1057 réponses à ce sujet

[Tritium315]

Subject M wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

Subject M wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

Subject M wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

Sh0dan wrote...

Getting an "unwanted and horrible" ending because of one small decision that you have made in ME1 is of course not something we want, but that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to a narrative that gives the player a sense of agency and being able to be part of a fictive community that makes a significant and satisfying difference in the outcome of that narrative.
Role-playing games rely on the notion that the player has some type of agency be it based on action or pre-determined choice. The point is that the gaming experience should reflect the choices and wishes of the player in a satisfying way by lining up the narrative points and choices in a way you as a player actively influence them to line up within the story. The catalyst and the ending does not line up well at all, and that is why people are upset and why it is bad from a narrative and rpg point of view.

The final choice of Mass Effect 3 is on a completely new level compared to all your other choices. Letting some scientist live his negligible life shouldn't have an impact on defeating the Reapers. Let's face it: even the Genophage and Quarian conflict are minor issues compared to the Reaper threat.
Legion and Tali are best friends now. Does it matter? The Reapers cannot be beaten conventionally, therefore the additional military support isn't a big deal.
The triviality of all these decisions is actually pretty consistent with the concept of the Reapers. The destruction of all advanced races is inevitable, the cycle cannot be broken and there's no way to beat the reapers in a classical war. Only a Deus Ex Machina - the Catalyst -  can speed up and end the story without breaking all lore rules set up by ME 1&2.

All this hate on the "space brat",  "space child" and all his other nicknames is the result of having to crush the player's expectations in the end. A few players even demand fighting and beating the Reapers conventionally. It's obvious here, that Bioware overwhelmed (intellectually) a part of its fanbase.
The public drama and typical internet herd behaviour did the rest.

Why can't the Reapers be beat conventionally?

Simply saying they can't doesn't make it so. This is a fictional story and anything, within reason, is possible, and if a Diablos Ex Machina in the 11th hour is within reason then so should beating the Reapers conventionally. To say the current ending is the only way they can tie up the trilogy without "breaking the lore" is assinine as the current ending manages to break not only the lore but the plot, all sense of immersion, and basic concepts of science (a new DNA, really?). The ending is nothing more than bad writing, period.

I think its quite clear that the reapers can not be beaten conventionally. Its sated many times in the game and its not their narrative function.

Because the ending of a game can't invalidate previously stated information right? Like how the entire first game was about Sovereign not being able to activate the citadel when, oh wait, the citadel was the king of the reapers, so why did he even need to hang around and activate it. Something like that would never happen.

Or how about how the original rachni wars (1000+ years ago) was Sovereign's first attempt at getting at the citadel, and when that failed he schemed for god knows how long, until mass effect 1. And when that plan failed the reapers tried using the collectors, and when THAT plan failed they just rolled in conventionally over the course of what, a few months? No, a game would never go against what has been previously stated, that'd be unheard of.

You can't defend the ending by saying other endings would go against one aspect of the lore/narrative when the ending you're defending butchers several others. Fact of the matter is conventionally beating the Reapers makes a hell of a lot more sense than what we got, especially since the entire third game has everyone (in particular Javik) saying how this cycle is special and how we are more prepared than ever for the Reaper invasion and how we might actually stand a chance.

As for narrative function, that's the same cop out as "artistic integrity." The Reaper's original "narrative function" was to be unknown massacre machines that killed simply because; no explanation required. They were space Cthulhu's; robotic eldritch abominations that simply existed to end lives, and it was our mission to find some way to defeat them. Bioware butchered that "narrative function" by giving them a purpose, and a ****ty one that's out of left field at that. If Sovereign, in your very first conversation way back in ME1, had stated things like "you don't understand Shepard, we are here to preserve you, protect you from your own demise." then you'd have a point. Unfortunately for your argument, what Sovereign actually said was "We are eternal. The pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything." and "Your words are as empty as your future. I am the Vanguard of your destruction." Yea, that really sounds like someone trying to save us from ourselves.

We are talking about pretty basic narrative functions here in the form of thematics.

Yes its true that it is might seem a bit strange that Sovereign  was trying to activate the citadel in ME1 and open the gate to the Reaper Armada. But it is possible to imagine that Sovereign was actually also atempting to activate the catalyst who is inactive between cycles.

And if the Reapers could be defeated conventinally it would be a cheezy Jerry Bruckheimer-type production.
Otherwise, the cosmic elder space gods can not be defeated by shooting stuff at them. The reapers might view organics in their current form as useless, its only when harvested that they can become something great and meaningful.

Did you gloss over the entire fourth paragraph or is your method of debate to repeat the same thing over and over and hope it sounds intelligent at some point?

As to your points: Conventional defeat would far less cheesy than some godkid pulling a deus ex machina (hell, diablous ex machina since all the choices he offers suck) at the 11th hour of the game. Ridiculous, nonsensical twists have become so cliche as to be expected at this point, there's nothing special about them.

Additionally, the Reapers stopped being cosmic elder space gods when their motivations were explained as trying to preserve organics and not simply kill everything.

Edit: Also if Sovereign can remain awake between cycles, why can't the king of the reapers? Wouldn't it be easier to monitor galacitc civilization from the seat of its power?

Don't be like that. There is no reason to take that tone.

I consider conventional victory thematically childish and overly self-glorifying (its an important lesson that you can not always win by martial might), as is the godchilds reasoning. I dont see any of them as compatible with the overall tone of the story. They both cheapen the Reapers.  I do think that it would be fitting to have the option to try to fight then conventionally but that it would always fail, because attacking them heads on is not attacking their weak spot, adressng their reason for harvesting and changing the conditions that motivates them in the first place is, however. As is possible also attacking the reapers through the catalyst (if the catalyst is somehow connected to and controlling the Reapers).Its all in my thread that I mentioned earlier.

Its true that the Reaper stopped being driven my unknown motivation, but it does not compromise them as a cosmic force just because they depart from the Lovecraftan horror-entities

The catalyst must have been inactive or otherwise not present on the citadel for the story to make any sense. That is why. The fact that the Reapers are inactive between the cycles at least makes that a possibility.

How are you gonna complain about the tone of my post when in the very next senteance you accuse people who disagree with you of being childish?

I get that you probably just took a course in literature or film studies or some other ridiculous crap they offer in liberal arts colleges these days and are trying to apply that to the real world, but there's a reason why how well films are reviewed has very little correlation to how well they do in the box office, most "connoisseurs" of film don't know **** about what real people actually like. The fact you throw phrases like "thematically childish and overly self-gratifying" around proves that you're probably completely out of touch with what most of humanity actually enjoys. People like happy endings, they like seeing the hero triumph in the end, childish doesn't have **** to do with it; it's how people's brains work. And as for it being a bad lesson? This is a fantasy, not some after school special on pbs.

As for the Reapers, they were cheaped more by being turned into confused saviors lead by a god child than they would ever have been if they were allowed to be defeated conventionally. There are literally dozens of other ways Bioware could have gone with the ending that wouldn't have ended up neutering the Reapers. Hell, they could have had ME3 focus around some ancient technology from way back when (the first cycle, whatever) that would have given organics the military might to defeat the Reapers. 

Finally, the reason for Sovereign's existance is not because the Catalyst was asleep, it's because he didn't exist. To imply that they planned this ending in advance is to wear an impressively large pair of blinders, especially since we know for a fact they didn't plan this ending in advance. The ending for the third game completely invalidated the first game, there's no way around that. Sure you can sorta kinda maybe justify it with some round about bull****, but that's all it will be. Saying that the Catalyst was asleep in the first game because that's the only way to reconcile Sovereign's and the Catalyst's existences is assinine. The reality is this is nothing more than awful writing, and to imply it's something else is just disingenuous.

