395 réponses à ce sujet

[Kanner]

5 pages and still not a single explanation of why anyone liked the ending. Just tautologies and a WHOLE LOT of mystical, pseudo-intellectual posing.

I certainly didn't derive any kind of deep vibe from ME3's conclusion. They introduced a god-lite character, gave a quick nonsensical runthrough of some highly flawed logic regarding organic vs. synthetic life (a theme which had been dealt with firstly in ME2 via EDI and then again on Rannoch). And you were forced to pick one of three incomprehensible solutions to this brand new conflict, none of which are consistant with the world building aspects of the mass effect universe and one of which (synthesis) makes NO SENSE AT ALL.

Then you get virtually identical cutscenes but for some color coding. And of course, before you check out, you're encouraged to buy some DLC. (Artistic integity WIN)

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. Because hey, god is now real in Mass Effect and there was no other way out of that room save for alt-f4. Right?

That is not an interesting conclusion, not to most people it seems. In the main it's because their suspension of disbelief has just been annihilated and all of their speculations are leading to the answer "NO, THAT'S STUPID."

IT. MAKES. NO. SENSE.

[Amioran]

Kanner wrote...
5 pages and still not a single explanation of why anyone liked the ending. Just tautologies and a WHOLE LOT of mystical, pseudo-intellectual posing.

In these threads people are not talking about "liking" or "not liking", but giving judgements for the most part. They are two separate things.

I don't care at all on debating on what people like or not like because that's a matter of opinion, as I never stated I liked or disliked the ending, that, at alst for me, it doesn't matter at all and I don't care to talk about it since there's no way you can come to a conclusion.

What I reply to are the accusation of "bad writing", because that's a thing on where you can base debate upon and you can be right or wrong based on evidence instead of simple running in circles and going nowhere.

Kanner wrote...
I certainly didn't derive any kind of deep vibe from ME3's conclusion. They introduced a god-lite character, gave a quick nonsensical runthrough of some highly flawed logic regarding organic vs. synthetic life (a theme which had been dealt with firstly in ME2 via EDI and then again on Rannoch). And you were forced to pick one of three incomprehensible solutions to this brand new conflict, none of which are consistant with the world building aspects of the mass effect universe and one of which (synthesis) makes NO SENSE AT ALL.

1) A writing doesn't need to be consistent to be good. I don't get from where people get this assumption but it's completely erratic.
2) Uncertainity/incomprensibility-atm and having to make decisions where you seem to have not choice at all or cannot base a full logical choice upon is not "bad writing" at all. In fact exactly the contrary. In many books by many author the same concept is used during a lapse to create momentum (I've explained this somewhere else in full detail).
3) Non closure is not bad writing per se, but even less in this case because you don't know if what you have is a full ending. If it is a lapse non closure it's used in the same way as in point 2.

Modifié par Amioran, 09 avril 2012 - 09:47 .

[Vesji]

lx_theo wrote...

"Wall of text attack hits me for over 9000."


That's a lot of writing

Hello.
Excuse me, but all you did was assume that things were something, anything, everything, really.

You assume that his squad didn't see Shepard after the beam.
You assume TIM understands how to control anything, using Reaper tech.
You assume what was thinking, or planning, or whatever.

Then you go about saying it takes "Imagination" to explain things like these?

I am sorry, but this wall of text didn't have a lot of meaning. Didn't seem to adress any of the issues.  Also, your arguments were fallible.
Following your logic, nobody needs to actually know anything more about the Catalyst, the Reapers, the Citadel, the Normandy, or anything and anybody else, than what is given, to have an ending fitting for his/her Shepard. 
People don't need to know, they can just imagine what happened.

Yeah, actually you are right.
Therefore I shall go imagine myself an ending, where this grandpa was me all the time, and I was telling my grandson a story about some imaginary hero god, who saved the galaxy from giant monster robots, scaring my 10 year old grandson, so he can leave me alone.
Later I will return to my wife. Have a nap, then maybe get something to eat.

Yeah, I actually feel good about the ending of ME3.

Modifié par Vesji, 09 avril 2012 - 09:42 .

[Mars8309]

lx_theo wrote...
This may take a while... spoilers likely to follow

Nothing Regarding the Assault...
1. Irrelevant. if you didn't notice, in that scenario, Shepard was also alive. It just means they didn't see him.
2. Being unconscious in the thick of battle likely could mean you seem dead. Once you wake up its a different story. Considering there were enemies attacking you by then... It makes sense. As for it ebing able to be shut off. That's assuming they had a good reason to shut it off. It could easily take forever to turn on, and it would be bad to have off if they needed to get someone in. Its not explained, but its not a plot whole.
3. Not a plot hole. Just an event that can be taken in any context a person wants.
4.  Odd, but hardly proof of anything. Mind you, it was a moving laser beam. Its movement could have lead to movement from the blast sending you forward. Or, better yet, it didn't move you basically at all because there's not explosion in itself, and its just not perfect placement before and after by Bioware.
5. Just seemed like a standard model they made that could work for everyone's armor when destroyed. Seemed fine to me.
6. Answered the reasonable answer in it. It was probably due to the actual beam. I doubt they wanted to go through the trouble of showing the process in which it transfered him. Probably easier way fro Bioware without making a plothole.

