350 réponses à ce sujet

[ninjaman001]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

It would take decades for the Quarians to get back to their system. Same as the Turians. Without fuel. Or food.

Besides that food can be grown on, you know, Live ships and the equivalents, fuel still exists across the galaxy: colonies not touched, and the ability to fabricate processors to handle it that you could take with you.

It might be a decades long journey that might require months or even years to prepare for, but no one says they have to leave immediately. And that, of course, ignores that the species already exist back home. We're not even talking about 'and the entire species picks up and leaves': we're talking 'and the soldiers finally arrive home.' And most species didn't even give the Alliance everything they had.


Really, here's all that's required to justify a species's military getting back home: the ability to re-establish fuel processing in the vicinity of Sol, and a basis for being able to provide food. Food not already carried in can be grown on ships, or found from nearby colony worlds. Fuel processing can be jusfied by the Crucible fleet using its engineering resources to re-tap Sol's planets. The Quarians definitely have the ability to feed Dextros, while both Earth (from food stores and gradual re-development) and the established local garden worlds can feed the regulars.


Once that inital preparation is established, it's just 'the big journey.' It becomes the responsibility to prove it can't happen to reject it as a literary device.

I love how you had to make many, many assumptions for this whole theory to work.

That colonies exist? That's known. That FTL exists? That's known. That the Crucible has engineering assets? That's known. That ships can grow food? That's known.

What really needs to be established is why these knowns can't work.

In dark-space there is no where to discharge your drive core.

[kzao88]

sAxMoNkI wrote...

QuarianHIV wrote...

All we have to do now is wait for some BW drone like Eternal5 show up and call the review crap.

Ease up, no need to call people out. They're allowed to have a different opinion.

+1

[Dean_the_Young]

ninjaman001 wrote...

Doesn't matter if FTL still exists, if they travel for too far(like farther than just local clusters of star systems) they need somewhere with a high gravity well to discharge their drive cores. Which as we know, in dark space between star clusters it's nearly impossible to find a "rogue"(ancient planets that have escaped or been ejected from a  star system) planet large enough or to even find a planet in the first place.

Star clusters aren't big islands of stars with huge oceans inbetween. The galaxy is continuous: clusters were defined by the Relays, but nothing in the lore ever established that you couldn't fly slowly from one cluster to the next.

[Dean_the_Young]

ninjaman001 wrote...

In dark-space there is no where to discharge your drive core.

Which is why you fly to the next solar system. You don't need to discharge constantly.

And, as the Reapers prove, you can actually make systems that don't need to dicharge as well.

[Dean_the_Young]

In Exile wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The depiction of the Terminus, Paragon/Renegade consistency, carry-over setup and execution, plot-focus, character interaction, Choices and Consequences, differentiation between Paragon and Renegade Councils, the handling of Cerberus in terms of history/ability/nature, raised and dropped plot threads, and a number of remembered gameplay issues (the most famous being vehicals and resource gathering).

I see I need to define what thematic means.

thematic [θɪˈmætɪk]adj1. of, relating to, or consisting of a theme or themes
And a theme is:

2. a unifying or dominant idea, motif, etc., as in a work of art.

So, no, these don't speak to unifying and dominant ideas. A theme would be something like, I don't know... "the created always rise up against their creators" and "conflict between synethic and organic life is inevitable".

So, no, listing a long series of flaws with ME the games does not amount to listing a criticism of the theme of the game.

If you deny Paragon/Renegade, the nature of the plot, and key plot actors are thematic issues, you're so selective the term is meaningless. And irrelevant to what I was addressing.

[PrinceLionheart]

Nexis7 wrote...

>20+ hour game
>last 5-10mins are bad
>2.5/5

stay classy

They were reviewing based of the narrative, not just the gameplay. And yeah, a horrible anti-climatic ending can kill a story.

[Zing Freelancer]

Remember, remember the failed ending of Mass Effect's plot.

[Sentr0]

great article!

[Chromie]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

ninjaman001 wrote...

In dark-space there is no where to discharge your drive core.

Which is why you fly to the next solar system. You don't need to discharge constantly.

And, as the Reapers prove, you can actually make systems that don't need to dicharge as well.

Yes because cloning Reaper tech is viable right? 

[Dean_the_Young]

Skelter192 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

ninjaman001 wrote...

