hate, prejudice (renegade)
Paragons bridged the synthetic / organic divide and brokered a peace between them like no other before. Centuaries of hate and prejudice set aside as Geth and Quarian fight side by side, the realization that a "soul" is not just property of organics and that machines can learn what it means to love.

On the renegade side, well, you have your prejuices but you are still commiting a war crime in the vein of intolerance and hatred. Granted to the Renegade this might not seem too much of a betrayal, I mean, synthethics, pfffft! They are NOT really living things now are they? Are they?

3) Synthesis = Betrayal of one's right to be an individual.
No matter what your reasons are, Synthesis is really about making every living thing more "machine". More uniform. Less an individual. 

Its not just that my character, John Shepard (using his default name) would not choose this, regardless of being paragon
or renegade, I, the player, as a person, find this abhorent to the extreme. 


So, coming back to those three choices, each a betrayal of an ideal that Shepard upheld, requires you to die. No choice. Is in no way a sacrifce. You didn't have a choice, and even if for argument sake you did, isn't a choice that your character would have died for.

If you do think that this is what you'll die for, you shot Mordin didn't you?

You are so determined to deny that people who spent their money are not satisfied is okay.

My Shepard is alive, he took a breath. I want him re-united with his squad and lover. I, and everyone else, has the right to feel that way, and if BioWare intends to continue getting our collective money, they better react.

I am just pointing out what is wrong and why it is wrong to use the term "sacrifice" in the situation with the choices given by the Catalyst.

If you enjoyed how it was presented knowing this, that's is your right and I'll respect it. 

And of course I want Bioware to react. 
Hell I have been banging on the table for them to do something, especially add in the "multiple endings" that was said to be in this game.

I'd like to see Shepard die horribly, alone and unmourned" (we sort of have this already)
I'd like to see Shepard die in honor, FIGHTING to the last moment and in doing so buy the Galaxy freedom from the Reapers
Most of all, I'd like to see Shepard actually against all odds, win, and live to retire with a loved one, have kids, adopt, build a house on Rannoch, spawn multiple blue babies and wrestle a Krogan child named after him. 

I'd like Bioware to keep true to what was advertised when they sold this game.

Modifié par Archonsg, 16 mai 2012 - 03:45 .

[SpawnedX]

Archonsg wrote...

SpawnedX wrote...

Archonsg wrote...

SpawnedX wrote...

At first I wasn't on board with all the people upset about the ending. Way back when, a lot of games did not have happy endings, the world isn't always a happy place. However, I have since changed my mind.

I know this has been heard a 100 thousand times, but I just want BioWare to know how I feel. I am genuinely upset that my Shepard and Tali will not finally enjoy peace together and be free to explore their love. I know these are only video game characters and they have no real emotions, but now you are playing with our emotions. I just would like to see something not so cliche as the hero sacrificing all to save the world. Believe it or not, I feel like you and Microsoft should have just gotten together and sent Master Chief and Shepard off to another dimension together. At least Microsoft is allowing us to continue our heroes story after casting him out alone just as he finally succeeded in his mission.

Except that in Mass Effect's case, it wasn't sacrifice. It was a death sentance suicide.
Sacrifice requires the participant to to understand exactly why and what he is giving up his or her life for, and to do so knowing that he could have ran, or avoided said death. More so, a sacrifice alludes that the person did so in full knowledge that he or she is doing so in defense of something he or she believes in. 

All three options given by the catylst are tainted with a betrayal. 

1) Control = Betrayal of the ideals of freedom and the believe that all beings should be able to choose thier own path.
To impose your will, for the sake (as alluded in this case) of taking over a being's will, is slavery of the worst sort. Now had they shown Shepard to "take over the reapers, turn the tables on the Catalyst and ordered the Reapers to drag the citadel and himself and then fly everything into the sun (after evacuating any survivors on the citadel) ...THEN it would have been a sacrifice. But not in this case.

