Been reading scifi for 35 years. Some hokey, some good. This is hokey.
Things people forget that they call "plot holes" (that really aren't) in the ending that bioware could address
Débuté par
Doctor_Jackstraw
, avril 07 2012 06:41
Retour en haut
#153
Posté 17 avril 2012 - 01:56
indyracing
-
- Members
- 246 messages
Kawamura wrote...
If I wanted to not know what happened, I just wouldn't ve played. I finished the game to know what happened.
#154
Posté 17 avril 2012 - 02:36
Doctor_Jackstraw
-
- Members
- 2 231 messages
Right well whether or not its hokey is in the presentation, not the theme itself. The extended cut could fix elements of that presentation to sell this stuff better. I'm not defending the quality of the ending we got, I was actually dissapointed in its brevity and technical simplicity, but the point is how many of these are simple "put time into the presentation and it can work" situations for these problems. The idea of the reapers processing humans for "ascension" isnt a bad idea, it was just rushed out the gate. The synthesis ending could work and be cool, but they didnt spend ANY time at all selling us on it, we get a line of "this could work" but we dont even get enough technobabble to make it a satisfying choice. The problem with the ending was that it doesnt explain itself, and that it doesnt follow through on the choices we've made. Its not satisfying how it is right now. These are issues with how the ending was presented to us and the fact that it was thrown together at the last minute because they ran out of money. These problems arent unfixable, and if they do it right, this dlc can make the ending meaningful in the way ME1 and ME2 were.
Imagine these two scenarios:
--------
What my point is is that the ending we have for ME3 isn't a bad ending in concept, its a barebones version of what we've come to expect from the previous two games. Its like a chicken dinner but all we have is the gristle. We didnt get big battles with hammer and sword with shots of all our war assets being used to generate a unique series of events that happen arround our final battle, we didnt get a satisfying explanation/exploration of the point of the story that carefully addresses concerns we would have with it.
Several Game reviewers didnt even understand what each of the devices did and just ran down the middle because it seemed like "the one they were supposed to pick". The ending ends without resolving anything, we dont understand what happened to the fleets or the normandy. These arent bad things to put in an ending, the problem is the game was rushed and they cut the parts of this ending that would make us CARE, the things that MATTERED. We didnt get a battle, we didnt understand what was happening, we didnt know what the choice was really about, we didnt get a reason for the normandy to leave the battle, we didnt find out what happened to the fleets or the galaxy.
It was barebones. Its like a game's ending with all the meat and the crunchy yummy skin cut out. Its a ****ty chicken dinner and not what we wanted. We wanted the full coarse meal, instead we got table scraps. If this ending brings the full bucket of KFC that we want it wont matter that theres a god child or that the relays explode or that normandy is stranded somewhere because there'll be REASON for it, we'll have something to CARE about, the ending will FEEL like something rather than nothing. It's not irreperable, it doesnt need to be replaced, it just needs actual time and care spent making it worthwhile.
edit: Now i kind of want to edit the ME1 endings down into this barebones thing that I'm talking about to illustrate the real issue of the situation to all of the youtubes.
Imagine these two scenarios:
- ME1 - We dont see the soverign space battle at all. After shepard emerges from the rubble at the end and the music swells the credits just roll right then and there and thats it. This would do several things that would destroy the way that ending feels. First: It would destroy the relevance of the ending. You see this giant ship trying to open the relay and feel desperation in needing to open the arms, the desperation of wondering if your decision to save the council or sacrifice them will end up losing the battle. You see how powerless the fleets are against this reaper, you dont just hear it or assume it, bioware shows it to us and it tries to make us think about our decision and worry about how the story will wrap up even while we're fighting saren. You aren't left wondering why the **** something happened because whats required to make sense of the ending is all there. Then we have the conclusion dialogue with the council. This not only ties up the loose ends in the story, but it gives us closure and leaves us with a sense of satisfaction that leaves us looking back on the journey to that point fondly and anticipating what comes next.
