23455 réponses à ce sujet

[Redbelle]

3DandBeyond wrote...

akenn312 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

It could be a matter of perspective. Yes, we're going to destroy, by making you into something else and that something else is us. Bwahahah!!!

I still see it as a 180. When you talked to Sovereign he basically said you are not meant to know jack. Just take your destruction and like it. Now the Star brat defends his ascending as if he is trying to convince us through dialogue that the Reapers have a purpose other than mindless destruction.

This is a writing ploy, and a bad one. Previous theme was destruction, no beginning & no end, cannot comprehend their purpose. Don't deserve to know.

Now with a single line of dialog it's preservation and ascending. There is a beginning and end, easily comprehended purpose. Deserve to know why now.

One line should not be able to bust the entire first stories most pivotal conversation.

This makes the Sovereign conversation completely meaningless. Basically all he does is just lie to you. Yes they Reapers are using orqanics as slaves and resources making them into Reapers, yes the Reapers have a beginning and can end. ect....

The Reapers were already artsy Lovecraftian horrors, they should have seen that already. They already had their art within the story they had been telling. The Mass Effect series was kinda artsy, until they started screwing with it.

Yes, and on a scale of believability, think about who would have no reason to lie.

Sovereign tells you you will die.  He makes no excuses, no apologies, he and the reapers are going to kill everyone.
The kid says, oh no you won't die.  We will ascend you to save you.  We are being nice.  It only looks like people are dying.

How dumb do they think people are.  Sovereign lays it right out there-he doesn't care what you think, he will kill.
But the Catalyst, in a more acceptable form, a kid, tries to act "nicey, nicey" in his own mind, at least.

And it wouldn't be so bad if we had the ability to cry bull puckies.  But, no, the ending bears out what the kid says.  So, Sovereign who had no reason to lie since he stated the worst, was lying.  And the kid, who had every reason to lie-in order to get Shepard's help, and sure looked like he lying was since he was living in the Citadel amongst decaying dead bodies, wasn't.  My head hurts.


Just imagine how awesome an ending that explained, "even mad gods can dream" (paraphrase) could have been.

I Wonder if Reapers were around in another form before the cuttlefish phase? Trying to think of ways whereby the Reapers can be without beginning and end and have the Cat claiming he invented them.......... along with the question mark.

Seriously, a rise of the Reaper DLC would need to be seriously thought out with all the lore and statements made by Reapers over the years........... unless the Reapers have been reading a book on 'how to promote yourself in the hostile workplace and succeed', and have just been exaggerating their successes.

But on the subject of dying and ascending....... Given that I sorta got Kelly gooed in ME2 I think its safe to say that at some point you do have to die to be made into the physical form of a reaper. It's the mind aspect of a Reaper that eludes definition. I have no idea how Reapers pop the minds of their victims of that species into those forms......

Actually, do the Reapers ever state that the minds in the Reaper body came from the bodies of a species they harvested? If not it potentially opens the possibilty that the hive mind of a Reaper is unrelated to the harvesting process.

Modifié par Redbelle, 11 juin 2012 - 09:40 .

[MSandt]

Voodoo-j wrote...

Well that goes to show you are not going to get what the magazine said you were going to get.

As I said previously, I didn't pay any attention to any pre-release hype. I know not to.

The ending to ME3 is nothing like previous Bioware games let alone the ME series.

Isn't this something that should be applauded?

Who the is going to buy a game because it got a good review from someone that doesn't understand what people are looking for.

At least I usually buy games based on critical reception and I've rarely ended up disappointed (for example, Halo is a lot worse than what the critics say and DNF is not nearly as bad as critics say). My guess is that many are like this which is why reviewers still have their jobs.

As there are literary professors who say the story within the game makes absolute no literary sense right at the turn of the ending.

Yeah, we all know how literary professors are experts on video games. A typical argumentum ad auctoritatem.

[MSandt]

iakus wrote...

MSandt wrote...

This just goes to show that what the haters are really pissed off at is that they didn't get a generic wimpy ending.

It's a good thing that they don't hire fans to review games. Professional reviewers have been very objective about the ending compared to all the rabid fans who post their emotional rantings on Youtube.

What "haters" are angry about is their choices didn't matter one bit and we were forced down one path. Yes, that includes having a "generic wimpy" ending, as you put it.  People like happy endings.  People like sad endings.  What people don't like is being railroaded down one ending when we were told our decisions mattered.