In dark-space there is no where to discharge your drive core.

Which is why you fly to the next solar system. You don't need to discharge constantly.

And, as the Reapers prove, you can actually make systems that don't need to dicharge as well.

Yes because cloning Reaper tech is viable right? 

It worked with Thanixes, com-byous, and EDI.

The Crucible affects the existing technology. It never claims or suggests that the technology is unusable forever.

[Tovanus]

Great article. I especially like the point about critics failing to take the ending into account. That's not just a problem with game critics. The same thing happened with things like BSG critics and Lost critics (that is, publications that actually scored the things).

[ChristianTh]

Well, that review hurts. It hurts everybody involved in that ending.
But this review had good points. If you fail in the beginning, the middle or the end. The result is a failure. But when you fail later in a story it hurts your consument more and he will be angry about the lost time if you fail to hard. This happend here. Sad for BW, but the time for PR-Damagecontroll gets to an end.
They have 2 options.
Announce and deliver or loose a lot of fans and supporters.
But its up to them, all we can do is remind them, and ignore their PR-damagecontroll

[Deaddude56]

I know the ending was awful, but that doesn't justify THAT low of a score because of it. Knock off half a point, sure, but a 2.5?! The rest of the game was essentially a masterpiece!

[Caz Neerg]

What most of these arguments over the consequences come down to is "lots of speculation." Which would be fine at the end of the first or second entry in a trilogy, or at the end of a third if they had decided it wasn't going to stop at being a trilogy. At the end of what is supposed to be the final chapter of this particular story, it is just sloppy hackery. Defenders of the ending shouldn't be using the "it's art" defense, because as art the ending of ME3 is a substantially greater failure than any of it's flaws as a game.

[RedShft]

Despite the fact I don't like the ending. This isn't FAIR.

99% of the game is amazing and very well written. This website is absolute rubbish.

[2484Stryker]

So I take it that this California Literary Review is taken quite serious in the arts/gaming circle?

Good read though. Agree with everything that was written.

[AwesomeDudex64]

 Oh my God yes. This is the review I've been waiting for since I finished the game! Finally, someone who considers the ending crucial to the narrative.

[Fulgrim88]

I totally adore the way it is written from a fan perspective.

"Since Garrus couldn’t get any more awesome than he was, he remains thankfully unchanged. "B)

"Turian Batman"....cracked me up

"...now, before we get to the amply foreshadowed Elcor in the room.."

Modifié par Fulgrim88, 18 mars 2012 - 06:38 .

[Arl Raylen]

EXACTLY. I especially like how they called out how the Reapers were made to look like mindless tools at the end. That pissed me off almost as much as the color choices.

[AlexXIV]

I am Commander Shepard and this is my favorite thread on the BSN.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 18 mars 2012 - 06:38 .

[KristinCousland]

dreaming_raithe wrote...

Yep, from a literary standpoint, it's absolutely atrocious. Glad to see others picking up on that. I think the disconnect with the themes of the rest of the games is really my biggest problem at this point.

I just finished the game and it was this total disconnect between the ending and the major running themes of the trilogy that struck me as well.  Frankly, I cannot believe that it was not done on purpose and that destroy was the only proper choice - rejecting the entire argument of the starchild.  I even tried to fire a magazine into starchild's head before floating over to choose destroy. 

Colour me surprised if Bioware doesn't have something up their sleeve.



As it is I was happy to choose destroy and believe starchild/Harbinger was lying which incidently was confirmed by Shepard waking up in the rubble...

I guess having read about the indoctrination theory before actually getting to ending myself coloured my perception though. 

Modifié par KristinCousland, 18 mars 2012 - 07:16 .

[RedShft]

2484Stryker wrote...

So I take it that this California Literary Review is taken quite serious in the arts/gaming circle?

Good read though. Agree with everything that was written.

This review is a great example of why gaming journalism is bull****. Despite the fact it's well written, it's still bull****. A game does not deserve a 2.5/5 because 10 minutes are sub-par. 

[Savber100]

suntzuxi wrote...

wow, in the meantime they gave Dragon Age 2 a 4/5. LoL

...

And suddenly all credibility was lost. 

[AlexXIV]

RedShft wrote...

Despite the fact I don't like the ending. This isn't FAIR.

99% of the game is amazing and very well written. This website is absolute rubbish.

Your opinion.