239 réponses à ce sujet

[pistolols]

uke2se wrote...

- "I will not chose any of the options presented to me for the single reason that it would spell doom for tthe galaxy now and in the future. Billions of people would die, and I will not have all that blood on my hands. Instead, we are going to sit here and watch as our fleets destroy each other. Maybe your Reapers will win, maybe my fleets will, but we sure are going to take lots of you bastards with us either way."

Why would you not choose any of the options?  Do you not trust that the crucible is doing what it's supposed to? 

And doom for the galaxy afterword is just your ignorant opinion, sorry.

[Oldbones2]

pistolols wrote...

The Charnel Expanse wrote...

pistolols wrote...

Personally i think ME2 messed everyone up made everyone think it was all about the characters which was never my take at all and in fact i found ME2 to be rather tedious dealing with all these characters personal problems that i didn't even care about.

I always knew the heart of this was a conflict of man vs machine. And i loved the way the end tied everything together in the form of an AI behind it all... it was pretty mind blowing to behonest.

You represent a tiny minority.

Yeah because most people don't pay attention.  The final choice of the game, for example, to control or destory synthetic lifeforms is a conflict brought up NUMEROUS times throughout the series.  It is absolutely a major theme.

Shepard defies the odds constantly and in all three games, by that same token it is also a theme and I should be able to tell RGC to **** off at the end.

[uke2se]

pistolols wrote...
Why would you not choose any of the options?  Do you not trust that the crucible is doing what it's supposed to?  

What it's supposed to do? Who created it? What almighty being gave it the job of destroying advanced organic life in order to save unadvanced organic life for a reason that is proven false by the rest of the game?

pistolols wrote... 
And doom for the galaxy afterword is just your ignorant opinion, sorry.

Is it now? The only experience Shepard has with destruction of a Mass Relay was when an entire star system and all life in it was wiped out. When in the dialogue does the starchild explain how this time - when all mass relays in the galaxy would be destroyed (exploded in one of three optional colors) - would be different?

Modifié par uke2se, 07 avril 2012 - 08:05 .

[The Charnel Expanse]

DevilBeast wrote...

I know most see the two themes: unification of different civilizations to stand against a common enemy and the synthetics vs. organics conflict.
But I think there may be another theme: Being a slave to others will and the fight to break free from it.
F.ex: In the beginning we are told by Sovereign that all organic evolution is "directed" by the reapers along paths they want us to follow by allowing us to use their technology (the mass relays, the Citadel etc. etc.). So, basically the organic civilizations in ME are not much different than the cattle raised by a farmer. Then in ME3 we discover that the reapers aren´t actually the farmers but only the tool he uses (seems the name fits them even better after that revelation;)). They are just as much "caught" up in the cycle and evolution imposed by others as the organic species are.

Now, this theme isn´t only applied to the the reaper conflict it is seen in other situations throughout the series.
F.ex: the krogan being uplifted by the salarians, the drell becoming (willingly though) servants of the hanar, the hanar themselves being product of the protheans actions just like the asari whose culture and society was basically created by them and not to mention all the other species which the protheans subjugated during their empire.

So, yes the major theme is the conflict between the creators and the created (synthetics vs. organics), but the fight to break free from a cycle where everyone is a slave to someone elses will is present too. And the mass relays being destroyed in the end symbolizes the destruction of this cycle.

Anyway, this is just my opinon:)

You're right. And that comes to a head during the confrontation with TIM. Another reason why the Catalyst was an unnecessary insertion.

[balance5050]

pistolols wrote...

uke2se wrote...

- "I will not chose any of the options presented to me for the single reason that it would spell doom for tthe galaxy now and in the future. Billions of people would die, and I will not have all that blood on my hands. Instead, we are going to sit here and watch as our fleets destroy each other. Maybe your Reapers will win, maybe my fleets will, but we sure are going to take lots of you bastards with us either way."

Why would you not choose any of the options?  Do you not trust that the crucible is doing what it's supposed to? 

And doom for the galaxy afterword is just your ignorant opinion, sorry.

No the Galaxy is doomed no matter what:

Blue ending- Organics can still make Synthetics, which means war.

Green Ending- Half synthetics can still make fully synthetic being, resulting in war, also people would be immortal now or at least live a lot longer, so if you saved the krogan, it would lead to overpopulation and war.

Red ending- The relays blow up destroying every system with a relay in it.