The games all followed a script whether or not you made certain decisions. You cannot tell a story and have an open-ended ending. ME2 was a bit different because its story was relatively irrelevant. It would have made no sense to have the ME3 ending, a galaxy-wide moment, be affected by, say, whether you saved the queen or not or pushed someone through a window.

[sdinc009]

MSandt wrote...

Voodoo-j wrote...

Well that goes to show you are not going to get what the magazine said you were going to get.

As I said previously, I didn't pay any attention to any pre-release hype. I know not to.

The ending to ME3 is nothing like previous Bioware games let alone the ME series.

Isn't this something that should be applauded?

Who the is going to buy a game because it got a good review from someone that doesn't understand what people are looking for.

At least I usually buy games based on critical reception and I've rarely ended up disappointed (for example, Halo is a lot worse than what the critics say and DNF is not nearly as bad as critics say). My guess is that many are like this which is why reviewers still have their jobs.

As there are literary professors who say the story within the game makes absolute no literary sense right at the turn of the ending.

Yeah, we all know how literary professors are experts on video games. A typical argumentum ad auctoritatem.

Yes, it is an argumentum ad auctoritatem, but it is not a fallacious argumentum ad auctoritatem. Your deflection by establishing the conclusion that literary professors are not experts on video games is a false argument. Voodoo-j stated that literary professors have stated that the STORY mkes no literary sense. This is an accurate conclusion and provides substance and merit to Voodoo-j's claim. It's also follows the rules of an argumentum ad auctoritatem that makes it a perfectly valid tool for debate. His conclusion is sound and the very literary professors analysis is readily avaiable to you on this very forum. They do not need to be an expert on video games because that claim is not being made. Their not being asked vhat they think about the level design or how the game was coded. They are simply being offered an analysis of the story.

[Redbelle]

MSandt wrote...

*Snipped
I don't want to have he same contrived ending that is just a different color.

I disagree. The endings are very different by their implications even if the visual differences are miniscule.
*Snipped

Hold up, waaaaait a minute.

There's an aweful lot to contest in that last post and yes I botched the quoting a bit but I have to bring this point up,

Different implications? Well you've certainly found the right people to bring that point up because the level of debate in this thread is fairly highbrow. But lets not forget the crucial element of any story telling, you take your audience with you on the journey.

Now ME has always differentiated between outcomes. You make a story narrative decision and the gameplay responds to that decision. ME2's ending for example in destroying or preserving the collector base had similar cut scenes, with variations to demonstrate the difference one choice had from the other. This was not highbrow thought provoking content. It was narrative and it made certain you knew what the consequences of your choice was by showing you that consequence.......... This is good structured story telling. The player knows what happened so going forward the player can understand what will occur in context with what came before.

It's at this point where we have to concede that ME3's ending is different. Make your choice, get the cutscene and BOOM............. No more story. Decision made and things start to go into motion. No actual resolution to the question of what the consequence of our action was. OK, maybe we don't need to know other than what we did achieved a break of the status quo that would have had genocide on the menu but....... alot of people want to know not only what happened to the Reaper's they want to know what happened to their favourite characters.......... what happened to the species........ what happened to the galaxy........

The original ending of ME3 just stopped so no good structrued stroy telling was available to answer these questions. Yet fans asked anyway, generated parody since they couldn't make canon and turned to fan fiction to try and tie up loose ends. You say the ending is different by the implications? Well there are a heck of alot of implications and fans have been churning their brains inside out trying to resolve them. Fans do this because they are invested in the story and there is a right way and a wrong way to finish a story. All I have to do is look back at a story I spent a month on, then hastily wrote the ending in a day as the submisison deadline pounced and my tutor's red biro still remarks........ "I was enjoying this till I got to the end and found things to be rushed and decribed only in basic general terms. You did much better before this point. Come see me so we can talk about why this happened'.

This is the key differene between ME2 and ME3's ending. ME2 led the player to where the writers wanted to drop them off at. ME3 dropped the player off at a place that they weren't expecting and drove off. If not for the knowledge that they would be coming back to pick us up and try and drop us off in a better destination with the ECDLC I'd be underlining the end of ME3 as what happens when Writers lose the plot.......... Correction, I'd be underling it as what occurs when two of the writing team lose the plot.

