233 réponses à ce sujet

[humes spork]

Sepharih wrote...

I believe most of us are of the opinion that the starchild and everything relating to him in this section should never have even existed in the first place.  Him simply existing and talking to shepard at all should be purged from canon entirely.

I actually disagree. I think the Catalyst is the unfortunate victim of incredibly sloppy and lazy writing and characterization, but it does serve an important role in the game.

However, I think it simply adds insult to injury and results in a character assasination on top of everything else to not even allow Shepard the chance to call him on his BS.

To call it a character assassination with any sense of coherence, you have to explain why that would be necessary, or even important. As I said, getting into a long-winded discussion on the nature of existence at this point serves only to serve the Reapers' interests. Moreover, it would be circular and serve no particular point other than buying time for the Reapers to destroy the Crucible. It's already exposited to the character -- repeatedly -- that time is of the absolute essence and even seconds count.

So I put it to you again, you want Shepard to stand around and yak all day and let the Reapers win in the process? I'd call that the character assassination.

[PsyrenY]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Shepard dies, Anderson dies, your crew is stranded, the Reapers are only destroyed in one ending, the Mass Relays blow up, the fleet is stranded, Earth is devestated without hope of reprieve. I fail to see where the sweetness is.

Shepard only sacrifices himself in two endings; s/he can live in the third. Anderson can be saved in all three, and if you can survive the explosion so can he. Earth is only devastated if you have very poor war assets.

Byronic-Knight wrote...
I have to ask you: Why they hell bother preparing in the first place? 

I mean, really. If you're going to go through everything Shepard has in the past three games, just to give up on himself, and his fleet, and put his faith entirely in a hologram he just met, why didn't he just say to the council at the beginning of 3: "The only thing we can do: Surrender." 


That defeatist attitude is what loses fights before they start. 

You're the one equating the Catalyst's options with surrender. I don't.
I get that you wanted an ending that was purely Shepard's idea, but all that would prove is that the Reapers weren't as dangerous as they've been hyped up to be.

M0keys wrote...

The player shouldn't always have their every whim be catered to, but every base desire.

Unless you want to go and explain to me why the original Star Wars was such a failure. In which case, hoo boy, let's rock and roll, baby!

New Hope and Empire Strikes Back were great. RotJ was rather underwhelming and the prequels were a colossal joke.

[PsyrenY]

Also, I agree with everything humes spork is saying.

[ZajoE38]

Synthetics may not rebell. MAY is not enough for Reapers. There is alway option they will. In, 5000 years, 50.000 years, 500.000 years, in 500.000.000.000 years, it doesn't matter. It must happen once. And they will always be waiting when it happens. What are you trying to achieve is irrelevant, unimportant and with no point. You are speculating about this, but why are you not speculating that mass effect field harnessing dark energy is more impossible than peacefull AI? Or that metal end of Normandy engines would be melted, or that armor piercing round would make no major harm to tissue - making a hole in radius 0,01mm. Etc etc... you can start speculating now.. but it's unimportant - it's a game and it's is sci-fi. We must accept this excues, because it is not simulator of real life. It's a space opera.

[slimshedim]

The Angry One wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Well that doesn't matter because the crucible forces the catalyst to let you change the cycle. The crucible gives shepard the options, and the catalyst has to explain them, like forcing the ctrl+alt+delete button on him and making him listen to you.

Except he doesn't listen. He states his agenda and the options he has determined for Shepard, and Shepard just smiles and nods.

Railroad Shepard all the way, huh?

[Sepharih]

humes spork wrote...

Sepharih wrote...

I believe most of us are of the opinion that the starchild and everything relating to him in this section should never have even existed in the first place.  Him simply existing and talking to shepard at all should be purged from canon entirely.

I actually disagree. I think the Catalyst is the unfortunate victim of incredibly sloppy and lazy writing and characterization, but it does serve an important role in the game.

Story works better without him.  He's not even mentioned until the last five minutes of the game and the ending is improved by a huge factor by simply cutting him.

humes spork wrote... 
To call it a character assassination with any sense of coherence, you have to explain why that would be necessary, or even important.

