808 réponses à ce sujet

[pikey1969]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

pikey1969 wrote...

It doesn't neccessarily make his conclusion correct either.

Absolutely! 

Two, is on a more meta-scale. If I read the conversations with the Catalyst correctly, he's the outcome of a technological singularity. Anything beyond the Technological Singularity is just as much a realm of the unknown outside the bounds of science, perhaps even more so than the origin of the universe. Now, unlike many, I really appreciated the introduction of the catalyst, even in the last 5 minutes of the triology, because of the fact that Technological Singularity was introduced as the root cause of all of the 'reaper hassle'. But the options he offers, rather the options offered to the player as a conclusion seemed to rather trivialize this concept, barring the Destroy option, which is basically a 'cop-out' for hoping for the best nature of organics, an acceptable solution given the uncertain nature of the concept of 'Technological Singularity'.

Interesting.  I hadn't thought of it quite like this.

That said, given the 'flawed' nature of the Catalyst's logic, would/could it not have been within the realm of possibility that Shepard could have simply asked the Catalyst to back off?

Meh, I dunno, maybe it's that inner 'unicorn/happy ending lover' in me that doesn't want to kill off the Geth, but alas.

Possibly.  What we would have liked in the ending is going to influence our perspective, but with the entire plot being about buying time to prepare the Crucible, I think I would have been disappointed is it turns out we were able to win with just our fleet.  I think it undervalues how threatening the Reapers actually are.

I'm okay with the fact that we could have chosen to tell the Catalyst to pike off (the same way I'm okay with telling The Master that I'm okay with his super mutant plan).  Ultimately though, I would have only liked the idea if it resulted in the Reapers eventually winning (maybe low EMS is just outright defeat, while higher EMS is organizing the crucible plans, and Liara's memento, and shooting it off for the next cycle to find).


Also, for everyone... Be nice to poor Deraldin.  He's just mad because my Adept totally roflstomped his crappy little Engineer in Multiplayer.   My back was tired of carrying the load!

Yeah. As some fans have pointed out in the past around these forums, technological singularity isn't entirely a 'fresh' concept, especially in the realms of sci-fi. However, it is a very fascinating subject to approach indeed. Because of that whole appeal of the 'truly unknowable/fathomable future' it mashes all too well with the genre of space sci-fi, which too grounds much of its appeal in the mystery of open-space, that vast ocean of possibilities and the unknown.

However it's also very tricky to tackle as well. It is SUCH a huge distance of not only time, but concept, that it can too easily trivialize/overwhelm everything else in a story.

I personally thought the way Bioware handled the introduction was surprisingly elegant, until the moment synthesis/control are introduced. While each on their own are very intriguing ways/solutions to technological singularity, when lined up as 'ultimate choices' I don't know, that's when the illusion/mystique of the subject kind of broke for me. Surprisingly DESTROYING option is the one that truly retained the mystique of the subject matter. For me anyway.

By the way, even though you're technically not the mouthpiece for the franchise on any leve, I think it's fantastic that' you're doing this. I am sorry I posted that weekes interview... I guess he did wind up stealing your thunder.

[JudgeOverdose]

I don't have much to add to the topic; I've been giving myself eyestrain all day long writing reports and the like, admittedly with brief breaks to look at the forums, but I wanted to thank you (Allan Schumacher) for responding to the community in a constructive, and friendly manner. I get the sense many BioWare employees don't really want to hop on the forums these days because they know that the response will likely be very negative (and it likely will be, honestly), but it's really cool that you took your time to come here and have an honest discussion with us.

Thank you.

[Alanosborn1991]

My Wesker Shepherd chose to control the Reapers did so because he wanted power, the most powerful force in the universe! The Reapers.

Little did they know that by making me the new catalyst Wesker Shephard uses the Reapers to wipe out every space faring advanced race that isnt humans.

Ahhhh it feels good to be the dominant species

And then I control the Reapers to make Mass Relays that connect to different galaxys! That way humans can dominate the Universe!!!!!! LLOLOLLOLOLOLOLL

I hope I have this choice in extended cut =D

[DanteImprimis]

tractrpl wrote...