- ME2 - No ability to ask EDI questions about the human reaper, no final conversation with The Illusive Man, No choices in the suicide mission, credits fade to black after the bomb inside the collector base blows and the normandy jumps to FTL. You wouldnt have any of the moments where you pick someone to go through the vents, be your biotic bubble, escort the crew, or lead the second team, its just a flat mission where you go to the end with no cutscenes involving your crew, the last time you see them is aboard the normandy when you give your big final speech. You dont get to ask EDI about the human reaper, you just get a quick 2 line dialogue that "They're building a reaper." "How do we stop it?" "Shoot the tubes, Shepard" Then after you make your choice on the base you escape to the normandy and the explosion happens and credits roll immediately. Imagine how it would have felt to have ended ME2 this way, it would have sucked for all the reasons ME3's ending sucks. (Also as a bonus, this would have left the ending as nothing more than a red/blue color swap. think about that for a moment and how it really relates to the situation we're in right now)
--------
What my point is is that the ending we have for ME3 isn't a bad ending in concept, its a barebones version of what we've come to expect from the previous two games. Its like a chicken dinner but all we have is the gristle. We didnt get big battles with hammer and sword with shots of all our war assets being used to generate a unique series of events that happen arround our final battle, we didnt get a satisfying explanation/exploration of the point of the story that carefully addresses concerns we would have with it.
Several Game reviewers didnt even understand what each of the devices did and just ran down the middle because it seemed like "the one they were supposed to pick". The ending ends without resolving anything, we dont understand what happened to the fleets or the normandy. These arent bad things to put in an ending, the problem is the game was rushed and they cut the parts of this ending that would make us CARE, the things that MATTERED. We didnt get a battle, we didnt understand what was happening, we didnt know what the choice was really about, we didnt get a reason for the normandy to leave the battle, we didnt find out what happened to the fleets or the galaxy.
It was barebones. Its like a game's ending with all the meat and the crunchy yummy skin cut out. Its a ****ty chicken dinner and not what we wanted. We wanted the full coarse meal, instead we got table scraps. If this ending brings the full bucket of KFC that we want it wont matter that theres a god child or that the relays explode or that normandy is stranded somewhere because there'll be REASON for it, we'll have something to CARE about, the ending will FEEL like something rather than nothing. It's not irreperable, it doesnt need to be replaced, it just needs actual time and care spent making it worthwhile.
edit: Now i kind of want to edit the ME1 endings down into this barebones thing that I'm talking about to illustrate the real issue of the situation to all of the youtubes.
Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 17 avril 2012 - 02:53 .
#155
Posté 17 avril 2012 - 02:47
medusa_hair
-
- Members
- 267 messages
Here's the problem: It was so inadequately explained that it's actually possible to argue over what actually happened. That's the biggest problem with the ending. Not only do you not really know what became of everyone else (which you can debate whether this is really necessary), but you're not even sure why any of the rest of it happened, or indeed what it was that actually did happen. Did the relays destroy systems, or not? While it doesn't directly appear so, that would contradict something that was clearly spelled out in The Arrival. That's just one example.
Whatever they wanted the ending to be, their main failing was the vagueness of the storytelling at the very time that clarity was most important. That's where I feel they screwed up the most.
Whatever they wanted the ending to be, their main failing was the vagueness of the storytelling at the very time that clarity was most important. That's where I feel they screwed up the most.
#156
Posté 17 avril 2012 - 03:19
CulturalGeekGirl
-
- Members
- 3 280 messages
The other problem is that everything we know about the choices at the end is provided by someone we have every reason to hate and mistrust: the multi-genocidal controller of the Reapers. We also have pretty solid proof that he is either lying, misinformed, ignorant, or inarticulate, based on the odd incongruities between his dialogue and the actual state of the universe. Indeed, a large number of people who like the ending assume that the Star Child is lying about the ending they chose.
