395 réponses à ce sujet

[Ericus]

Amioran wrote...

Ericus wrote...
But, given what Shepard has experienced through the rest of the ME trilogy, it would currently make far more sense for Harbinger to fulfill this role on the screen.

This could be true, but probably they thought that it was a too predictable subject to adhere to that role, even because it is more difficult (after what happened) that you can consider Harbringer as a "God". Using a new character that you don't know instead has not this drawback.

I think the problem here is always the same: if they had an audience that surely had the knowledge to understand the philosophical theme behind they could make Harbringer play the role because they would understand the motivations behind, as it is however it would have been even more of a gamble than it is now, given his precendent role in the saga.

Very true.  Given how few people study philosophy at this level, the creative team needed to spend more time explaining the choices we were asked to make at the end of the game.  Perhaps the extended cut will address this problem.  

Unfortunately I don't think they're recording any new dialogue for Shepard, but I do think they should give Shepard more of an opportunity to argue against all three of these perspectives.  It would be in keeping with Shepard's character (smart, but not a philosopher), while also creating an opportunity for the Reapers/starchild to better explain why they believe these are the viable choices.

[Ericus]

Lyrebon wrote...

Ericus wrote...

I like this take on the background for the Reapers.  It also makes an important distinction.  We can fully accept at the end of ME3 that the Reapers may believe that the 'organics vs synthetics' conflict is inevitable.  But that doesn't explain why Shepard (or we the audience) would agree - especially if we've successfully dealt with the Geth/Quarian conflict.  This to me is one of the key issues with the ending (along with the starchild).  It comes across as though the writers also believe this is an inevitable conflict when the rest of the ME story can completely disprove this premise.  Not sure if that's what the writers intended, just saying that's how it feels in the current ending.

Precisely. The very fact that the Starchild (being a super-AI) hasn't killed off all organic lifeforms yet is contradictory to its own claims. And if it's using the Reapers for this purpose isn't it just instigating what it's directly trying to prevent? If it wanted to preserve organic life there are many more agreeable ways to do this that a hyper-intelligent artificial form should have calculated.

I like to think that the Reapers developed sentience, as Legion and the geth did, and there was some internal disagreement. Harbinger is obviously enjoying the eradication of humanity, and Sovereign called organics inferior. If they were assigned the task the Starchild set, why the sadistic hostility? To me that suggests the Reapers have moved from their original goal of preserving organic life for that fact, into harvesting organics to preserve themselves.

Shepard would not agree with anything the Starchild is saying. Not when she's been through so much crap and at every turn has refused to give into the "inevitable." Characters like Shepard do not bow down to half-baked rationalism. Everything the Starchild says, to me, is lies and is something Bioware could have expanded on by giving Shepard the opportunity to call its bull.

Harbinger even refers to 'asension' when they are harvesting humans in ME2, so it seems clear to me that the Reapers believe that organic species are only the first step on an evolutionary path. As a result, they both see our potential as future Reapers, but are underwhelmed by our currently simple physical and mental abilities.  Even if we knew that cockroaches would evolve into an advanced, civilized species a million years from now, we probably still wouldn't want them at our dinner table today.

I think this was a missed opportunity with the endings.  If there was more extensive dialogue at the end, with the starchild (or Harbinger) attempting to convince you why they are right, one of the options could/should have been to embrace the Reapers and allow humanity to be elevated to a new level of existence.  A replacement for the green/synthesis ending perhaps?  

Modifié par Ericus, 09 avril 2012 - 04:10 .

[Il Divo]

Ericus wrote...

I think this was a missed opportunity with the endings.  If there was more extensive dialogue at the end, with the starchild (or Harbinger) attempting to convince you why they are right, one of the options could/should have been to embrace the Reapers and allow humanity to be elevated to a new level of existence.  A replacement for the green/synthesis ending perhaps?  

This certainly would have been more acceptable.

[translationninja]

You guys are really trying to "interpret" profound philosophical themes into an entertainment product?

Uhm, ya.....

bad writing is bad writing is bad writing.

Of course there will always be a few people claiming Blairwitch was the scariest movie ever and Matrix Revolutions is just so full of twists and insights.

All I have to think of reading "justifications" like this is two hipsters standing in front of a canvas with one red and one green square smeared on it discussing on and on why that is sooooo edgy and sooooooo artsy....

[Peregrin25]

The endings were well done if the first 30 hours of game play and story were done differently. with the current story we have they do not fit in the story what so ever, even with them being well conceived

I agree to some extent the endings were done well, but do not fit into the main Mass Effect plot! It would have been good in a different game in my opinion.

[abaris]

translationninja wrote...

All I have to think of reading "justifications" like this is two hipsters standing in front of a canvas with one red and one green square smeared on it discussing on and on why that is sooooo edgy and sooooooo artsy....

