5087 réponses à ce sujet

[Hawk227]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

@thisisme8

I agree that the Reapers think that our "problems" are far beneath them. However, what I think people like Hawk and myself are talking about is the problem presented by the story: "Us vs. the Reapers". When we meet the Catalyst, we're forced to solve a completely different conflict, "Organics vs. Synthetics/ Technological Singularity". We don't even have the option to go back and solve the conflict that's been driving the entire story of the ME games up to this point.

"Well, you got all this way trying to solve whatever your problem is, but now that you're here, you can solve MY problem, so let's get started."

Absolutely, The choices seem to solve the Us vs. The Reapers conflict as a side-effect of solving the Reapers perceived Organic vs. Synthetic conflict. The idea that the Catalyst is insane, or simply unknowable is all well and good, but the end choices treat his viewpoint as though it is valid and unquestionable. The subtext is saying "The Catalyst is Right" and that's a major problem I have no matter how intentionally illogical he is. We're given some exposition that is unfounded within the rest of the narrative and told to go do something about this new knowledge. Oh, and nevermind everything we already thought we know, because it was wrong, he said so.

[thisisme8]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...
When we meet the Catalyst, we're forced to solve a completely different conflict, "Organics vs. Synthetics/ Technological Singularity". We don't even have the option to go back and solve the conflict that's been driving the entire story of the ME games up to this point.

Yeah, I get that.  But at the same time, we solve our problem by ending the cycle.  All three decisions end it.  It's part of the "Impossible Decision" in storytelling.  Each solution solves the problem, but at an equally horrific cost.  If that was intentional or accidental, we'll never know...  if it was accidental, I'll just be ashamed of the writers.

[delta_vee]

@CGG

Is "that one series [you] like" NGE? Because I thought letting them have their apocalypse kinda-sorta was the ending...

[KitaSaturnyne]

delta_vee wrote...

Except that our problem is the cycle's very existence. And of the "solutions" we're presented (and I admit this is as much about mechanics as narrative), the only one available at all EMS levels is Destroy - which a) is not a solution at all for the Catalyst's problem, and also isn't a solution to our problem (the line is "...you can destroy all synthetics if you want...", which again doesn't align with our desire to defeat the Reapers specifically).

Every time I hear the Catalyst say that, my immediate mental reaction is "Well... what if I don't want? What if I want to just destroy the Reapers?"

And there's still the sticking point of how the Destroy Beam can kill synthetic intelligences, but not technology as a whole.

[thisisme8]

I just thought of this:

The storytelling point that you have a problem with is the "world is bigger than you think" problem. Works great in the first or second installment, but not in the final.

Basically comes down to: The Catalyst and his problem would be fine, if Shepard's story ended in ME4, or if presented in ME2. We already had one in ME1. Throwing it in at the very end of ME3 sucks because we only have about 45 seconds left with our hero.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

thisisme8 wrote...

I just thought of this:

The storytelling point that you have a problem with is the "world is bigger than you think" problem. Works great in the first or second installment, but not in the final.

Basically comes down to: The Catalyst and his problem would be fine, if Shepard's story ended in ME4, or if presented in ME2. We already had one in ME1. Throwing it in at the very end of ME3 sucks because we only have about 45 seconds left with our hero.

I don't think that's the problem. 

The problem is that the world is more complex (and bigger) than the ending thinks.

If you've been paying any attention to the world at all, you can think of a thousand solutions to the Catalyst's problems that are far, far better than the ones you're presented with. But you can't actually explain any of these to him, or make any of those points, because the game doesn't acknowledge that any of these ideas exist.

In the end, the game only acknowledges the existance two conflicts and three moronic solutions that sorta-kinda (but not really) address one out of the two conflicts, usually badly. If you know anything about the universe, it's obvious that there are better, smarter, less destructive, less abominable ways to solve these problems. 

The game doesn't realize that, though.

[thisisme8]

No no no, "the world is bigger than you think" is not a line to be taken literally. It's a storytelling tool that changes the focus by adding, removing, or moving pieces to or from the plot.