Actually, we know enough about Dark Energy to know it's everywhere, making something like 70% of the universe. You have more Dark Energy in your body right at this very instant than you have atoms, so to speak. It's also very uniform. To suggest is has a conscience and is out to kill all life is...very far fetched indeed.

Don't mean to be pedantic here, but to say that we have more dark energy "in" our bodies than atoms is, strictly speaking, not correct. Dark energy and dark matter are distinct from baryonic matter, which includes all atoms and essentially everything we actually interact with; our bodies are, naturally, made up exclusively of baryonic matter.

It might be accurate to say that the amount of dark energy flowing through the area of spacetime that you currently occupy is greater than the amount of baryonic matter comprising your body, but since we know nothing about dark energy or how to quantify it, such a statement wouldn't really mean much. I suspect this is what you were trying to say, as in the context of neutrinos, which is non-baryonic matter, but matter nonetheless, and therefore still distinct from dark matter and dark energy.

Edit: Words.

Modifié par DanteImprimis, 08 avril 2012 - 05:10 .

[dreaming_raithe]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Udalango wrote...

This is my problem.  You introduce the NEW Major Antagonist in the last 5 mins, he has 14 lines of dialogue.  WHY SHOULD I TRUST HIM.  Why is there no option for me to tell him to shove off with his "Choice"  
Why cant I tell him what he is doing makes absolutely no sense.  
I just wanted to punch Harbinger in his big stupid face.  I hate the catalyst *Pouty face*

That's fair.  Just hypothetically, but would that ending have still satisfied you if it resulted in the Reapers winning?

I'm just curious if people are more "I just want to say no to the Catalyst" or if it's more of a "I want to say no to the Catalyst and find an alternative way to victory!"  I'm okay with the former, but I struggle to imagine how Shepard could find an alternative at that junction since so many events are already set into motion.

You could argue that "doing nothing" on the Crucible counts, but I wouldn't consider anything that says "Critical Mission Failure" to be a viable ending :

To be honest, the game sets you up to believe you're going to beat the Reapers no matter what, especially with Javik's bit about how the unified galaxy is something never achieved in his time. Throw in that Thanix cannons are standard issue (when they weren't in ME1) and I think an ending involving ignoring the Catalyst would have been feasible enough. The Catalyst/Crucible having the three magic buttons that it does barely makes any sense in the first place, and I'm still really frustrated with the three choices we were presented with.

It would have been better, imo, to have "Destroy" be the only ending, but the level of destruction would be determined by War Assets/EMS. Low enough, the Relays, Earth, Shepard, and all Synthetic life are all gone. With more EMS, the beam is able to precision target, saving more of those things at each stage. This would have echoed the style of ME2's ending somewhat, which is honestly what I assumed would be the case up until the Catalyst made his appearance.

[Abreu Road]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Udalango wrote...

This is my problem.  You introduce the NEW Major Antagonist in the last 5 mins, he has 14 lines of dialogue.  WHY SHOULD I TRUST HIM.  Why is there no option for me to tell him to shove off with his "Choice"  
Why cant I tell him what he is doing makes absolutely no sense.  
I just wanted to punch Harbinger in his big stupid face.  I hate the catalyst *Pouty face*

That's fair.  Just hypothetically, but would that ending have still satisfied you if it resulted in the Reapers winning?

I'm just curious if people are more "I just want to say no to the Catalyst" or if it's more of a "I want to say no to the Catalyst and find an alternative way to victory!"  I'm okay with the former, but I struggle to imagine how Shepard could find an alternative at that junction since so many events are already set into motion.

You could argue that "doing nothing" on the Crucible counts, but I wouldn't consider anything that says "Critical Mission Failure" to be a viable ending :

I think the last time I checked my galactic readiness it said ''chances are even'' or something like that. Don't know. It's been 17 days since I finished ME3 and did not touched it again.

Worst thing in the ending is that you can't argue Starchild that MAYBE he could be wrong. You know, you can help two synthetic pals of yours to understand organics; maybe you helped an entire species of synthetics to get free will; or help to achieve peace in a 300 years wars between Synt/Organics, and more than that, cooperation between them.

That could break his Xzibit logic.