Reminds me of art critics being presented with a chimp's painting and they tried to interpret the artistic meaning of what they saw.

[Peregrin25]

abaris wrote...

translationninja wrote...

All I have to think of reading "justifications" like this is two hipsters standing in front of a canvas with one red and one green square smeared on it discussing on and on why that is sooooo edgy and sooooooo artsy....

Reminds me of art critics being presented with a chimp's painting and they tried to interpret the artistic meaning of what they saw.

Best analogy ever! lol Hits the mark dead on!

[abaris]

Peregrin25 wrote...

Best analogy ever! lol Hits the mark dead on!

It's real. Happened some 20 years ago for some candid camera show and didn't make the art critics look very good.

[kbct]

Il Divo wrote...

Amioran wrote...

But the "after" it is yet to come in this case if this is, indeed, a lapse.

Then the story has failed. Mass Effect 3 is the conclusion of a trilogy. Anything else that is necessary in order to understand the narrative beyond the works themselves is a failure on the part of the writers. I shouldn't need Mass Effect 4 to understand a trilogy.

The fact that until a point you can do this it doesn't mean that you can do it till the end. Also in this case, in fact, this is perfectly in conformity with the philosophical theme behind. In the philosophical theme in question man can oppose to the "will of God" or anyway act on "free will" up until the point where there's a resolve to be made and where there is no other way around. All the choices made in the past return and there is no escape from resolving the conflict in a already prescribed way.

Actually, it does if you're going for story consistency. And if your entire point is to subvert the narrative at the end, then you have to make that clear. There is no opportunity by Shepard to express sorrow that he wasn't able to preserve the galaxy, there is no effort to fight his destiny. There is nothing beyond a magic blue child appearing to say "this is how the story ends" without explanation or justification. He doesn't offer evidence to support his goals, he doesn't mock you.

The Catalyst says "here are your options" and Shepard says "Yes, master", with minimal exposition.

And up until this point you think "there's always another way" and you pity those that think otherwise. This is explained perfectly by having villains in the saga having made already the choice (having thread the path before and coming to the same point) that you oppose one way or another, until finally you come to the same end and understand that "they were right all along" (do you remember it, don't you?) in the sense that indeed there's no other way around (this same thing is contained also in the Paradise Lost of Milton that use the same theme).

Again, if you are attempting to deconstruct the choices the player has made up until this point in the series, then you need to make that clear. Not imaginary religious themes. Themes do not arise at the expense of the coherency of the work. To do so is to fail in your job.

Tell me now that you know all of this that the story is badly written. It has a lot of complexity and inner meaning and it talks of a very complex philosophical theme that constitutes (amongst other things) our occidental major religion.

It was badly written. The same way that Matrix Revolutions is badly written, by ignoring consistency and good writing in favor of weak attempts at religious themes. There is nothing philosophically complex about Mass Effect 3 because the work never bothers to actually raise a philosophical question, at least the ones you continually think. Certainly not enough to be considered the overarching theme of the work.  

The Matrix asks us "What is reality?" Watchmen asks us "Does Society really need heroes?" Knights of the Old Republic 2 asks us "What does it mean to believe in something?" These themes are made explicit and explored throughout the entire works through various characters, dialogue, and plot threads.

But in the philosophical theme you have to arrive to a point where the thing cannot be resolved without consequences. It comes a point where you have to accept the consequences of an action no matter what, and those consequences are already written. Why that's so? It would be too long to explain and a discussion like this will be off-topic, but there's a motivation why this happens and no matter what's your mileage you come to the same conclusions because those are the only way around. 

Again, this is all contained within the philosophical theme that is behind the saga from beginning. You have free will until a point, after you have to decide what it matter most: this "free will" or "peace" or "power" (not the exact words, but bear with me).

Repeating philosophical theme five or ten times will not make your argument any more valid. If your theme is inconsistent with the story you have told up until this point, then you have failed as a writer.

Shepard has been established as a character who doesn't simply lay down and die because someone else tells him to. If the ending theme the writers are going for is a nihilistic approach where the protagonist is confronted with the reality that he can't win, that must be made explicit. There is no dialogue on this theme you continually bring up. Shepard isn't confronted with some earth-shattering truth. The narrative treats Shepard as if he was always this submissive character who had never bothered to defy any kind of authority figure in the past.

But as I've explained the SC is not out of place in this story at all. It may seem only in the case you lack the philosophical background.

Or if you don't understand the issue. I've had an extensive philosophical background, and I still think the ending was trash.

We can debate on the fact that this is a game, so given the audience it was maybe an inopportune move expecting people to understand something as that and expecting something as that, however this doesn't the change the fact that his presence is not out of place.

