831 réponses à ce sujet

[SmokePants]

Lurchibald wrote...

The crucible isn't a Deus ex Machina, though i do believe the Guardian or "Starchild" is..

Deus ex Machina is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object

The starchild is exactly that, a contrived and unexpected character who intervenes at the last minute.

No, the being identifies itself as the Catalyst, which was clearly established as a story element very early on. Uniting the Crucible and the Catalyst to end the Reaper invasion is the entire plot. It didn't drop out of the sky; its nature was simply a mystery.

Again, if that "godchild" -- loaded term; he was merely perceived by Sheperd to be in the form of the child that was haunting him -- if that being had allowed Sheperd to beat the reapers, keep the relays, and go hug all his friends, very few would be complaining right now. It's not the "godchild".

Modifié par SmokePants, 16 mars 2012 - 04:45 .

[millich]

I hope someone from Bioware reads this thread.
I'm sure someone will if it gets popular.

[tucsondoug]

Thanks for the interesting read, I agree wholeheartedly.

[Buddhess75]

It's a great post and should be posted on "on ME endings, Yes we are listening".

[Cobra's_back]

Eternalsteelfan wrote...

Warning: Long as hell. Jesus.

Excellent. I enjoyed your post.

[Madecologist]

Exactly what needed to be said.

[SmokePants]

ph0enix66 wrote...

unless you are Stanley Kubric, the Coen Brothers, Terry Gillian, et al, you better be really f***ing careful about breaking rules. Yes, rules can be broken, but it depends on your skill. You can't break a rule just for the sake of breaking a rule.

So, you're saying that Kubrick graduated film school and said, "I'm Stanley ****ing Kubrick! Space baby, *****es!"

No. He took chances, not knowing (or caring) whether they would work. It's not anyone's job to assess their own limitations. Leave that to others to sort out after the fact.

If you approach film-making thinking, "I better play it safe. I'm no Kubrick." You've pretty much capped your own potential.

Modifié par SmokePants, 16 mars 2012 - 04:58 .

[Billabong2011]

Eternalsteelfan, you win the internet. Bravo!

[Rain Bringer6]

Great way to focus on the issues with the ending from a professional standpoint. Personally, I could see the instant mistake they made of introducing a character in the last five minutes of a trilogy, usually a big no no in any form of creative writing. Many people have said this, but I agree, this should be something that the developers should see.

[Paparob]

SmokePants wrote...

ph0enix66 wrote...

unless you are Stanley Kubric, the Coen Brothers, Terry Gillian, et al, you better be really f***ing careful about breaking rules. Yes, rules can be broken, but it depends on your skill. You can't break a rule just for the sake of breaking a rule.

So, you're saying that Kubrick graduated film school and said, "I'm Stanley ****ing Kubrick! Space baby, *****es!"

No. He took chances, not knowing (or caring) whether they would work. It's not anyone's job to assess their own limitations. Leave that to others to sort out after the fact.

If you approach film-making thinking, "I better play it safe. I'm no Kubrick." You've pretty much capped your own potential.

I agree but its not a good idea to start to experiment with style when trying to do a resolution. Kubrick didn't say "I wanna make the last scene in 2001 a big gun fight because I've always wanted to try action." That movie was surreal from the start and it let you know. Such sudden shifts in tone, style and presentation at the climax are really really bad unless you've firmly established them with foreshadowing. Predestination was never a theme in Mass Effect, the power of free will was the defining theme.

Modifié par Paparob, 16 mars 2012 - 05:06 .

[Meltemph]

SmokePants wrote...

Lurchibald wrote...

The crucible isn't a Deus ex Machina, though i do believe the Guardian or "Starchild" is..

Deus ex Machina is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object

The starchild is exactly that, a contrived and unexpected character who intervenes at the last minute.

No, the being identifies itself as the Catalyst, which was clearly established as a story element very early on. Uniting the Crucible and the Catalyst to end the Reaper invasion is the entire plot. It didn't drop out of the sky; its nature was simply a mystery.