[Redbelle]

sdinc009 wrote...

MSandt wrote...

Voodoo-j wrote...

Well that goes to show you are not going to get what the magazine said you were going to get.

As I said previously, I didn't pay any attention to any pre-release hype. I know not to.

The ending to ME3 is nothing like previous Bioware games let alone the ME series.

Isn't this something that should be applauded?

Who the is going to buy a game because it got a good review from someone that doesn't understand what people are looking for.

At least I usually buy games based on critical reception and I've rarely ended up disappointed (for example, Halo is a lot worse than what the critics say and DNF is not nearly as bad as critics say). My guess is that many are like this which is why reviewers still have their jobs.

As there are literary professors who say the story within the game makes absolute no literary sense right at the turn of the ending.

Yeah, we all know how literary professors are experts on video games. A typical argumentum ad auctoritatem.

Yes, it is an argumentum ad auctoritatem, but it is not a fallacious argumentum ad auctoritatem. Your deflection by establishing the conclusion that literary professors are not experts on video games is a false argument. Voodoo-j stated that literary professors have stated that the STORY mkes no literary sense. This is an accurate conclusion and provides substance and merit to Voodoo-j's claim. It's also follows the rules of an argumentum ad auctoritatem that makes it a perfectly valid tool for debate. His conclusion is sound and the very literary professors analysis is readily avaiable to you on this very forum. They do not need to be an expert on video games because that claim is not being made. Their not being asked vhat they think about the level design or how the game was coded. They are simply being offered an analysis of the story.

Aye. Msandt does seem to have dismissed out of hand a very important element of the argument by effectively saying that these people who understand the structure of story telling are not qualified to understand this story. And lets not kid ourselves ME3 has a corker. If we were talking about Super Bomber Man you would have a point as asking a literary professor to assess a game with next to no plot is pointless. ME3 on the other hand is all about story. It has a script after all. And take out the decision points, you have the core of what the writers want to say.

Modifié par Redbelle, 11 juin 2012 - 10:28 .

[MSandt]

sdinc009 wrote...

MSandt wrote...

Voodoo-j wrote...

Well that goes to show you are not going to get what the magazine said you were going to get.

As I said previously, I didn't pay any attention to any pre-release hype. I know not to.

The ending to ME3 is nothing like previous Bioware games let alone the ME series.

Isn't this something that should be applauded?

Who the is going to buy a game because it got a good review from someone that doesn't understand what people are looking for.

At least I usually buy games based on critical reception and I've rarely ended up disappointed (for example, Halo is a lot worse than what the critics say and DNF is not nearly as bad as critics say). My guess is that many are like this which is why reviewers still have their jobs.

As there are literary professors who say the story within the game makes absolute no literary sense right at the turn of the ending.

Yeah, we all know how literary professors are experts on video games. A typical argumentum ad auctoritatem.

Yes, it is an argumentum ad auctoritatem, but it is not a fallacious argumentum ad auctoritatem. Your deflection by establishing the conclusion that literary professors are not experts on video games is a false argument. Voodoo-j stated that literary professors have stated that the STORY mkes no literary sense. This is an accurate conclusion and provides substance and merit to Voodoo-j's claim. It's also follows the rules of an argumentum ad auctoritatem that makes it a perfectly valid tool for debate. His conclusion is sound and the very literary professors analysis is readily avaiable to you on this very forum. They do not need to be an expert on video games because that claim is not being made. Their not being asked vhat they think about the level design or how the game was coded. They are simply being offered an analysis of the story.

You can make an argument about the ending making no sense but you're not adding anything to the argument by saying that such an argument was made by a literary professor. The only reason why anyone would bring that up is to make a flawed argumentum ad auctoritatem.

[Redbelle]

MSandt wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...

MSandt wrote...

Voodoo-j wrote...

Well that goes to show you are not going to get what the magazine said you were going to get.

As I said previously, I didn't pay any attention to any pre-release hype. I know not to.

The ending to ME3 is nothing like previous Bioware games let alone the ME series.

Isn't this something that should be applauded?

Who the is going to buy a game because it got a good review from someone that doesn't understand what people are looking for.