Modifié par balance5050, 07 avril 2012 - 08:06 .

[Teacher50]

M.Erik.Sal wrote...

Teacher50 wrote...

I hear the arguments but I guess I'm the stupid one...

I took the central theme to be one of wo/man kind (humans) somehow beating all odds to defeat the foe. Too simple I guess. It did seem to me that everything else revolves around this.

If everyone else has a different idea of what the central theme is then it can only lead to one conclusion, the theme was never really developed fully. I don't think this was the case. The first two of the series appeared to me to end upon the theme as stated. In ME3, much time was consumed in tieing up relationships and exploring emotions. Frankly, I thought it was very well done, but it creats a problem. Intricate stories require an intricate ending. Perhaps this was overwhelming but I don't know.

The introduction of a god creature at the end to solve it all in it's own manner is a poor writing tool. It would have been better to narrow the conclusion and take its que from those before it but it was not my call. Perhaps it wasn't Bioware's either. We may never know.

I have to ask, is that your blog in your signature?

No. JMStevenson is a writer that knows writing. He gives a good talk about the mechanics of writing.

I am a technical writter and write procedures for compliance with US federal codes.

[Dr_Hello]

pistolols wrote...

Personally i think ME2 messed everyone up made everyone think it was all about the characters which was never my take at all and in fact i found ME2 to be rather tedious dealing with all these characters personal problems that i didn't even care about.

I always knew the heart of this was a conflict of man vs machine. And i loved the way the end tied everything together in the form of an AI behind it all... it was pretty mind blowing to behonest.

I see your point and it makes sense. 

Yes one of the central themes has been Organics vs Synthetics, ever since ME1...
However there are other central themes which characterize the mass effect story and its success. They are relationship (whether romantic or friendship), alliance, and character-driven stories, and they were neglected in the ending's writing. 

[IliaLo]

pistolols wrote...

Personally i think ME2 messed everyone up made everyone think it was all about the characters which was never my take at all and in fact i found ME2 to be rather tedious dealing with all these characters personal problems that i didn't even care about.

I always knew the heart of this was a conflict of man vs machine. And i loved the way the end tied everything together in the form of an AI behind it all... it was pretty mind blowing to behonest.

I feel the same way. Don't get me wrong, ME2 is awesome game and I love it, but it felt like completely different game. If you think about it, hardly any desition you made in ME1, had any impact in ME2 (same goes for ME2>ME3). In my opinion ME2 is to ME1, what DA2 is to DA:O, only difference is that you play same character in ME2. And don't forget, that ME2 ended almost the same way as ME3, only one explosion less and couple of cinematics and dialogs with TIM

[The Charnel Expanse]

balance5050 wrote...

also people would be immortal now or at least live a lot longer, so if you saved the krogan, it would lead to overpopulation

Minor point, but this would happen anyway if you cured the genophage. Krogan are shown to live well in excess of 1000 years and breed like rabbits, if rabbits laid eggs a dozen at a time. No genophage + peaceful krogan [which is the implied result if you save Wrex and Bakara] means overpopulation however you slice it.

[DevilBeast]

The Charnel Expanse wrote...

DevilBeast wrote...

I know most see the two themes: unification of different civilizations to stand against a common enemy and the synthetics vs. organics conflict.
But I think there may be another theme: Being a slave to others will and the fight to break free from it.
F.ex: In the beginning we are told by Sovereign that all organic evolution is "directed" by the reapers along paths they want us to follow by allowing us to use their technology (the mass relays, the Citadel etc. etc.). So, basically the organic civilizations in ME are not much different than the cattle raised by a farmer. Then in ME3 we discover that the reapers aren´t actually the farmers but only the tool he uses (seems the name fits them even better after that revelation;)). They are just as much "caught" up in the cycle and evolution imposed by others as the organic species are.

Now, this theme isn´t only applied to the the reaper conflict it is seen in other situations throughout the series.
F.ex: the krogan being uplifted by the salarians, the drell becoming (willingly though) servants of the hanar, the hanar themselves being product of the protheans actions just like the asari whose culture and society was basically created by them and not to mention all the other species which the protheans subjugated during their empire.

So, yes the major theme is the conflict between the creators and the created (synthetics vs. organics), but the fight to break free from a cycle where everyone is a slave to someone elses will is present too. And the mass relays being destroyed in the end symbolizes the destruction of this cycle.