Again, if that "godchild" -- loaded term; he was merely perceived by Sheperd to be in the form of the child that was haunting him -- if that being had allowed Sheperd to beat the reapers, keep the relays, and go hug all his friends, very few would be complaining right now. It's not the "godchild".

Umm... I dont know about anyone else, but I sure as hell would.  People do this with movies and books all the time.  Why do you think video games are the exception to the rule when it comes to needing to make sense?

[thegooseking]

Well, the musings of an Interactive Narrative PhD student disagree. I'll address section B of the OP.

1 - The Catalyst scene isn't a resolution. No, it's not; it's an epilogue. It's not there to resolve things in a narrative sense. It's there to put the things that have already been resolved (which is to say, Shepard's personal journey, which is what the story was about, and not the war) into perspective.

2 - The ending tells us what happens, not shows us what happens. Well, it did, but I disagree that that's a bad thing. The climax and resolution show us what happens, and then the epilogue tells us where what has happened fits in the context of the war. It's very common for epilogues to have this declarative, oratory tone. The reason we have "show, don't tell" is because telling as opposed to showing creates distance from the emotional impact of the action. But it shouldn't be slavishly obeyed: If you want to create perspective, that distance is exactly what you want! This is a pretty common technique: it's why the epilogues of documentaries and biopics (not to mention Dragon Age: Origins) are often text-only, because they are there to create perspective, as a counterpoint to the visceral emotions evoked by the preceding visuals. This is also why the Catalyst appeared so impassive: If the Catalyst had been emotionally invested, the perspective would have been lost.

3 - The ending was ambiguous/unclear. There are some ambiguities in the ending, but crucially these are things that are not material to Shepard's personal journey, which had already been resolved. While the point of the epilogue was to give context and perspective to the story, there is room for interpretation as to what that context is. That's nothing new, but it's especially important in an interactive medium because of the next point.

4 - There was nothing to gain by this ending. The three ending choices were, literally, thesis, antithesis and synthesis: the three components of dialectic. On one level, the Catalyst scene served to underscore the dialectical nature of the trilogy as a whole, a symbolic punctuation mark on the dialogue between game and player. On a more practical level, given that, as I've established, the choice occurred in the epilogue, the point of the scene wasn't to give the player a choice on how to resolve the story (which had already been resolved), but to give the player a choice on how to contextualise it. That's why it was important that it be ambiguous, because, in this trilogy-spanning dialogue, it ultimately empowered the player to have the final say as to what that context was.

5 - The antagonist was The Illusive Man and not the Reapers. This is because the Reapers are a big impersonal threat. Having them be the major antagonist would be emotionally flat due to their "impersonality". The reason the Illusive Man was so important was because he was human, and someone we could relate to, making him a good vehicle for the emotional payload in a way the inscrutible Reapers just wouldn't be. The Reapers weren't the 'true' antagonists, which is why their motivations (such as they are) aren't revealed until the epilogue (though admittedly gamers are used to antagonists with no motivations beyond wanting to kill you). Making the Reapers the antagonists rather than The Illusive Man would have emphasised the setting of the game and diminished the focus on Shepard's personal journey within it.

The most important point here is that the story was about Shepard's personal journey, which ended immediately before the Catalyst scene, which in turn served as an epilogue. It's also worth noting that Shepard's personal journey wasn't about fighting the Reapers directly; it was always, right from the start, about uniting people against the Reapers. The name Shepard and the title Mass Effect are pretty big clues to that, but it was the point of trying to persuade the Council in 1, the loyalty missions in 2, and pretty much all of 3.

The failure of the ending is that people didn't get it. And don't get me wrong, that is a failure with the story, and not with the people who are "understanding it wrong". Storytelling is, of course, about communicating a story, and if one or two people didn't get it, it would be a different matter, but if so many people don't get it, you might not be communicating it adequately.

But I have to say I found the ending perfectly satisfactory, and an important part of a sea change, beginning with Bioshock (well, really beginning with Deus Ex, but that was too far ahead of the curve to be part of the curve), of games finally growing up.