Because it's an important part of Shepard's character.  Look...it's always difficult to deal in these situations because I understand that we all played Shepard a little differently, but usually throughout the games, even when confronted with an impossible problem, and even when he knows there's nothing he can do there's at least the option to take the moral highground and reaffirm Shepard's moral code......or on the other side to tell whoever you're speaking to to go **** themselves.
Now.....at the intended climax of the entire trilogy....not giving Shepard the option to do either effectively gives the impression that he blinked at the moment of truth.  It undoes much of the character to basically have him nod and go along with what the starchild says and offer up little to no defiance.

Modifié par Sepharih, 09 avril 2012 - 02:07 .

[Sepharih]

 

Optimystic_X wrote...

Shepard only sacrifices himself in two endings; s/he can live in the third. Anderson can be saved in all three, and if you can survive the explosion so can he. Earth is only devastated if you have very poor war assets.

I'm pretty sure Anderson is dead no matter what...he just gets to live long enough to have a bittersweet moment with Shepard.....unless they've said that he just passed out.

[humes spork]

slimshedim wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Except he doesn't listen. He states his agenda and the options he has determined for Shepard, and Shepard just smiles and nods.

Railroad Shepard all the way, huh?

The cycle's already a lost cause. The Catalyst is simply being a rational actor and conceding it before the Reaper war itself represents the colossal, uncontrolled loss of life by attrition and collateral damage it's trying to avert.

Because it's an important part of Shepard's character.  Look...it's always difficult to deal in these situations because I understand that we all played Shepard a little differently, but usually throughout the games, even when confronted with an impossible problem, and even when he knows there's nothing he can do there's at least the option to take the moral highground and reaffirm Shepard's moral code......or on the other side to tell whoever you're speaking to to go **** themselves.
Now.....at the intended climax of the entire trilogy....not giving Shepard the option to do either effectively gives the impression that he blinked at the moment of truth.  It undoes much of the character to basically have him nod and go along with what the starchild says and offer up little to no defiance. 

Normally in those "impossible problems" as you put it, there's something to be gained by talking that is more material than "the moral high ground". Sorry, but if you need a dialog option in every major situation to reaffirm Shepard's morality, you're probably not very secure in it.

Especially in "time is of the essence" situations like the one presented in the end of ME3. Lest you forget, Shepard talks to Saren in the end of ME1 to convince him he's indoctrinated for whatever end, whether Shepard's intention is to turn him away from the Reapers in the eleventh hour or to talk him into killing himself. There's a material gain there -- not having to fight Saren again and waste precious time Sovereign has to hasten the arrival in the process. Or, Shepard can just say "**** it" and start shooting -- whichever represents the most expedious solution at the time.

At any rate, the Catalyst is a billion year old AI that has an armada of two-kilometer-long living ships that say it can do whatever the hell it wants. It's the ultimate realization of "might makes right" -- the Catalyst could have said anything it wanted as the reason for the cycle and it simply would not matter. For all it matters to Shepard and the organic races of the galaxy, it could just get bored every fifty thousand years and commit galactic genocide for laughs. There's certainly no point and nothing to be gained by standing around arguing with it, only lost.

Modifié par humes spork, 09 avril 2012 - 02:22 .

[Sepharih]

Also:

humes spork wrote...
So I put it to you again, you want Shepard to stand around and yak all day and let the Reapers win in the process? I'd call that the character assassination.

 
Obviously, assuming we can't just cut star child, I want Shep to tell the Starchild he's full of it and then tell Admiral Hackett and the rest of the fleet to give the reapers hell and WIN.
I don't care what established lore says that's not possible.  Writers hand wave lore all the time for the purposes of drama and the story, and I'll take that over a lame plot device like the crucible any day.....though I could live with the crucible if they'd just cut the catalyst.

[Byronic-Knight]

Optimystic_X wrote. . . 

Byronic-Knight wrote...
I have to ask you: Why they hell bother preparing in the first place? 

I mean, really. If you're going to go through everything Shepard has in the past three games, just to give up on himself, and his fleet, and put his faith entirely in a hologram he just met, why didn't he just say to the council at the beginning of 3: "The only thing we can do: Surrender." 


