21 réponses à ce sujet

[GdawgTuk]

it's 39 minutes long, but holy cow did it open my eyes to just...everything going on with the ending. It seriously explained why it's so much more than just, "it's sad, I don't like it." Not even close! This seriously says it all, and Bioware employees and fans alike should check this out. 

Modifié par GdawgTuk, 08 avril 2012 - 07:48 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I've not seen this. Watching now. Thanks for posting!

[Allan Schumacher]

devSin wrote...

Caz Tirin wrote...

I'm curious.  How have you not seen this video linked to, posted about and talked about until now?  It's been around since March 27th.  This is one of the primary videos pointing out the flaws of the ending.

I believe he works only on the Dragon Age team.

So he has nothing to do with anything related to Mass Effect, except maybe working in the same building.

This!

I added a sig just so I don't need to elaborate that I am not a part of the ME team and speak as a fan of the ME franchise, rather than in any sort of "official" capacity.  So no, I am not up to speed on ME3 related decisions since it's not something I need to bother with on a day-to-day work schedule.  Having said that, I think everyone at work is following the ME3 ending situation on some level just because it's hard not to.


I have been hesitant to post, probably mostly because most of my posting history is from DAO/2 Tech support and no one goes to tech support to tell me how much they love talking with me.  Although how could they say that about my Mom!

Anyways, the discourse in the other thread as interesting, and I can't sleep right now, so I thought I'd chime in.  When I'm done the video I'll make comments on it.  The discourse was pleasant though so thanks for letting me discuss it, even if we had different opinions on it.

Here's the thread in case anyone is interested: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11146046/4
Started as a discussion of whether or not Legion's sacrifice was meaningless in the destroy ending.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 08 avril 2012 - 08:45 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Sellara wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I've not seen this. Watching now. Thanks for posting!

I'm not sure if you are allowed to comment on this, but is the ME3 team strongly discouraged from interacting with us directly right now? Honestly, I feel like if we could just have a few key choices (Starchild .. literally color coded endings.. no epilogue in intial package) clarified, in an honest non PR speak manner, it would make quite a few people feel better about this fiasco.

I just find it incredibly hard to believe that such a talented team didn't seem to notice the crescendo of their masterpiece just flat out did not work.. since you are watching that video, it really sums up how I feel almost perfectly.

I can't speak on behalf of the ME team.  I'm not speaking here in an "official" capacity (although I do recognize that having BioWare on my name does make people pay attention).  Some have expressed concern that I may get in trouble, though I'm not worried about that.  It's probably a bit easier for me to speak because I'm not a part of a the project and am speaking just as a fellow fan.  In fact, I actively toned out of ME updates in studio meetings because I didn't want spoilers lol.  So I can't say what causes someone to post here or not.  I mostly was just bored... >.>  hehe

I can say, from personal experience on DAO and DA2, working on something and seeing outcry for it can be difficult, even if I agree with the particular point going across.  Granted maybe in some level we need to deal with it based on our career choice, but I'm still human and if I make a post and it happens to get a snarky reply, it can be easier to just step out of the conversation.  I'm not even on the ME team and I was worried about stepping on a landmine haha.  Fortunately it's been a pleasant experience, so kudos on all that I've interacted with today and thanks for keeping it civil.


I should also point out that, as mentioned in the other thread, while I do feel the ending is a let down compared to the rest of the story, I actually don't mind it.  So right off the top there's going to be aspects that I disagree with.  But there will be some I do agree with, and I'm open to having conversation about it from one ME fan to another.

[Allan Schumacher]

Okay, my thoughts.  Initial high level stuff:  (NOTE: GIANT WALL OF TEXT ALERT, AND I WROTE IT WHILE TIRED SO IT MIGHT GET WEIRD BY THE END)

I enjoyed the attempts to add some humor.  In general that was good, although I would have liked to have seen all the questions he had posed that challenged narrative coherence.  And Wrex-Shepard went on a bit too long...  But alas!


I'll make my comments mostly in the same order points are brought up in the video.


His first serious beef is about the uncertainty of the Crucible's abilities.  He even states there isn't a codex entry.  Say what you will about the psuedo-Macguffin, for myself part of the intent of it was that it was mysterious and unknown.  Hackett even discusses with Shepard that he has uncertainties because he's not even sure if it will do what we want it to, so I'm not sure I entirely agree that this is a justified attempt at being nitpicky due to a lack of description.  Nitpicky justification comes at the inclusion of the Crucible in general as a plot device, but that's not an issue related directly to the ending.  I think it's fair to think the Crucible is lame, but I suppose a refutation is that we don't have any choice but to go with it.