At least I usually buy games based on critical reception and I've rarely ended up disappointed (for example, Halo is a lot worse than what the critics say and DNF is not nearly as bad as critics say). My guess is that many are like this which is why reviewers still have their jobs.

As there are literary professors who say the story within the game makes absolute no literary sense right at the turn of the ending.

Yeah, we all know how literary professors are experts on video games. A typical argumentum ad auctoritatem.

Yes, it is an argumentum ad auctoritatem, but it is not a fallacious argumentum ad auctoritatem. Your deflection by establishing the conclusion that literary professors are not experts on video games is a false argument. Voodoo-j stated that literary professors have stated that the STORY mkes no literary sense. This is an accurate conclusion and provides substance and merit to Voodoo-j's claim. It's also follows the rules of an argumentum ad auctoritatem that makes it a perfectly valid tool for debate. His conclusion is sound and the very literary professors analysis is readily avaiable to you on this very forum. They do not need to be an expert on video games because that claim is not being made. Their not being asked vhat they think about the level design or how the game was coded. They are simply being offered an analysis of the story.

You can make an argument about the ending making no sense but you're not adding anything to the argument by saying that such an argument was made by a literary professor. The only reason why anyone would bring that up is to make a flawed argumentum ad auctoritatem.

Which one of these three would you trust to make a decision to send a criminal to jail? A high court judge? A Jury? Or the Janitor?

Now whose opinion on the narrative cohesion of ME3's would you trust to give you an informed verdict?.......... I would have to rate a literary professor quite high on the grounds that such an individual has gained qualification's, been immersed in their given subject and is likely to say 'go away a stop bothering me' If the professor thinks the question is outside their subject........

The only thing I would say however, given a scientific background, is that we need to find out who these professors are and start reading through their statements on why the ending lost it's narrative cohesion at the end.

[MSandt]

Redbelle wrote...

MSandt wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...

MSandt wrote...

Voodoo-j wrote...

Well that goes to show you are not going to get what the magazine said you were going to get.

As I said previously, I didn't pay any attention to any pre-release hype. I know not to.

The ending to ME3 is nothing like previous Bioware games let alone the ME series.

Isn't this something that should be applauded?

Who the is going to buy a game because it got a good review from someone that doesn't understand what people are looking for.

At least I usually buy games based on critical reception and I've rarely ended up disappointed (for example, Halo is a lot worse than what the critics say and DNF is not nearly as bad as critics say). My guess is that many are like this which is why reviewers still have their jobs.

As there are literary professors who say the story within the game makes absolute no literary sense right at the turn of the ending.

Yeah, we all know how literary professors are experts on video games. A typical argumentum ad auctoritatem.

Yes, it is an argumentum ad auctoritatem, but it is not a fallacious argumentum ad auctoritatem. Your deflection by establishing the conclusion that literary professors are not experts on video games is a false argument. Voodoo-j stated that literary professors have stated that the STORY mkes no literary sense. This is an accurate conclusion and provides substance and merit to Voodoo-j's claim. It's also follows the rules of an argumentum ad auctoritatem that makes it a perfectly valid tool for debate. His conclusion is sound and the very literary professors analysis is readily avaiable to you on this very forum. They do not need to be an expert on video games because that claim is not being made. Their not being asked vhat they think about the level design or how the game was coded. They are simply being offered an analysis of the story.

You can make an argument about the ending making no sense but you're not adding anything to the argument by saying that such an argument was made by a literary professor. The only reason why anyone would bring that up is to make a flawed argumentum ad auctoritatem.

Which one of these three would you trust to make a decision to send a criminal to jail? A high court judge? A Jury? Or the Janitor?

Now whose opinion on the narrative cohesion of ME3's would you trust to give you an informed verdict?.......... I would have to rate a literary professor quite high on the grounds that such an individual has gained qualification's, been immersed in their given subject and is likely to say 'go away a stop bothering me' If the professor thinks the question is outside their subject........

The only thing I would say however, given a scientific background, is that we need to find out who these professors are and start reading through their statements on why the ending lost it's narrative cohesion at the end.

I could't care less about literary professors voicing their opinions as literary professors on movies, games etc. Their "expert" opinions are meant for their private little jerk-off circles. Your analogy does not work. You actually need extensive knowledge of the law to be able to function as a high-court judge. Similar requirements are not needed to evaluate the "goodness" of an ending to a work of art.