[lillitheris]

JShepppp wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

If you want to argue that it's stupid, but we still have to deal with it because it is what it is and theoretically someone might actually have been stupid enough to come up with this ‘solution’, that's fine.

Well it doesn't know of any other way to stop the singularity which it sees as an inevitable product of evolution. Pretty much the idea is to cut down the trees before they grow too tall but to not cut down the forest (not sure if the analogy holds but yeah).

That's perfectly fine. My only point here is that the Catalyst's logic doesn't make sense, but that doesn't mean it's not allowed to use that logic.

Or, to use another analogy, putting a piece of paper in a wall socket and then trying to pull it out with your teeth is bad. A kid doesn't know this, so they might try to get the paper out with their teeth

At that point everything but the fact that the kid's zapped their tongue is irrelevant.

Singularity isn't equated with invincibility outright but is equated with unquestionable and unchanging superiority. Organics would be at the complete mercy of the synthetics and could do nothing about it. The Catalyst thinks that war is inevitable after enough time and that organics should never be at the absolute mercy of synthetics. 

Having a vastly superior intellect would give a decisive edge in conflict. We haven't seen any cases yet of this in ME; the Reapers' edge is nothing compared to synthetics beyond the singularity.

Right. Superiority is one thing. Even a non-singularity AI could be vastly superior to an organic. But probably not a whole lot of organics, or maybe a few lesser AIs. So, unless the singularity entity is immediately overwhelmingly powerful at a galactic scale, it can be defeated.

Also, the reapers – certainly some type of genuine AIs – have been around for millions of years and haven't gotten around to singularity themselves. Their existence is by no means proof that singularity won't happen, but it's a strong suggestion that it won't emerge fast and powerful enough to be able to overpower the entire galaxy. And it is proof that artificial intelligence can exist without developing into singularity.

[Subject M]

JShepppp wrote...

Subject M wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

Fliprot wrote...

If the catalyst loves organics so much, that it will go thorugh so much convoluted trouble to "preserve" us. Why doesnt it just kill the synthetics if they happen to be about to destroy organics? Why doesnt it let history run its course until him, and the reapers are needed to come save our asses? It's been pretty much proven that the reapers can practically control geth at will, so...

I know my OP was long so you may not have read, but in Part III of the post, I tried to address this problem.

JShepppp wrote...

Repeatedly killing synthetics can be problematic because (a) organics, unimpeded, may eventually create synthetics or AIs that are more powerful than the Reapers; and ( because it does not stop organics from reaching the technological singularity, which the Catalyst views to be the problem. Once the singularity is reached, there is no going back for organics. Also, this would not be as "helpful" to new organic life as [Reaping and giving a clean "galactic" slate] would be.

Basically, self-evolving synthetics can be created that can overpower the Reapers. 

So can organics. If the Reapers are afraid to be outgunned they should have involved themselves more directly in the development of the galaxy and keep order, or simply stay away and monitor the savages from afar and strike against the rising agressive threat itself when it grew. They have a huge head start.

"So can organics" - hm, maybe that's why they strike when the singularity seems a little far off. 

Its just comes across as ad-hoc patching a poor narrative.

The Reapers are closer to some kind of super-singularity then anyone else. If they stayed less time in hibernation and more time in developing their abilities no one could stop them.
And they were described as having already reached the singularity (which they have according to some definitions) but behave like really weak AI because our heroes should be able to do space battle with them. Thats a classical problem and design choice in much sci-fi.  So, no, Its not just the ending that has its problems.

But I can see no good story telling reason why the the endings are supposedly the only way to solve the problem of the eventual trouble of machine intelligence. The Reapers are just damn right ineffective in how they spend resources and the ending plot is thematically completely off. Them being plain wrong and just operating on old outdated or incomplete data seems much more likely given how the story have developed. There is no evidence for AIs or artillects by necessity being hostile within the game besides the catalysts ramblings and the existence of reapers and the catalyst shows us that the universe/galaxy can at least develop AIs that are not interested in killing of all organic life.

Modifié par Subject M, 01 mai 2012 - 06:03 .

[Subject M]

Tritium315 wrote...

Subject M wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

Subject M wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

Subject M wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

Sh0dan wrote...

Getting an "unwanted and horrible" ending because of one small decision that you have made in ME1 is of course not something we want, but that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to a narrative that gives the player a sense of agency and being able to be part of a fictive community that makes a significant and satisfying difference in the outcome of that narrative.
Role-playing games rely on the notion that the player has some type of agency be it based on action or pre-determined choice. The point is that the gaming experience should reflect the choices and wishes of the player in a satisfying way by lining up the narrative points and choices in a way you as a player actively influence them to line up within the story. The catalyst and the ending does not line up well at all, and that is why people are upset and why it is bad from a narrative and rpg point of view.

The final choice of Mass Effect 3 is on a completely new level compared to all your other choices. Letting some scientist live his negligible life shouldn't have an impact on defeating the Reapers. Let's face it: even the Genophage and Quarian conflict are minor issues compared to the Reaper threat.
Legion and Tali are best friends now. Does it matter? The Reapers cannot be beaten conventionally, therefore the additional military support isn't a big deal.
The triviality of all these decisions is actually pretty consistent with the concept of the Reapers. The destruction of all advanced races is inevitable, the cycle cannot be broken and there's no way to beat the reapers in a classical war. Only a Deus Ex Machina - the Catalyst -  can speed up and end the story without breaking all lore rules set up by ME 1&2.

All this hate on the "space brat",  "space child" and all his other nicknames is the result of having to crush the player's expectations in the end. A few players even demand fighting and beating the Reapers conventionally. It's obvious here, that Bioware overwhelmed (intellectually) a part of its fanbase.
The public drama and typical internet herd behaviour did the rest.

Why can't the Reapers be beat conventionally?

Simply saying they can't doesn't make it so. This is a fictional story and anything, within reason, is possible, and if a Diablos Ex Machina in the 11th hour is within reason then so should beating the Reapers conventionally. To say the current ending is the only way they can tie up the trilogy without "breaking the lore" is assinine as the current ending manages to break not only the lore but the plot, all sense of immersion, and basic concepts of science (a new DNA, really?). The ending is nothing more than bad writing, period.

I think its quite clear that the reapers can not be beaten conventionally. Its sated many times in the game and its not their narrative function.

Because the ending of a game can't invalidate previously stated information right? Like how the entire first game was about Sovereign not being able to activate the citadel when, oh wait, the citadel was the king of the reapers, so why did he even need to hang around and activate it. Something like that would never happen.

Or how about how the original rachni wars (1000+ years ago) was Sovereign's first attempt at getting at the citadel, and when that failed he schemed for god knows how long, until mass effect 1. And when that plan failed the reapers tried using the collectors, and when THAT plan failed they just rolled in conventionally over the course of what, a few months? No, a game would never go against what has been previously stated, that'd be unheard of.

You can't defend the ending by saying other endings would go against one aspect of the lore/narrative when the ending you're defending butchers several others. Fact of the matter is conventionally beating the Reapers makes a hell of a lot more sense than what we got, especially since the entire third game has everyone (in particular Javik) saying how this cycle is special and how we are more prepared than ever for the Reaper invasion and how we might actually stand a chance.

As for narrative function, that's the same cop out as "artistic integrity." The Reaper's original "narrative function" was to be unknown massacre machines that killed simply because; no explanation required. They were space Cthulhu's; robotic eldritch abominations that simply existed to end lives, and it was our mission to find some way to defeat them. Bioware butchered that "narrative function" by giving them a purpose, and a ****ty one that's out of left field at that. If Sovereign, in your very first conversation way back in ME1, had stated things like "you don't understand Shepard, we are here to preserve you, protect you from your own demise." then you'd have a point. Unfortunately for your argument, what Sovereign actually said was "We are eternal. The pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything." and "Your words are as empty as your future. I am the Vanguard of your destruction." Yea, that really sounds like someone trying to save us from ourselves.