Though the reason I don't mind a superweapon is that I did buy in that the Reapers could not be defeated conventionally.  Perhaps other alternatives could be explored, but this is what we were given as game players.  The feeling that it doesn't belong in the setting I think is a fair one, which the video does touch on.  Though IMO if you have issues with the Crucible in general, it undermines some of the events that happen in the ending because it's kind of liking counting twice.  If you think the Crucible is lame, then it stands to reason you're going to find other aspects of the Crucible lame as well.


As result, I do not agree with his concerns that the results of the consequences are arbitrary.  Yes, they are arbitrary, but not for no particular reason, but because it's part of the uncertainty that Hackett alluded to when discussing the Crucible.  We created a device we didn't fully understand and it led to consequences that we may not have been expecting.  I do not feel this undermines the narrative coherence, or makes the choice poor (in the other thread I discuss why I appreciated the fact that the Geth would probably die too).

This leads to a point that, at this poitn in the film, what he's really looking for is an explanation of what will happen.  Since he's not in favor of the idea of the extended DLC, he feels that this type of choice should be made explicit for the gamer prior to making the choice.  I disagree, but it's also clear to me that I am much more willing to accept that things were not entirely defined.  My conclusion is that the Catalyst is not an all knowing being, so even if he were to spend more time detailing out all the consequences, I have no problem if not every consequence is brought up.  I think the Catalyst's falliability is demonstrated in that Shepard can survive the decision.  This leads me to believe that it's possible with enough EMS that our Crucible is perhaps more precise than the Catalyst appreciated.  I do think that any resolution that the ending DLC may have (which I am also eagerly awaiting) may help a lot of people in this regard.  So I actually don't necessarily think "will this kill the Quarians" at the time is as reasonable as he feels.  Agree to disagree in that regard.

Concerns for the control ending are valid, although from a Shepard stand point I hesitated with it because my Shepard had doubts about what exactly it meant.  What level of control would I have?  What does it mean to control something even though I am dead?  That these questions existed, coupled with being uneasy with the Catalyst's intentions, made it hard for my Shepard to understand.  This goes double for the synthesis ending.  I can't really comprehend it as a person myself, which makes it difficult for me to decide to choose it.  Personally I think the choices were too similar to Deus Ex, and with the Catalyst being a Diabolus Ex Machina, I did have reservations with the situation.  I don't know why they were necessary, though I don't believe they're as logically inconsistent as others feel.  It's an easy cop out, which isn't a good thing, but unexplained things can be rationalized due to the unexplained nature of the Crucible itself.

Although, I think that spending a large amount of exposition detailing the consequences of my decision wouldn't have seemed right.  In my opinion, there is actually still a sense of urgency here, that needed to be better explained.  The Crucible is vulnerable, and delays will completely undermine it from doing anything as it is destroyed.  So I can understand a lack of additional explanation about the options themselves.  What I think would ahve been really good here is an opportunity to explicitly refuse these ideas.  You can sort of due this by just dying on the Crucible, but an ending that is "Critical Mission Failure" isn't really an ending.  Some sort of sequence of Shepard preserving the knowlege of this cycle for the next cycle would have been great.


Number two Character focus

I totally agree that caring about characters helps us care about what happens to them.  It's actually why I like the sacrifice of the Geth, because I do care about them.  It made me think about choosing destroy.

As for the Normandy scene, it's a scene I don't understand either.  I actually don't like it because it just seems so random and confusing.  I would have liked it for those scenes to have not existed at all.

The rest of this sequence I think details with closure, which is something I think is pretty subjective.  I am pretty indifferent and don't really feel a burning need to know the details of what happened, though at the same time I would have still enjoyed it if I did know.  The reason why I don't mind not knowing the details is I appreciate the idea of really not knowing any more than Shepard knows, and the idea that I have to make my choice with the hope that it is the right one, which I liked because the idea of hope is prevalent throughout the series.

Number Three: Central Conflict

I actually entirely agree that the Reapers didn't really need to be explained.  SImilar to how The Force didn't need to be explained, in doing so you diminish the mystique and potentially create additional confusion and questions.  I think this may have happened... hahaha.  (For the same reasons I would never have shown Tali's face).