[SmokePants]

What people don't want to hear, but is the God's honest truth, is that a good designer will believe you don't like something, but he won't necessarily accept your given reasons as to why you don't like it.

That's because we're all guilty of post hoc rationalization. We feel a certain way, and then we try to come up with justification. Unfortunately, the vast majority of us aren't good at that and our justifications are absolute garbage. We are usually blind to the hidden truth,

So, it's useful to tell Bioware how you feel, but most of you are wasting your time trying to argue your point. They will take your feedback and draw their own conclusions. That's not them being condescending or dismissive. That's them avoiding a major, major design pitfall. Listening to every spurious bit of reasoning is the surest way to sink a project.

Paparob wrote...

I agree but its not a good idea to start to experiment with style when trying to do a resolution. Kubrick didn't say "I wanna make the last scene in 2001 a big gun fight because I've always wanted to try action." That movie was surreal from the start and it let you know. Such sudden shifts in tone, style and presentation at the climax are really really bad unless you've firmly established them with foreshadowing. Predestination was never a theme in Mass Effect, the power of free will was the defining theme.

Fate is the overarching theme and free will vs pre-destination are the two sides of the coin.

Sheperd is fighting FOR one and AGAINST the other. I don't see how you can argue otherwise. The Reapers are predestined to wipe out advanced civilizations, because those civilizations are predestined to eventually make mistakes that will eliminate all organic life. The Mass Relays are our pre-destined path through the galaxy. It's obviously there as a central theme.

And the Catalyst was strongly foreshadowed. Sheperd's encounter with and recurring nightmare of the child. The uncertain nature of the Crucible. The suggestions that the Reapers were servants of a pattern, which may have a greater intelligence behind it. It's all there. Could they have done more? Perhaps. But at what point have they done too much? Bioware has made the mistake of giving too many hints and spoiling major twists hours before they happen (KOTOR).

Modifié par SmokePants, 16 mars 2012 - 05:54 .

[TheLostGenius]

When you say screen writer, you mean secretly, or famously?

[Paparob]

SmokePants wrote...

What people don't want to hear, but is the God's honest truth, is that a good designer will believe you don't like something, but he won't necessarily accept your given reasons as to why you don't like it.

That's because we're all guilty of post hoc rationalization. We feel a certain way, and then we try to come up with justification. Unfortunately, the vast majority of us aren't good at that and our justifications are absolute garbage. We are usually blind to the hidden truth,

So, it's useful to tell Bioware how you feel, but most of you are wasting your time trying to argue your point. They will take your feedback and draw their own conclusions. That's not them being condescending or dismissive. That's them avoiding a major, major design pitfall.

Paparob wrote...

I agree but its not a good idea to start to experiment with style when trying to do a resolution. Kubrick didn't say "I wanna make the last scene in 2001 a big gun fight because I've always wanted to try action." That movie was surreal from the start and it let you know. Such sudden shifts in tone, style and presentation at the climax are really really bad unless you've firmly established them with foreshadowing. Predestination was never a theme in Mass Effect, the power of free will was the defining theme.

Fate the the overarching theme and free will vs pre-destination are the two sides of the coin.

Sheperd is fighting FOR one and AGAINST the other. I don't see how you can argue otherwise. The Reapers are predestined to wipe out advanced civilizations, because those civilizations are predestined to eventually make mistakes that will eliminate all organic life. The Mass Relays are our pre-destined path through the galaxy. It's obviously there as a central theme.

And the Catalyst was strongly foreshadowed. Sheperd's encounter with and recurring nightmare of the child. The uncertain nature of the Crucible. The suggestions that the Reapers were servants of a pattern, which may have a greater intelligence behind it. It's all there. Could they have done more? Perhaps. But at what point have they done too much? Bioware has made the mistake of giving too many hints and spoiling major twists hours before they happen (KOTOR).

Surrealist imagery was never used in the other two games. Shepard didn't have some weird dream in Mass Effect 1 where he swam in the ocean after the squad member that died. We didn't get a symbolic fetus scene when Shepard was being rebuilt in the begining of Mass Effect 2. The end of a trilogy should stick to the key elements of the previous installments and bring them to a resolution.