2) Destroy = Betrayal of Alliances, friendship (paragon) , genocide based on hate, prejudice (renegade)
Paragons bridged the synthetic / organic divide and brokered a peace between them like no other before. Centuaries of hate and prejudice set aside as Geth and Quarian fight side by side, the realization that a "soul" is not just property of organics and that machines can learn what it means to love.

On the renegade side, well, you have your prejuices but you are still commiting a war crime in the vein of intolerance and hatred. Granted to the Renegade this might not seem too much of a betrayal, I mean, synthethics, pfffft! They are NOT really living things now are they? Are they?

3) Synthesis = Betrayal of one's right to be an individual.
No matter what your reasons are, Synthesis is really about making every living thing more "machine". More uniform. Less an individual. 

Its not just that my character, John Shepard (using his default name) would not choose this, regardless of being paragon
or renegade, I, the player, as a person, find this abhorent to the extreme. 


So, coming back to those three choices, each a betrayal of an ideal that Shepard upheld, requires you to die. No choice. Is in no way a sacrifce. You didn't have a choice, and even if for argument sake you did, isn't a choice that your character would have died for.

If you do think that this is what you'll die for, you shot Mordin didn't you?

You are so determined to deny that people who spent their money are not satisfied is okay.

My Shepard is alive, he took a breath. I want him re-united with his squad and lover. I, and everyone else, has the right to feel that way, and if BioWare intends to continue getting our collective money, they better react.

I am just pointing out what is wrong and why it is wrong to use the term "sacrifice" in the situation with the choices given by the Catalyst.

If you enjoyed how it was presented knowing this, that's is your right and I'll respect it. 

And of course I want Bioware to react. 
Hell I have been banging on the table for them to do something, especially add in the "multiple endings" that was said to be in this game.

I'd like to see Shepard die horribly, alone and unmourned" (we sort of have this already)
I'd like to see Shepard die in honor, FIGHTING to the last moment and in doing so buy the Galaxy freedom from the Reapers
I'd like to see Shepard actually against all odds, win, and live to retire with a loved one, have kids, adopt, build a house on Rannoch, spawn multiple blue babies and wrestle a Krogan child named after him. 

I'd like Bioware to keep true to what was advertised when they sold this game.

Then I don't understand your first post.

I'm not opposed to other endings that aren't to my ideal, but I am opposed to not having the ending I strived for.

[Archonsg]

SpawnedX wrote...


Then I don't understand your first post.

I'm not opposed to other endings that aren't to my ideal, but I am opposed to not having the ending I strived for.

As mentioned, it was to point out why those three choices were not "sacrifices". 

http://www.thefreedi...y.com/sacrifice 

1. a surrender of something of value as a means of gaining something more desirable or of preventing some evil

In this case, Shepard's life.

But in this case each "choice" has an "evil" betrayal of a principle, attached to it. To think that your Shepard would accept his death to forward any of these agendas isn't right. 

Modifié par Archonsg, 16 mai 2012 - 03:52 .

[falsegods]

garrus dies ? not in my story and i beat it twice ><

[AmstradHero]

Holger1405 wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
Okay. Let's say take a hypothetical here. I'm going about my ordinary life, then one day I'm killed. In an alternate universe, I'm not killed that day, but I'm killed the day after. What lasting significant meaning does that extra day have to anyone? Practically none.

Sorry, but your analogy is not even close to precise. It's not about one day, it's about Fifty thousand Years, and it's not about one life, it's about countless of life's.  Catalyst logic is clear, and it doesn't matter if his logic is sound, he beliefs his own logic. (btw, even when you think Catalyst logic is unsound, as I do, you can't proof that he is definitively wrong.) That means without his interference, ALL Organic life would be gone. Catalyst interferes and in any cycle new organic life is evolving.

So, what is the meaning of this?

Non interfering: Organics extinct. And that's it.
interfering: In any cycle, over Fifty thousand Years each, countless and countless of individuals can life a full life.  