We are talking about pretty basic narrative functions here in the form of thematics.

Yes its true that it is might seem a bit strange that Sovereign  was trying to activate the citadel in ME1 and open the gate to the Reaper Armada. But it is possible to imagine that Sovereign was actually also atempting to activate the catalyst who is inactive between cycles.

And if the Reapers could be defeated conventinally it would be a cheezy Jerry Bruckheimer-type production.
Otherwise, the cosmic elder space gods can not be defeated by shooting stuff at them. The reapers might view organics in their current form as useless, its only when harvested that they can become something great and meaningful.

Did you gloss over the entire fourth paragraph or is your method of debate to repeat the same thing over and over and hope it sounds intelligent at some point?

As to your points: Conventional defeat would far less cheesy than some godkid pulling a deus ex machina (hell, diablous ex machina since all the choices he offers suck) at the 11th hour of the game. Ridiculous, nonsensical twists have become so cliche as to be expected at this point, there's nothing special about them.

Additionally, the Reapers stopped being cosmic elder space gods when their motivations were explained as trying to preserve organics and not simply kill everything.

Edit: Also if Sovereign can remain awake between cycles, why can't the king of the reapers? Wouldn't it be easier to monitor galacitc civilization from the seat of its power?

Don't be like that. There is no reason to take that tone.

I consider conventional victory thematically childish and overly self-glorifying (its an important lesson that you can not always win by martial might), as is the godchilds reasoning. I dont see any of them as compatible with the overall tone of the story. They both cheapen the Reapers.  I do think that it would be fitting to have the option to try to fight then conventionally but that it would always fail, because attacking them heads on is not attacking their weak spot, adressng their reason for harvesting and changing the conditions that motivates them in the first place is, however. As is possible also attacking the reapers through the catalyst (if the catalyst is somehow connected to and controlling the Reapers).Its all in my thread that I mentioned earlier.

Its true that the Reaper stopped being driven my unknown motivation, but it does not compromise them as a cosmic force just because they depart from the Lovecraftan horror-entities

The catalyst must have been inactive or otherwise not present on the citadel for the story to make any sense. That is why. The fact that the Reapers are inactive between the cycles at least makes that a possibility.

How are you gonna complain about the tone of my post when in the very next senteance you accuse people who disagree with you of being childish?

I get that you probably just took a course in literature or film studies or some other ridiculous crap they offer in liberal arts colleges these days and are trying to apply that to the real world, but there's a reason why how well films are reviewed has very little correlation to how well they do in the box office, most "connoisseurs" of film don't know **** about what real people actually like. The fact you throw phrases like "thematically childish and overly self-gratifying" around proves that you're probably completely out of touch with what most of humanity actually enjoys. People like happy endings, they like seeing the hero triumph in the end, childish doesn't have **** to do with it; it's how people's brains work. And as for it being a bad lesson? This is a fantasy, not some after school special on pbs.

As for the Reapers, they were cheaped more by being turned into confused saviors lead by a god child than they would ever have been if they were allowed to be defeated conventionally. There are literally dozens of other ways Bioware could have gone with the ending that wouldn't have ended up neutering the Reapers. Hell, they could have had ME3 focus around some ancient technology from way back when (the first cycle, whatever) that would have given organics the military might to defeat the Reapers. 

Finally, the reason for Sovereign's existance is not because the Catalyst was asleep, it's because he didn't exist. To imply that they planned this ending in advance is to wear an impressively large pair of blinders, especially since we know for a fact they didn't plan this ending in advance. The ending for the third game completely invalidated the first game, there's no way around that. Sure you can sorta kinda maybe justify it with some round about bull****, but that's all it will be. Saying that the Catalyst was asleep in the first game because that's the only way to reconcile Sovereign's and the Catalyst's existences is assinine. The reality is this is nothing more than awful writing, and to imply it's something else is just disingenuous.

No, I said that I thought it was childish, but I misspoke. Lets just say I am not alone in considering it over-used and kitschy as hell. Don't you agree we have had enough stories like that? We are practically drowning in sci-fi stories where Americans or Earthlings repel aliens with the flag in one hand and a assault rifle in the other? Would such a thing really fit into the story? No, it would make the Reapers weak given their history, galactic pretenders, not a horrible overwhelming force pouring out from dark space.

Would it not be much better to have Sword fighting to buy time for Shepard and other special forces to desperatly trying to find an unconventional solution and evacuate civilians to hidden locations? A truly meaningful sacrifice.
Like the battle of the line in B5? Of course it would. No need to take courses in drama to see the truth in that. 
Fighting an vastly intellectually and technologically superior force and counting on winning? No way.

If you ask me, a good story, at least one that wants to stand out and make its mark, should not just confirm the views of the masses who have not yet had time to expand their view beyond that of the latest conformative popcorn flick, but of course it should not be artsy fartsy for the sake of being "artistic" or "dark" or whatever elitist BS we sometimes get. No it should be a story that is made in layers, where those only capable of or wanting to see the surface get theirs in a satisfying way, but those who can or wants to look deeper can get more without being put off by what is at the surface of the story.

But at least I think its safe to say we can agree that Bioware made a mistake in how the changed the Reaper story and wrote ME3

Modifié par Subject M, 01 mai 2012 - 06:33 .

[nicethugbert]

It's hard to view synthetics as more intelligent than organics when they have too many motivations in common with organics beyond the will to exist.

The Geth had the ability to destroy the Quarians but elected not to because they realized that they did not have enough intelligence to calculate the outcome. So, they elected to retreat to where organics would or could not follow, Perseus Veil. That was a smart way to handle their lack of intelligence. Yet, I cannot see why a superior intelligence would not make the same choice.

Humans do not attempt to destroy all the ants in the world, only the ones that get into their homes and fields. So, why should a superior intelligence not be at least that smart?

Why would synthetic life with it's superior intelligence, it's freedom from the need for garden worlds, it's freedom from emotion, complicate it's life with eradicating organics? Why would it follow in the foot steps of inferior intellects burdened by idealogy, ignorant emotions, and bodies?

When The Geth achieved Reaper level intelligence they achieved individuality, true life, free will.  They did not seek revenge against the Quarians. They immediately set about helping them.

But, Shepard is not allowed to make this case to The Catalyst, nor does The Catalyst with it's vast information powers seem to be aware of this event, and I don't know why.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 01 mai 2012 - 07:28 .

[StElmo]

You shouldn't need such a long thread to explain this. Part of good storytelling is that you give the audience hints about that theme throughout the narrative and ensure that it is comprehensively set upon the player without force or lack of visibility.

You can't put ZOMG TECHNOLOGICAL SINGULARITY IS GONNA HAPPEN CHOOSE A B OR C

at the end. It doesn't work that way.

[Tritium315]

**** was getting rather hairy.

Subject M wrote...

No, I said that I thought it was childish, but I misspoke. Lets just say I am not alone in considering it over-used and kitschy as hell. Don't you agree we have had enough stories like hat? We are practically drowning in sci-fi stories where Americans or Earthlings repel aliens with the flag in one hand and a assault rifle in the other? Would such a thing really fit into the story? No, it would make the Reapers weak given their history, galactic pretenders, not a horrible overwhelming force pouring out from dark space.

Would it not be much better to have Sword fighting to buy time for Shepard and other special forces to desperatly trying to find an unconventional solution and evacuate civilians to hidden locations?
Like the battle of the line in B5? Of course it would. No need to take courses in drama to see the truth in that. 
Fighting an vastly intellectually and technologically superior force and counting on winning? No way.