[Alanosborn1991]

DanteImprimis wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

Actually, we know enough about Dark Energy to know it's everywhere, making something like 70% of the universe. You have more Dark Energy in your body right at this very instant than you have atoms, so to speak. It's also very uniform. To suggest is has a conscience and is out to kill all life is...very far fetched indeed.

Don't mean to be pedantic here, but to say that we have more dark energy "in" our bodies than atoms is, strictly speaking, not correct. Dark energy and dark matter are distinct from baryonic matter, which includes all atoms and essentially everything we actually interact with; our bodies are, naturally, made up exclusively of baryonic matter.

It might be accurate to say that the amount of dark energy flowing through the fabric of spacetime where you exist is greater than the amount of baryonic matter comprising your body, but since we know nothing about dark energy or how to quantify it, such a statement wouldn't really mean much. I suspect this is what you were trying to say, as in the context of neutrinos, which is non-baryonic matter, but matter nonetheless, and therefore still distinct from dark matter and dark energy.

Oh snap! SPACE MAGIC WAR!!!!!! We better get Casey and Patrick Weekes in here!

[Udalango]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That's fair.  Just hypothetically, but would that ending have still satisfied you if it resulted in the Reapers winning?

I'm just curious if people are more "I just want to say no to the Catalyst" or if it's more of a "I want to say no to the Catalyst and find an alternative way to victory!"  I'm okay with the former, but I struggle to imagine how Shepard could find an alternative at that junction since so many events are already set into motion.

You could argue that "doing nothing" on the Crucible counts, but I wouldn't consider anything that says "Critical Mission Failure" to be a viable ending :

I would have been yes.  I dont understand why Shepard would give in to the options at all.  
I would have actually enjoyed the Reapers win ending.  Im not saying I wouldnt try to fry all those dudes up but I feel like giving in to him so easily without at least TRYING to find another way was 100% lame.  I think his entire character was lame though and that sours me on everything regarding him

I watched his cut scene and turned it off.  My Game currently has one ending where it just fades out after Shep saying he doesnt know how to fix it and the Reapers win.  And one ending where it ends after Anderson's farewell and the Reapers are dead.
My endings work for me.  But I dont think I should have to not play to get endings I feel even the teensyist bit satisfied about.  

[Gibb_Shepard]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Udalango wrote...

This is my problem.  You introduce the NEW Major Antagonist in the last 5 mins, he has 14 lines of dialogue.  WHY SHOULD I TRUST HIM.  Why is there no option for me to tell him to shove off with his "Choice"  
Why cant I tell him what he is doing makes absolutely no sense.  
I just wanted to punch Harbinger in his big stupid face.  I hate the catalyst *Pouty face*

That's fair.  Just hypothetically, but would that ending have still satisfied you if it resulted in the Reapers winning?

I'm just curious if people are more "I just want to say no to the Catalyst" or if it's more of a "I want to say no to the Catalyst and find an alternative way to victory!"  I'm okay with the former, but I struggle to imagine how Shepard could find an alternative at that junction since so many events are already set into motion.

You could argue that "doing nothing" on the Crucible counts, but I wouldn't consider anything that says "Critical Mission Failure" to be a viable ending :

Personally, i'd be happy if Shepard was allowed to object the Child's logic. We get a "Maybe" but that is not nearly enough. I personally feel that the story-telling in itself was made inconsistent by narrowing the series' concept down to "Synthetics vs Organics" despite being shown the contrary throughout ME3. But just allowing SHepard to object to the Child's logic would've been enough for me honestly. To show that the Child is not an omnipotent character whom was placed into the game as an avatar for a universal truth. That's what he seems like, because we cannot dispute any part of his logic. Had the game shown he was a flawed machine with no ability to comprehend change (Which couldve been done through more exposition), i'd be fine with accepting his choices. If this was done, i'm sure most players' would realize that this is the Crucible's limitations; the limitations of a flawed machine. But since the character is not presented as such, people assume they can change his mind as he seems omnipotent and knowledgable.

They just had to allow Shepard to dispute his logic to reveal his serious flaws as a character, and also make it more clear that these are the only options present. There is no other way. If this had been done, i believe there wouldn't be so many people wanting to kick the child.