Because all our information comes from this loathsome, idiotic monster, the choices he offers are inherently both tainted and suspect. If, say, Liara was up there examining the devices and telling me what she thought they'd do, they would feel less nihilistic and empty.
There is also the fact that, if he does actually control the Reapers, the Starchild could offer a much wider range of solutions; he simply chooses not to. He could pilot all the reapers into the sun, or make the reapers reap synthetics and any race who creates synthetics, imbuing the galaxy with this simple rule: create autonomous synthetics, and get reaped. It is his whim that determines the choices we have available, and nothing more.
If the choices were offered by anyone else, and emerged naturally from the philosophies of past races, the endings could be otherwise almost entirely unchanged and make more narrative sense.
You would still need some reinforcement of these themes throughout the game. They actually almost do this, with Javik and the destroy ending. If the part of the Crucible that is a big "Destroy all Synthetics!" button was added by the Protheans, it is established in the story that they see "dump the AI out the airlock" as a solution to everything.
If you changed the way the choices were presented so that they didn't seem to be the Starchild's "idea," it would give the player more feelings of agency, and less of an impression that they were being controlled puppet-like by a madman who was limiting their options for no good reason. If the Starchild abjured the player not to use ANY of the devices, and then a Prothean VI pitched the Destroy ending, a Keeper-Race VI pitched Control, and some third entity pitched Synthesis, then ALL of the endings would feel like a rejection of the horror that is the Reapers.
Because all our information comes from this loathsome, idiotic monster, the choices he offers are inherently both tainted and suspect. If, say, Liara was up there examining the devices and telling me what she thought they'd do, they would feel less nihilistic and empty.
There is also the fact that, if he does actually control the Reapers, the Starchild could offer a much wider range of solutions; he simply chooses not to. He could pilot all the reapers into the sun, or make the reapers reap synthetics and any race who creates synthetics, imbuing the galaxy with this simple rule: create autonomous synthetics, and get reaped. It is his whim that determines the choices we have available, and nothing more.
If the choices were offered by anyone else, and emerged naturally from the philosophies of past races, the endings could be otherwise almost entirely unchanged and make more narrative sense.
You would still need some reinforcement of these themes throughout the game. They actually almost do this, with Javik and the destroy ending. If the part of the Crucible that is a big "Destroy all Synthetics!" button was added by the Protheans, it is established in the story that they see "dump the AI out the airlock" as a solution to everything.
If you changed the way the choices were presented so that they didn't seem to be the Starchild's "idea," it would give the player more feelings of agency, and less of an impression that they were being controlled puppet-like by a madman who was limiting their options for no good reason. If the Starchild abjured the player not to use ANY of the devices, and then a Prothean VI pitched the Destroy ending, a Keeper-Race VI pitched Control, and some third entity pitched Synthesis, then ALL of the endings would feel like a rejection of the horror that is the Reapers.
Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 17 avril 2012 - 03:21 .
#157
Posté 17 avril 2012 - 04:17
Doctor_Jackstraw
-
- Members
- 2 231 messages
Thats pretty cool. Maybe taking it as far as having a keeper vi would be abit much, but opening communications with hackett (this could get messy but its a suggestion) or bringing the prothean vi with you and involving them in the final conversation about the crucible would be interesting. I think the point was that the catalyst himself was supposed to be on the level of a VI, and that he was just presenting the two failsafes created for the citadel if the reaper initiative needed to be changed, but that his "discovery" of the synthesis choice was a legitimate product of construction of the crucible, something added to the blueprints by a previous race.
The way I see the variations in the ending relate to how well your war assets are able to complete the crucible to its intended function. if you barely get any war assets then the crucible is poorly constructed and destroys earth, but the better your war assets the most possibility the crucible has and the more accurately it can carry out its purpose without collateral damage. This is something bioware should have driven home.
hmmm...