Edit: Btw, a literay professor doesn't have a "scientific background".

Modifié par MSandt, 11 juin 2012 - 11:22 .

[Voodoo-j]

How conveient you cut out most of the conversation.

[quote]MSandt wrote...

[quote]Voodoo-j wrote...

Well that goes to show you are not going to get what the magazine said you were going to get.
[/quote] 



As I said previously, I didn't pay any attention to any pre-release hype. I know not to.
[/quote] 

There are many reviews that include the ending.

YOU brought up the reviews, not me.

 I not only don't read reviews, I don't read peoples complaints on the forum until I've had a chance to form my own opinion.

[quote]MSandt wrote... 
[quote]Voodoo-j wrote... 

[quote]The ending to ME3 is nothing like previous Bioware games let alone the ME series.[/quote][/quote]   
Isn't this something that should be applauded?
[/quote]  



Yeah, so you competely don't understand anything.

Say you love a specific brand for the products they make.
There is just that something special about it that you love.
So you buy the new product they make, it causes you so much disgust you can't barely stand any of their previous products, just on principle.
(assuming you have principles, you have to understand this)

[quote]MSandt wrote...  
[quote]Voodoo-j wrote.. 

[quote]Who the is going to buy a game because it got a good review from someone that doesn't understand what people are looking for.[/quote][/quote]    

At least I usually buy games based on critical reception and I've rarely ended up disappointed (for example, Halo is a lot worse than what the critics say and DNF is not nearly as bad as critics say). My guess is that many are like this which is why reviewers still have their jobs.

[/quote]   

AGAIN, YOU brought up the reviews, not me. 
And to quote you again,  
(your so ignorant and now hypocritical I'll don't see myself responding to you any further after this)

[quote]MSandt wrote... 
As I said previously, I didn't pay any attention to any pre-release hype. I know not to.
[/quote]  

Oh yeah not paying any attention, they wth did you just reply with??


[quote]MSandt wrote...  
At least I usually buy games based on critical reception 
[/quote]   

Your words not mine, really make this too easy.

This was also brought up previously.  I hope you are not this niave.
People pay other people to make them look good so they can sell.
Really.. you have to know this.

[quote]MSandt wrote...  
[quote]Voodoo-j wrote..  
[quote]As there are literary professors who say the story within the game makes absolute no literary sense right at the turn of the ending.[/quote][/quote] 

Yeah, we all know how literary professors are experts on video games. A typical argumentum ad auctoritatem.
[/quote]

Well I'm not the one defending that the game produced is a piece of literary art.
Bioware does.

Really your a complete idiot if your going to defend that!

Unless you can show some semblence of intilligence don't waste your time responding, I know I won't.

Modifié par Voodoo-j, 11 juin 2012 - 11:28 .

[Void Of Humanity]

Petty bickering & personal insults are not what this forum is about, keep it constructive, Bioware have insulted us enough

[Voodoo-j]

Not insulting, just calling it as truth shows.

Ok maybe the idiot comment.

ignorant - hypocritical - naive

These fit the words that MSandt has spoken, just the plain truth, not insults.

[Void Of Humanity]

That wasnt just directed at you Voodoo-j, more of a general observation, well apart from the idiot comment that is lol, passions are so high on this topic it can easily get out of hand

[Void Of Humanity]

You know i can guarantee that Bioware will read all these in depth, inteligent, well thought & passionate posts at some point, sit down & go yeah we can use this, wish we'd thought of that, saves us the job now & then reap the benefits of it

[Deliquesce]

Void Of Humanity wrote...

That wasnt just directed at you Voodoo-j, more of a general observation, well apart from the idiot comment that is lol, passions are so high on this topic it can easily get out of hand

I agree, there are so many highly strung emotions on this topic that disagreements become full blown much quicker.  We may not agree on all the specifics, but most are united on one front - that we feel let down.  That's what's really important here, showing that we're not happy with something we poured so much energy, time, and love into.

[akenn312]

MSandt wrote...

I don't want them to do anything about the ending: that'd devalue the game. This isn't about fixing a technical issue or a problem with gameplay balance but altering the story itself.  You just don't go and update a game's story simply because someone didn't like it. Imagine an author updating his book six months later with a new ending. Or da Vinci going back to do some more work on Mona Lisa. You're asking them to change the ending. So of course I'm going to protest. I don't want you to succeed. I want the game preserved.