Every Single Line of Dialogue Spoken...
1. Again, they could have easily have not seen him, as they did with Shepard. A bit of the answer is given in there, as there are multiple paths to central chamber. They dismiss it as unnecessary because there would be a simpler way to have him rach there first. I suggest that it was done that way becuase they wanted to have them talking about what they were seeing and for Anderson to make it there first. Otherwise they would have made it at the same time.
2. This addresses certain parts of dialogue.
For the first one... Without seeing more of the area, the writer of this has no idea if this is true or not. So, i call BS on that...
For the second one... This is a nonsensical argument. Walls can realign if they want them to...
For the third one... Also fine with the idea what Anderson is taking a different route into the center area.

The Confrontation with the...
1. He was hurt before. Him bleeding there doesn't need to be anything more than coincidence to make sense. Not a plothole.
2. The Illusive Man understands how to control people. That was made clear earlier in the story with his research. Unfortunately he happens to be under their control while using it on the two to the extent he is able to now. I see no problem here.
3. They don't have to be indoctrinated. He didn't have a huge grasp over the control of them, obviously, since Shepard has the chance to shoot him later. Its a first steps type of ability from the impression I got.
4. I got the impression that this was when the Illusive Man was asserting his basic understand of control. The fact that this happens at all adn isn't constant shows that it has to be from him.
5. He's been preaching that it can do it the entire game. Obviously the indoctrination implanted the idea in his head strong enough for him to think it. that way he'd undermine Shepard's efforts.
6. Eh, probably just light turned on. This is assuming its traffic. Or that Bioware would go through the effort to make a whole new texture for a less active citadel. hardly a worthwhile problem. One that wouldn't be seen if people didn't look so far into it.
7. The whole thing just opened and attached to each other. I'd be shocked if Hackett didn't know about this. It only means that Hackett assumed Shepard was the one to make it.

Every Single Thing the Child Says...
1. This assuming that the starchild even wanted to take part in it. Maybe he wanted to leave the Reapers to do it themselves. Maybe that was the point of creating a whole species to do the dirty work. Given his intelligence (evident from creating the Reapers), he probably knew they still were coming. The Reapers are patient, why wouldn't their creator?
2. ------
A) This is assuming that species like the Geth would have been kept afterwards. I remember Javik mentioning a geth like species in his time. Do we see them around now? No. The only reason the Reapers stick around are because they are tools of this plan.
You can't control people to that extent. The reason they have them develop on those certain paths is so that... One... They have the same setup so that they can be harvested more efficiently... and Two... So they are generally along the same amount of development each time. 
C) All he is saying that its ineviatable. Even if one synthetic life leads to a peaceful co-existence (assuming the Geth Quarian lasts, or even happens in your playthrough. It didn't in mine), he's saying inevitably one will come along in some way or another. The assumption here is that this child, old enough and intelligent enough to be the creator of the Reapers, as seen enough of history to know this as an inevitability. 
D) Well, this one is just stupid. Mass Effect obviously takes up the idea of evolution in how life comes to fruition. Life does not need to exist for it to start up again with evolution.
E) If its such a simple concept, why is there so much arguing about how it doesn't make any sense? This is also assuming there isn't more to it, adn the child just gave the stuff Shepard needed to know. Also, I'd liek to point out that this would be even worse if the starchild wasn't involved somehow.
F) I don't remember the scene with Harbinger saying that. Though if you think about it, they're using organic life to create synthetic life. Why couldn't you use synthetic life to create synthetic life as well?
G) Different way of thinking. Harvesting can be seen as a better solution than total death. Don't see the problem here.
H) No, he doesn't. He actually counters the child several times in regards to what it means to be organic in contrast to the view the child is putting forth. In the end, they obviously can't agree one way or another. They do seem very much from a purely logical way of thinking, or synthetic. He treats them as normal because he has dealt with synthetic before, mind you.
3) I don't hear it when I listen to the scene. Even if its true, I also remember the voice actor for male Shepard commenting on how he did all the Varren (or something) for ME2. Another conspiracy! If it means anything at all, it means that they wanted to not have to cast new voice actors for this role, wanted to keep the ending involving the child on the downlow and not with some rarely used voiced actors, and/or that (this one is a maybe) they were rushed so they might not have time to find voice actors
4)
A) Assuming the Reapers even knew. They didn't even know what the Catalyst was.
Wasn't that their justification for Harvesting? That the organics becoming them was the optimum solution. The idea of Synthesis doesn't really cross this line in my mind. The idea that it gave me was that the fundmental building blocks of each type of life (Like DNA and whatever synthetics use), would become the same, making the distinction between synthetic adn organic the same as, say Human to Turian.
C) I'm assuming they don't leave the synthetics to do what they want. I don't see the earlier synthetics like the Geth still going around space.
D) if they have no end, they they couldn't be killed either. Sort of tripped up on himself there in the same game. The beginning sort of goes with it too. I assume they just don't know. Or something more complex. How they'd have been created would have to be explained.
5) These don't seem like plotholes, just what happened to happen. And I assume the child isn't all powerful. If he was, he wouldn't need the Reapers.
6) ...
A) New Form just means a new Reaper.
This is assuming a few things... The mortaility rate is consistent with other periods... That it takes many to create the Reapers... That dead Reapers cannot be salvaged for making of new Reapers.
C) The impression I got from ME2 (yes, ME2) is that Shepard's activities made Humanity a species of extreme interest. In this regard, the collectors focused on them, and the main focus of their attack (and therefore best place to defend the Citadel) was Earth. Their purpose for doing it doesn't have to have anything to do with the strategies they use for doing it.
D) The Collector's purpose were as more like field scouts than anything. The creation of the human reaper in ME2 was likely more a test than anything.
E) Does seem like their could have been a better strategy. There's a lot of factors to consider. Like that there were still people on the citadel. If they just closed it, then they could have had someone open it from the inside. To stop that, they'd want to convert the populace. They'd need to be able to sedn reinforcements if they needed.
7) I got the impression he was at the very least identifying with the Reapers, if not one of them (in some way).
8) Shepard being able to make it to the Citadel means that a situation that had not been proven to be possible before, that someone could get to the state of actually stopping them, was possible was enough to show the plan could not be forever lived.
9) I get the feeling the Reapers are unaware of this child's existence. Or there is another connection (considering the child itself may well be a Reaper in some way ior form). How do you rebel against something you don't know exists? Or you see as one of you?