If you ask me, a good story, at least one that wants to stand out and make its mark, should not just confirm the views of the masses who have not yet had time to expand their view beyond that of the latest conformative popcorn flick, but of course it should not be artsy fartsy for the sake of being "artistic" or "dark" or whatever elitist BS we sometimes get. No it should be a story that is made in layers, where those only capable in seeing the surface get theirs in a satisfying way, but those who can and wants to look deeper can get more without being put of by what is at the surface of the story.


But at least I think its safe to say we can agree that Bioware made a mistake in how the changed the Reaper story and wrote ME3

Such a thing would fit into the story a hell of a lot better than what we got. Also, the reason there are so many stories like that is because people like them. Everyone loves a hero triumphing over impossible odds. As for whether it would fit in mass effect? Yes, it absolutely would. Both previous games were about Shepard and a small crew going head to head with a massive force (a literal suicide mission in the second game), and, if the player put enough effort into it, coming out not just on top but unscathed. The hero triumphing despite the odds against him/her is the whole point of mass effect.

What I feel we have too much of is writers trying to be clever and bucking the formula by creating all sorts of nonsensical plots. It's the reason we get bull**** like Lost's endings (and THIS ending). This has become so prevalent that's a cliche; everything needs a convoluted twist or some such bull****. If a writer wants to create this sort of crap then go for it, but do it in the space that's made for it: indie games/films. The indie scene is designed for this niche sort of stuff where anyone who thinks they're the next tolkien can put out something they believe to be clever. But don't put this crap in a AAA franchise that millions of people have invested not just their money but emotions into.

By the way your last paragraph just oozes with that holier than thou attitude of people who apparently just know what people like better than people themselves. "...the masses who have not yet had time to expand their view..." Seriously, how big of a narcissist are you? Maybe, just maybe, the masses did expand their view and they felt convoluted bull**** wasn't for them and they would rather laugh and be happy as a result of their entertainment. There's a reason that Independce Day is such a popular movie; people love that sort of stuff.

And since I know you're gonna go here; I'm not implying that things should be dumbed down. By all means create intelligent plot lines and clever twists; there's nothing wrong with that, but only write that if you know how to do it. If the only way the writer can put in a twist ending is by butchering the first third of the narrative and setting up dozens of plot holes then they probably shouldn't write a twist ending and go with a tried and true staple.

[Subject M]

Tritium315 wrote...

**** was getting rather hairy.

Subject M wrote...

No, I said that I thought it was childish, but I misspoke. Lets just say I am not alone in considering it over-used and kitschy as hell. Don't you agree we have had enough stories like hat? We are practically drowning in sci-fi stories where Americans or Earthlings repel aliens with the flag in one hand and a assault rifle in the other? Would such a thing really fit into the story? No, it would make the Reapers weak given their history, galactic pretenders, not a horrible overwhelming force pouring out from dark space.

Would it not be much better to have Sword fighting to buy time for Shepard and other special forces to desperatly trying to find an unconventional solution and evacuate civilians to hidden locations?
Like the battle of the line in B5? Of course it would. No need to take courses in drama to see the truth in that. 
Fighting an vastly intellectually and technologically superior force and counting on winning? No way.

If you ask me, a good story, at least one that wants to stand out and make its mark, should not just confirm the views of the masses who have not yet had time to expand their view beyond that of the latest conformative popcorn flick, but of course it should not be artsy fartsy for the sake of being "artistic" or "dark" or whatever elitist BS we sometimes get. No it should be a story that is made in layers, where those only capable in seeing the surface get theirs in a satisfying way, but those who can and wants to look deeper can get more without being put of by what is at the surface of the story.


But at least I think its safe to say we can agree that Bioware made a mistake in how the changed the Reaper story and wrote ME3

Such a thing would fit into the story a hell of a lot better than what we got. Also, the reason there are so many stories like that is because people like them. Everyone loves a hero triumphing over impossible odds. As for whether it would fit in mass effect? Yes, it absolutely would. Both previous games were about Shepard and a small crew going head to head with a massive force (a literal suicide mission in the second game), and, if the player put enough effort into it, coming out not just on top but unscathed. The hero triumphing despite the odds against him/her is the whole point of mass effect.

What I feel we have too much of is writers trying to be clever and bucking the formula by creating all sorts of nonsensical plots. It's the reason we get bull**** like Lost's endings (and THIS ending). This has become so prevalent that's a cliche; everything needs a convoluted twist or some such bull****. If a writer wants to create this sort of crap then go for it, but do it in the space that's made for it: indie games/films. The indie scene is designed for this niche sort of stuff where anyone who thinks they're the next tolkien can put out something they believe to be clever. But don't put this crap in a AAA franchise that millions of people have invested not just their money but emotions into.

By the way your last paragraph just oozes with that holier than thou attitude of people who apparently just know what people like better than people themselves. "...the masses who have not yet had time to expand their view..." Seriously, how big of a narcissist are you? Maybe, just maybe, the masses did expand their view and they felt convoluted bull**** wasn't for them and they would rather laugh and be happy as a result of their entertainment. There's a reason that Independce Day is such a popular movie; people love that sort of stuff.

And since I know you're gonna go here; I'm not implying that things should be dumbed down. By all means create intelligent plot lines and clever twists; there's nothing wrong with that, but only write that if you know how to do it. If the only way the writer can put in a twist ending is by butchering the first third of the narrative and setting up dozens of plot holes then they probably shouldn't write a twist ending and go with a tried and true staple.

I am not a narcissist. But I was, and am tired of a lot of things going on right now. I apologize for my tone and whatever unfriendly stuff I have thrown up.

I am just describing how I view and experience the narrative and what my take on the situation is. Its something that comes from working with and studying these things. It does not make me a better person then anyone else, just like a plumber or mathematician  or whatever are not better people then others. But they have a firmer grasp on plumbing and mathematics then the average home-fixer or guy going over this weeks shopping expenses.

It is my experience that I rarely disappoint those I craft stories or games for, or those I help with their narratives. I am not going to hide that or take some relativist "everyone understands this as much as everyone else". But in the end the proof is in the presentation, playing and reception. When what you have crafted is tested. You must know who you make something for, how and why. 

Unfortunately Bioware did not do well with the ending of mass effect.

I have never argued against the fact that most people likes a story where a hero triumphing over impossible odds (especially true when this is a central theme of the story, like in mass effect), but finesse is required if you want to bring as much as possible from a setting and make it interesting to more then just those who love epic battles because they involve huge forces clashing for ultimate victory. Otherwise you get what by many is concidered a shallow repetition of something we have already seen a million times straining for effect when it is completly unnecessary (because you can still have the hero triumphing).

Modifié par Subject M, 01 mai 2012 - 08:26 .

[malhar34]

JShepppp wrote...

marky1607 wrote...

malhar34 wrote...

Very good points being made. I do agree that this ending COULD have been plausible but the way they wrote it and threw it at us was horrible. Lots of questions left all and all but one minor thing. I am pretty sure in ME3 they say that the crucible was built over many cycles with each race adding a little bit to it.

Yes, I can confirm that Javik says that information (that the Crucible wasn't originally Prothean design but every race in each cycle improves the design of Crucible by adding something of their own) in conversation at the end of Horizon mission or in first conversation with Javik after Horizon mission. Of course, for players that don't have From Ashes DLC, they will not have Javik as squadmate and they won't hear that information about the Crucible.

The Thessia VI says that too, so luckily people who didn't pay for Javik and had to learn about him from other sources after playing the game (like me lol) would still get that tidbit. 

Yea I didn't have javik either but now my question comes at if the crucible was created by many races for the purpose of defeating the reapers and then the citadel is the final part in a weapon purposed to defeat the reapers why is that starchild on it? Why is the creater/leader of the reapers on a weapon built to defeat reapers?

[JShepppp]

malhar34 wrote...