I hope you do realize that you are hurting yourself on this one, as I said before what is wrong with them following through with what they promised? The endings you like and more. There is nothing wrong with it, you just want to be correct. I have no real power here  just like you do not. Our posts are either read or not. I have no desire to write an ending to Mass Effect 3 or make them change it completely I will say, and I have a right to do this, what I disliked and discuss what I  didn't like about the endings. 

My issue with these endings are the fact that they divide us. One group feels like it's better than another, that is not what these games should be about. It should be about player choice. Everyone getting closure and everyone feeling like they got something positive out of these stories. Right now we have one group screaming genocide, one group making basic Hitler comments and people like you trying to squash down fans voices. For what? Art? in a video game?

Trying to make sure I don't succeed? Really? So why is one fan opinion worth more than another? I say the pro-enders like you are basically selfish, you want the game to be geared to you and not change, it makes you feel special. You rate a "hater" as the ones that are basically left out. Not up to your standards. That is possibly a little elitist. 

I want Mass Effect to be what it was again, something that brings people together. Not some place where people can feel they can be elitist on some "art" debate. Mass Effect is a game and should have had the ability to be great visually and bring us all together mentally. But if this is what it is, I will always speak out on how the writing should have been better, how Synthesis is a revolting concept and how no matter what love interest we picked or Paragon or Renegade path we went down all should have been satisfied at the end.

Closure and a good message is what i'm typing for. Not some immature defending against the haters stuff. Open your mind the people that you are fighting against are the ones that care about Mass Effect too. Fighting against us is fighting agianst something that can make the game better and end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy. 

Sorry I just couldn't resist. 

Modifié par akenn312, 12 juin 2012 - 12:13 .

[Void Of Humanity]

Or is it Reaper the benefits...... Two Drums & a Cymbal fall off the Cliff, Ba! Bum! Ching!
*Needs to take own advice & keep it constructive*

[Voodoo-j]

Undoubtedly - they changed the ending from what it should be, now it needs to be corrected.

[Void Of Humanity]

Hey akenn312, glad you couldnt resist, nice post, in a messed up way it has bought us all together

[XXVI]

This is an explanation of how the ending was Thematically Weak, as opposed to Technically Weak. I think we can all agree that there could have been more cutscenes or epilogue, but that's not my point here. The decision at the end of the game could have been WAY more poignant and significant if the reasons for the Reaper Cycle had been exposed and justified.

I fully expected the justification for the Reaper Cycle to focus on the theme of "Order vs. Chaos" instead of the weaker, more cliched, and simply false claim that "the Created must destroy the Creators".

The best justification for the Reaper Cycle is that Organic civilizations, no matter how enlightened, all act like a forest fire or a virus: Unchecked, they would 1) Consume the galaxy's resources and leave it barren, and 2) Prevent younger civilizations from having a chance to develop naturally. This is why Organics represent Chaos. The Reapers represent Order because they harvest advanced civilizations and thus prevent the galaxy from being ruined by expansive and uncontrolled Organics. This allows life to continue in a perpetual balance, with each civilization free to expand naturally for a period of time.

In the final scene, the Guardian could have conveyed this by asking Shepard: "What do you think would have happened if the Protheans had never been Harvested?" The answer is that the Protheans would have continued to enslave weaker races, and eventually would have consumed the galaxy and left it lifeless and barren. Humanity and the other modern species would never have had a chance to develop naturally, and life would end in galactic stagnation.

The conclusion is that the Reaper Cycle actually PRESERVES life and growth, in the same way that a controlled burn preserves a forest. Without the Reapers, life would cease to exist because Organic civilization can never be sustainable, and the galaxy would eventually be barren.

This would be a far more compelling justification than the cliche of "Man vs. Machine", which doesn't really resonate in a story with EDI and peace between the Geth and Quarians.

It also makes it a far more difficult decision to destroy the Reapers, because it would eventually result in a lifeless galaxy. It makes the whole cosmos of the game into a sort of Yin & Yang, with sustained life and growth only possible indefinitely if there is a periodic Reaper Harvest.