Everything about the Three Choices
1) Your assuming the child has direct control over the Reapers. It could have easily been that he simply set up the Reaper's with the logic and plan and then let them do their job. He could easily not have the ability to control the Reapers like that himself.
2) Its takes a bit of imagination, but how I see I;ve already explained, in that the fundamental building blocks like DNA align as the same between the two, making being Organic or synthetic no more special than being human or turian.
3) Seems not important.
4) It was probably part of the design of the different species. The control would have had to been designed (and could have been added to the citadel), the destroy just requires something important enough to blow up to make the whole area go boom, adn synthesis just needed the energy stream, which wasn't a contraption in itself.
5) Perhaps there wasn't a person with the mix of synthetic and organic like Shepard has? It doesn't mean its not reproducable, just not thought of.
6) I'm assuming they didn't want to just kill all the synthetics either. Harvesting was likely the compromise they saw between total destruction of organics and total destruction of synthetics. Wouldn't have been my choice, but I can see why they'd pick it.
A) The species could have easily modified the Citadel as well. Or did that not come to your mind?
7) You're assuming that it was intended that way. The synthesis happened to involve the beam that was the energy of the crucible, the destroy was likely just a vulnerable part. The control is the only real contraption they'd have to make.
8) Your over thinking the effect of this option.

Nothing About the Post...
1) You're assuming the Mass Relays are being destroyed in a way that'll cause the same effect. Arrival has it actually blow up. This could easily be a more contained destruction.
2) While I don't know the series of events that led him there. I do know that it looks like the crucible's effect was that it was effecting Mass Effect based technology. The Normandy is largely based on this.
3) You don't know that. When each exploded, it sent out a wave that wasn't going as fast as a mass relay. The onthing that did was when it went to other mass relays, which wasn't the wave. Joker was outrunning the wave, so he couldn't have been doing this.
4) This is one of the few I have no answer for. I assume it was an oversight in design. This is an actual plothole.
5) This one is so easily countered. You don't know anything about the planet adn you assume it can't support them. Who knows, it could be a planet with both Dextro adn Carbon based life.
6) It is an intriguing scene. There are a number of possibilities. There is, of course, the Indoctrination Theory's spin on it. It could very well be Shepard falling back to Earth (and surviving, somehow). I'd like to think of it as the second. Why? Because I see the synthesis as the best choice morally, but its ally the most sacrificing. Destroy is the worst choice morally, but it could also be the least sacrificing, in that Shepard somehow survives because you chose the most jerk option.

hmm... Since you gave a warning of spoilers...
plot holes:
1. sword team wiped out anderson order retreat.
2. reaper zapped Shepard leaves leaving shepard to head to "beam"?
3. in the dreams shepard has had he runs slow. he runs slow to the beam.
4. If it was the real deal you could shoot and kill the keeper.
5. Since when did the citidal get upgrades to look like parts of the shadoe broker ship and the collectors ship?
6. Where does TIM come from if there was no other intersection other than straight to the control?
7. M. Shields shoots shepard in the shoulde not the stomach. Shepard shoots Anderson in the stomach when Anderson dies Shepard is bleeding from the stomach.
8. TIM has no interest in the control console.
9. between the crudible and the citidal in dead space Shepard able to breath? ME1 at the end he needed a oxygen mask helmet to breath.
10. choice A: give in. choice B: give in and turn in a hush like a saren husk. Choice C: live and fight.
11. in ME2 the beginning while saving joker in leaving the ship... Shepard has his oxygen mash helmet on. after the normandy exploded the oxygen was cut from the helmet and Shepard died entering a planet. You want people to believe that Shepard can survive an exploding Citidal that falls back to earth burying shepard and he is still alive?
12. A,B,C choices leads Mass Relays exploding... leaving the question how does one help your allies to go to the home planets and beat the reapers there?