Which action "renders organic life completely irrelevant." is imho not even open to debate.

You missed my point, and you're not looking at this at the big picture like the Catalyst is. You need to look at it at a galactic level, because that's what the Catalyst is doing. It's (supposedly) concerned with organic life across the galaxy. Let's try another hypothetical to see if you get it.

In the history of cycles, let's take cycles: A, B and C. After each cycle, the Reapers clean up. So take the state of the galaxy at the end of cycle C.
Now, imagine that cycle B did not exist at all. It just went from cycle A to cycle C and the organic creatures of cycle B never existed.
Take the state of the galaxy at the end of this point. It is exactly the same. There is no difference. Thus, organic life is rendered completely irrelevant by the "solution".

Holger1405 wrote...
Again, the Catalyst stated: "The Crucible changed me, created new possibilities, but I can't make them happen."
The Catalyst didn't offered this solution to you the Crucible did, and so the whole basis of your argument is inaccurate.

No. The Crucible isn't speaking. The Catalyst is, and it is offering the solutions. The Crucible may (or may not) be what allows the Catalyst to provide these options, but it is the Catalyst who is offering them. We've already established that the Catalyst's logic is flawed. You admit as much, and argue that it's only important that the Catalyst believes its logic is sound.

Holger1405 wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
Again, these aren't new possibilities. They can't be new possibilities. For one - they're part of the citadel, which has been built for many, many, many cycles. It suddenly created new devices in the short ride that Shepard took up the magic space elevator? That's preposterous.

We know these aren't new solutions.
Destroy is what came before the Reapers existed.
Control is what we have now.
Synthesis is arguably the only "new" option - but theoretically the Reapers are supposedly already some organic/synthetic hybrid (but that opens up a whole new can of plothole worms), so that's not a new option either.

You said in that other post that to "blatantly ignoring what the game is telling you" leads to >arguments< "disintegrates and becomes as useless as the Mass Relays." Well, you are right.
The Game is telling you that this "possibilities" are new. You counter this, with an argument about the physical possibility to construct such devices. In a Science Fiction setting...
Just curies, if you think that this is "preposterous" how do you think over the part of the storyline as Cerberus was able to resurrect Shepard after she/he drops from the Orbit of a Planet to his ground?     

Furthermore, imho this, "possibilities" are new. (possibilities! to stress that out.)  "Synthesis" is obviously a new possibility, "Control" is new because the controller did change, and "Destruction" meaning the non existence of the Reapers, is a new possibility, (maybe not unique, but even that is not to proof) because they did exist for countless cycles.  

Again, you've said the Catalyst's logic isn't sound, but that's irrelevant. Moreover, this demonstrates that the Catalyst's words aren't trustworthy. We know this as a player and as a character (which is an important distinction, and the latter is infinitely more important), because we've been presented with these options before. Destroy is what we've been fighting for this whole time, and it is what happened BEFORE the Reapers existed. We know that there must have a state before the Reapers, because they were the solution to the problem. In order for the problem to manifest, it must have existed before there was a solution. Thus destroying the Reapers is not new.

Synthesis was the option presented to us way back in Mass Effect 1. That is what Saren was arguing for. This is NOT a new concept.

Control is also not a new concept, because it's what TIM is trying to do for the entirety of ME3. These are not new possibilities. For the Catalyst to suggest so is utterly inconsistent with what the game series has presented to Shepard.

Holger1405 wrote...
And I still disagree about the point that the Player is forced into a nonsensical situation.

Yet again you've misunderstood the very important distinction between player and character. This discussion is pointless if you're not going to attempt to understand important concepts.

Holger1405 wrote...
So basically the Citadel IS a Mass Relay, but the Races don't know how to use it.  
Even if they don't find out how to use it, they would have at least a blueprint for a Mass Relay just as they had one for the Crucible.