Yea I didn't have javik either but now my question comes at if the crucible was created by many races for the purpose of defeating the reapers and then the citadel is the final part in a weapon purposed to defeat the reapers why is that starchild on it? Why is the creater/leader of the reapers on a weapon built to defeat reapers?

My understanding was that they didn't know of Starchild (Protheans/humans - maybe another cycle did, hence control) but just thought that the Citadel was the only thing that could harness the energy of the Crucible and focus/channel it to kill Reapers.

The Catalyst shows up because it turns out it controls the Citadel. Dunno why it helps Shep, but essentially the Crucible has to sidestep the Catalyst's authority ("I can't activate the Crucible" etc). It just seems that the Protheans and the current cycle weren't smart enough or didn't read the footnotes so to speak about the Catalyst actually being a sort of AI/VI.

[Ahms]

[Hawk227]

Tritium315 wrote...

**** was getting rather hairy.

Subject M wrote...

No, I said that I thought it was childish, but I misspoke. Lets just say I am not alone in considering it over-used and kitschy as hell. Don't you agree we have had enough stories like hat? We are practically drowning in sci-fi stories where Americans or Earthlings repel aliens with the flag in one hand and a assault rifle in the other? Would such a thing really fit into the story? No, it would make the Reapers weak given their history, galactic pretenders, not a horrible overwhelming force pouring out from dark space.

Would it not be much better to have Sword fighting to buy time for Shepard and other special forces to desperatly trying to find an unconventional solution and evacuate civilians to hidden locations?
Like the battle of the line in B5? Of course it would. No need to take courses in drama to see the truth in that. 
Fighting an vastly intellectually and technologically superior force and counting on winning? No way.

If you ask me, a good story, at least one that wants to stand out and make its mark, should not just confirm the views of the masses who have not yet had time to expand their view beyond that of the latest conformative popcorn flick, but of course it should not be artsy fartsy for the sake of being "artistic" or "dark" or whatever elitist BS we sometimes get. No it should be a story that is made in layers, where those only capable in seeing the surface get theirs in a satisfying way, but those who can and wants to look deeper can get more without being put of by what is at the surface of the story.


But at least I think its safe to say we can agree that Bioware made a mistake in how the changed the Reaper story and wrote ME3

Such a thing would fit into the story a hell of a lot better than what we got. Also, the reason there are so many stories like that is because people like them. Everyone loves a hero triumphing over impossible odds. As for whether it would fit in mass effect? Yes, it absolutely would. Both previous games were about Shepard and a small crew going head to head with a massive force (a literal suicide mission in the second game), and, if the player put enough effort into it, coming out not just on top but unscathed. The hero triumphing despite the odds against him/her is the whole point of mass effect.

What I feel we have too much of is writers trying to be clever and bucking the formula by creating all sorts of nonsensical plots. It's the reason we get bull**** like Lost's endings (and THIS ending). This has become so prevalent that's a cliche; everything needs a convoluted twist or some such bull****. If a writer wants to create this sort of crap then go for it, but do it in the space that's made for it: indie games/films. The indie scene is designed for this niche sort of stuff where anyone who thinks they're the next tolkien can put out something they believe to be clever. But don't put this crap in a AAA franchise that millions of people have invested not just their money but emotions into.

By the way your last paragraph just oozes with that holier than thou attitude of people who apparently just know what people like better than people themselves. "...the masses who have not yet had time to expand their view..." Seriously, how big of a narcissist are you? Maybe, just maybe, the masses did expand their view and they felt convoluted bull**** wasn't for them and they would rather laugh and be happy as a result of their entertainment. There's a reason that Independce Day is such a popular movie; people love that sort of stuff.

And since I know you're gonna go here; I'm not implying that things should be dumbed down. By all means create intelligent plot lines and clever twists; there's nothing wrong with that, but only write that if you know how to do it. If the only way the writer can put in a twist ending is by butchering the first third of the narrative and setting up dozens of plot holes then they probably shouldn't write a twist ending and go with a tried and true staple.

This thread just got interesting. I agree with both of you, but mostly Tritium. Not that I matter, but anyway...

I don't think it's impossible for the Reapers to be beaten conventionally, much of their advantage has come from a surprise attack that the Protheans from Ilos denied them for this cycle. The Reapers have always been an outrageously difficult villain to beat, but Shepard is uniting the entire Galaxy. I do agree that the "American with a Flag in one hand and an assault rifle in the other winning in impossible odds" thing is overplayed, but that's essentially what this story has been from the outset. Shepard has always been extraordinary. He tracked an elite spectre in a Reaper with a Geth Armada through the galaxy and won(!), preventing the next cycle. He was brought back from the dead. He (and his crew) was the first ship to survive the Omega 4 relay, a band of 12 commandos defeating the entire collector army and destroying the base, and if you were a completionist the team made it out unscathed. He cured the genophage and brokered peace between the Turians and Krogan! He stopped a 300 year old war by yelling. And he amassed the single largest fleet anyone has ever seen. The game has been about accomplishing the impossible from the outset. It may be a tired trope, but it is what it is, and you can't change it at the last second because you don't like it.

The ending was completely out of left field. The catalyst's existence seems to invalidate all of ME1. On little information, without the option to question or interrupt (My shepard headbutted a krogan, but only musters an "I... don't know" to the catalyst, wtf?) the catalyst he must choose between committing genocide on an ally, choosing something the game explicitly tells you is the choice of the indoctrinated, or usurping the will of the entire galaxy in something that sounds a little too much like eugenics for my taste (homogenization in the name of peace). Every preceding choice has been with 2 squadmates giving you the pros and cons, and every choice left Shepard a way to stand by his principles. This choice is his alone, with no alternate perspectives, and requires him to sacrifice both his life and his principles (well, unless he's a crazy sociopathic renegade).

I agree whole heartedly that the conventional victory fits better within the established narrative.

[Kunari801]

WeAreLegionWTF wrote...

When you have to work this hard just to convince yourself (that the ending makes sense) something is wrong. 

Was that what you were trying to say?  

[Tritium315]

Subject M wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

**** was getting rather hairy.

Subject M wrote...

No, I said that I thought it was childish, but I misspoke. Lets just say I am not alone in considering it over-used and kitschy as hell. Don't you agree we have had enough stories like hat? We are practically drowning in sci-fi stories where Americans or Earthlings repel aliens with the flag in one hand and a assault rifle in the other? Would such a thing really fit into the story? No, it would make the Reapers weak given their history, galactic pretenders, not a horrible overwhelming force pouring out from dark space.

Would it not be much better to have Sword fighting to buy time for Shepard and other special forces to desperatly trying to find an unconventional solution and evacuate civilians to hidden locations?
Like the battle of the line in B5? Of course it would. No need to take courses in drama to see the truth in that. 
Fighting an vastly intellectually and technologically superior force and counting on winning? No way.

If you ask me, a good story, at least one that wants to stand out and make its mark, should not just confirm the views of the masses who have not yet had time to expand their view beyond that of the latest conformative popcorn flick, but of course it should not be artsy fartsy for the sake of being "artistic" or "dark" or whatever elitist BS we sometimes get. No it should be a story that is made in layers, where those only capable in seeing the surface get theirs in a satisfying way, but those who can and wants to look deeper can get more without being put of by what is at the surface of the story.


But at least I think its safe to say we can agree that Bioware made a mistake in how the changed the Reaper story and wrote ME3

Such a thing would fit into the story a hell of a lot better than what we got. Also, the reason there are so many stories like that is because people like them. Everyone loves a hero triumphing over impossible odds. As for whether it would fit in mass effect? Yes, it absolutely would. Both previous games were about Shepard and a small crew going head to head with a massive force (a literal suicide mission in the second game), and, if the player put enough effort into it, coming out not just on top but unscathed. The hero triumphing despite the odds against him/her is the whole point of mass effect.