Though I do feel that the Catalyst is the antagonist of the scene, not the protagonist.  I don't feel that the end choices are meaningless either.  

Unfortunately, combined with it being late (and me now being sleepy... haha) and some of his drawing parts out for humor, I think this area loses some steam after getting off to a really good start.


Narrative Coherence

I find this part more difficult to address based on preferring to see all the questions he had.  My concern was that to prove his point he starts to bring up issues the lie more with the general plot (what was the Crucible supposed to do) or issues that I didn't consider relevant (How did the Citadel move) to strengthen his point.

Narrative coherence does fall apart, but I think it's still maintained pretty well right up until Shepard is on the lift to see the Catalyst.  That's when the OMGWTFBBQ moment starts to happen and the uncertainty that the Crucible allows us to have goes really extreme. 


I definitely don't think that he hates Mass Effect.  No one that has spoken out with as much passion as the people that have hate the game.  If they hated the game they wouldn't care.  They wouldn't be posting clamouring for any type of response, and hanging on every announcement and making 30+ videos and sharing this video on several different threads.

I do agree that, while there's a unified movement for something to change for the ending, there are differences in what people want that complicate things.  I actually like the ending, and I had an interesting discussion with a friend of mine that said she respected the ending, as she said it made her feel sheepish about how much she really wanted a happy ending which she said surprised her.  In this sense I suppose you could argue it's an artistic interpretation, but I came away thinking it wasn't fantastic, but I don't hate it either.  To be fair, I did go into the ending expecting it to be very bad based on the internet rumors, which definitely predisposed me to going into the ending with a more open mind than I otherwise would have.


My personal opinion of the ending is that an ideal solution of Shepard and his teammates all surviving, with minimal cost, undermines the Reaper threat as much as the Reaper explanation is, so I'm definitely a "tough choices" type of guy.  But, I'm not a complete nihilist because I actually never interpreted the galaxy as going to **** at the end.  A large part of this is that I never played Arrival, so I had no expectation of what would happen with the destruction of a relay.  Even then, though, I never felt it was as cataclysmic, as the explosions in the videos definitely didn't seem to be of the supernova variety.  But I was also expecting the ending to be more in line with the first two games, where you aren't really presented a choice like we are, but rather we accomplish the goal (defeat reapers) and that experience we see events that demonstrate the reactivity of our playthroughs.


I do think I'm probably more harsh than I should be.  I do prefer his breakdown than some of the other videos I have seen.

Anyways, I'm starting to fade pretty fast now and I should probably stop as the last several paragraphs probably make less and less sense... haha.  I'll have to stop by tomorrow and explain whatever gigantic confusing mess I've put myself into!

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 08 avril 2012 - 11:12 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Nykara wrote...


In any case I haven't actually watched the video myself but after having read this post and the exlainations here I don't feel -as- bad about the ending as I first did. Not entirely. There are however, things I still dislike.

Haha that's fair.  My intent in posting is not to convince people that they should change how they feel about the endings.

On the topic of the Reapers not being able to be defeated by conventional means - I actually don't buy in to that explaination at all for a couple of very simple reasons.
- If something can be shot, blown up or destroyed it -can- be defeated it is not immortal.
- The reapers can be shot, they can be killed and their ships can be blown up
For this reason alone i came to the conclusion that the reapers can in fact be destroyed by conventional means - not easily but it can be done. For something to not be able to be destroyed conventionally, to me it means that the weapons we currently have - do not work against it at all. That is not the case with the Reapers, that's been prooven time and time again throughout the game. This is what made it very difficult to stomach that explaination.

Hmmm, I don't mind Hackett's explanation.  For myself, stating that the Reapers cannot be destroyed conventionally was more of an acknowledgement that going toe to toe with them, or even trying guerrilla war type stuff, was ultimately a Fools Errand.  It took an entire Quarian fleet several salvos to take out a Reaper destroyer on Rannoch, so while we can destroy them, it's going to come at a huge cost, and Hackett feels it's a war of attrition we'd never be able to win.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 08 avril 2012 - 09:26 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Yougottawanna wrote...

The Wrex-Shepard bit can never go on too long.

HAHAHA.