the indoc. theory stands

[Adanu]

Don't bother OP, all the retakers and indoctrination theory lemmings will do is nitpick everything you say and ignore the good points.

[Icinix]

The ending issue wasn't about clarity, it wasn't about closure.

It was about the total decimation of logic and lore and the introduction of a star child. If I had written a story like that in high school, it would have come back with big red crosses over the end with 'WTF?' written on it.

A story needs to flow logically through itself, at the end, it all fell apart. It didn't continue anything it had built over the series, it introduced a new character, new concepts, and undid a lot of previous work. No matter how you spin it, it was a D grade story that belonged in a D grade straight to limited release DVD movie.

[Vesji]

Adanu wrote...

Don't bother OP, all the retakers and indoctrination theory lemmings will do is nitpick everything you say and ignore the good points.

The good points are not ignored, as far as I can see.

But there are very little to begin with, and most of them were just "good" assumptions.
All of the answers people are coming up for all of these questions, are essentially assumptions. Good or bad.

A game should not generate such ammount of questions, to which answers are speculations and assumptions.
And if the game is the end of a trilogy, it should definitely not do that.

Unless it s just a building block for the next game.

[mmm buddah23]

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

It was not by any measure of anything good, the fact that my choices in 1 -3 did not matter at all is insulting. As I said before, absolute paragon character helping everyone in 1 - 3 gets the same ending choices as absolute renegade character from 1 - 3 and helped no one is unacceptable.

[Amioran]

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
A) Story in the background? What? If you're talking about the development of the story by the team, it was purely bad writing at that point. If you think diferently fine, but that fact remains it's bad.[/quote]

No. "Story in the background" in this case it means how the story continues after a lapse. Since you don't know if this is a lapse or not all the speculation about what's what is premature.

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
B)They promised an ending in the sense that Shepard's story would be given a proper conclusion with various endings, yet what we got was, effectively, one ending with some mild differences.[/quote]

It doesn't seem to me. Shepard lives in only one of them. In one you get to destroy the Reapers, in another you get to control them without knowing what it will happen (or better, you can philosophically, but that's not the matter of the discussion here), in the last you end their threats by "making them friends" (methaphorically speaking). All of those are perfectly different things one another.

The truth is that people wanted an end to the Shepard's story where there was a way to escape without consequences. That's the truth, no matter how people try to hide it. Alas, this doesn't happen in real life and a thing as that is not simplicity but totally the contrary.
 
[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
The fact that they advertised this game as and ending to a saga, any person with sense would assume that means we get closure on everything presented to us so far, yet this was all lost in favor of "speculations for everyone!".[/quote]
 
They never tied the "ending" to the saga itself, that's all your own assumption. They never said "ME3 will be the end of the full saga". It can either be that at beginning they intended it to be that way but then it changed to the "ending of the Shepard's arc of the story", but nowhere they have written or said otherwise.

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
The ending of a story (or arc, which is the case here) requires a sense of closure and accomplishment yet just enough to give us an idea of how things will go on.[/quote]
 
From where the hell did you get this? During the end of a story arc (as a change of protagonist) it is not said anywhere that you need full closure and a sense of accomplishment. On the contrary totally the opposite is used many times in serial writing to obtain uncertainity and momentum.

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
Nothing like that was provided in this ending.[/quote]

Maybe because they did it intentionally given what I already said?
 
[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
The lost focus on characters and became about a non-existing conflict within the narrative structure of the triology.[/quote]

Again, this is perfectly plausible during a lapse. You don't need to explain everything at the moment because nothing is finished yet, and on the contrary doing so would either create a sort of "costriction" on the path to follow.

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
C)Look Amioran, stop throwing around how much more you know about stories than anybody else because you are supposedly a successful writer in your country.[/quote]
 
Excuse me but that's just the way it is. To judge something on technical parameters you must know those parameters yourself or your judgement is flawed from beginning.

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
The ending being good is nullified by the lack of control or character agency in the last moments of the game. The ultimate goal of stoping the Reapers is replaced with a completely new goal.[/quote]
 
And why that should be a bad thing at all? I don't really get it. Have you ever read Ellroy, for example? In his books the "goals" change almost from chapter to chapter and yet nobody can ever dream to say that Ellroy is a "bad writer" and on the contrary his books have some of the most original themes written in noir.