In ME1 we learn what Sovereign and the Reapers are.
In Xenogears... well, it's all over the place there... but we learn that the land war on earth the planet is a smaller part of a larger war taking place in the sky.
In The Matrix 2 we learn that Neo isn't a messiah, but another form of control
In The Village it's when, half way through, the protagonist is changed from one character to another (which was absolutely brilliant, mind you).

Modifié par thisisme8, 26 juin 2012 - 03:36 .

[giftfish]

This lit prof is spot on. I love his analysis of the ending and ME3 plot in general.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

thisisme8 wrote...

No no no, "the world is bigger than you think" is not a line to be taken literally. It's a storytelling tool that changes the focus by adding, removing, or moving pieces to or from the plot.

In ME1 we learn what Sovereign and the Reapers are.
In Xenogears... well, it's all over the place there... but we learn that the land war on earth the planet is a smaller part of a larger war taking place in the sky.
In The Matrix 2 we learn that Neo isn't a messiah, but another form of control
In The Village it's when, half way through, the protagonist is changed from one character to another (which was absolutely brilliant, mind you).

Then I don't understand what your point is, at all.

I don't understand how this terrible, intellectually lazy, minimizing shifting of focus has anything remotely in common with the cases you cite above.

Edit: to clarify... all those things made the player step back and rethink everything. "Oh, so that's really the problem. Oh wow. I've been going about it all wrong! It's so much bigger than we think!" 

whereas the ending of Mass Effect has players thinking "Yes yes, I've already explored and addressed that problem, and now you're limiting the ways it's possible to solve it to nothing but narrowly concieved bad choices, when the view I had was already so much broader and nuanced?"

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 26 juin 2012 - 03:43 .

[Chesta12345]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

No no no, "the world is bigger than you think" is not a line to be taken literally. It's a storytelling tool that changes the focus by adding, removing, or moving pieces to or from the plot.

In ME1 we learn what Sovereign and the Reapers are.
In Xenogears... well, it's all over the place there... but we learn that the land war on earth the planet is a smaller part of a larger war taking place in the sky.
In The Matrix 2 we learn that Neo isn't a messiah, but another form of control
In The Village it's when, half way through, the protagonist is changed from one character to another (which was absolutely brilliant, mind you).

Then I don't understand what your point is, at all.

I don't understand how this terrible, intellectually lazy, minimizing shifting of focus has anything remotely in common with the cases you cite above.

Edit: to clarify... all those things made the player step back and rethink everything. "Oh, so that's really the problem. Oh wow. I've been going about it all wrong! It's so much bigger than we think!" 

whereas the ending of Mass Effect has players thinking "Yes yes, I've already explored and addressed that problem, and now you're limiting the ways it's possible to solve it to nothing but narrowly concieved bad choices, when the view I had was already so much broader and nuanced?"

He's saying that those are examples where the technique worked, I think. It worked in the first two ME games. IE. Saren is a puppet of Sovereign, and the Reapers are part of a galactic cycle to destroy you. Or in ME2 you discover that the collectors are Protheans harvested from the last cycle.

In ME3, the Star Child was supposed to be another moment like that, except it failed miserably and created only questions where there should have been answers.

[delta_vee]

ME1 and ME2, though, had the reveal roughly 2/3 of the way through, allowing both time to explore the new idea in some depth and time for the audience to acclimatize themselves to the change in priorities. Timing is everything.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Also, in both those cases, the issue was something beyond what you currently understood or prioritized.

This isn't the same. This is a case where it's an issue you're potentially already aware of (if you have Javik), and that you've already started considering potential solutions to (on Rannoch).

If you're arguing that the writers intended this to serve the same purpose as the better reveals above, you're right. But they completely failed, and we don't have to give them points for trying.

[Chesta12345]

delta_vee wrote...

ME1 and ME2, though, had the reveal roughly 2/3 of the way through, allowing both time to explore the new idea in some depth and time for the audience to acclimatize themselves to the change in priorities. Timing is everything.

Great point. And I think that's what made the Star Child dialogue (if you could even call it that.. He basically talks *at* you) so frustrating. It was like being force-fed an entire cake in a matter of seconds.

Perhaps It could've been sweet if we'd been presented with the theme slice by slice with enough time to digest, but instead it just made most of us sick.