About the Crucible: it's true that many of my complaints about the Crucible are ones that go beyond just the ending. The thing is that one of the things I hoped to reinforce in the video was the ending should be changed - and if I start saying that the entire main plot of the game should be changed, then what I'm suggesting starts to get less and less feasible and less and less likely to happen. It's true that these plot points are intertwined, and that it's difficult to change the ending without changing the Crucible plotline. But to me that's just part of the unavoidable sausage-making process of writing for a video game. I don't want to give specific suggestions (I do have my own head-canon though), but I think with a bit of ingenuity these obstacles are not insurmountable.

That's fair.  You could argue that the seed of doubt was planted at the first occurrence enabling other things to disrupt your suspension of disbelief.

About knowing the details of your choices: For me the core of the problem is that not only do I not know the details, almost everything about the ending's overall vibe seems designed to reinforce the idea that details are no longer important. In my video about the extended cut announcement I do some nitpicky whining about how it makes no sense that shooting a tube should be the way to activate the Crucible for the destroy ending.

Now I suspect that the reason shooting a tube was chosen is because they wanted something that thematically was consistent with the idea of destroying something. That's fine, but it's very jarring to see just how counterintuitive the actual events I'm witnessing are. In the rest of the series, thematic consistency and narrative consistency worked together to form a cohesive whole. In the ending, narrative consistency is jettisoned and thematic consistency becomes the only concern. This is part of what I mean when I say that Mass Effect abandons its genre in the end. It becomes something more like a morality play, where abstraction and symbolism are the orders of the day rather than storytelling. You shouldn't end a science fiction story with a morality play; you should end it with more science fiction.

Interesting.  I don't really have a counterpoint or anything as basically you've summed up your experience and detailed why it is you feel that way haha.  Well done.

Okay right there I think you're kind of missing the point. He says that
lots of little things start showing up "how did they move the citadel
above earth" and so on although the one bit about tyhe citadel doesn't
break Narrative coherence it plays a part, just like the large beam of
light, the illusive man's a ability to indroctinate people, the catalyst
so on and so forth.

I disagree.  Part of the reason why I'd like to see the individual questions is more "Are you mad at the ending, or do you really have issues with the plot of ME3 as a whole?"  It also leads to "Are these genuine issues, or are you starting to overanalyze other aspects of the game because you've been fueled by your dislike of the ending?"

From MY perspective, it's not just about "how to fix ME3" but rather "What mistakes do you see in general."  I know the point of the video is to address the ending, but discussing the other parts of it is still a good discussion that helps me understand ALL the issues someone has with the game, rather than just one that's based on the ending.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 08 avril 2012 - 09:57 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Yougottawanna wrote...

<snip>

Thanks for the clarification.  It helped me make sense of the idea that it wasn't just a culmination of the entire game's issues where it all came to be.

I think some of the questions are actually explained, and in my impression don't present an issue, but then I also didn't mind the ending.  By the same token, some of the questions are very valid and questions that I also had.  If you want to go over it I can, but just wanted to explicitly call out a thanks.

Personally, the Geth sacrifice seemed to come out of nowhere for me and seemed completely undeserving.

That's fair.  I think as the game player if you found the inclusion of the Geth to be placed without being able to rationalize their inclusion, it's going to trip the player up.  Especially if they liked the Geth (I think it's hard not to sympathize with them).

Let
me put it in different words. Yes, the goal is to destroy all the
synthetics and Destroy accomplishes that very well. My problem is that
destroying what the Geth symbolize came as a slap to the face to me.

We
(Shepard) witnessed (if peace is chosen or if you're a monster and
saved the Geth over the Quarians) a race being born. Not physically, but
mentally. You were there, talking with Legion while he made the Geth
fully sentient individuals.

And then it's immediately taken away by the Destroy ending. That level
of potential, that level of personal connection by the player, should
not be yanked out of the player's grasp at the last moment (in my
opinion) especially in such a way. If there was something more, maybe
Shepard messaging the Geth fleet before the destroy to apologize ("I'm
sorry, it's the only way" + "We understand. If we must be sacrificed so
that intelligent life can be self determining then so be it.") or at
least something then I could better understand. But there wasn't.

This is actually why the choice works for me.  By the same token, it's also why people wish they could tell the Catalyst off.  Issues with the Catalyst aside, I don't find the inclusion of the Geth to be logically inconsistent because it still works as being a part of the unpredictability of the Crucible.