I do admit predestination was involved but it was set up as antagonistic, opposing Shepard and by extension the player's free will. Shepard accepting the predestination argument put forth doesn't make a lot of sense, as they have refused them strongly before. There is no moment where overtly Shepard decides "Screw it, I'll do whatever this guy says, I don't care anymore, I just need to save the galaxy." The Reaper's cycle of predestination was defeated but only because Shepard submitted to the Catalyst's predefined choices.

Edit: I can respect the fact you have an opinion but I don't really agree with it. Personally I could have ignored this stuff if there was a good epilogue.

Edit 2: I realize you could say the visions from the beacons were surrealists, but they were mysteries to be explored and that were ultimately defined. 

Modifié par Paparob, 16 mars 2012 - 06:11 .

[TheLostGenius]

The lack of a resolution in the face of pragmatic evils and mass holocausts is perfect, tonally. Who cares if everyone we cares about dies when the theme and tone end on such a powerful note.

[turian_rage]

Very spot-on. I didn't mind the Illusive man being focused on in that final confrontation, but there couldn't have been a more intelligent, thought out reasoning to why the ultimate conclusion ended up failing. A+

[ThePasserby]

thegooseking wrote...

Well, the musings of an Interactive Narrative PhD student disagree. I'll address section B of the OP.

1 - The Catalyst scene isn't a resolution. No, it's not; it's an epilogue. It's not there to resolve things in a narrative sense. It's there to put the things that have already been resolved (which is to say, Shepard's personal journey, which is what the story was about, and not the war) into perspective.

If, as you claim, the Catalyst scene is an epilogue and not the ending, then where is the ending? Where is the resolution? Right before that scene, Shepard was informed that the Crucible wasn't working. Are you saying that that is the ending?

2 - The ending tells us what happens, not shows us what happens. Well, it did, but I disagree that that's a bad thing. The climax and resolution show us what happens, and then the epilogue tells us where what has happened fits in the context of the war. It's very common for epilogues to have this declarative, oratory tone. The reason we have "show, don't tell" is because telling as opposed to showing creates distance from the emotional impact of the action. But it shouldn't be slavishly obeyed: If you want to create perspective, that distance is exactly what you want! This is a pretty common technique: it's why the epilogues of documentaries and biopics (not to mention Dragon Age: Origins) are often text-only, because they are there to create perspective, as a counterpoint to the visceral emotions evoked by the preceding visuals. This is also why the Catalyst appeared so impassive: If the Catalyst had been emotionally invested, the perspective would have been lost.

You used DA:O as an example, so let's go with that. It used text to declare what happened as a result of your actions, as well as the fate of your companions. Do we have that in ME3? No. We have the Catalyst giving sparse descriptions of what the three choices are, leading not to better prespective through distance, but plain insufficient information to make choice. Or even why there are only these three choices.

3 - The ending was ambiguous/unclear. There are some ambiguities in the ending, but crucially these are things that are not material to Shepard's personal journey, which had already been resolved. While the point of the epilogue was to give context and perspective to the story, there is room for interpretation as to what that context is. That's nothing new, but it's especially important in an interactive medium because of the next point.

I strongly disagree that Shepard's journey was resolved by the point where Hackett informed him that the Crucible was not working. Your opinions are based entirely on the belief that Shepard's journey was over as he lay there beside Anderson. You won't get a lot of support on this.

4 - There was nothing to gain by this ending. The three ending choices were, literally, thesis, antithesis and synthesis: the three components of dialectic. On one level, the Catalyst scene served to underscore the dialectical nature of the trilogy as a whole, a symbolic punctuation mark on the dialogue between game and player. On a more practical level, given that, as I've established, the choice occurred in the epilogue, the point of the scene wasn't to give the player a choice on how to resolve the story (which had already been resolved), but to give the player a choice on how to contextualise it. That's why it was important that it be ambiguous, because, in this trilogy-spanning dialogue, it ultimately empowered the player to have the final say as to what that context was.