That defeatist attitude is what loses fights before they start. 

You're the one equating the Catalyst's options with surrender. I don't.
I get that you wanted an ending that was purely Shepard's idea, but all that would prove is that the Reapers weren't as dangerous as they've been hyped up to be. 

I wasn't even talking about the Catalyst's options. . . I presented a fourth. 

Your response to that fourth option? That it's impossible to win---only because all the fallible mortals know they are fighting losing odds. I don't disagree they are fighting losing odds, I only recognise this isn't the first or only time you have faced losing odds and truimphed, this isn't the first time you've proven the nay-sayers wrong, and that Shepard has recognised this very simple fact in past scenes, and has used it as a rallying cry---either to his squad or to himself, to strengthen his resolve. 

So, instead of even attempt to prove the doubters wrong again, you simply surrender any sort of confidence you had in the lead up to that last moment and give in to the voices in your head telling you it's impossible, even though the people to whom those voices belong are, at that very moment, fighting with the threat that has been looming since the first game, willing to die if it meant the person next to them could deal the leathal wound. 

And defeating the Reapers through military strength wouldn't serve to downplay their power---all one would have to do is look at Palaven, Thessia, or Earth to understand just how monumentally destructive they are---it would only prove that they aren't Gods. 

Modifié par Byronic-Knight, 09 avril 2012 - 02:20 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Shepard dies, Anderson dies, your crew is stranded, the Reapers are only destroyed in one ending, the Mass Relays blow up, the fleet is stranded, Earth is devestated without hope of reprieve. I fail to see where the sweetness is.

Shepard only sacrifices himself in two endings; s/he can live in the third.

He can possibly live in the third. Even then, all we get is a single breath. 

Anderson can be saved in all three,

No, he can't. Anderson dies no matter what you do. 

and if you can survive the explosion so can he.

I'm actually quite angry that BioWare had Shepard live. It opens up a bunch of new questions, like how did he survive the Citadel exploding, or how did he survive possible atmospheric re-entry. 

Doesn't matter, in the end. Anderson dies no matter what. 

Earth is only devastated if you have very poor war assets.

Earth is always devastated, the Reapers see to that. It's just slightly more devastated with low assets.

You're the one equating the Catalyst's options with surrender. I don't.
I get that you wanted an ending that was purely Shepard's idea, but all that would prove is that the Reapers weren't as dangerous as they've been hyped up to be.

Or prove that once again, Shepard and his allies can overcome the impossible by working together. Cliche, but it works, and would have worked if they went along with the same principle the Suicide Mission had. 

[Zine2]

The Star Child's logic is so irrational that, scientifically speaking, it is not even wrong. It is an argument that should never have been proposed in the first place.

[humes spork]

Sepharih wrote...
Obviously, assuming we can't just cut star child, I want Shep to tell the Starchild he's full of it and then tell Admiral Hackett and the rest of the fleet to give the reapers hell and WIN.

Oh I agree, having defeated the Reapers conventionally would have made for a far stronger game overall. I've said that since the ending megathread started a month and a half ago. That's a foregone conclusion.

That also doesn't change the reality of what we got. Complaining about that is merely complaining for complaints' sake.

[Sepharih]

humes spork wrote...
Normally in those "impossible problems" as you put it, there's something to be gained by talking that is more material than "the moral high ground". Sorry, but if you need a dialog option in every major situation to reaffirm Shepard's morality, you're probably not very secure in it.

This is not "every major situation", this is meant to be the emotional climax of the story.
How about the decision to destroy the collector base?  What was the material gain for that?

humes spork wrote...

Sepharih wrote...
Obviously, assuming we can't just cut star child, I want Shep to tell the Starchild he's full of it and then tell Admiral Hackett and the rest of the fleet to give the reapers hell and WIN.

Oh I agree, having defeated the Reapers conventionally would have made for a far stronger game overall. I've said that since the ending megathread started a month and a half ago. That's a foregone conclusion.

That also doesn't change the reality of what we got. Complaining about that is merely complaining for complaints' sake.

Wow.......I think I had you pegged wrong all along.