Anyway, this is just my opinon:)

You're right. And that comes to a head during the confrontation with TIM. Another reason why the Catalyst was an unnecessary insertion.

Yes, I completely forgot about the confrontation with the TIM. Shepard´s and TIM´s "battle of wills" is a perfect example of this theme. I am however unsure of what you mean by the Catalyst being an unnecessary insertion??

Trust, I´m not trying to prove you wrong or anything, I´m just curious. 

[frostajulie]

CronoDragoon wrote...

pistolols wrote...

Personally i think ME2 messed everyone up made everyone think it was all about the characters which was never my take at all and in fact i found ME2 to be rather tedious dealing with all these characters personal problems that i didn't even care about.

I always knew the heart of this was a conflict of man vs machine. And i loved the way the end tied everything together in the form of an AI behind it all... it was pretty mind blowing to behonest.

Bioware games ARE about the characters. They always have been.

And that is what makes them so unique.
That is what makes them so powerful.
And that is why the ending is so bad.

[The Charnel Expanse]

IliaLo wrote...

pistolols wrote...

Personally i think ME2 messed everyone up made everyone think it was all about the characters which was never my take at all and in fact i found ME2 to be rather tedious dealing with all these characters personal problems that i didn't even care about.

I always knew the heart of this was a conflict of man vs machine. And i loved the way the end tied everything together in the form of an AI behind it all... it was pretty mind blowing to behonest.

I feel the same way. Don't get me wrong, ME2 is awesome game and I love it, but it felt like completely different game. If you think about it, hardly any desition you made in ME1, had any impact in ME2 (same goes for ME2>ME3). In my opinion ME2 is to ME1, what DA2 is to DA:O, only difference is that you play same character in ME2. And don't forget, that ME2 ended almost the same way as ME3, only one explosion less and couple of cinematics and dialogs with TIM

But you can't argue that, even with the altered game mechanics and change in tone and focus, ME2 doesn't have a secure place within the story's continuity. The ME3 ending, on the other hand...

[Slash1667]

drewelow wrote...

There are 2 basic options for viewing the starchild.  The first is that he's a (nearly) omniscient AI god.  The second is that it's an idiotic, insane, AI god.  I believe the way that Bioware presented, and Mac and Casey probably viewed, the starchild was in the first way.  But it doesn't really matter for the endnig.

Either way, the end threw out agency and removed shepard as the primary player and replaced him with a reaper god.  Either way, the starchild's logic is laughably bad, yet determines the solution and ending of the game.  In some ways, it's actually worse if the starchild is a mad idiot, because it sets the conditions for the end.  The end is replacing one of the reaper god's solutions with another one of the reaper god's solutions. 

There is a 3rd basic option for viewing the Catalyst. He's a Reaper.

[I am KROGAN]

Taboo-XX wrote...

If you think the only major theme is Mass Effect is Synthetics v. Organics you need to go find a rock and go live under it.

Dear lord. There are so many other things at work it boggles my mind. People aren't angry that this theme was addressed they are angry because it was the ONLY theme addressed.

This, 1000000x this.  I'm glad someone else gets it.

[The Charnel Expanse]

DevilBeast wrote...

The Charnel Expanse wrote...

DevilBeast wrote...

I know most see the two themes: unification of different civilizations to stand against a common enemy and the synthetics vs. organics conflict.
But I think there may be another theme: Being a slave to others will and the fight to break free from it.
F.ex: In the beginning we are told by Sovereign that all organic evolution is "directed" by the reapers along paths they want us to follow by allowing us to use their technology (the mass relays, the Citadel etc. etc.). So, basically the organic civilizations in ME are not much different than the cattle raised by a farmer. Then in ME3 we discover that the reapers aren´t actually the farmers but only the tool he uses (seems the name fits them even better after that revelation;)). They are just as much "caught" up in the cycle and evolution imposed by others as the organic species are.

Now, this theme isn´t only applied to the the reaper conflict it is seen in other situations throughout the series.
F.ex: the krogan being uplifted by the salarians, the drell becoming (willingly though) servants of the hanar, the hanar themselves being product of the protheans actions just like the asari whose culture and society was basically created by them and not to mention all the other species which the protheans subjugated during their empire.