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
Out of nowhere we are expected to resolve a supposed tension between organics and synthetics, which up until now was barely related with the rest of the series, over the course of 14 lines of dialogue in the last 10 minutes.[/quote]

Again, there's nothing wrong with it. The motive why you are upset about it is just that you expected something different, that's all. I already said this in another thread: when you are a reader/whatever the worst thing you can ever do is expecting something a priori from the book you are going to read. 

There's nothing wrong on introducing a completely new concept in the last chapter of a book (for example) before a lapse. There are many writers that do this to create momentum on what's to come. Again, refer to what I've written above (and in many other threads) for the motivations of doing such.
 
[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
This is plain bad writing. Introducing an entirely new conflict at the end is a terrible idea, especially seeing as how we get next to know information on what we are meant to do, and what we do is full of vagueness.[/quote]

As I've proven to you it's not "bad writing" at all, totally the contrary. If you think it's a "terrible idea" is only because, again, you expect something completely different, but this "idea" has been used many other times and no art critic ever dreamed to say of it that it was "terrible" (quite the opposite, in fact).

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
D) You have given nobody any reason to believe you actually know what you're talking about. The fact that you can't seem to give a better reason for all this other than "It wasn't meant to happen" or "We can't know if this is it". Stop trying to make this about you. Nobody is questioning your knowledge, because we don't care.[/quote]

Does it seem to you that I'm not giving reasons? I give reasons everywhere and I explain everything in the details. I never said "it is this because I say it", isn't it?

So you can agree or disagree or either think I am wrong (naturally you would have to prove it then, but that's another thing) but surely you cannot say that I don't explain myself (usually people say totally the contrary about me).

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
E)The problem here is that the Deus Ex Machina in this game is done so without ANY in-universe explanation. There was nothing anywhere that prepared us for what we got at the ending. [/quote]

On the contrary I expected it fully given all the precedent struggle with the Geth and how the narrative was introduced on that point and given the catalyst and the method of thinking of the reapers.

Just a little background with the Paradise Lost of Milton would have made you guess it without problems, for example (there are many others; the concept has really being used a lot in writing). The mechanic of the struggle was adopted in the same way (on the philosophical aspect). Naturally the context was different, but the type of problem posed, and that the "God/Order" theme was about to come was easily individuable in the way the philosophical background was laid.

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
If they had given us the option to QUESTION the Catalyst[/quote]

You don't question God, no matter what. That's again a philosophical concept too long to explain here in the motivations. Let's assured, however, that this "no option" is doing intentionally. Having a little of background on the thing would let you understand why.

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
It's not that Deus Ex Machina is bad writing (even if it is a bit of a copout), it was simply executed terribly in ME3, mostly given the fact the last scene of the ending was written by Mac and Casey alone. 
[/quote]

I understand that it can seem that way but I assure you (as I said many other times in other threads) that there's much more to it than it may seem at first look.

The fact is that to comprehend it fully you need to have a little of knowledge on the background philosophical aspects of the writing. Lacking it, you cannot grasp concretely all of its full meaning and you can think it lacks complexity when it's actually completely the opposite.

Hower it's that the fault of the author or of the user? Maybe you could, on the contrary, say that they actually mistaken on giving too much complexity that obviously the typical gamer couldn't comprehend, but paradoxically enough people are accusing them of the complete opposite, and I find this so damned fun.

For this I continue to repeat that to judge a thing you must have some background on it or your judgement is flawed from beginning and you risk to do the figure of the idiot to anybody that have instead that sort of background.

Modifié par Amioran, 09 avril 2012 - 10:29 .

[mmm buddah23]

[quote]Amioran wrote...

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
A) Story in the background? What? If you're talking about the development of the story by the team, it was purely bad writing at that point. If you think diferently fine, but that fact remains it's bad.[/quote]

No. "Story in the background" in this case it means how the story continues after a lapse. Since you don't know if this is a lapse or not all the speculation about what's what is premature.

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
B)They promised an ending in the sense that Shepard's story would be given a proper conclusion with various endings, yet what we got was, effectively, one ending with some mild differences.[/quote]

It doesn't seem to me. Shepard lives in only one of them. In one you get to destroy the Reapers, in another you get to control them without knowing what it will happen (or better, you can philosophically, but that's not the matter of the discussion here), in the last you end their threats by "making them friends" (methaphorically speaking). All of those are perfectly different things one another.

The truth is that people wanted an end to the Shepard's story where there was a way to escape without consequences. That's the truth, no matter how people try to hide it. Alas, this doesn't happen in real life and a thing as that is not simplicity but totally the contrary.
 
[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
The fact that they advertised this game as and ending to a saga, any person with sense would assume that means we get closure on everything presented to us so far, yet this was all lost in favor of "speculations for everyone!".[/quote]
 
They never tied the "ending" to the saga itself, that's all your own assumption. They never said "ME3 will be the end of the full saga". It can either be that at beginning they intended it to be that way but then it changed to the "ending of the Shepard's arc of the story", but nowhere they have written or said otherwise.