Incorrect. The Citadel is an inactive Mass Relay (though potentially only even a few people have that knowledge, and they could all be dead), that no one knows how to turn on. Also, the galaxy has had active Mass Relays for centuries and still hasn't figured them out.

Also, this is a ridiculous suggestion. Say I go back in time and give a caveman a modern day Volkswagon. It'll teach him the wheel, and he might even figure out concepts like a door and hinges. Is he going to be able to build a car without the appropriate knowledge of technology, chemisty and physics. Not a chance. A working device is enormously different to a blueprint, and to suggest otherwise is absurd.

[daveyeisley]

TIM's ability to override Shepard and Anderson's motor control is definitely straight out of the blue, never heard of before, unexplained by in-game content,and smacking of Sci-Fantasy.

Neither Shepard or Anderson has been shown to be indoctrinated, and the prothean VI certainly detected no such thing when Shepard spoke with it.

Shepard might have possibly been 'in the process', but at worst, he was putting up an incredibly good fight and had not succumbed. Anderson had far less contact with reaper tech than Shepard (based on what we see in game), and is just as strong-willed.

There is just no way that TIM's experiments at Sanctuary should allow him to take over the motor control of non-indoctrinated individuals.

And for this to be the excuse used to justify Anderson being shot by my Paragon Shepard did really aggravate the crap out of me. For me, it wasn't a total deal-breaker, especially because of the touching death scene.... but I will forever believe it felt forced and contrived within the narrative. I wish this had not been done. It was a serious letdown.

Then you have the crucible. Neither we the player, nor the characters in the game are told enough about it or how it works to really accept it as plausible Sci-Fi. Can we all imagine ways it might work? Sure, but the writer's job is to help us suspend our disbelief. They failed in this case, along with the above. This was a letdown as well, especially because of how well the rest of the story handles suspension of disbelief.

Clarification could possibly resolve our confusion, but not our suspension of disbelief.

The problem is that you can't clarify these elements early enough for it to matter without actually changing the ending. Tacking on the explanations to the resolution cinematics won't help the player experiencing these problematic scenes.

The explanations need to flow naturally from the story before these events take place. By the time Anderson is dead and the crucible has fired, its too late to help the player understand what was going on and make it feel like it fits.

Yes, I know, a retroactive explanation can still help the player understand what happened. The problem is getting that explanation after the event means that I was confused when it took place, and lost my suspension of disbelief. Understanding it afterwards doesn't help my experience during those moments.

I'm sure there are stories that have events written deliberately to confuse the audience, with the intent of them being explained later. If these ploys were well received, I am sure it was due to how it was executed.

I think such a ploy in Mass Effect doesn't fit with how these stories have worked, and was never the original intent. The audience of ME is unlikely to reconcile that retroactive explanation with the events in a positive manner.

Changing the endings, even so far back as the beginning of the London mission, to try and insert these explanation might increase the chance of audience 'buy-in', but I would still have to say I think those chances are somewhat low. Done right, it might work, and I am sure it would vastly improve what we currently have.

I am all but certain however, just adding more to the final cinematic sequences will not sufficiently get the job done to restore that suspension of disbelief. If I end up wrong, I will eat my shoes and apologize to Bioware. (j/k about the shoes part)

Clarification added to the final cinematics can definitely help with our concerns for our squadmates and closure to their stories. It might even help us with the issues regarding what Shepard actually achieved in each ending. That would all be nice.

I do, however,  strongly believe that the problems with the Catalyst scene cannot be resolved thru clarification in the slightest. There have been points in the story where the player was presented with a choice in which perhaps none of the options could be considered ideal.

In every previous iteration of this type of situation, it always felt like at least one or two of the options presented could be considered alongside our experiences in the game and commentary from other characters and we could find a path that would allow us to make a choice that could be reconciled with our vision of Shepard. Perhaps less than ideal, but acceptable and understandable.

(EDIT for clarification )
We all had at least one option we could justify and live with, no matter our playstyle.