[Allan Schumacher]

pavi132 wrote...

I wish I could have refused to even entertain anything the Starchild threw at me. I would rather have sat my ass on the Citadel ignoring the Starchild while looking out at a galaxy united fighting the Reapers. Maybe everyone would be wiped out and maybe the cycle would continue. But you know what? At least the entire galaxy would die together as one, not compromising who they were, not turning to sacrifice each other as in the destruction ending. I played through the game with two major goals, 1) broker peace and unite the people of the galaxy, and 2) never compromise who I was for anything or anyone. The way the endings are, no matter what I chose, those were ripped from me as destruction would destroy the peace I had worked so hard to accomplish and control or synthesis would go against who my Shepard was. He would not force synthesis on people and would definitely not allow the threat to remain in any capacity by following through with what TIM wanted, which was to control the reapers, for whatever reason. Unfortunately the endings took that away from my Shepard entirely.

I just want to comment that I don't think it's fair to yourself to think that the peace itself was destroyed.  Assuming you don't believe in outright galactic destruction due to the relays exploding, I think that the ramifications of the Geth-Quarian conflict will still be felt by many.  Especially the Quarians.  In fact, I really hope that they have a scene to reflect this in the ending DLC.  I don't know about anyone else, but I think showing Quarians mourning the sudden loss of their new allies on Rannoch would be magnificently poignant!

Aside from that, I understand the rest of your post and it's too bad that that's the way it played out for you.  Hopefully the new DLC will help in that regard.

Allan, in my own "headcanon" I controlled the Reapers only to command
them to self-destruct or dive into the nearest star. In this way, I was
able to destroy the reapers without sacrificing the Geth. Do you think,
as an inside Bioware man, that such an idea would be a...possible
loophole for this? Or will Bioware say "No, you can't force the Reapers
to destroy themselves" or something?

First... I have to facepalm myself for not considering that!  LOL.  I'm not sure how it will play out.  It's one of the reservations I have about providing closure.  Maybe in this regard, we don't really show what Shepard does with the Reapers to allow the player to maintain that type of agency.  I don't really have anything to offer as an "inside man" though, unfortunately.

[tractrpl]

DanteImprimis wrote...

tractrpl wrote...

Actually, we know enough about Dark Energy to know it's everywhere, making something like 70% of the universe. You have more Dark Energy in your body right at this very instant than you have atoms, so to speak. It's also very uniform. To suggest is has a conscience and is out to kill all life is...very far fetched indeed.

Don't mean to be pedantic here, but to say that we have more dark energy "in" our bodies than atoms is, strictly speaking, not correct. Dark energy and dark matter are distinct from baryonic matter, which includes all atoms and essentially everything we actually interact with; our bodies are, naturally, made up exclusively of baryonic matter.

It might be accurate to say that the amount of dark energy flowing through the area of spacetime that you currently occupy is greater than the amount of baryonic matter comprising your body, but since we know nothing about dark energy or how to quantify it, such a statement wouldn't really mean much. I suspect this is what you were trying to say, as in the context of neutrinos, which is non-baryonic matter, but matter nonetheless, and therefore still distinct from dark matter and dark energy.

Edit: Words.

Yes, that's right. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but most theories posit that dark matter is a type of neutrino. I remember someone saying that if it was true, there are more neutrinos making comprising dark matter flowing through your body than actual atoms. If that's true, and dark energy is 3 times larger in quantity than dark matter, and if dark energy is quantized like dark matter, matter, and EM energy, then there's likely more "dark energy" in your body than atoms.

[Vexille]

dreaming_raithe wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Udalango wrote...

This is my problem.  You introduce the NEW Major Antagonist in the last 5 mins, he has 14 lines of dialogue.  WHY SHOULD I TRUST HIM.  Why is there no option for me to tell him to shove off with his "Choice"  
Why cant I tell him what he is doing makes absolutely no sense.  
I just wanted to punch Harbinger in his big stupid face.  I hate the catalyst *Pouty face*

That's fair.  Just hypothetically, but would that ending have still satisfied you if it resulted in the Reapers winning?