Yeah, I fully admit I'm complaining for the sake of complaining....but picking the ending apart has helped me achieve far more satisfaction then the ending ever did.

Modifié par Sepharih, 09 avril 2012 - 02:32 .

[PsyrenY]

Sepharih wrote...

I'm pretty sure Anderson is dead no matter what...he just gets to live long enough to have a bittersweet moment with Shepard.....unless they've said that he just passed out.

That sequence is called "Save Anderson" both in the game files and the Prima guide. It could have been explained better sure, but we have no definitive proof that he's dead either.

Sepharih wrote...

Obviously, assuming we can't just cut star child, I want Shep to tell the Starchild he's full of it and then tell Admiral Hackett and the rest of the fleet to give the reapers hell and WIN.
I don't care what established lore says that's not possible.  Writers hand wave lore all the time for the purposes of drama and the story, and I'll take that over a lame plot device like the crucible any day.....though I could live with the crucible if they'd just cut the catalyst.

So... you're in favor of the last 5 minutes of a game going against everything that came before it then? Weren't you arguing against that very position earlier?

Byronic-Knight wrote...

I wasn't even talking about the Catalyst's options. . . I presented a fourth. 

Your response to that fourth option? That it's impossible to win---only because all the fallible mortals know they are fighting losing odds. I don't disagree they are fighting losing odds, I only recognise this isn't the first or only time you have faced losing odds and truimphed, this isn't the first time you've proven the nay-sayers wrong, and that Shepard has recognised this very simple fact in past scenes, and has used it as a rallying cry---either to his squad or to himself, to strengthen his resolve. 

So, instead of even attempt to prove the doubters wrong again, you simply surrender any sort of confidence you had in the lead up to that last moment and give in to the voices in your head telling you it's impossible, even though the people to whom those voices belong are, at that very moment, fighting with the threat that has been looming since the first game, willing to die if it meant the person next to them could deal the leathal wound. 

And defeating the Reapers through military strength wouldn't serve to downplay their power---all one would have to do is look at Palaven, Thessia, or Earth to understand just how monumentally destructive they are---it would only prove that they aren't Gods. 

People are willing to die, sure, but not for a hopeless cause.

I'm glad you brought up Thessia. Remember when you landed, and the Asari commandos were on the verge of pulling out? Until you told them about the temple artifact, and how it would give you a chance to finish the Crucible and win the war. And all of a sudden they not only stayed, but sacrificed their last gunships to clear a path for you to get to that temple.

That's how you motivate people to give it their all - not by waving your d*ck at the Reapers and proving your manliness to them, but by actually taking the chance that has a shot of winning. And if saving all those people means picking a color, you'd better believe that's what my Shepard will do, whatever s/he thinks of the Catalyst personally.

[tractrpl]

Sepharih wrote...

If they recut the ending to go like this:
 

and then added on the extended cut dlc for closure with the characters I would be satissfied.  The ending would still be underwhelming...but it'd be ok.

That's actually pretty good. Good job!

[PsyrenY]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

He can possibly live in the third. Even then, all we get is a single breath.

Hard to breathe when you're dead, no?

The Night Mammoth wrote... 

No, he can't. Anderson dies no matter what you do.

Passing out != death.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I'm actually quite angry that BioWare had Shepard live. It opens up a bunch of new questions, like how did he survive the Citadel exploding, or how did he survive possible atmospheric re-entry.

I'll never understand you people. First you whine that Shepard should be able to do the impossible, then you whine when he actually does. Make up your mind.

The Night Mammoth wrote...  
Earth is always devastated, the Reapers see to that. It's just slightly more devastated with low assets.

It can be rebuilt, what's your point?

The Night Mammoth wrote...   
Or prove that once again, Shepard and his allies can overcome the impossible by working together. Cliche, but it works, and would have worked if they went along with the same principle the Suicide Mission had. 

That works fine with a small strike team of elite characters, not so much when taking on an advanced fleet of mechanical monsters. It has nothing to do with gumption and everything to do with simply being outclassed technologically.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 09 avril 2012 - 02:38 .

[Sepharih]

Optimystic_X wrote...
That sequence is called "Save Anderson" both in the game files and the Prima guide. It could have been explained better sure, but we have no definitive proof that he's dead either.