What I feel we have too much of is writers trying to be clever and bucking the formula by creating all sorts of nonsensical plots. It's the reason we get bull**** like Lost's endings (and THIS ending). This has become so prevalent that's a cliche; everything needs a convoluted twist or some such bull****. If a writer wants to create this sort of crap then go for it, but do it in the space that's made for it: indie games/films. The indie scene is designed for this niche sort of stuff where anyone who thinks they're the next tolkien can put out something they believe to be clever. But don't put this crap in a AAA franchise that millions of people have invested not just their money but emotions into.

By the way your last paragraph just oozes with that holier than thou attitude of people who apparently just know what people like better than people themselves. "...the masses who have not yet had time to expand their view..." Seriously, how big of a narcissist are you? Maybe, just maybe, the masses did expand their view and they felt convoluted bull**** wasn't for them and they would rather laugh and be happy as a result of their entertainment. There's a reason that Independce Day is such a popular movie; people love that sort of stuff.

And since I know you're gonna go here; I'm not implying that things should be dumbed down. By all means create intelligent plot lines and clever twists; there's nothing wrong with that, but only write that if you know how to do it. If the only way the writer can put in a twist ending is by butchering the first third of the narrative and setting up dozens of plot holes then they probably shouldn't write a twist ending and go with a tried and true staple.

I am not a narcissist. But I was, and am tired of a lot of things going on right now. I apologize for my tone and whatever unfriendly stuff I have thrown up.

I am just describing how I view and experience the narrative and what my take on the situation is. Its something that comes from working with and studying these things. It does not make me a better person then anyone else, just like a plumber or mathematician  or whatever are not better people then others. But they have a firmer grasp on plumbing and mathematics then the average home-fixer or guy going over this weeks shopping expenses.

It is my experience that I rarely disappoint those I craft stories or games for, or those I help with their narratives. I am not going to hide that or take some relativist "everyone understands this as much as everyone else". But in the end the proof is in the presentation, playing and reception. When what you have crafted is tested. You must know who you make something for, how and why. 

Unfortunately Bioware did not do well with the ending of mass effect.

I have never argued against the fact that most people likes a story where a hero triumphing over impossible odds (especially true when this is a central theme of the story, like in mass effect), but finesse is required if you want to bring as much as possible from a setting and make it interesting to more then just those who love epic battles because they involve huge forces clashing for ultimate victory. Otherwise you get what by many is concidered a shallow repetition of something we have already seen a million times straining for effect when it is completly unnecessary (because you can still have the hero triumphing).

I apologize if I came off a bit crass as well, long night and all that.

I think we've finally come to an agreement that Bioware just didn't do series justice with the ending, period. Personally, I think a conventional victory would have been a good ending (albeit I'll concede it would have been rather cliche). I do agree, however, that a well written ending that was, lets say more unique, would have been great, but unfortunately trying to pull off an ending like that is a dangerous since you might end up with, well, what we got here.

In the end I think we can blame the lack of peer review (if the rumors of what happened, Mac and Casey writing the ending alone with no input from their team, are true) as I doubt very few people in this world could craft a trully interesting and unique ending in isolation. Even authors have editors and publishers and friends who look over their work dozens of times before it becomes published. The rest of the story in mass effect was great because it was a collaborative effort between a team of talented individuals, and the lack of that shows with the ending.

[Sh0dan]

Hawk227 wrote...

The ending was completely out of left field. The catalyst's existence seems to invalidate all of ME1. On little information, without the option to question or interrupt (My shepard headbutted a krogan, but only musters an "I... don't know" to the catalyst, wtf?) the catalyst he must choose between committing genocide on an ally, choosing something the game explicitly tells you is the choice of the indoctrinated, or usurping the will of the entire galaxy in something that sounds a little too much like eugenics for my taste (homogenization in the name of peace). Every preceding choice has been with 2 squadmates giving you the pros and cons, and every choice left Shepard a way to stand by his principles. This choice is his alone, with no alternate perspectives, and requires him to sacrifice both his life and his principles (well, unless he's a crazy sociopathic renegade).

I agree whole heartedly that the conventional victory fits better within the established narrative.

Many close-minded people here tend to oversimplify the last minutes of the game, because they are illusional about the options for a consistent ending. Their own imagination and interpretation clashes with concept and lore created by Bioware. Star Wars offers a great analogy: George Lucas had a clearly different conception about the pre-history of his episodes 4-6. No wonder that the fans hated the new triology.
Some of you have to accept the fact that the writers have their own conceptions of the Mass Effect themes that go beyond "American with a Flag in one hand and an assault rifle in the other winning in impossible odds".

Beating the Reapers in a classical war is against the lore set up by the entire serious. The Reapers let the organic technologically evolve along the path that they desire. As a result we fight them with the conventional weapons that they allow us to have. Forcing us in a pre-determined technological direction is part of their evil masterplan. Same applies for the system of mass relays and the citadel.
Defeating and harvesting the Protheans took a few hundreds years. How is Shepard supposed to destroy the Reapers in a conventional war in a lifetime?! Thinking about the resources and numbers of the Reapers excludes the posibility of a "conventional solution".
Another aspect is, that a classical war has to reveal more information about the Reapers. Demystification of these ancient machine "gods" and trivialization of their strength in the progress of the war would be the inevitable consequence for the narrative. The well crafted concept of the Reapers through all three games would have been completely destroyed by this ending.

Let's face it: A super weapon or in other words a Deus Ex Machina is the only viable solution. The Catalyst and its logic are absolutely acceptable, even though the ghostly kid wasn't the best "vehicle" to transport their idea.  A cool appearance for this ancient puppetmaster could have avoided alot of trouble.

[Subject M]

Sh0dan wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

The ending was completely out of left field. The catalyst's existence seems to invalidate all of ME1. On little information, without the option to question or interrupt (My shepard headbutted a krogan, but only musters an "I... don't know" to the catalyst, wtf?) the catalyst he must choose between committing genocide on an ally, choosing something the game explicitly tells you is the choice of the indoctrinated, or usurping the will of the entire galaxy in something that sounds a little too much like eugenics for my taste (homogenization in the name of peace). Every preceding choice has been with 2 squadmates giving you the pros and cons, and every choice left Shepard a way to stand by his principles. This choice is his alone, with no alternate perspectives, and requires him to sacrifice both his life and his principles (well, unless he's a crazy sociopathic renegade).

I agree whole heartedly that the conventional victory fits better within the established narrative.

Many close-minded people here tend to oversimplify the last minutes of the game, because they are illusional about the options for a consistent ending. Their own imagination and interpretation clashes with concept and lore created by Bioware. Star Wars offers a great analogy: George Lucas had a clearly different conception about the pre-history of his episodes 4-6. No wonder that the fans hated the new triology.
Some of you have to accept the fact that the writers have their own conceptions of the Mass Effect themes that go beyond "American with a Flag in one hand and an assault rifle in the other winning in impossible odds".

Beating the Reapers in a classical war is against the lore set up by the entire serious. The Reapers let the organic technologically evolve along the path that they desire. As a result we fight them with the conventional weapons that they allow us to have. Forcing us in a pre-determined technological direction is part of their evil masterplan. Same applies for the system of mass relays and the citadel.
Defeating and harvesting the Protheans took a few hundreds years. How is Shepard supposed to destroy the Reapers in a conventional war in a lifetime?! Thinking about the resources and numbers of the Reapers excludes the posibility of a "conventional solution".
Another aspect is, that a classical war has to reveal more information about the Reapers. Demystification of these ancient machine "gods" and trivialization of their strength in the progress of the war would be the inevitable consequence for the narrative. The well crafted concept of the Reapers through all three games would have been completely destroyed by this ending.