The prothean VI thing is interesting but it reminds me of something important, the save dumps you back out to before the raid on cerberus HQ, meaning that they can alter that mission and have the prothean VI set up the choices you'll face in the ending, giving you a better explanation going into the mission of what the crucible may be capable of, and maybe hint at how they came across the blueprints. stuff like this would go a long ways towards having the player "buy into" the culminating decision at the end. (it would hang over their head throughout the entire mars mission)
thinking about it now i'm actually REALLY upset at how short the conversation with the prothean vi on chronos station was. there you were with all this information available to you and you ask one question and then IMMEDIATELY book it for the big war time scene at the end. If the prothean dumped some hints and info on you that adds to what the starchild reveals to you after the confrontation with tim....that could go a LONG way, since the kid would be confirming your suspicions rather than 'revealing it all'.
The way I see the variations in the ending relate to how well your war assets are able to complete the crucible to its intended function. if you barely get any war assets then the crucible is poorly constructed and destroys earth, but the better your war assets the most possibility the crucible has and the more accurately it can carry out its purpose without collateral damage. This is something bioware should have driven home.
hmmm...
The prothean VI thing is interesting but it reminds me of something important, the save dumps you back out to before the raid on cerberus HQ, meaning that they can alter that mission and have the prothean VI set up the choices you'll face in the ending, giving you a better explanation going into the mission of what the crucible may be capable of, and maybe hint at how they came across the blueprints. stuff like this would go a long ways towards having the player "buy into" the culminating decision at the end. (it would hang over their head throughout the entire mars mission)
thinking about it now i'm actually REALLY upset at how short the conversation with the prothean vi on chronos station was. there you were with all this information available to you and you ask one question and then IMMEDIATELY book it for the big war time scene at the end. If the prothean dumped some hints and info on you that adds to what the starchild reveals to you after the confrontation with tim....that could go a LONG way, since the kid would be confirming your suspicions rather than 'revealing it all'.
Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 17 avril 2012 - 04:19 .
#158
Posté 17 avril 2012 - 05:20
fle6isnow
-
- Members
- 582 messages
The Prothean VI already hints at the control and destroy options on Thessia, so yeah, maybe they can put in more conversation about that in Cronos station.
I think the synthesis option is more a product of this cycle, though. If you think about it, previous cycles have always been anti-synthetic, so they would either choose to destroy or control AI to solve their problems. However, the current cycle is the first where organics and synthetics work together, so synthesis would be a symbol of that cooperation.
I just wish synthesis was less space magicky, is all.
I think the synthesis option is more a product of this cycle, though. If you think about it, previous cycles have always been anti-synthetic, so they would either choose to destroy or control AI to solve their problems. However, the current cycle is the first where organics and synthetics work together, so synthesis would be a symbol of that cooperation.
I just wish synthesis was less space magicky, is all.
#159
Posté 17 avril 2012 - 05:24
dreman9999
-
- Members
- 19 067 messages
About the gun.....They don't make them like that any more.
About Anderson....You don't see there's only one path?
About Anderson....You don't see there's only one path?
#160
Posté 17 avril 2012 - 05:26
Shaoken
-
- Members
- 706 messages
dreman9999 wrote...
About Anderson....You don't see there's only one path?
The walls are moving, we see that.
Alternatively Anderson wanted to get to that console and Starchild knew better than to get in his way.
#161
Posté 17 avril 2012 - 05:31
brickheart
-
- Members
- 90 messages
OP is indoctrinated! Get out of here, the reapers are infiltrating our own!
#163
Posté 17 avril 2012 - 09:29
Doctor_Jackstraw
-
- Members
- 2 231 messages
dreman9999 wrote...
About the gun.....They don't make them like that any more.
About Anderson....You don't see there's only one path?
That this video proves where anderson came from: It's all there.