I'm just curious if people are more "I just want to say no to the Catalyst" or if it's more of a "I want to say no to the Catalyst and find an alternative way to victory!"  I'm okay with the former, but I struggle to imagine how Shepard could find an alternative at that junction since so many events are already set into motion.

You could argue that "doing nothing" on the Crucible counts, but I wouldn't consider anything that says "Critical Mission Failure" to be a viable ending :

To be honest, the game sets you up to believe you're going to beat the Reapers no matter what, especially with Javik's bit about how the unified galaxy is something never achieved in his time. Throw in that Thanix cannons are standard issue (when they weren't in ME1) and I think an ending involving ignoring the Catalyst would have been feasible enough. The Catalyst/Crucible having the three magic buttons that it does barely makes any sense in the first place, and I'm still really frustrated with the three choices we were presented with.

It would have been better, imo, to have "Destroy" be the only ending, but the level of destruction would be determined by War Assets/EMS. Low enough, the Relays, Earth, Shepard, and all Synthetic life are all gone. With more EMS, the beam is able to precision target, saving more of those things at each stage. This would have echoed the style of ME2's ending somewhat, which is honestly what I assumed would be the case up until the Catalyst made his appearance.

Agreed... actually that would be awesome... say at like 6500+ EMS you get another option that says something like "all these choices are wrong, I wont let fear compromise who I am!" Basically tell the reaperchild to stuff it, have Hackett call and Shep can tell him the cost of using the crucible is too high, then a rousing speech about how the unified galaxy CAN defeat the reapers. Reaper fleet is defeated over earth

    THen we can get an epilogue telling us of how the battle for Earth was the beginning of the end for the reapers and how the united forces of the galaxy were slowly but surely able to defeat the reapers conventionally.

As Javik said the galaxy had never ben united like this against the Repears, I think it would fit for those who managed very high EMS scores and it would highlight "overcoming impossible odds through unity" theme we had going throughout the games.

Yes I think a high enough EMS should have let us win conventioally

[Allan Schumacher]

Last Vizard wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That's fair.  Just hypothetically, but would that ending have still satisfied you if it resulted in the Reapers winning?

I'm just curious if people are more "I just want to say no to the Catalyst" or if it's more of a "I want to say no to the Catalyst and find an alternative way to victory!"  I'm okay with the former, but I struggle to imagine how Shepard could find an alternative at that junction since so many events are already set into motion.

You could argue that "doing nothing" on the Crucible counts, but I wouldn't consider anything that says "Critical Mission Failure" to be a viable ending :

I have seen both of those videos and would prefer to not go through them again if I can help it.  Can you give the Coles notes on how it relates to the question you responded to?

[dakka dakka]

But does he commit Genocide? If you recall Shepard was also supposed to die because he was "part synthetic" but he can end up living.

What if the same went for EDI and the Geth?

LOTS OF SPECULATION FOR EVERYBODY!!

[pikey1969]

@Allan

Just fun food for thought, not trolling.

How would you feel about Technological Singularity-esque explanation being introduced to Dragon Age?

Imagine if one of the later missions involved Hawke discovering an advanced alien race (or previously extinct human civilization) and learning that 'magic' was really a form of biotic powers and etc? Think back to the temple scene in Thessia, and how the ancient Asari culture was revealed to be embedded with subtle uplifting of the Protheans (I do hope they gave you free copy of the Javik DLC ).

When outside the realms of sci-fi, it's a pretty scary type of concept to consider from a story-telling point of view. ;P

Modifié par pikey1969, 08 avril 2012 - 05:23 .

[dreaming_raithe]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I just want to comment that I don't think it's fair to yourself to think that the peace itself was destroyed.  Assuming you don't believe in outright galactic destruction due to the relays exploding, I think that the ramifications of the Geth-Quarian conflict will still be felt by many.  Especially the Quarians.  In fact, I really hope that they have a scene to reflect this in the ending DLC.  I don't know about anyone else, but I think showing Quarians mourning the sudden loss of their new allies on Rannoch would be magnificently poignant!