I'm sure it must be fun for an Interactive Narative PhD student to analyse this as thesis, antithesis and synthesis and forget about how this actually enhances the players' experience. And again, few would agree that the story is done, Shepard's work completed, when he encountered the Catalyst.

5 - The antagonist was The Illusive Man and not the Reapers. This is because the Reapers are a big impersonal threat. Having them be the major antagonist would be emotionally flat due to their "impersonality". The reason the Illusive Man was so important was because he was human, and someone we could relate to, making him a good vehicle for the emotional payload in a way the inscrutible Reapers just wouldn't be. The Reapers weren't the 'true' antagonists, which is why their motivations (such as they are) aren't revealed until the epilogue (though admittedly gamers are used to antagonists with no motivations beyond wanting to kill you). Making the Reapers the antagonists rather than The Illusive Man would have emphasised the setting of the game and diminished the focus on Shepard's personal journey within it.

Harbinger was the antagonist in ME2. He certainly wasn't an impersonal threat. In fact, he was pretty focused on Shepard.

The most important point here is that the story was about Shepard's personal journey, which ended immediately before the Catalyst scene, which in turn served as an epilogue. It's also worth noting that Shepard's personal journey wasn't about fighting the Reapers directly; it was always, right from the start, about uniting people against the Reapers. The name Shepard and the title Mass Effect are pretty big clues to that, but it was the point of trying to persuade the Council in 1, the loyalty missions in 2, and pretty much all of 3.

You seem to accept the bolded part as if it is obvious and need not be argued for. Once again, strenuously dsagree.

The failure of the ending is that people didn't get it. And don't get me wrong, that is a failure with the story, and not with the people who are "understanding it wrong". Storytelling is, of course, about communicating a story, and if one or two people didn't get it, it would be a different matter, but if so many people don't get it, you might not be communicating it adequately.

I'm quite sure that I won't like it even if the intent of the ending, the way you envision it, is better communicated.

But I have to say I found the ending perfectly satisfactory, and an important part of a sea change, beginning with Bioshock (well, really beginning with Deus Ex, but that was too far ahead of the curve to be part of the curve), of games finally growing up.

Now we see what this is all about. So this is yet another form of "these multitudes of players simply don't see the art/maturity/sophistication of the story".

Modifié par ThePasserby, 16 mars 2012 - 06:32 .

[Positronics]

SmokePants wrote...
No, the being identifies itself as the Catalyst, which was clearly established as a story element very early on. Uniting the Crucible and the Catalyst to end the Reaper invasion is the entire plot. It didn't drop out of the sky; its nature was simply a mystery.
Again, if that "godchild" -- loaded term; he was merely perceived by Sheperd to be in the form of the child that was haunting him -- if that being had allowed Sheperd to beat the reapers, keep the relays, and go hug all his friends, very few would be complaining right now. It's not the "godchild".

This.