We're able to have Shepard empathize with the Geth, but then be put in a position that challenges the "We fight or we die" stance he held throughout the game.  If the Catalyst had mentioned "But all Vorcha will also die" then it's a bit easier to go "Eh... sorry Vorcha" because the player hasn't established that emotional connection with them.  I imagine any player that didn't like the Geth didn't have much issue with this decision either.

But I do also recognize that what I like in a game isn't necessarily what other people like in a game.  I actually enjoyed mulling over this decision because it illicited an emotional reaction from me (something I thought Mass Effect did really well, and one of the things that is constant throughout all of my favourite games).  I enjoy being presented with a difficult choice, and sometimes I appreciate that there may not be a better way around it.  I felt the same way with Ashley/Kaiden as well as Mordin on Tuchanka.  Though I understand a subtle difference in that Mordin and Ash/Kaiden all expressed a willingness to go through with it.

It is a crappy thing to have to do, but it's what I find makes Shepard an interesting character.  Though I'm not a complete nihilist, as my favourite movie is The Shawshank Redemption which is a movie that has me cheering right along side Andy at the end.  So yeah, I can understand why people have issues with it.  I remember seeing a comment along the lines of how the point of video games is to provide some escapism, and not allowing the player to truly "win" is a bad thing for games.  It's not something I require, but as a game dev it is something for me to think about.

Allan

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 09 avril 2012 - 03:21 .

[Allan Schumacher]

TreguardD wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...


We're able to have Shepard empathize with the Geth, but then be put in a position that challenges the "We fight or we die" stance he held throughout the game.  If the Catalyst had mentioned "But all Vorcha will also die" then it's a bit easier to go "Eh... sorry Vorcha" because the player hasn't established that emotional connection with them.  I imagine any player that didn't like the Geth didn't have much issue with this decision either.

No. It would not be any easier, and that's the *point*.

I disagree, but it's not something that I'm able to prove since the Geth are the ones at stake.  All I have are the assumptions on how I might behave, so I'll concede the point.  For you it's a non issue which race is at stake.

Cheers.

[Allan Schumacher]

The Angry One wrote...

Do you not see the fundamental problem with starbaby holding an entire race hostage?
"You kill me, they get taken with me." Is essentially what it's saying. In any other story this would be the villain gloating in the hero's face that they have the upper hand.
But here, we're supposed to go along with this arrogant monster? It makes no sense.

I don't see it as the Catalyst holding an entire race hostage.  I see it as an unexpected consequence of building a superweapon that we didn't fully understand.  All the Catalyst describes is the result of said choice.

If anything is missing, it's an explanation as to why the Crucible's discharge cannot be made to avoid the Geth (or maybe it actually can?).

[Allan Schumacher]

TreguardD wrote...

The Angry One is making the point better than I can. If that's the option; then my choice is not to fire the weapon.

That's fair, and I can definitely see the value in providing an option to refusing to do anything.  Some may say that you can do that, but no one wants to end on "Critical Mission Failure" pop up.

My take on it would have been to have the Reapers win, but with various degrees of failure based upon EMS.  A really low score is outright annihilation, but a better score is annihilation, but with Shepard and Co. encasing all they know in Liara's time capsule for the next cycle to find.

[Allan Schumacher]

Dorrieb wrote...

I would like to think that you're wrong about this, because genocide ought to be the ultimate sin regardless of which people are exterminated. The idea that an intelligent species could be completely and utterly exterminated by your actions and that you might go 'eh...' because you haven't really made friends with any of them is worrying. Your Shepard might, but my Shepard would nevah!

PS, I was being flip. I don't mean 'you' as in anyone in particular, and I'm not suggesting that anyone harbours genocidal thoughts. 

That's fair.  The only way I can really make that assessment is based upon my own beliefs.

It's easy for me to say that I'd have been just as affected, but I don't know if that actually would have been the case for me.  Like I said to the other fellow, if you believe that the selection of race wouldn't impact your decision, then that's the way you feel and kudos to you for being a better person than I

[Allan Schumacher]

Mr.House wrote...