Given what Tali tells you about Geth sending their programs into Quarian suits, I'm not even sure how that would play out. Does that put the Quarians at risk when the Destroy beam goes off because their suits have Reaper tech in them now (since the Geth have Reaper code)? There is way too much left up in the air about this ending. Some room for interpretation is good, but we know so little about the repercussions of the various decisions that I don't even feel like you can make a rational choice when you're standing before the three buttons.

When I beat the game, I actually limped over to Destroy hoping it would get the Catalyst to elaborate more on each choice. I planned to do that for each one. I thought maybe that was our "Investigate" option since the choices themselves were sort of replacing the dialogue wheel at large.

[tractrpl]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
First... I have to facepalm myself for not considering that!  LOL.  I'm not sure how it will play out.  It's one of the reservations I have about providing closure.  Maybe in this regard, we don't really show what Shepard does with the Reapers to allow the player to maintain that type of agency.  I don't really have anything to offer as an "inside man" though, unfortunately.

To me, this is the only way to give the Catalyst the middle finger and chose my own path, separate from his choices. I'm destroying the Reapers essentially without sacrificing the Geth. I basically found a loophole and exploited it. The only issue is whether Shepard is able to break "indoctrination theory" and carry through with the Reaper self-destruct before he dies, or if there's some mechanism preventing the Reapers from self destructing.

[dakka dakka]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Last Vizard wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That's fair.  Just hypothetically, but would that ending have still satisfied you if it resulted in the Reapers winning?

I'm just curious if people are more "I just want to say no to the Catalyst" or if it's more of a "I want to say no to the Catalyst and find an alternative way to victory!"  I'm okay with the former, but I struggle to imagine how Shepard could find an alternative at that junction since so many events are already set into motion.

You could argue that "doing nothing" on the Crucible counts, but I wouldn't consider anything that says "Critical Mission Failure" to be a viable ending :

I have seen both of those videos and would prefer to not go through them again if I can help it.  Can you give the Coles notes on how it relates to the question you responded to?

personally I wouldn't have minded a ending with the Reapers winning as long as it was one of many distinct endings

I dislike endings that are just slapped together vaguely with very little distinctions beyond color. As for the Bioware wanting us to speculate about the end, I get that, but please please PLEASE give us something coherent to speculate on.

The endings as they are now is just a jumble of mixed media with a lot of flash and no fluff. I am so very glad that y'all are making an extended cut to clarify this mess but honestly......this clarification should have been in the game in the first place >_>

[tractrpl]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I have seen both of those videos and would prefer to not go through them again if I can help it.  Can you give the Coles notes on how it relates to the question you responded to?

This video pretty much talks about my "headcanon". I basically used the control option to just "shut them down". The only issue is that the game makes no mention of being able to just do exactly that. It's as if it assumes that if you take control of the Reapers, you wouldn't think of just using that control to just "shut them down". I suppose such a possibility never crossed the mind of the dev team.

[Last Vizard]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Last Vizard wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That's fair.  Just hypothetically, but would that ending have still satisfied you if it resulted in the Reapers winning?

I'm just curious if people are more "I just want to say no to the Catalyst" or if it's more of a "I want to say no to the Catalyst and find an alternative way to victory!"  I'm okay with the former, but I struggle to imagine how Shepard could find an alternative at that junction since so many events are already set into motion.

You could argue that "doing nothing" on the Crucible counts, but I wouldn't consider anything that says "Critical Mission Failure" to be a viable ending :

I have seen both of those videos and would prefer to not go through them again if I can help it.  Can you give the Coles notes on how it relates to the question you responded to?

sorry lol I only just finished ME3 thirty-forty minutes ago so I'm not sure where everyone else is at and wanted to rabble, I had my brother with me to show him the awesome ME3 final space battle to convince him that he should play it.  stood in the middle of the three choices while looking at the space battle overhead trying to work out what I should do, after some thought I tried killing the *child* to get out of some mind trap and after a short time I failed because the crucible was destroyed.

[Adain878]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Udalango wrote...

This is my problem.  You introduce the NEW Major Antagonist in the last 5 mins, he has 14 lines of dialogue.  WHY SHOULD I TRUST HIM.  Why is there no option for me to tell him to shove off with his "Choice"  
Why cant I tell him what he is doing makes absolutely no sense.  
I just wanted to punch Harbinger in his big stupid face.  I hate the catalyst *Pouty face*

That's fair.  Just hypothetically, but would that ending have still satisfied you if it resulted in the Reapers winning?