thegooseking wrote...
Well, the musings of an Interactive Narrative PhD student disagree. I'll address section B of the OP.
1 - The Catalyst scene isn't a resolution. No, it's not; it's an epilogue. It's not there to resolve things in a narrative sense. It's there to put the things that have already been resolved (which is to say, Shepard's personal journey, which is what the story was about, and not the war) into perspective.
2 - The ending tells us what happens, not shows us what happens. Well, it did, but I disagree that that's a bad thing. The climax and resolution show us what happens, and then the epilogue tells us where what has happened fits in the context of the war. It's very common for epilogues to have this declarative, oratory tone. The reason we have "show, don't tell" is because telling as opposed to showing creates distance from the emotional impact of the action. But it shouldn't be slavishly obeyed: If you want to create perspective, that distance is exactly what you want! This is a pretty common technique: it's why the epilogues of documentaries and biopics (not to mention Dragon Age: Origins) are often text-only, because they are there to create perspective, as a counterpoint to the visceral emotions evoked by the preceding visuals. This is also why the Catalyst appeared so impassive: If the Catalyst had been emotionally invested, the perspective would have been lost.
3 - The ending was ambiguous/unclear. There are some ambiguities in the ending, but crucially these are things that are not material to Shepard's personal journey, which had already been resolved. While the point of the epilogue was to give context and perspective to the story, there is room for interpretation as to what that context is. That's nothing new, but it's especially important in an interactive medium because of the next point.
4 - There was nothing to gain by this ending. The three ending choices were, literally, thesis, antithesis and synthesis: the three components of dialectic. On one level, the Catalyst scene served to underscore the dialectical nature of the trilogy as a whole, a symbolic punctuation mark on the dialogue between game and player. On a more practical level, given that, as I've established, the choice occurred in the epilogue, the point of the scene wasn't to give the player a choice on how to resolve the story (which had already been resolved), but to give the player a choice on how to contextualise it. That's why it was important that it be ambiguous, because, in this trilogy-spanning dialogue, it ultimately empowered the player to have the final say as to what that context was.
5 - The antagonist was The Illusive Man and not the Reapers. This is because the Reapers are a big impersonal threat. Having them be the major antagonist would be emotionally flat due to their "impersonality". The reason the Illusive Man was so important was because he was human, and someone we could relate to, making him a good vehicle for the emotional payload in a way the inscrutible Reapers just wouldn't be. The Reapers weren't the 'true' antagonists, which is why their motivations (such as they are) aren't revealed until the epilogue (though admittedly gamers are used to antagonists with no motivations beyond wanting to kill you). Making the Reapers the antagonists rather than The Illusive Man would have emphasised the setting of the game and diminished the focus on Shepard's personal journey within it.
The most important point here is that the story was about Shepard's personal journey, which ended immediately before the Catalyst scene, which in turn served as an epilogue. It's also worth noting that Shepard's personal journey wasn't about fighting the Reapers directly; it was always, right from the start, about uniting people against the Reapers. The name Shepard and the title Mass Effect are pretty big clues to that, but it was the point of trying to persuade the Council in 1, the loyalty missions in 2, and pretty much all of 3.
The failure of the ending is that people didn't get it. And don't get me wrong, that is a failure with the story, and not with the people who are "understanding it wrong". Storytelling is, of course, about communicating a story, and if one or two people didn't get it, it would be a different matter, but if so many people don't get it, you might not be communicating it adequately.
But I have to say I found the ending perfectly satisfactory, and an important part of a sea change, beginning with Bioshock (well, really beginning with Deus Ex, but that was too far ahead of the curve to be part of the curve), of games finally growing up.

And this.
http://www.thegaming...ine-so-shut-up/
But most especially, that link.

[SmokePants]

Paparob wrote...

Surrealist imagery was never used in the other two games. Shepard didn't have some weird dream in Mass Effect 1 where he swam in the ocean after the squad member that died. We didn't get a symbolic fetus scene when Shepard was being rebuilt in the begining of Mass Effect 2. The end of a trilogy should stick to the key elements of the previous installments and bring them to a resolution.

Clearly, they sacrificed some symmetry to better present Sheperd as a character that measures up to the characters around him. It's the same reason that they change gameplay, music, and graphics from game to game. There are things they aren't happy with and problems they try to address.

The notion of a trilogy is a contrivance, anyway. Preserving symmetry at all costs is counterproductive.

I do admit predestination was involved but it was set up as antagonistic, opposing Shepard and by extension the player's free will. Shepard accepting the predestination argument put forth doesn't make a lot of sense, as they have refused them strongly before. There is no moment where overtly Shepard decides "Screw it, I'll do whatever this guy says, I don't care anymore, I just need to save the galaxy." The Reaper's cycle of predestination was defeated but only because Shepard submitted to the Catalyst's predefined choices.

So, when Sheperd had to pick between Ashley and Kaiden, it was out of character for him to accept that one of them had to die? Sheperd has always had to make hard choices. At the end of ME2, you either had to destroy the Collector base or turn it over to an organization that is comically famous for getting in over its head and screwing the pooch. Shouldn't the "never say die" Sheperd have found a way to slip the base to the Alliance?