The final choice seems to have categorically failed many of us in this regard, based on the multitudinous comments I have been reading.

(It seems the destroy ending would have been the only choice that could work for pretty much any version of Shepard, but then a penalty was tacked on which punishes Shepards who saved the Geth and became friends with EDI. Really strikes me as totally unfair to punish these folks, but I digress.)

This, to me, is the singlemost critical issue that cannot be solved with clarification and closure.

Modifié par daveyeisley, 16 mai 2012 - 12:12 .

[3DandBeyond]

Holger1405 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

@Holger1405


My point is that given that this is what the reapers have been doing with organic life, Shepard wouldn't be convinced their puppet master, the star kid was telling the truth about anything.

Why not if he can destroy them?

You make a lot of references to your own Shepard being meaningful, but so is everyone elses and I really don't think you understand what paragon means.  You say a paragon Shepard, your Shepard probably just used the Geth to gain needed war assets, but that isn't what paragon means.  That's more what a renegade would do.  Paragon means you are caring, positive, and compassionate, moral.  Renegade means you are ruthless, negative, cruel, and merciless.  Only a renegade would just use the geth and not care once it's over and so would have no problem killing them with destroy.  It's out of line with a paragon's character.

And since there are 3 choices, and they are all basically garbage for at least one type of Shepard, especially a paragon one, then no, I wouldn't believe the star kid about anything.  But, also he has been controlling the things that want to destroy trillions of people.  Why on earth would Shepard believe him?  Sure, he says the crucible changed him-he says.  He could have stopped the reapers already himself, but he's saying he must destroy organics to keep organics from being destroyed.  Stop and think just how stupid that is.  If someone has been killing people regularly every 50k years and has already killed billions this time around and says this is why they do it, are you really going to believe anything they say?  Really?

The star kid could be Harbinger using a voice box or program to communicate with you-he could be keeper 20.  He could be a lot of things, but Shepard doesn't know what or who he is.  No way s/he would just instantly trust him.  I'm not talking about the fact that destroy does destroy the Reapers in the end.  I am saying this idea that Shepard would just believe the star kid is part of what is wrong with the character of Shepard at the end.  Shepard doesn't do or say things any one of us would given the circumstances.  Shepard just blindly believes.  Just not possible for a character that never just blindly believed anyone and questioned everything.

[Voodoo-j]

Here is a fun thought, what if the catalyst is Shepard and the reapers who designed the crucible, and the citadel, use a catalyst to do their biding, to start the final process of wiping out advanced organics. Again the destroy option, it is the only one you are actually shooting at, IE it's not an interactive piece of the citadel and therefor not really meant to be used. Giving that option your *killing yourself* choosing *genocide*.

[Voodoo-j]

Which makes all kinds of sense when you think about why the reapers normally come in at the citadel. But opens up the question of, what did they use before, did they bring their own crucible, are they laughing at us for building it for them?

[Xellith]

Retcon some of the game.
social.bioware.com/forum/Mass-Effect-3/Mass-Effect-3-Story-and-Campaign-Discussion-Spoilers-Allowed/This-game039s-main-plot-ignores-every-decision-you-made-and-every-plot-event-in-Mass-Effect-1-12070544-1.html

If its the artistic vision to have the game play out exactly the same for everyone then okay.  But this as it stands is one of my major beef's.  Game should have had another year at LEAST for development time.  I cant believe you guys released this "as is".

[3DandBeyond]

@daveyeisley,
I agree with your post. The whole Anderson thing seems so contrived, just to get to the death scene. And Shepard seems so totally unfazed by what s/he just did. No horrific, "I just shot you!" moment at all.

Yes, sometimes stories feature confusion as a way to actually draw the player in or keep them guessing. Mysteries. But in those you know you are meant to figure out who the baddie is. We had some pretty awesome evil guys floating around in space, but they were supplanted by another antagonist in the last few minutes of the game. And he is an antagonist as I see it. Anyone that sent the reapers to kill me and trillions of people isn't my friend and isn't any good guy.