Fair enough.  Actually...i I think i'm in the minority but i don't mind Anderson dying.  It's a very bittersweet moment and I feel he sort of represents everything Shepard had to sacrifice to achieve victory in the end.

Optimystic_X wrote... 
So... you're in favor of the last 5 minutes of a game going against everything that came before it then? Weren't you arguing against that very position earlier?

No.  There's a difference in storytelling between themes and lore.  The story and it's themes are about unity with diversity and coming together to face and overcome impossible odds with great sacrifice.  Lore is something like "Reapers have reaper lasers and super shields that make them able to take on 100 human ships in a straight up fight".
Lore gets changed and handwaved all the time for the purposes of drama and the story.  It's why I don't really mind why the Reapers don't turn off the Mass Relay when they get the citadel or why when the relay's expload they don't cause untold devestation.
What's much more important is what makes sense and is thematically consistent with the story.

Modifié par Sepharih, 09 avril 2012 - 02:43 .

[PsyrenY]

Sepharih, I already explained why I don't feel the themes have been violated. We will probably have to agree to disagree on that point.

[humes spork]

Sepharih wrote...

This is not "every major situation", this is meant to be the emotional climax of the story.
How about the decision to destroy the collector base?  What was the material gain for that?

The subtext of the entire Cerberus arc is TIM, despite having started as a well-intentioned extremist, went off the moral rails long before the Collectors made themselves a threat. Hell, the subtext of the Evolution comic series is that he's been a high-functioning Indoctrinated for decades. He can't be trusted with the Collector tech, because even if he wasn't Indoctrinated while Shepard was still in diapers his "ascension at any cost" ideology is dangerous, self-serving and would ultimately cost the species their very humanity.

To put it another way, TIM is Faust, humankind is Gretchen, Harbinger is Mephistopheles and the Collector base is the pen by which TIM would sign the contract.

[CountDrunku]

Ah-HAA! So the Illusive Man was right . . .
Shooting yourself is the solution LOL XD
Saren had a right too
Got to give credit where credit is do

[M0keys]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote... 

No, he can't. Anderson dies no matter what you do.

Passing out != death.

Come on.

You're the first person I've ever seen arguing this point, and now I think you're being contradictory just to be contradictory.

By every dramatic and cinematic standard I've ever known, that was Anderson's death scene.

[Sepharih]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Sepharih, I already explained why I don't feel the themes have been violated. We will probably have to agree to disagree on that point.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but it seemed like you agreed with me that within the context of the paragon arc both control and destroy are inconsisstent, yes?
I know we still had some dispute over synthesis, but I was wondering if you replied to this:

Question:  If you don't think this is thematically inconsistent then how do you reconcile it with how eerily it mirror's an indoctrinated Saren's view of the future?

[PsyrenY]

 

M0keys wrote...

Come on.

You're the first person I've ever seen arguing this point, and now I think you're being contradictory just to be contradictory.

By every dramatic and cinematic standard I've ever known, that was Anderson's death scene.

The game files and Prima Guide disagree. No offense, but I'll go with their interpretation over yours.

Sepharih wrote...

Question:  If you don't think this is thematically inconsistent then how do you reconcile it with how eerily it mirror's an indoctrinated Saren's view of the future?

So are the Quarians indoctrinated too? Not only do they use cybernetic implants, they actually enter symbiosis with the Geth if you save both, artificially enhancing their immune systems.

It's simple Transhumanism (or Trans-organic-ism, for the aliens), just accelerated.

[M0keys]

Optimystic_X wrote...

 

M0keys wrote...

Come on.

You're the first person I've ever seen arguing this point, and now I think you're being contradictory just to be contradictory.

By every dramatic and cinematic standard I've ever known, that was Anderson's death scene.

The game files and Prima Guide disagree. No offense, but I'll go with their interpretation over yours.

So the direction was completely wrong as well?

Well, if we're blaming 2 guys for this mess, I guess it's not surprising that they somehow have literally no idea when they're punching us in the face with a big "DEATH SCENE " sign.

Modifié par M0keys, 09 avril 2012 - 03:00 .