So, yes the major theme is the conflict between the creators and the created (synthetics vs. organics), but the fight to break free from a cycle where everyone is a slave to someone elses will is present too. And the mass relays being destroyed in the end symbolizes the destruction of this cycle.

Anyway, this is just my opinon:)

You're right. And that comes to a head during the confrontation with TIM. Another reason why the Catalyst was an unnecessary insertion.

Yes, I completely forgot about the confrontation with the TIM. Shepard´s and TIM´s "battle of wills" is a perfect example of this theme. I am however unsure of what you mean by the Catalyst being an unnecessary insertion??

Trust, I´m not trying to prove you wrong or anything, I´m just curious. 

Again, the Catalyst, by virtue of what he is and what he tells you, completely uproots established themes and contradicts the narrative right at its end. It's just poor writing, plain and simple. There was no need to insert him into the story after the TIM confrontation because the moment Shepard activated the Crucible [and from a writing standpoint, there needs to be absolutely no intermediary between Shepard and the Crucible] the main conflicts of the series are resolved. Not perfectly, perhaps, but they're resolved. All that should remain is to show the aftermath.

Hell, the very fact that you forgot the confrontation with TIM should be proof positive of  just how unnecessary and poorly implemented the Catalyst is.

Modifié par The Charnel Expanse, 07 avril 2012 - 08:19 .

[Justin2k]

Teacher50 wrote...

I hear the arguments but I guess I'm the stupid one...

I took the central theme to be one of wo/man kind (humans) somehow beating all odds to defeat the foe. Too simple I guess. It did seem to me that everything else revolves around this.

Haha, this is funny to me because I once read a massive dossier on why Mass Effect was important because it showed how weak Humanity was compared to what else is out there.  Pretty much the fact that we think we're the biggest and the best, but in the scope of the universe we are small like ants.

I personally actually thought, no, i think it's about Shepard... not humanity, but Shepard himself.. one person defying all the odds.  Uniting races etc.

At the end of the day, an argument could be made for any number of different "themes" of the series, and some of them could be arguments that directly conflict each other.

[M.Erik.Sal]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...
Not necessarily.  You're making the mistake of taking something both ways.  Like this:  A woman is a human, but a human is not a woman.  You're saying that humans must be women because women must be humans.  While your point is true in some circumstances it is not true in all.

No. There's no way for there to be a theme in a story that is not directly tied to what happens in the story. It's not possible, because there is no other source for information. This is true in all circumstances.

If the theme you are drawing is unrelated to the plot then it's unrelated to the story and so you're pulling it out of thin air. Of course just because something is in the plot doesn't mean it has to be part of the theme.

[IliaLo]

frostajulie wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

pistolols wrote...

Personally i think ME2 messed everyone up made everyone think it was all about the characters which was never my take at all and in fact i found ME2 to be rather tedious dealing with all these characters personal problems that i didn't even care about.

I always knew the heart of this was a conflict of man vs machine. And i loved the way the end tied everything together in the form of an AI behind it all... it was pretty mind blowing to behonest.

Bioware games ARE about the characters. They always have been.

And that is what makes them so unique.
That is what makes them so powerful.
And that is why the ending is so bad.

If EA leave BioWare to make the "Extended Cut", I think (more like HOPE), that they can some how make it work.

[anlk92]

Dr_Hello wrote...

pistolols wrote...

Personally i think ME2 messed everyone up made everyone think it was all about the characters which was never my take at all and in fact i found ME2 to be rather tedious dealing with all these characters personal problems that i didn't even care about.

I always knew the heart of this was a conflict of man vs machine. And i loved the way the end tied everything together in the form of an AI behind it all... it was pretty mind blowing to behonest.

I see your point and it makes sense.

Yes one of the central themes has been Organics vs Synthetics, ever since ME1...
However there are other central themes which characterize the mass effect story and its success. They are relationship (whether romantic or friendship), alliance, and character-driven stories, and they were neglected in the ending's writing.

Also simply using that theme does not cut it. Their approach to it in the ending is the complete opposite of how they handled it in the rest of the game. The two storylines that follow this theme end with:

"Does this unit have a soul?"
"Legion, the answer to your question was yes."

and

"Only now do I feel alive, that is your influence."

Then we get to the ending where we have the Starchild claiming that synthetics will eventually destory all organic life. This is just bad writing.

[pistolols]

uke2se wrote...

pistolols wrote...
Why would you not choose any of the options?  Do you not trust that the crucible is doing what it's supposed to?  