Yes, sometimes intellectually stimulating, even mysterious endings to stories can be fantastically done. But they give you the ammo within them that leads you to figure out what they are trying to say-they hit you over the head with hints. This ending is like a secret someone wants you to guess without knowing anything-there's no hint to help you figure it out. But then, I don't want to. I don't like it. In order to figure it out, I have to accept the star kid as an appropriate antagonist when he was never foreshadowed in any meaningful way in the game. Even if he's explained, I don't care. There are real, great enemies out there.

The game ending isn't part of this story and we the players were left out of the secret. We've asked to understand it, but I can't see where anyone could sufficiently explain it and have me care about it. I doesn't fit the game.

[3DandBeyond]

Xellith wrote...

Retcon some of the game.
social.bioware.com/forum/Mass-Effect-3/Mass-Effect-3-Story-and-Campaign-Discussion-Spoilers-Allowed/This-game039s-main-plot-ignores-every-decision-you-made-and-every-plot-event-in-Mass-Effect-1-12070544-1.html

If its the artistic vision to have the game play out exactly the same for everyone then okay.  But this as it stands is one of my major beef's.  Game should have had another year at LEAST for development time.  I cant believe you guys released this "as is".

Exactly.  I believe they loved ME as much or more than the fans.  I find it hard to believe they thought this ending was full of awesomeness.

Another game I played recently had about 20 different areas and it was mainly about fighting, not story rich, but there was a lot of customization of armor, weaponry, and such.  The devs said each area took at least 6 months to complete.  Of course they had teams working at the same time on each area, but still 6 months per area for a game that did not have to coordinate a big over-riding story.

I think the build up to the ME3 release could have been greater and then the marketing of pre-release stuff, promotions, contests, and all could have been carried on longer.  But in the end, all of this stuff-preorder bonuses, ME merchandise, is something that causes me to burn all over again about how much of a letdown the ending was.

[3DandBeyond]

Voodoo-j wrote...

Here is a fun thought, what if the catalyst is Shepard and the reapers who designed the crucible, and the citadel, use a catalyst to do their biding, to start the final process of wiping out advanced organics. Again the destroy option, it is the only one you are actually shooting at, IE it's not an interactive piece of the citadel and therefor not really meant to be used. Giving that option your *killing yourself* choosing *genocide*.

This is of course a real possibility-just as real as anything else we can guess about the ending.

[3DandBeyond]

I still assert that each of the choices given to Shepard are nonsense. We've gone over this but...it's necessary to keep looking at what you are told all along in the games.

Some people still think Synthesis is just fine, but in ME2 Mordin talks about it in no uncertain terms. It is abhorrent.

Mordin has studied the Collectors and of course knows they are really re-purposed Protheans. But he says more-he says what that means. They aren't just indoctrinated, they've been basically synthesized. You have to look at a conversation option that you get in the same place where he mentions art and where you can get him to sing. It was after his loyalty mission when he says he's had a breatkthrough.

Mordin says that much of what was organic within the Protheans has been replaced by tech to turn them into Collectors-he says it when Shepard asks if they could be brought back to be Protheans. Mordin says they can't be, because of all the tech within them. He goes on further to state just how wrong Synthesis is-that it diminishes both organic and synthetic life. He also says that it could have the same effect on an organic life that uplifting the Krogan did, or worse. That some organic life could be advanced beyond their readiness to handle it. But that it would diminish to necessary quality of achieving things due to the need to overcome adversity. He basically says this-that adversity is needed. The invention of the wheel, the use of fire, and so on were all achieved in the face of adversity. This is an important conversation for context as to the nonsense in choosing Synthesis.

Of course I already mentioned the many botched attempts by Cerberus to achieve synthesis-project overlord, for one.