I'm just curious if people are more "I just want to say no to the Catalyst" or if it's more of a "I want to say no to the Catalyst and find an alternative way to victory!"  I'm okay with the former, but I struggle to imagine how Shepard could find an alternative at that junction since so many events are already set into motion.

You could argue that "doing nothing" on the Crucible counts, but I wouldn't consider anything that says "Critical Mission Failure" to be a viable ending :

The catalyst in general is just such a weak plot device. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but the way it was handled was just so poorly implemented. You had mentioned something about it being about the journey earlier. Well this journy ended abruptly at a brick wall.

At this point I think im just more annoyed than anything else, atleast with the indoc theory we gave bioware a way out of the poor writing, a chance for them to atleast go down in history with one of the greatest trolls ever done.

For anyone that complains about dreams/all in your head being poor plot devices I want you to look at this, if you get it you'll understand how strong it can be when done well.


imgur.com/JZfeL (SFW)

Modifié par Adain878, 08 avril 2012 - 05:32 .

[Tovanus]

The control ending felt like it had such an incredible dissonance with everything the narrative had said. You have this long conversation with the illusive man, reaffirming that only someone indoctrinated could possibly believe that control of a Reaper was possible. People remark that it is "madness" more than once in the plot. Across Paragon and Renegade options, you consider it a fool's errand. You consider the Reapers to not be above using flagrant dishonesty or indoctrination to make people think it's possible (so you'd logically be very distrusting of someone saying they control the Reapers to begin with). The Prothean VI told you that the separatists who thought they could use the Crucible to do it were found out to be indoctrinated in the Prothean cycle.

Then you can suddenly do it and it goes off without a hitch? The alternative of synthesis made less sense, but that was mostly because nothing in any of the games had ever given an indication that something could rewrite DNA for the universe. If something with that kind of power was going to be introduced into the story, it should have introduced early on. Like in the first Mass Effect, with numerous codex entries about ancient legends of a device that could rewrite everyone's DNA. That aside, it also makes you wonder why the Reapers didn't just do it to start with. How in the world could they not have known about the Crucible and what it could do cycle after cycle? They'd infiltrated it. They're supposed to be these brilliant, millions-of-years-old, hive mind behemoths. Why not give Synthesis a try one cycle? Or mention it to their boss? I mean, even if Reaper numbers increase after each cycle, it's probably not fun for some of those civilization hive minds to die in each war. The existence of the synthesis option, and the fact that it was never done before, makes the Starchild's "solution" seem like something a ten year old would come up with.

I'm not a believer in the indoctrination theory. But it's not hard to see why it gained so much freaking support. The destroy option being an escape from a hallucination made more sense than the other options being real. The IT theory is false, but it's sad that this fan-fiction theory has soooo much more narrative coherence than synthesis and control being real.

I myself picked Synthesis though. I mean, if nothing makes sense anymore, at least I could do something that gives Joker and EDI a chance. Plus, I was confused and in a state of shock, so I just kind of stumbled forward into the Light.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Do you know how those choices would be a lot better IMO?

If "destroy the reapers" actually "destroy the reapers". Yeah, done. No "kill all synthetics" BS.

And...

"Control the reapers" is "control the reapers". Yeah. What the Illusive Man thought would be true, is true, FOR REAL. Shepard doesn't need to die.

Paragon, Renegade.

Shepard is able to either destroy them forever or becomes their boss a.k.a Catalyst 2.0 as long as he lives and may get them for study becoming the next TIM or whatever.

And those choices would be also morally ambiguous. Will you just destroy them like you should or take TIM's route in what could really bring forward the next step into human evolution. Will you take that risk or not?

[dakka dakka]

Adain878 wrote...


imgur.com/JZfeL (SFW)

oh hey...Twin Peaks rip off

[Painaid]

I just wanted to say that you're freaking awesome for giving us your honest thoughts and opinions on the game, Mr. Scumacher. As a simple conversation between two fans, I really enjoyed reading what you had to say.