What it's supposed to do? Who created it? What almighty being gave it the job of destroying advanced organic life in order to save unadvanced organic life for a reason that is proven false by the rest of the game?

whaaaa?  You definitely seem confused.  I'm talking about the 3 ending choices.. those were created by the crucible, not the catalyst.  The crucible reprogrammed the catalyst to accept these 3 new solutions over the old demented reaper cycle solution.  So it's only up to shepard to trust that the crucible is doing what it's supposed to do, you essentially don't have to care about what the catalyst says at all.  It's his opinion that if you choose destroy that the conflict of man vs machine will spring up again.  His opinion.

Modifié par pistolols, 07 avril 2012 - 08:20 .

[Grimwick]

frostajulie wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

pistolols wrote...

Personally i think ME2 messed everyone up made everyone think it was all about the characters which was never my take at all and in fact i found ME2 to be rather tedious dealing with all these characters personal problems that i didn't even care about.

I always knew the heart of this was a conflict of man vs machine. And i loved the way the end tied everything together in the form of an AI behind it all... it was pretty mind blowing to behonest.

Bioware games ARE about the characters. They always have been.

And that is what makes them so unique.
That is what makes them so powerful.
And that is why the ending is so bad.

Exactly, in ME1 you walked around the normandy, talking to everyone. you'd do a mission/side mission which would involve talking to people and your teammates. you'd then come back to the normandy where you would talk to your team mates again...
Even the final confrontation with Saren is 50% talking! the game was all about character and plot. there were submessages of  synthetic/organic and genophage ideas but the game was mostly about the characters themselves.
Then ME2 was indeed 80% about the characters. The entire game was talking to people and helping them... eventually fighting with them and making decisions about how you used these characters.
ME3 had a huge amount about character, you can spend 30 mins on the Citadel just walking around and meeting up with your squad mates, then even more time between missions listening to their hilarious banter. If you didn't enjoy the characters and talking to them then the game is just a bunch of sub plots thrown in to fight the reapers.

Then Bioware comes in with the last 5 minutes where you never see/talk to these characters and are forced to make stupid decisions which go against Shepard's own character
If Bioware just kept it with the characters it would have been so so simpler, and yet so much more effective!

My two cents on what Mass Effect is about 

[uke2se]

pistolols wrote...
whaaaa?  You definitely seem confused.  I'm talking about the 3 ending choices.. those were created by the crucible, not the catalyst.  The crucible reprogrammed the catalyst to accept these 3 new solutions over the old demented reaper cycle solution.  So it's only up to shepard to trust that the crucible is doing what it's supposed to do, you essentially don't have to care about what the catalyst says at all.  It's his opinion that if you choose destroy that the conflict of man vs machine will spring up again.  His opinion.

But the Crucible is lying to Shepard. Why would Shepard do anything the Crucible tells him/her to do? I don't believe it's his opinion at all, but rather a blatant lie, but even if it was his opinion, he's wrong, and Shepard knows he's wrong. Why should Shepard - who stood up to impossible odds for three full games - suddenly just cave in and do something he/she knows is wrong, especially when doing so would cost billions of people their lives - not from Reapers but directly from Shepard's actions?

Modifié par uke2se, 07 avril 2012 - 08:25 .

[Slash1667]

My deal with the ending, and it has been for the last month, is simply that we are forced to make a decision on how to defeat the Reapers using information given to us by a Reaper.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

M.Erik.Sal wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...
Not necessarily.  You're making the mistake of taking something both ways.  Like this:  A woman is a human, but a human is not a woman.  You're saying that humans must be women because women must be humans.  While your point is true in some circumstances it is not true in all.

No. There's no way for there to be a theme in a story that is not directly tied to what happens in the story. It's not possible, because there is no other source for information. This is true in all circumstances.

If the theme you are drawing is unrelated to the plot then it's unrelated to the story and so you're pulling it out of thin air. Of course just because something is in the plot doesn't mean it has to be part of the theme.

What a story is ABOUT is not necessarily what is HAPPENING in the story litterally.  Theres more to it than just that.

[pistolols]

Grimwick wrote...

forced to make stupid decisions which go against Shepard's own character

well again shepard is a product of synthesis and it turned out pretty good for him.  Seems somewhat humorous and ironic to claim synthesis is "against his character" when it is his character lolololol.