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
The ending of a story (or arc, which is the case here) requires a sense of closure and accomplishment yet just enough to give us an idea of how things will go on.[/quote]
 
From where the hell did you get this? During the end of a story arc (as a change of protagonist) it is not said anywhere that you need full closure and a sense of accomplishment. On the contrary totally the opposite is used many times in serial writing to obtain uncertainity and momentum.

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
Nothing like that was provided in this ending.[/quote]

Maybe because they did it intentionally given what I already said?
 
[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
The lost focus on characters and became about a non-existing conflict within the narrative structure of the triology.[/quote]

Again, this is perfectly plausible during a lapse. You don't need to explain everything at the moment because nothing is finished yet, and on the contrary doing so would either create a sort of "costriction" on the path to follow.

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
C)Look Amioran, stop throwing around how much more you know about stories than anybody else because you are supposedly a successful writer in your country.[/quote]
 
Excuse me but that's just the way it is. To judge something on technical parameters you must know those parameters yourself or your judgement is flawed from beginning.

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
The ending being good is nullified by the lack of control or character agency in the last moments of the game. The ultimate goal of stoping the Reapers is replaced with a completely new goal.[/quote]
 
And why that should be a bad thing at all? I don't really get it. Have you ever read Ellroy, for example? In his books the "goals" change almost from chapter to chapter and yet nobody can ever dream to say that Ellroy is a "bad writer" and on the contrary his books have some of the most original themes written in noir.

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
Out of nowhere we are expected to resolve a supposed tension between organics and synthetics, which up until now was barely related with the rest of the series, over the course of 14 lines of dialogue in the last 10 minutes.[/quote]

Again, there's nothing wrong with it. The motive why you are upset about it is just that you expected something different, that's all. I already said this in another thread: when you are a reader/whatever the worst thing you can ever do is expecting something a priori from the book you are going to read. 

There's nothing wrong on introducing a completely new concept in the last chapter of a book (for example) before a lapse. There are many writers that do this to create momentum on what's to come. Again, refer to what I've written above (and in many other threads) for the motivations of doing such.
 
[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
This is plain bad writing. Introducing an entirely new conflict at the end is a terrible idea, especially seeing as how we get next to know information on what we are meant to do, and what we do is full of vagueness.[/quote]

As I've proven to you it's not "bad writing" at all, totally the contrary. If you think it's a "terrible idea" is only because, again, you expect something completely different, but this "idea" has been used many other times and no art critic ever dreamed to say of it that it was "terrible" (quite the opposite, in fact).

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
D) You have given nobody any reason to believe you actually know what you're talking about. The fact that you can't seem to give a better reason for all this other than "It wasn't meant to happen" or "We can't know if this is it". Stop trying to make this about you. Nobody is questioning your knowledge, because we don't care.[/quote]

Does it seem to you that I'm not giving reasons? I give reasons everywhere and I explain everything in the details. I never said "it is this because I say it", isn't it?

So you can agree or disagree or either think I am wrong (naturally you would have to prove it then, but that's another thing) but surely you cannot say that I don't explain myself (usually people say totally the contrary about me).

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
E)The problem here is that the Deus Ex Machina in this game is done so without ANY in-universe explanation. There was nothing anywhere that prepared us for what we got at the ending. [/quote]

On the contrary I expected it fully given all the precedent struggle with the Geth and how the narrative was introduced on that point and given the catalyst and the method of thinking of the reapers.

Just a little background with the Paradise Lost of Milton would have made you understand it without problems. The mechanic of the struggle was adopted in the same way. Naturally the context was different, but the type of problem posed, and that the "God/Order" theme was about to come was easily individuable in the way the philosophical background was laid.

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
If they had given us the option to QUESTION the Catalyst[/quote]

You don't question God, no matter what. That's again a philosophical concept too long to explain here in the motivations. Let's assured, however, that this "no option" is doing intentionally. Having a little of background on the thing would let you understand why.

[quote]Gaiden96 wrote...
It's not that Deus Ex Machina is bad writing (even if it is a bit of a copout), it was simply executed terribly in ME3, mostly given the fact the last scene of the ending was written by Mac and Casey alone. 
[/quote]

I understand that it can seem that way but I assure you (as I said many other times in other threads) that there's much more to it than it may seem at first look.

The fact is that to comprehend it fully you need to have a little of knowledge on the background philosophical aspects of the writing. Lacking it, you cannot grasp concretely all of its full meaning and you can think it lacks complexity when it's actually completely the opposite.

Hower it's that the fault of the author or of the user? Maybe you could, on the contrary, say that they actually mistaken on giving too much complexity that obviously the typical gamer couldn't comprehend, but paradoxically enough people are accusing them of the complete opposite, and I find this so damned fun.