But see, why not have that option? Alot of Shepards like mine would never have fired the cruible after she found out what it was and after hearing the worst logic she has ever heard from the Reaper controller. My Speard would have refused and would watch her fleet fight. Even if they failed it would not have destroyed my Shepard, instead I'm railroaded into three horrible choices. Also if we did refuse, why must it be a failure? If we worked hard and made a very very very powerful fleet why could we not win? We killed many Reapers in ME3 convently(sp) or thinking outsidet he box) Why not have the "happy" ending in fact be part of the reject ending and it's the hardest to get. I just don't see why you guys did not have that option and have us accept something alot of us would never accept.

Unfortunately I am not privy to what went in deciding what are acceptable responses to the Catalyst, so I can't really make any comment there.


As for why I'd make it the failure case, probably because the idea that the Reapers can be defeated conventionally seems like a cop out answer itself.  The Crucible is already a plot device, and then deciding at the end that the crucible is completely irrelevant and you could actually win without the superweapon lends me to wonder why the Protheans or some other cycle weren't able to win.

The few times we defeated the Reapers, it seemed like it took pretty extreme circumstances to do so.  I think someone pointed out that the codex indicates that it takes 4 dreadnoughts to take out a Reaper dreadnought without losing any ships.  I always had the impression that the Reapers were a very, very powerful force.

[Allan Schumacher]

Taleroth wrote...

Anaki86 wrote...

The Crucible was always needed. 

Needed... for what?

Here's the thing about the Crucible. Nobody has any clue what it does until the end. It could have been anything, including a boon to conventional warfare.

One of the more interesting ways the Crucible could have been used (and by "more interesting" I mean I came up with it and a few people have parroted it) is that it just nullifies the Mass Effect. Or that it weakens shields. It basically takes away from Reapers something that they need far more than everyone else does.

Their power is arbitrary. The crucible's power is arbitrary. The balance between the two is also therefore arbitrary. So yeah, if you wish to believe the crucible was necessary, that's cool. But that doesn't mean convential warfare was impossible. It could have been a component in such an event.

Although this is more just a critique of the writing.  In reality, due to the nature of the Crucible, the writers could have come up with pretty much anything they wanted.

[Allan Schumacher]

SharlenaSharlena wrote...

Wowserz Allan your posting like crazy!!! Can't sleep huh lolz.

I'll be crashing earlier tonight than I did last night hehe.  Just winding down the evening (midnight here)

[Allan Schumacher]

4 Dreadnoughts without Thanix guns. Thanix guns are more effective.

How much more effective are they? According to the codex they seem to rival the firepower of a cruiser, but are much smaller and can be equipped on frigates and fighters (which is useful). Is it really more powerful than weapons that exist on dreadnoughts?

And whilst the Reapers have always been a powerful force, a lot of their power came from surprise. Sovereign's strength was a surprise to everyone, and thousands died for it.

Sovereign was a surprise, but at the same time I vaguely recall him just going "oh look, a ship in my way. Whatever" and pretty much not being concerned about anything the fleet had to offer.

Maybe I just don't fully appreciate how much bigger our fleet is compared to the reaper fleet (I did love seeing the fleet come in)?

[Allan Schumacher]

Taleroth wrote...

Well said man, well said! The main problem with the end of ME3 is that Shepard and the player are ultimately forced to agree with the genocidal monsters the reapers and choose one of THEIR solution. As soon as the catalyst said to me "I created the reapers" everything that came out of his mouth after that was meaningless to me. The reapers liquified babies and turned mothers into husks/banshees/brutes scions all in the name of a logic I dont believe or agree with. But I had no choice and was forced to agree with the reaper logic and implement their solution.

Hmmm.  I imagine then that had the choices themselves been identical, but determined somehow by Shepard or maybe the Citadel VI or a source more trusting, how would they have been received.  Lets make the assumption that we don't necessarily get more information.

Just a question.  I know a lot of peole say their issue is with the Catalyst alone.  If that's the case then the endings and the abilities that the Crucible end up providing are still okay (or at least easier to swallow)?

Juss-juss-just watch it. BIOWARE... dudes. Just watch the video, its all
there, all of our concerns, problems, complaints, etc, its all in the
video. For the love of krogan raping and pillaging adventures,
JUST WATCH IT!!!

I did watch it

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 09 avril 2012 - 07:02 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Rickets wrote...

The Crucible looks big enough to serve as a ram to smash Reapers.

BWAHAHA that would have been an interesting and unexpected twist XD.


Hackett:  "It's not firing.... ah screw it ram the bastards!"

[Allan Schumacher]

Nicodemus wrote...