[BlueStorm83]

      Someone above had mentioned, what if the Reapers designed the Crucible, and that's indeed how they do their Reaper thing every 50k years.  Honestly, I had that thought the very second that Javik told me that the Protheans DIDN'T design the Crucible.  He said that it was designed countless cycles before, and every cycle's civilizations just add to it.  After the revelation in the very first game that the Protheans didn't build anything, really, and that the Reapers made all the supposedly "prothean" stuff.  I would have been VERY careful putting it together and using it, under just thost circumstances.

     Once I spoke to the Godchild Catalyst AI Little Jimmy the Ghostboy, I would be DAMN sure to not use the Crucible for anything at all.  Let's forget that Shepard just believes everything that the little AI Satan told him.  We'll say that Shep was delerious from bloodloss, and he thought that the kid was his mommy, and mommy wouldn't lie.  Even still, EVEN STILL, let's look at the circumstances.  This kid created the reapers, mega death machines from hell.  He created the Cycles.  And yes, the Catalyst DOES say that he created the cycles.  He created the Citadel; a GIGANTIC TRAP designed to usher in incalculabe death and butchery.  Everything else he made is a very bad thing for people.  Why would the Crucible, which is certainly his idea too, be a good thing.

     "Maybe the Crucible wasn't his idea.  Maybe it really WAS just compiled by all the cycles together!"  Good point.  But then how can it take control of the Citadel, which we KNOW has ALWAYS been the first loss in every cycle besides ours, and turn a SPACE STATION into some kind of Choice Machine?  How did the Citadel even include the three options in the first place?

     Why does shooting a pipe kill all Synthetic life?  I could understand if there was a control panel to use, and that triggered a pulse to destroy all technology in general.  I could understand that shooting the pipe severed the Catalyst's control over the reapers and initiated some kind of self destruct on them that's designed to make sure that they don't lose control and are studied by organics.

     Some people argue that we're saying that the Catalyst is a liar, since the destroy option DOES actually destroy the reapers.  Does it?  I mean, DOES it?  The ending seems to say so.  But I don't believe the ending.  If The Illusive Man can control Shepard (Maybe through synthetic implants, I'll concede,) and also ANDERSON (Because... uhhh.... he was wearing a hat?) and force him to shoot him, something that our Sheps might never have done, defying all logic, can't it be true that the endings are just outright lies?

     At the current point, I believe one of two things.  Either the Indoctrination Theory is right, or the Reapers won.  We've all heard the Indoc theory, not gonna give the thousands of reasons why it makes sense and that BioWare should say that it's the real story, even if it wasn't but now they're jumping on the bandwagon to try and save their reputation.  Instead, I'll say why I believe that the reapers won the war.

     At the end of Mass Effect 1, when we meet Vigil, he explains that the reapers have always done two things to start their Reaping.  FIRST: They warp in at the citadel, via its RECIEVING end Mass Relay capabilities, and the keepers, falling under DIRECT CONTROL (Harbinger Voice!) close and lock the arms, sealing everyone in for reaping purposes.  SECOND: They use the Citadel to send out a pulse that deactivates all Mass Relays, essentially cutting allies off from each other, and allowing the slow, determined, methodical destruction of everyone, everywhere.

     Does that sound familiar?  What did the Reapers do?  They siezed the Citadel, closed and locked its arms, and reaped (or at least began reaping) people inside.  We can see that when Shep shows up in that horrible crawlspace filled with bodies.  Step Two: Send out the pulse and turn off the relays, we did that to ourselves.  No matter what ending we pick, the Relays go bye-bye.  BioWare has said "Nobody will starve without the relays."  Yeah, because they're all going to be Reaped.  Think about it.

     In the closing Cinematics, we see either a few reapers on Earth die, or go away.  We see colored lights ricochetting around the galaxy.  We see a relay dying (non-cataclysmically, but it goes off.)  We see Joker and the guys RUNNING LIKE HELL.  Why would Joker run away?  How would my squad get back on the Normandy?  It would take time to get them all back aboard.  It would have to be completely hopeless for Joker to run away.