For this I continue to repeat that to judge a thing you must have some background on it or your judgement is flawed from beginning and you risk to do the figure of the idiot to anybody that have instead that sort of background.
[/quote]Wow wall of text much? For all that you claim to know, you ignore the fact that your choices from previous games do not matter AT ALL in number three, same with your galactic readiness, there was NO difference between me having 2500 readiness and 8000, none what so ever. The endings were bad, stop trying to convince yourself otherwise .

[Amioran]

mmm buddah23 wrote...
Wow wall of text much? For all that you claim to know, you ignore the fact that your choices from previous games do not matter AT ALL in number three, same with your galactic readiness, there was NO difference between me having 2500 readiness and 8000, none what so ever. The endings were bad, stop trying to convince yourself otherwise .

Thank you for not reading nothing at all of what I wrote. If you want to reply to me at last do the effort to actually read something of what I explain, elsewher any kind of discussion will be futile.

I understand that for many people here reading more than 5 words can be problematic but if you want to have a serious debate that's necessary.

I already explained why what you say is not correct. If you read my "wall of text" fully maybe you can comprehend the motive.

Modifié par Amioran, 09 avril 2012 - 10:33 .

[mmm buddah23]

Amioran wrote...

mmm buddah23 wrote...
Wow wall of text much? For all that you claim to know, you ignore the fact that your choices from previous games do not matter AT ALL in number three, same with your galactic readiness, there was NO difference between me having 2500 readiness and 8000, none what so ever. The endings were bad, stop trying to convince yourself otherwise .

Thank you for not reading nothing at all of what I wrote. If you want to reply to me at last do the effort to actually read something of what I explain, elsewher any kind of discussion will be futile.

I understand that for many people here reading more than 5 words can be problematic but if you want to have a serious debate that's necessary.

I already explained why what you say is not correct. If you read my "wall of text" fully maybe you can comprehend the motive.

Wow, look at that, I read your whole post, no where did you explain what I said. Way to think you are above everyone just because you enjoy typing ridiculously long posts about nothing. Again, none of my choices matter, and you explain nothing involving that.

[mmm buddah23]

TheseAreMyToys wrote...

Amioran wrote...

mmm buddah23 wrote...
Wow wall of text much? For all that you claim to know, you ignore the fact that your choices from previous games do not matter AT ALL in number three, same with your galactic readiness, there was NO difference between me having 2500 readiness and 8000, none what so ever. The endings were bad, stop trying to convince yourself otherwise .

Thank you for not reading nothing at all of what I wrote. If you want to reply to me at last do the effort to actually read something of what I explain, elsewher any kind of discussion will be futile.

I understand that for many people here reading more than 5 words can be problematic but if you want to have a serious debate that's necessary.

I already explained why what you say is not correct. If you read my "wall of text" fully maybe you can comprehend the motive.

They are called Sheeple my friend.  Nano-second attention spans.

 No sheeple are people who follow the trend without questioning, in this case, that would be the people who say the ending is good without question. Good job.

[78stonewobble]

Kanner wrote...

5 pages and still not a single explanation of why anyone liked the ending. Just tautologies and a WHOLE LOT of mystical, pseudo-intellectual posing.

I certainly didn't derive any kind of deep vibe from ME3's conclusion. They introduced a god-lite character, gave a quick nonsensical runthrough of some highly flawed logic regarding organic vs. synthetic life (a theme which had been dealt with firstly in ME2 via EDI and then again on Rannoch). And you were forced to pick one of three incomprehensible solutions to this brand new conflict, none of which are consistant with the world building aspects of the mass effect universe and one of which (synthesis) makes NO SENSE AT ALL.

Then you get virtually identical cutscenes but for some color coding. And of course, before you check out, you're encouraged to buy some DLC. (Artistic integity WIN)

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. Because hey, god is now real in Mass Effect and there was no other way out of that room save for alt-f4. Right?

That is not an interesting conclusion, not to most people it seems. In the main it's because their suspension of disbelief has just been annihilated and all of their speculations are leading to the answer "NO, THAT'S STUPID."

IT. MAKES. NO. SENSE.

Kinda sums up my oppinion though I don't think that past choices could realistically (economically) have been much expanded upon.

[Adanu]

Vesji wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Don't bother OP, all the retakers and indoctrination theory lemmings will do is nitpick everything you say and ignore the good points.

The good points are not ignored, as far as I can see.

But there are very little to begin with, and most of them were just "good" assumptions.
All of the answers people are coming up for all of these questions, are essentially assumptions. Good or bad.

A game should not generate such ammount of questions, to which answers are speculations and assumptions.
And if the game is the end of a trilogy, it should definitely not do that.

Unless it s just a building block for the next game.

See what I mean? Ignored.

Just not worth anyones time to discuss things with the retakers. They won't listen.

Modifié par Adanu, 09 avril 2012 - 10:42 .

[Amioran]

mmm buddah23 wrote...
Wow, look at that, I read your whole post, no where did you explain what I said. Way to think you are above everyone just because you enjoy typing ridiculously long posts about nothing. Again, none of my choices matter, and you explain nothing involving that.