(Check out that guy's channel, he does a BANG UP job at proving where everything is, he even complete catches proof that shepard breathing scene takes place on the citadel, and that the trees and bodies were there before you got shot by the beam, IT disproven???)
Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 17 avril 2012 - 09:30 .
#164
Posté 17 avril 2012 - 10:04
Wazehaze
-
- Members
- 27 messages
Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
About the gun.....They don't make them like that any more.
About Anderson....You don't see there's only one path?
That this video proves where anderson came from: It's all there.
(Check out that guy's channel, he does a BANG UP job at proving where everything is, he even complete catches proof that shepard breathing scene takes place on the citadel, and that the trees and bodies were there before you got shot by the beam, IT disproven???)
Im suprised how many people have been wondering about Anderson being able to get to the control panel before the player. He even says that the walls are moving so i never even thought it would be a plothole or whatever.
But is it true that EDI can survive destroy ending? And that starchild was most likely bluffing about the options? And that EDI could infact survive and so could shepard? Assuming he is breathing at the end.
But still........ ROTS OF PRECURATIONS
#165
Posté 17 avril 2012 - 05:37
Nashiktal
-
- Members
- 5 584 messages
A lot of the cries of plothole, while they may be wrong, does show that bioware REALLY needed to work on that ending more. If things had been clearer, (while the ending would still be displeasing) there would be less misunderstanding among the fans.
#166
Posté 17 avril 2012 - 07:26
kal_reegar
-
- Members
- 479 messages
IsaacShep wrote...
- Anderson tells you that Reapers arrive in London to set up the beam to transport humans to Citadel long before they learn from TIM about Crucible/Citadel connection = they don't retake the Citadel just because it was going to be used against them, it was their plan from the beginning to retake it
no, the reapers close the citadel when the arrive on the earth.
after the Cerberus Base mission you can see the citadel finishing closing... so it means it wasn't closed before, I suppose
and Anderson in the dialogue before the final space battle confirmes it: "the citadel closed itself since it appeared over london"
so no, the reapers have full control of the citadel, and they're using the beam to teleport into the citadel the humans they capture.
#167
Posté 17 avril 2012 - 07:32
Tony208
-
- Members
- 1 378 messages
Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...
Going to list abunch of falacies and then explain why they aren't.
Reapers kill everyone.
Harvesting people is the same as killing them.
Reapers do kill everyone and harvesting is the same as killing them. They get turned in to genetic paste, they're dead. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
#168
Posté 18 avril 2012 - 07:55
Doctor_Jackstraw
-
- Members
- 2 231 messages
Tony208 wrote...
Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...
Going to list abunch of falacies and then explain why they aren't.
Reapers kill everyone.
Harvesting people is the same as killing them.
Reapers do kill everyone and harvesting is the same as killing them. They get turned in to genetic paste, they're dead. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
so what you are saying is that you DONT believe in reaper-ascension?
salvation through destruction?
I have a pamphlet you should read.
Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 18 avril 2012 - 07:55 .
#169
Posté 18 avril 2012 - 07:58
Doctor_Jackstraw
-
- Members
- 2 231 messages
kal_reegar wrote...
IsaacShep wrote...
- Anderson tells you that Reapers arrive in London to set up the beam to transport humans to Citadel long before they learn from TIM about Crucible/Citadel connection = they don't retake the Citadel just because it was going to be used against them, it was their plan from the beginning to retake it
no, the reapers close the citadel when the arrive on the earth.
after the Cerberus Base mission you can see the citadel finishing closing... so it means it wasn't closed before, I suppose
and Anderson in the dialogue before the final space battle confirmes it: "the citadel closed itself since it appeared over london"
so no, the reapers have full control of the citadel, and they're using the beam to teleport into the citadel the humans they capture.
Likely: TIM simply acting within the reapers' plans. He's beckoned there at the controls to prevent anyone who gets onboard from using it, without knowing this himself, he's unable to resist.