Let's face it: A super weapon or in other words a Deus Ex Machina is the only viable solution. The Catalyst and its logic are absolutely acceptable, even though the ghostly kid wasn't the best "vehicle" to transport their idea.  A cool appearance for this ancient puppetmaster could have avoided alot of trouble.

I think the only thing we can agree on is that a conventional victory is out of the question in a scenario where the Reapers are treated as they have been described in most of the trilogy. I would fully have expected them to cyber-warfare the crap out of the younger species and used tactics and strategies that could not really be countered or fully understood.

As for the catalyst logic, its crap for thematic and narrative reasons.

[Subject M]

Tritium315 wrote...

Subject M wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

**** was getting rather hairy.

Subject M wrote...

No, I said that I thought it was childish, but I misspoke. Lets just say I am not alone in considering it over-used and kitschy as hell. Don't you agree we have had enough stories like hat? We are practically drowning in sci-fi stories where Americans or Earthlings repel aliens with the flag in one hand and a assault rifle in the other? Would such a thing really fit into the story? No, it would make the Reapers weak given their history, galactic pretenders, not a horrible overwhelming force pouring out from dark space.

Would it not be much better to have Sword fighting to buy time for Shepard and other special forces to desperatly trying to find an unconventional solution and evacuate civilians to hidden locations?
Like the battle of the line in B5? Of course it would. No need to take courses in drama to see the truth in that. 
Fighting an vastly intellectually and technologically superior force and counting on winning? No way.

If you ask me, a good story, at least one that wants to stand out and make its mark, should not just confirm the views of the masses who have not yet had time to expand their view beyond that of the latest conformative popcorn flick, but of course it should not be artsy fartsy for the sake of being "artistic" or "dark" or whatever elitist BS we sometimes get. No it should be a story that is made in layers, where those only capable in seeing the surface get theirs in a satisfying way, but those who can and wants to look deeper can get more without being put of by what is at the surface of the story.


But at least I think its safe to say we can agree that Bioware made a mistake in how the changed the Reaper story and wrote ME3

Such a thing would fit into the story a hell of a lot better than what we got. Also, the reason there are so many stories like that is because people like them. Everyone loves a hero triumphing over impossible odds. As for whether it would fit in mass effect? Yes, it absolutely would. Both previous games were about Shepard and a small crew going head to head with a massive force (a literal suicide mission in the second game), and, if the player put enough effort into it, coming out not just on top but unscathed. The hero triumphing despite the odds against him/her is the whole point of mass effect.

What I feel we have too much of is writers trying to be clever and bucking the formula by creating all sorts of nonsensical plots. It's the reason we get bull**** like Lost's endings (and THIS ending). This has become so prevalent that's a cliche; everything needs a convoluted twist or some such bull****. If a writer wants to create this sort of crap then go for it, but do it in the space that's made for it: indie games/films. The indie scene is designed for this niche sort of stuff where anyone who thinks they're the next tolkien can put out something they believe to be clever. But don't put this crap in a AAA franchise that millions of people have invested not just their money but emotions into.

By the way your last paragraph just oozes with that holier than thou attitude of people who apparently just know what people like better than people themselves. "...the masses who have not yet had time to expand their view..." Seriously, how big of a narcissist are you? Maybe, just maybe, the masses did expand their view and they felt convoluted bull**** wasn't for them and they would rather laugh and be happy as a result of their entertainment. There's a reason that Independce Day is such a popular movie; people love that sort of stuff.

And since I know you're gonna go here; I'm not implying that things should be dumbed down. By all means create intelligent plot lines and clever twists; there's nothing wrong with that, but only write that if you know how to do it. If the only way the writer can put in a twist ending is by butchering the first third of the narrative and setting up dozens of plot holes then they probably shouldn't write a twist ending and go with a tried and true staple.

I am not a narcissist. But I was, and am tired of a lot of things going on right now. I apologize for my tone and whatever unfriendly stuff I have thrown up.

I am just describing how I view and experience the narrative and what my take on the situation is. Its something that comes from working with and studying these things. It does not make me a better person then anyone else, just like a plumber or mathematician  or whatever are not better people then others. But they have a firmer grasp on plumbing and mathematics then the average home-fixer or guy going over this weeks shopping expenses.

It is my experience that I rarely disappoint those I craft stories or games for, or those I help with their narratives. I am not going to hide that or take some relativist "everyone understands this as much as everyone else". But in the end the proof is in the presentation, playing and reception. When what you have crafted is tested. You must know who you make something for, how and why. 

Unfortunately Bioware did not do well with the ending of mass effect.

I have never argued against the fact that most people likes a story where a hero triumphing over impossible odds (especially true when this is a central theme of the story, like in mass effect), but finesse is required if you want to bring as much as possible from a setting and make it interesting to more then just those who love epic battles because they involve huge forces clashing for ultimate victory. Otherwise you get what by many is concidered a shallow repetition of something we have already seen a million times straining for effect when it is completly unnecessary (because you can still have the hero triumphing).

I apologize if I came off a bit crass as well, long night and all that.

I think we've finally come to an agreement that Bioware just didn't do series justice with the ending, period. Personally, I think a conventional victory would have been a good ending (albeit I'll concede it would have been rather cliche). I do agree, however, that a well written ending that was, lets say more unique, would have been great, but unfortunately trying to pull off an ending like that is a dangerous since you might end up with, well, what we got here.

In the end I think we can blame the lack of peer review (if the rumors of what happened, Mac and Casey writing the ending alone with no input from their team, are true) as I doubt very few people in this world could craft a trully interesting and unique ending in isolation. Even authors have editors and publishers and friends who look over their work dozens of times before it becomes published. The rest of the story in mass effect was great because it was a collaborative effort between a team of talented individuals, and the lack of that shows with the ending.

I can think of several ways to end or survive the reaper threat that would involve the fleet playing a very important part, but I do not see a victory in open battle as a possibility without the aid of another force on par with the Reapers (like the Geth megastructure).

One way could be the fleet, if it was big enough, would be successful in buying time to evacuate and secure the continuation of galactic civilization and culture on a well prepared hidden location (Like a better prepared Ilos-sanctuary-planet). There they would wait out the Reapers who would leave eventually when they thought they had cleaned out the galaxy. And they would rebuild civilization with all the knowledge they had accumulated.

Another would be use the fleet to buy Shepard time to somehow strike at a weak spot within the "Reaper
consensus" having learned how Sovereign went down after its avatar was defeated. (Of course this weak spot becomes the catalyst if there is a catalyst in the game). If the Reapers temporarily shut down and dropped their shields, they could of course be destroyed, just like Sovereign was destroyed.

[KestrelM1]

1. You're using a leaked script to support some of your argument, not what we see in the game. If you decide the leaked script is too different, then much of the Catalyst's logic does actually disappear.

This is my entire problem with the Catalyst. I love and respect the effort you put into constructing this, but the bottom line is that the game does not provide these details, and therefore utterly fails to convey nearly all the points you have presented.

If the game presented the wealth of information you have compiled into this thread, I would have significantly fewer problems with the Catalyst. Unfortunately, it does not, and that is why it fails to satisfy me as the end to the series.

[xIREDEEMEDIx]

I got to section II....and I couldn't do it anymore.

[Tritium315]

Subject M wrote...


I can think of several ways to end or survive the reaper threat that would involve the fleet playing a very important part, but I do not see a victory in open battle as a possibility without the aid of another force on par with the Reapers (like the Geth megastructure).

One way could be the fleet, if it was big enough, would be successful in buying time to evacuate and secure the continuation of galactic civilization and culture on a well prepared hidden location (Like a better prepared Ilos-sanctuary-planet). There they would wait out the Reapers who would leave eventually when they thought they had cleaned out the galaxy. And they would rebuild civilization with all the knowledge they had accumulated.