The 2 default Choices should have been 1) End the cycle by destroying the Reapers, but with the knowledge that Chaos cannot exist forever without Order, so the Galaxy would eventually become barren, or 2) Allow the Cycle to continue, and let the Reapers finish the harvest with the knowledge that it will allow life to continue in the future. The 3rd Choice (which could have been available only after certain choices), a new balance through synthesis (Deus Ex style) is actually a really good idea. The result is that life takes a new hybrid form that can grow and guide its own evolution without either uncontrolled consumption or the periodic holocaust.

The theme of Yin & Yang, Growth vs. Destruction, Order vs. Chaos, and perpetual balance is far more universal and poignant than a simple 'man vs. machine'. It is so thematically comprehensive that it INCLUDES the theme of man vs. machine, in that Order is machines, Chaos is organics, and the Balanced Future is a Post-Human Ascension or Singularity.

And this theme has been pursued before to great effect! (no ideas are new, remember) 'Deus Ex' and 'The Longest Journey' are two great examples in gaming. The Longest Journey's cosmic balance between Stark and Arcadia, presided over by a single authority (The Guardian), and the eventual fusion of worlds is one of the best stories in gaming history. It's been done in literature as well; Order vs. Chaos and Posthumanism are very strong themes in Dan Simmons' Hyperion Cantos, with the threat of the Techno-Core and the eventual destruction of the galactic system of instant transportation (frightningly similar to the Mass Relays!!).

I really, really expected BioWare to be headed in this direction with the story, for good reason. I would have bet anything on it! The conversations with the Reapers in-game certainly set the stage for it by emphasizing their critical role as agents of Order, and the number of parallels with other stories about Order vs. Chaos are way too many to count. I was disappointed, but mostly just very, very, very suprised that this theme wasn't emphasised or even mentioned at the end of the game. It made the ending feel petty and mundane.

It isn't too late to fix it.

Requisite Emoticon:

[Void Of Humanity]

When Bioware tried to pass it off as Art, you just knew it was an admitence of their failings towards the ending

[3DandBeyond]

Redbelle wrote...


I Wonder if Reapers were around in another form before the cuttlefish phase? Trying to think of ways whereby the Reapers can be without beginning and end and have the Cat claiming he invented them.......... along with the question mark.

Seriously, a rise of the Reaper DLC would need to be seriously thought out with all the lore and statements made by Reapers over the years........... unless the Reapers have been reading a book on 'how to promote yourself in the hostile workplace and succeed', and have just been exaggerating their successes.

But on the subject of dying and ascending....... Given that I sorta got Kelly gooed in ME2 I think its safe to say that at some point you do have to die to be made into the physical form of a reaper. It's the mind aspect of a Reaper that eludes definition. I have no idea how Reapers pop the minds of their victims of that species into those forms......

Actually, do the Reapers ever state that the minds in the Reaper body came from the bodies of a species they harvested? If not it potentially opens the possibilty that the hive mind of a Reaper is unrelated to the harvesting process.

Nothing is ever stated about the mind or brain per se, but I do think there's some reason they choose advanced organics.  Perhaps a particularly diverse DNA, which is why humans are kind of singled out-Mordin says that humans are more advanced due to their diversity.  Most think Asaris are, but Mordin says they are way too similar (paraphrasing).  For this reason, I've never thought they were looking for brain matter, but more for complexity. 

[akenn312]

Void Of Humanity wrote...

Hey akenn312, glad you couldnt resist, nice post, in a messed up way it has bought us all together

It has, thanks @Void Of Humanity, even with all the debates i'ts great to see people have a very strong feeling about this like I have. I'm glad you guys are out there and we all have some great things to say about ME. No matter how this goes I'm glad that I can talk to people like you guys and we have some great minds out there like you and @Redbelle, @Archonsg, @3DandBeyond @LiarasShield @sdinc009 @Benchpress610 @BlueStorm83 and everyone else I haven't mentioned. We've had some great debates and discussions.
Even with @MSandt and the others, we have all thrown it out there. Passion about this story is a good thing, I hope Bioware sees all this and can get us all back together…
Except for Synthesis. I still think its revolting  

[3DandBeyond]

MSandt wrote...

I don't want them to do anything about the ending: that'd devalue the game. This isn't about fixing a technical issue or a problem with gameplay balance but altering the story itself.  You just don't go and update a game's story simply because someone didn't like it. Imagine an author updating his book six months later with a new ending. Or da Vinci going back to do some more work on Mona Lisa. You're asking them to change the ending. So of course I'm going to protest. I don't want you to succeed. I want the game preserved.