Actually Allan it would have made a much better ending IF the EMS was all tied into the crucible as a conventional super weapon that had been perfected over many cycles. High EMS and it works as intended and the reapers around Sol are defeated, war not over but hope given. Medium EMS, crucible only semi effective Reaper forces heavily damaged but retreat thus prolonging the war. Low EMS Crucible doesn't work, Hackett shouts ramming speed and the current cycle of species gets harvested but goes out in a blaze of glory.

I won't dispute the Crucible could have been used differently.  It's an unknown entity so it could have unleashed LOLcats onto the Reapers, leading to the Reapers going "Dwaaaaaaaaaaaaa" and then Hackett leveraging the distraction for great victory.  Lower EMS does something less cute and distracting.

Easier to swallow? Yeah. Okay? It would suck, but not as much as
Catalyst. I would call it mediocre ending, nothing great and a let down
after awesome series, but also nothing that would start such a nerdrage
as Caralyst did (than against, thanks to which children will get toys
and stuff for 100,000 bucks so some good surely came out of it).

Thanks.  As a fan and an observer/lurker to the ME3 twitters, I find three common themes of people having issues with the Catalyst ("Where did he come from he makes no sense!"), issues with the lack of resolution (What happened?  Are the Dextro races doomed?  Did all relays go supernova?), and issues with the bleakness of the ending (Leading to people feeling that you cannot really win in the game).  This is a simplification for sure, as there's details for why someone might buy in to one (or all) of these issues.  I posed the question just to help make sense out of it in my head.

It would still be unsatisfying, assuming every other paramater of the
ending was kept, right down to Stargazer. To which I provide this
post for your perusal, and the resistance from some towards the
Stargazer, although iirc your personal feelings on Stargazer are
ambivalent?

I'm not sure if the Stargazer sequence was really put in to give a convenient out for "eh, inconsistencies because it's a story being told later on."  Even in movies, I tend to feel post credit scenes are more of the Easter Egg variety than anything significant to the narrative.  I find it didn't really add anything for myself until after I started to discuss the endings with friends, but even then it's just something that makes me recognize that the galaxy wasn't completely pooched with the destruction of the relays.  Given what I've heard of the Final Hours piece (I haven't seen it myself), if part of the intent of our ending was to create discussion, I think the Stargazer scene does fall better into that category.

Say hello to my little PR stunt friend... Unofficially paraphrasing
offcial lines... )) Sorry we do not need excuses. People are
displeased.

Are you asking me to say hello to your PR stunt friend?  Or are you stating that I am a PR stunt?

That said I can't take Hackett at his word that we couldn't win.
Because 75% of the game was building a fleet, and the other 25% was
building the Crucible. If the fleet is just a diversion that is one huge
diversion. It seemed the fleet was there to directly confront the
Reapers as no one was sure what the Crucible did, or if it would even
work. It appeared the in-game purpose of the Cruicible was that our
Fleet would have few loses as opposed to massive losses in a straight-up
fight.  Before Catalyst reveals the purpose to us.
That was my take...

I think that part of the EMS that confused me (and a lot of others) is we saw it more as a "building up of the fleet" rather than "building and protecting the Crucible."  I think it's a fair complaint that this wasn't clear, because with the variations in the ending and the consequences that happen to Earth specifically, it does seem like the EMS is more geared towards the Crucible's effectiveness rather than our ability to go toe to toe with the Reapers.  The genuine military assets (i.e. ones not building/researching the Crucible) end up contributing in a way to protect the Crucible during deployment.

I love giant space battles and was hoping to see some more during the end sequence for sure haha.

[Allan Schumacher]

Yougottawanna wrote...

I gotta say I'm impressed with Allan Schumacher here. One man alone, in an unfortified position with no air support, taking on the combined typing ability of half the internet.

You don't give me enough credit!

(that's me in the lower right)

[Allan Schumacher]

Sohlito wrote...

Also, is that a Farside comic?

Yup!  Much love for Gary Larson!


Also, I just realized why this thread frequently makes me think of Bib Fortuna...

[Allan Schumacher]

Aesieru wrote...

There's also the FACT that you know... they LIED and thus ILLEGALLY ADVERTISED IN A KNOWINGLY FALSE MANNER.

Not sure how this relates to Gary Larson, Farside, Bib Fortuna, or even the OP.

(rhetorical question there's no need to elaborate)