I explained it both with in the "you don't question God" part (for the philosophical aspect behind it that it's too long to explain in full here, but it exists), in the part where I say that in a lapse many of these things are not necessary for various motives, and in the part where I say that it can be done intentionally to create speculation/uncertainity.

As for the literal "I have no choice in the end" refer to the explaining (again in my "wall of text") of the differences in the choices in the ending, all of which have completely differently philosophical backgrounds in them.

Modifié par Amioran, 09 avril 2012 - 10:47 .

[Achire]

Was anyone else expecting the whole original post to consist of "for me to poop on"?

[Amioran]

mmm buddah23 wrote...
No sheeple are people who follow the trend without questioning, in this case, that would be the people who say the ending is good without question. Good job.

Never thought that it is the same thing with the exact contrary statement, i.e. "in this case that would be people who say the ending is bad without question"? Do you see more of the former or of the latter?

So have you actually buried your case without comprehending it?

[Wolf]

Amioran wrote...
*snip*

You know what? I'm not going to bother rebuking to your statements. If you can't see the issues when they are right in front of you I can't discuss this with you. If you're going to respond to my statements on WRITING with lines about how "YOU DON'T QUESTION GOD" (which the Catalyst ISN'T) I can't talk to you. Writing is the topic, not philosophy.

So far you have given us nothing noteworthy of debate except your own assumptions and conjectures on what the ending means instead of what is actually there (which is exactly what this whole discussion is about).

If you want to drop the "I am oh-so knowledgeable and more inteligent than anyone" act and speak sense, we can finally talk about this the right way. 

We offer actual facts, you offer theories and statements about how we "don't know", when most of us have throughly analyzed the endings to hell and back, and know what the hell we're talking about.

Until you get off your high horse, we're not getting anywhere.

Modifié par Gaiden96, 09 avril 2012 - 10:49 .

[mmm buddah23]

Amioran wrote...

mmm buddah23 wrote...
Wow, look at that, I read your whole post, no where did you explain what I said. Way to think you are above everyone just because you enjoy typing ridiculously long posts about nothing. Again, none of my choices matter, and you explain nothing involving that.

I explained it both with in the "you don't question God" part (for the philosophical aspect behind it), in the part where I say that in a lapse many of these things are not necessary for various motives, and in the part where I say that it can be done intentionally to create speculation/uncertainity.

As for the literal "I have no choice in the end" refer to the explaining (again in my "wall of text") of the differences in the choices in the ending, all of which have completely differently philosophical backgrounds in them.

Philosophy has no place in my choices in the ending of a series, it should be cut and dry and actually be there. Again, IF I choose to help no one 1 - 3, and have my galactic readiness at 2000 or below, I should not have the EXACT same choices as someone who helped everyone and had a galactic readiness of 8000 or above. There should be options, an option to say screw the crucible, we will take out the reapers with the lfeets no matter what the cost, there should be more choices, the 16 endings the promised us, but instead we get people like you that defend the choice to streamline the game to the bone. There is no point in arguing with you, because youiwll just bring up philosophy and speculation, which has no place in a video games ending.

[Suikoden]

Loved the ending. Interpreted it as an indoctrination attempt from the very beginning as it just seemed incredibly obvious to me. Ties in perfectly with how Saren = Synthesis and TIM = Control, while Shepard = Destroy and is the only one to successfully overcome indoctrination provided you made the correct choice.

What makes the ending all the more amazing is how such a large portion of the fanbase appears to be indoctrinated themselves in that they still look at the endings at face-value and think that everything shown actually happened outside of Shepard's mind.

Just my opinion. Not saying it's right or wrong, but that's why I loved the ending and thought it was spectacular - and no matter what any future DLC might confirm or deny, this'll always be how I and many others will interpret the ending, as there's just too great a build up of evidence that supports it.

I think part of the reason why many people attack the IT viewpoint and it's defenders, is because they're frustrated that there's some fans out there that got everything they wanted and more out of the ending, while they themselves hated it.  This just adds to the feeling of being cheated when some people appear to benefit at others' misfortune.

Modifié par beutelmarkus, 09 avril 2012 - 10:50 .

[mmm buddah23]

Amioran wrote...

mmm buddah23 wrote...
No sheeple are people who follow the trend without questioning, in this case, that would be the people who say the ending is good without question. Good job.

Never thought that it is the same thing with the exact contrary statement, i.e. "in this case that would be people who say the ending is bad without question"? Do you see more of the former or of the latter?

So have you actually buried your case without comprehending it?

No the people that say the ending is good, just say it is good, and thats final. People like me bring up the options and choices that were completely ignored in the pevious games, and hell, even in ME 3. People like me want more choices, hell the choices we were promised, we want more variety, which is what ME is all about, but sheeple like you just accept everything EA forces their game maker pawns to do, and will defend it to the death. And will stay online until their word is final. Wich i bet is what you will do.

Modifié par mmm buddah23, 09 avril 2012 - 10:51 .