Sheperd was about to keel over and die. How big of an idiot would he have to be at that point to risk the fate of his civilization when an immediate solution was within his grasp?

As far as "preferred" options of the entity --  if the entity had a preference, why didn't he simply present Sheperd with his most preferred option, instead of allowing him to choose his "Top Three"? I have no reason to believe the entity was withholding other choices. I mean, he allows you to destroy him! That, to me, is a guy who doesn't give a damn!

TheLostGenius wrote...

The lack of a resolution in the
face of pragmatic evils and mass holocausts is perfect, tonally. Who
cares if everyone we cares about dies when the theme and tone end on
such a powerful note.

You seem to be under the (understandable) impression that Mass Relay destruction = bye bye solar system.

That is not necessarily the case. The mode of destruction of the Alpha Relay was different and therefore the results may be different. The energy wave that hit the Earth seemed pretty harmless and the relays may have discharged that same energy.

I'm sure this wasn't a holocaust. Unless you count the people that were stranded in places where they couldn't eat the food.

That was my biggest problem with the ending Normandy crash. Either that planet has food for Joker and Liara or it has food for Tali and Garrus. Somebody is starving to death.

Modifié par SmokePants, 16 mars 2012 - 06:55 .

[Promchek]

exactly, conventional story. I have full expecting conventional ending and i was ok with what. The whole story moved me emotionally to the breaking point.... and left me with no emotional satisfaction.

This is the reason people fill so tired/betrayed in the end. Not many (if any at all) expected to find a existentialistic "there is no spoon" theme at the end.

[Necroscope]

Good job OP, thanks!

[Wowlock]

I was able to read the most of it but since I couldn't sleep the whole day, I will read it carefully after some sleep.

And this is an Art review, from what I read. Those who claim the ending is too ''deep '' for us common folk to understand....just point them to this thread.

[Paparob]

SmokePants wrote...
snip

A couple things maybe I'm not making clear. First off it Shepard still accepted the Catalyst's three choices without trying to find a fourth. It was "OK you can do one of these three things and we're not going to debate why only these three." There is no debate about that fact, it just is.The Cataylst may or may not have prefered a certain course of action but the ultimately decided they were the only three possible ones. Paragon Shep would never accept that the means justify the ends and Renegade Shep would in the least ask "Give me a reason not to have the citadel blown up right now." That only leaves ground for a more neutral shep, which maybe is the ideal Shepard but is not the one most enjoy. The real question is "Why would Shepard be willing to trust the entity control his genocidal enemy?" There is no moment that establishs Shepard is willing to abandon their principals. Battered? Yes. Dying? Possibly. Broken? No, not really. Even a Renegade Shepard has principals as they are trying to save lives albeit in ant-hero manner. We never have a definiting moment where its 100% everything Shepard is has been broken.

For the Collector Base the whole point of blowing it up was keeping anyone from having it not just TIM. If you take that route its heavily implied because the base is far too dangerous for anyone to have. The death on Virimire is clearly explained, you've only got time to save one person, that is made clear. The possibility of a third choice save leaving both of them to die is precluded by that explained fact. I understand why I can't save them both. 

It is not explained why there can be only three possible choices at the end. Its very vague and doesn't go beyond the theory that sythetics will rise up, reach a state far beyond that of their creators, destroy them and then move on to destroy all organic life in the galaxy. Did this ever really happen? There are indications that synthetic vs orangic wars tend to happen each cycle, but no firm proof that this is an inescapable truth. You can get the Geth and Quarians to come back together and you can get EDI and Joker to fall in love. Things could change but it proves there is hope if 300 years of animosity can be put aside and ultimately the distinction between synthetic/organic is irrelevant. Knowing the nature of the cycle provides a chance to break it beyond the possible choices given as it gives hope and a chance to avoid the problems that has pleagued the galaxy for so long.

Modifié par Paparob, 16 mars 2012 - 08:31 .