There's so much wrong with this, that it becomes a case of where to start.

Do you even understand that most of Da Vinci's works (art, military invention and schematics) were done under "contract".  If one of those people didn't like what he did, he did change it.

And throughout "history" authors have changed the endings to books, directors/producers have changed the endings to movies, all because someone didn't like it.  "Great Expectations" ending was changed from being too sad and the second version is the most common one read.  Jules Verne changed the endings to many of his books when they were thought to be too sad or too political.  And often, authors that collaborate on a screenplay for a movie version of a book they wrote, agree to ending changes.  What generally happens today with books is there is such a screening process (editors) that goes on and there are even focus groups and so on that publishers use, that the final product is never what the author originally intended.  And editors and publishers and even author's managers are paid to know the audience.  Or else.

You want the game preserved-it's golden to you.  Great.  You have what you want, as moronic as I think it is. Unpaid reviewers have been scathing and point out the flaws.  Literary professors and reviewers (they do know something about how to write a story) have critiqued it and actually stated at length how it fails.  They have looked at it, dissected it, analysed it, as far as content and story structure and all this after having played it and trying to enjoy it.  They have done what a publisher or editor would have done and they have explained their reasoning.

On the other hand, paid reviewers who get money from companies that make the games that pay their employers for advertising have had this to say about fans who dislike the ending, "if you don't like it, just don't buy it."  Brilliant.  Hmm.  You don't find out until the end of the game that you don't like a game, so don't buy it.  Great, insightful reasoning there.

But, great you just love it.  Guess what, you don't need to do anything then.  Just go home and hug it, it works for you.  Oh, happy day!

You consistently throw words at people to try and get an argument going.  Why can't you understand what we have tried at length to say-we love the game as much as you do.  We do not think they did a good thing to all those characters, especially Shepard at the end.  They vomited on the game and want us to see it as something artistic.

You really should be thanking people that are taking the time to express why they dislike a product, because all of us (a huge group of people) could just go away as you seem to want and Bioware would stop making games you like. 

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 12 juin 2012 - 01:40 .

[BlueStorm83]

--- "We Anti-Spirals were once a Spiral race like yourselves. But when we learned that the evolution of Spiral Power would lead to the destruction of the universe, we annihilated all those who possessed the power of the Spiral, and drove the few surviving life forms to the far corners of the universe. We halted our own evolution and locked ourselves away into this pocket universe! On our homeworld we sealed away our bodies and any hope of evolution! This form is the symbol of our determination! Foolish creatures, drunk on Spiral Power! We defended the universe by killing our fellow spirals and halting our own evolution! Do you possess the sheer fortitude that is on par with that?! DO YOU?! WE SAY, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NOT! AT! ALL!!!"

To which Simon replies with a few lines, all along the lines of "smashing through both karma and fate! Raging wave combining...Arc Gurren Lagann!! Our friends' hopes and dreams are etched into its body, transforming the infinite darkness into light! Unmatched in Heaven, and Earth; one machine, equal to the gods! Super Galaxy GURREN LAGANN! ... We're gonna show you the power... of the human race. Don't underestimate us! We don't care about time or space or multi-dimensional whatevers, we don't give a damn about that! Force your way down a path you choose to take and do it all yourself! That's the way team Dai-Gurren rolls! The tomorrow we're trying to grab for ourselves is not the tomorrow you set up for us; its the tomorrow that we chose for ourselves, a tomorrow that we chose out of all the infinite universes. We'll fight our way through and protect the universe--we'll stop the Spiral Nemesis too!"

And then Simon defeats his enemies, knowing that the enemy's logic that his own power will one day end the universe, but he has confidence in himself and his allies, and believes that by their own strength they'll overcome any danger.

That's what Mass Effect should have ended with. The Reapers throw impeccable, FLAWLESS logic at Shepard, showing that beyond a shadow of a doubt they're right in their assessment that Organics need to be harvested, destroyed, ANYTHING to keep them from advancing farther... And Shepard tells them to **** off, that they'll become more advanced than the Reapers can even comprehend, and find their own way to save the Galaxy.

Modifié par BlueStorm83, 12 juin 2012 - 01:14 .