The audience can understand concepts which are explained clearly. The Catalyst is not explained clearly.

This again is ineherent in the philosophical them. Order and chaos are too much divergent point of views. It will come a point where the two have to collide and when this happens no "best" choice can exist.

Then that should be explored through the conflict with the catalyst. Organic perspective vs. machine perspective. This is not explored in the finale. Definitely not enough to be considered significant. ME2 brought up the whole "ascenscion" process and how the Reapers think they are helping us. The Catalyst barely glosses over this issue.  

Well said, Il Divo. Yup, the ending sucks on sooo many levels.

[Greyfox84]

I've played ME1 countless times.

I've imported each of those characters and playthroughs into ME2 and completed them.

But knowing how it ends, knowing what it all leads up to, knowing the 'why' behind everything - I don't have the enthusiasm or drive to play ME3 again. It ruins the rest of the experience for me.

I could never describe an ending which does that as 'good'.

Modifié par Greyfox84, 09 avril 2012 - 04:47 .

[someone else]

Peregrin25 wrote...

abaris wrote...

translationninja wrote...

All I have to think of reading "justifications" like this is two hipsters standing in front of a canvas with one red and one green square smeared on it discussing on and on why that is sooooo edgy and sooooooo artsy....

Reminds me of art critics being presented with a chimp's painting and they tried to interpret the artistic meaning of what they saw.

Best analogy ever! lol Hits the mark dead on!

I REALLY take offense at the disrespect shown by comparing the bioware autheurs to chimps - borders on animal abuse.

[Abraham_uk]

I found the ending a bit confusing.

But to be honest, more explanation plus an epilogue of what happened as a result of Shepards actions is enough to satisify me.

[artogenos]

I just finished ME3. It was pretty good although I may have expected something more. Especially the relational side of the game wasn't what I expected it to be. The ending was good but so damn final. And because it's so open and shut final it doesn't really give me that feeling that made me play ME1 and 2 time and time again. Still a good game but....

[Nynaeve]

Zany Jedi wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Zany Jedi wrote...

In that case, could you please explain the plotholes? Also I would be hard pressed to call an ending with a deus ex machina good, lazy and poorly written is more like it in my opinion.

Set out the plotholes then. I don't see many that aren't just trying to pick holes in it.

Here's a link to all the problems with the ending. And as the document says, it's not nitpicking it's things about the ending that just don't make sense. Also, you never mentioned anything about previous choices not making any difference, which is my main gripe about the ending. What's your opinion about that?

Urgh that document was bit lengthy...talk about nitpicking. It sounds like the work of a crazed conspiracy theorist that finds holes in EVERYTHING *need a drink*

[Menethra]

kbct wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

OutlawTorn6806 wrote...

Get ready for Kbct and his crew. And his poll. lol

So true.

Okay, fair enough. No polls for now. How about this? This is the best gif I've seen for ME3:

Pretty funny, starts off great ends horribly, nice find.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Abraham_uk wrote...

I found the ending a bit confusing.

But to be honest, more explanation plus an epilogue of what happened as a result of Shepards actions is enough to satisify me.

Be content with what you get, or you be the whiny individual of post-modern age who constantly rebels for minor 'not good enough' things he wants. I've accepted that the world is going downhill for several years...

Modifié par Jedi Sentinel Arian, 09 avril 2012 - 04:58 .

[Dragoonlordz]

lx_theo wrote...

Udalango wrote...

lx_theo wrote...



And I argued against your own flawed logic about your claim to flawed logic by the child. 

It a debate, what am I supposed to do? I suppose I'm forced to leave it because you don't even really either understand or are willing to think open minded enough to understadn my argument against your reasoning.

Pro tip Calling someone closed minded or that they are idiots isnt debating.  We obviously wont agree so once again take it or leave it. 
Dont start acting like some high and mighty "If they didnt get it they must be idiots" kind of person.  

I made my point. You essentially called it impossible. It was very possible. I tried to explain it to you. What you did was apply it to your own way of thinking instead of anothers (the exact opposite of what i was saying showed it).

That can mean one of two things. That you are either unwilling to (which means closed minded or stupidly stubborn, or uncapable of it (the inability to understand possibility).

So please, don't try to pass it off like you actually did any of that so it didn't come off as being one of those two. or that all I did was say that it was because of the two you just mentioned. Because both are lies. Yes, I'm calling you a liar. If you want to cry about that, please don't do it to me this time.

Also, I already said leave it. Or did you not actually read my post? <_<

I did warn you about them asking you a loaded question with the intention of dismissing anything you say.

Like said myself and many others have answered their plot hole questions, gone into great depths about possiblities that could explain the outcomes but in the end many even if not all, will simply say "explain the plot holes" not because they care about any answer you give but because they never had any intention of listening, thinking about it or such.