     I believe that Shepard's actions, whatever they are on the Citadel, usher in the final stage of the Reapers' plan.  The combined fleets are decimated.  The Normandy is undamaged since it's 1) small and 2) a stealth ship that could easily avoid notice while the larger ships are alive.  Realizing that the situation is hopeless, since the ground forces are all dead or cut off from the conduit, Cortez rescues everyone he can and they run like all hell, since the Sol System (already established as the core of Reaper Controlled Space) is too distant from any friendly star, and they've realized the Reapers' plans to turn off the relays.  That's why they're in transit when the relays go down.  And that's why when we see the "future "scene of the old man and the kid, we're only seeing people on that planet they crashed on.  Because everyone else, everywhere else, is dead.

     And that's how the game ends: complete and total failure.

     Not that that's even a bad thing.  I have no problem with being beaten by an overwhelming enemy that actually has the ability to get into your head, twist your logic, and make you do their bidding without even knowing it.  I have even less problem when they've been guiding your technological evolution down a set path so you'd be SPECIFICALLY vulnerable to their tactics (Sovereign said so in ME1).

     "Everyone dies because Shepard failed" is a more satisfying ending, to me at least, than "OH MUH GAWD, STARBOY HAS A "I WIN" MACHINE!!!!  I'M-A PUSH THE BLUE BUTTON, IT'S PURDY!!!"

[Voodoo-j]

I'm guessing 99.9% of those that were not happy with the ending agree the holo kid has got to go. I think it would have been better to have EDI talking over comlink describing the terminals.
Even then, I still want more options, reasons to replay.

I also never understood the *nightmares* we had to run around chasing some kid wtf?
Just show a cutscene it's one of those parts when replaying the game, that is going to drive me completely nuts.. oh this again..grumble grumble.

Modifié par Voodoo-j, 16 mai 2012 - 01:39 .

[3DandBeyond]

@BlueStorm83, you make a point that I did as well. Vigil. And yes, he said that about the Mass Relays, so what does the kid tell Shepard? That each choice destroys the Mass Relays. Shepard talked to Vigil. Vigil said that's what they do to isolate everybody so they are easier to harvest. No way Shepard is going to do that for them.

Everything you pointed out is so-Shepard would sooner shoot him or herself in the head than do anything this glow boy wants. TIM can get away and shoot himself. Saren did. Benezia resisted. But Shepard, who either has or has not been indoctrinated cannot assert his/her will? Neither one would preclude Shepard from stopping and thinking. It's worse because Shepard has to actually overcome the pain and drag him or herself to do the kid's bidding. If I'm gonna fight that much pain, I'd be damn sure it's worth it.

My point is that in order to decide what does or doesn't make sense as far as Shepard believing the kid or not you have to go back to before Shepard makes a choice. You can't consider anything that the player sees after the choice is made. At that point Shepard only has the star kid's word for anything. And s/he simply would not believe glow boy.

Heck, I have a hard time believing someone wants to help me if they've called me names before. I cannot envision trusting and believing someone that's been systematically committing genocide and has been specifically sending creatures to kill me.

As to the whole Joker thing.  I don't think you understand.  Joker has ESP.  He guessed that Shepard who nobody saw go into the beam to the Citadel would initiate the Catalyst reaction causing a beam to hit the relays causing a shockwave that could destroy them and the Normandy, so he A (blue) chose to land the Normandy in the middle of London and picked up Shepard's friends.  He had to do this pretty near Harbinger/Bob the Reaper whose beam had hit Shepard, in order to pick up those teammates that had miraculously avoided getting hit by the reaper beam that knocked Shepard down.  You know the magic powerful beam that actually vaporizes things it touches, but only knocks Shepard down.  Or B (red), he sent the shuttle to pick them up as he hovered somewhere overhead-avoiding fighting anything so he could get the heck out of there quickly.  You know, this would happen.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 16 mai 2012 - 01:52 .