Another would be use the fleet to buy Shepard time to somehow strike at a weak spot within the "Reaper
consensus" having learned how Sovereign went down after its avatar was defeated. (Of course this weak spot becomes the catalyst if there is a catalyst in the game). If the Reapers temporarily shut down and dropped their shields, they could of course be destroyed, just like Sovereign was destroyed.

Those would both be better than what we got.

The way I imagined the game would end (while playing it, before I actually saw the end), was that the crucible would always give the equivalent of the red ending minus the relays and the geth going boom. In this scenario EMS would determine how well it would do its job. If your EMS was in the dirt it would get destroyed on route to the citadel, the Reapers would win, and it would be an actual ending, with a cutscene showing the begining of the next cycle. If it was astronomically high your fleets would be strong enough to protect it the whole time while taking only minor losses, all the major character would survive, and we'd get a return of the jedi style cutscene at the end. Then between those two there'd be 5 or 6 other levels of how well everything goes (crucible is damaged and kills everyone, normandy lives/dies, Earth is a husk/life remains, fleets are devestated/not, etc.), and with a different cutscene at each point detailing everything.

Really, the more I think about it the more I realize that Bioware could have gone with just about anything else and it would have been better. I suppose one should give them credit for managing to create an ending that is this bad when it would have been so easy to create one that, even if it was dull or boring, would have at least made sense and left their audience content. And if they put some actual effort into it then they could have probably created something that was truly great and memorable (like planescape torment's ending).

[Ultra Prism]

Sythesisis is Technology Singularity ... if you played Deus Ex Human Revolution, one of the endings, Adam Jensen talks about it ... Singularity the point of Biology and Machine are as in one ... God like level.... it is worth it? Yes. Will it hurt people? Yes.

The problem is that even Catalyst does have right point of view ... it lacks the option to tell why not stay back as Galatic Defender and guide the organic species...but of course some Organic will work in secret to release some rogue like Project Overlord that could have wipe out the entire galaxy, even might of Reapers may not be enough ... well if people talk about different level of technologies, most civilization are Type I while Reapers are Type II ... so where is damn Type III, the galatic changers

[Ahms]

The Catalyst's logic is a few pegs below GTA logic.

[Hawk227]

Sh0dan wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

This thread just got interesting. I agree with both of you, but mostly Tritium. Not that I matter, but anyway...

I don't
think it's impossible for the Reapers to be beaten conventionally, much
of their advantage has come from a surprise attack that the Protheans
from Ilos denied them for this cycle. The Reapers have always been an
outrageously difficult villain to beat, but Shepard is uniting the
entire Galaxy. I do agree that the "American with a Flag in one hand and
an assault rifle in the other winning in impossible odds" thing is
overplayed, but that's essentially what this story has been from the
outset. Shepard has always been extraordinary. He tracked an elite
spectre in a Reaper with a Geth Armada through the galaxy and won(!),
preventing the next cycle. He was brought back from the dead. He (and
his crew) was the first ship to survive the Omega 4 relay, a band of 12
commandos defeating the entire collector army and destroying the base,
and if you were a completionist the team made it out unscathed. He cured
the genophage and brokered peace between the Turians and Krogan! He
stopped a 300 year old war by yelling. And he amassed the single largest
fleet anyone has ever seen. The game has been about accomplishing the
impossible from the outset. It may be a tired trope, but it is what it
is, and you can't change it at the last second because you don't like
it.

The ending was completely out of left field. The catalyst's existence seems to invalidate all of ME1. On little information, without the option to question or interrupt (My shepard headbutted a krogan, but only musters an "I... don't know" to the catalyst, wtf?) the catalyst he must choose between committing genocide on an ally, choosing something the game explicitly tells you is the choice of the indoctrinated, or usurping the will of the entire galaxy in something that sounds a little too much like eugenics for my taste (homogenization in the name of peace). Every preceding choice has been with 2 squadmates giving you the pros and cons, and every choice left Shepard a way to stand by his principles. This choice is his alone, with no alternate perspectives, and requires him to sacrifice both his life and his principles (well, unless he's a crazy sociopathic renegade).

I agree whole heartedly that the conventional victory fits better within the established narrative.

Many close-minded people here tend to oversimplify the last minutes of the game, because they are illusional about the options for a consistent ending. Their own imagination and interpretation clashes with concept and lore created by Bioware. Star Wars offers a great analogy: George Lucas had a clearly different conception about the pre-history of his episodes 4-6. No wonder that the fans hated the new triology.
Some of you have to accept the fact that the writers have their own conceptions of the Mass Effect themes that go beyond "American with a Flag in one hand and an assault rifle in the other winning in impossible odds".

Beating the Reapers in a classical war is against the lore set up by the entire serious. The Reapers let the organic technologically evolve along the path that they desire. As a result we fight them with the conventional weapons that they allow us to have. Forcing us in a pre-determined technological direction is part of their evil masterplan. Same applies for the system of mass relays and the citadel.
Defeating and harvesting the Protheans took a few hundreds years. How is Shepard supposed to destroy the Reapers in a conventional war in a lifetime?! Thinking about the resources and numbers of the Reapers excludes the posibility of a "conventional solution".
Another aspect is, that a classical war has to reveal more information about the Reapers. Demystification of these ancient machine "gods" and trivialization of their strength in the progress of the war would be the inevitable consequence for the narrative. The well crafted concept of the Reapers through all three games would have been completely destroyed by this ending.

Let's face it: A super weapon or in other words a Deus Ex Machina is the only viable solution. The Catalyst and its logic are absolutely acceptable, even though the ghostly kid wasn't the best "vehicle" to transport their idea.  A cool appearance for this ancient puppetmaster could have avoided alot of trouble.

Why would you edit out the part where I explained why I thought conventional victory fit the narrative? Seriously? Here, I fixed it for you.

I'll add that the Reapers have taken losses all over the galaxy. They've lost numerous ships in palaven, they've lost ships on little planets here and there. Shepard alone has taken 5 of them. I guess we can argue about whether it is logically plausible for conventional victory to be possible, but I was talking about whether it fit narratively.

[JShepppp]

Ultra Prism wrote...

Sythesisis is Technology Singularity ... if you played Deus Ex Human Revolution, one of the endings, Adam Jensen talks about it ... Singularity the point of Biology and Machine are as in one ... God like level.... it is worth it? Yes. Will it hurt people? Yes.

The problem is that even Catalyst does have right point of view ... it lacks the option to tell why not stay back as Galatic Defender and guide the organic species...but of course some Organic will work in secret to release some rogue like Project Overlord that could have wipe out the entire galaxy, even might of Reapers may not be enough ... well if people talk about different level of technologies, most civilization are Type I while Reapers are Type II ... so where is damn Type III, the galatic changers

I started a thread about this; you can see it here. Basically I argued the same thing, that organics are Type I, Reapers are Type II, and the Crucible is Type III. 

Interesting connection to deus ex HR. I completely forgot about that. But I think that's a different singularity than the kind the Catalyst is talking about. 

[JShepppp]

KestrelM1 wrote...

1. You're using a leaked script to support some of your argument, not what we see in the game. If you decide the leaked script is too different, then much of the Catalyst's logic does actually disappear.

This is my entire problem with the Catalyst. I love and respect the effort you put into constructing this, but the bottom line is that the game does not provide these details, and therefore utterly fails to convey nearly all the points you have presented.

If the game presented the wealth of information you have compiled into this thread, I would have significantly fewer problems with the Catalyst. Unfortunately, it does not, and that is why it fails to satisfy me as the end to the series.

Thanks for the kind and civil words. Yeah, I am disappointed that I had to go to such lengths to personally make some sense of the endings. I'm sorry that it doesn't help you out, and I hope that you will find closure elsewhere (IT, EC DLC, etc).