Don't worry about them, you enjoyed it as did others. Bioware are not replacing or cutting out parts of the endings some of us enjoyed and all they are doing and stated many times is that the only thing they are willing to do and want to do is add clarification through this DLC via new cinematics and such. It is those who do not like it that have to take it or leave it. Some people like myself and you like the endings in general, many others simply wanted clarification and explanation and that is what they are gettign so those ones are happy. The ones who wanted elements cut or rewritten are out of luck.

Bioware have said what they are doing, it is all they are doing and if those still annoyed are still upset then they need to get over it because it won't change. The ones who still whine and moan about it can remain unhappy till the end of time if they choose to be so but it is their choice at this stage because Bioware have offered a solution that are willing to give now those people can either take it or leave it.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 avril 2012 - 05:16 .

[Peregrin25]

abaris wrote...

Peregrin25 wrote...

Best analogy ever! lol Hits the mark dead on!

It's real. Happened some 20 years ago for some candid camera show and didn't make the art critics look very good.

haha that is awesome. I love when people are devious.

[Peregrin25]

someone else wrote...

Peregrin25 wrote...

abaris wrote...

translationninja wrote...

All I have to think of reading "justifications" like this is two hipsters standing in front of a canvas with one red and one green square smeared on it discussing on and on why that is sooooo edgy and sooooooo artsy....

Reminds me of art critics being presented with a chimp's painting and they tried to interpret the artistic meaning of what they saw.

Best analogy ever! lol Hits the mark dead on!

I REALLY take offense at the disrespect shown by comparing the bioware autheurs to chimps - borders on animal abuse.

LMAO animal abuse. freaking epic!

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

The least it takes for the endings to be good is to be realistic for the different Shepards out there, and that's not the case for all those which doesn't buy the kid's words.
Well, that would make it more correct than good.
Good ending would need that and more closure.
A LOT more closure.

[78stonewobble]

abaris wrote...

translationninja wrote...

All I have to think of reading "justifications" like this is two hipsters standing in front of a canvas with one red and one green square smeared on it discussing on and on why that is sooooo edgy and sooooooo artsy....

Reminds me of art critics being presented with a chimp's painting and they tried to interpret the artistic meaning of what they saw.

A few years ago here in DK a parent sent their childs fingerpainting to a "discover new artists" thing and won.

[BatmanPWNS]

lx_theo wrote...

 *Readies Omni-Shield of Invulnerability*

Yes, I said it. The ending was good. It wasn't great. It wasn't amazing. It wasn't the quality the series deserved to end on after such a great run. But it was good.

Many of the so called "plotholes" can easily be explained relatively easily without creating a whole conspiracy around it. There are a few that seem like oversights, like the sudden appearance of certain characters in ending scenes.

The whole Indoctrination Theory is just silly, and while it would be cool, it would also make no sense for Bioware to do without having actual content afterwards in the released title. Not to mention much of this "proof" is nothing of the sort, and a lot of it is non sequitur even when together.

Other than that, the greatest failing was that it didn't provide enough closure. The universe had many ways it could develop afterwards based on how things turned out on many different fronts throughout the game. The problem with the ending is that it doesn't reference these and specify what happens to provide said closure. Bioware is doing the smart thing is offering an ending that gives more closure.

So, the ending was good. All this hate for it is absolutely ridiculous.

EDIT: Here is me addressing the issue of "plotholes"
http://social.biowar...3404/4#11197542

So.............. did you enjoy Joker's ability to teleport your squad back to the ship and make them disappear forever?

[Amioran]

DannyGloverfromPredator2 wrote...
I can respect your conclusion about the end game choices given your assumption about the underling philosophical theme of the ME series being about free will vs. will of God (or another higher power). However, I don't agree with you even in the slightest about that assumption. 

You have mistaken something on understanding my explanation because it is not "free will" vs. "Will of God" (that's just a thematic way to put forth the thing in narrative) but "order vs. chaos". This is the underlying philosophical theme.

I used God as a thematic example (and in the game the SC can be tied to Him) because it is an example that every occidental understand being the occidental religion based upon it.

DannyGloverfromPredator2 wrote...
The appearance of StarChild and as a higher power/god figure in the final act of the game, in the endgame narrative of a series that has had very little religious inclination

In fact it has none. Religion has nothing to do with this in itself (albeit it is intermingled), it was just a series of examples build upon it to put the theme forth so people could understand it.

Modifié par Amioran, 09 avril 2012 - 06:23 .

[Legbiter]

Kanner wrote...

Far from being any kind of a conclusion to ME3, or the ME series, you're left with nothing but a bunch of wild guesses and a vague feeling you just blew up the galaxy for no good reason. 

This.