[thisisme8]

First off: The catalyst is right about one thing. Sure, you have peace with the Geth and other races, but for how long? Besides, the peace you worked so hard for was only possible in the face of that threat, so how much peace would you have had otherwise? Anyway, your broad and nuanced view is also a temporary one, and his basic solution is a more permanent one. <----that's a huge generalization, and I know it - but it's true in its simplicity.

Finally, I've gone over the choices. I believe they are using the impossible decision tool of storytelling. It forces you to make a decision that is as horrific as the consequence. They did a good job of leading up to it. In all three games they constantly told you that you wouldn't win the battle against the reapers. Sure, you killed a few here and there but you stood no chance once they got there. One of the major themes in ME3 was Shepard descending into despair as a result of it. They are practically telling you that a complete victory is out of the question, and an impossible decision is looming.

EDIT:  Which is why I said the reveal wasn't that good because it happened with 45 seconds left on the clock and no sequals coming.

Modifié par thisisme8, 26 juin 2012 - 04:02 .

[thisisme8]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

If you're arguing that the writers intended this to serve the same purpose as the better reveals above, you're right. But they completely failed, and we don't have to give them points for trying.

Nobody is handing out points, we're just talking about our interpretations.  We all can agree that the writing wasn't as tight and focused as ME1, the execution in the end wasn't as good as most of the conclusions to other missions - my favorite being Tuchanka.

3 months after release though, there's no point to being mad and pointing fingers.  Actually, the only thing that frustrates me on these forums are people that just want to berate BioWare like they owe them something.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

thisisme8 wrote...

First off: The catalyst is right about one thing. Sure, you have peace with the Geth and other races, but for how long? Besides, the peace you worked so hard for was only possible in the face of that threat, so how much peace would you have had otherwise? Anyway, your broad and nuanced view is also a temporary one, and his basic solution is a more permanent one. <----that's a huge generalization, and I know it - but it's true in its simplicity.

Finally, I've gone over the choices. I believe they are using the impossible decision tool of storytelling. It forces you to make a decision that is as horrific as the consequence. They did a good job of leading up to it. In all three games they constantly told you that you wouldn't win the battle against the reapers. Sure, you killed a few here and there but you stood no chance once they got there. One of the major themes in ME3 was Shepard descending into despair as a result of it. They are practically telling you that a complete victory is out of the question, and an impossible decision is looming.

EDIT:  Which is why I said the reveal wasn't that good because it happened with 45 seconds left on the clock and no sequals coming.

Firstly, there are plenty of stories where the villain says over and over that defeating him is impossible. That doesn't necessarily mean it's true. It's a staple of villainy as old as the black hat. In a game where the tone has always been one of hope and triumph over impossible odds, to go back to NYAH NYAH WE TOLD YOU SO is both thematically jarring and incredibly childish. I mean I went on a suicide mission and everybody lived. I was told all throughout that game that such a thing was impossible. Does that mean that the ending to the SM was written badly? No.

You obviously don't know what my solutions are, which is fine. You're new here. One of the ones I've outlined several times is voluntary transhumanism. How is that less permanent than forcible transhumanism? It isn't.

Also, all of his solutions except for Synthesis are less permanent than any of mine. Destroy synthetics? We'll recreate them to an equivalent level in under a decade. No solution there. Control? Shep could just pilot the Reapers into the sun. Hell, even synthesis is mind-numbingly stupid and ineffective, since I can't conceive of any logical way it could prevent new true synthetics from being created.

I don't know, I just wish that all games had to come with a "Fatalistic simplistic xenophobic genocide ending INSIDE" sticker on the first installment, if they intended to trot out that old chestnut. It'd help me really sort out what I want to buy.

I'm not saying that such endings are always bad. I'm just tired of them. Everything ends like that these days, and I...

I want something to go right... just once, just...

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 26 juin 2012 - 04:15 .

[Chesta12345]

thisisme8 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

If you're arguing that the writers intended this to serve the same purpose as the better reveals above, you're right. But they completely failed, and we don't have to give them points for trying.

Nobody is handing out points, we're just talking about our interpretations.  We all can agree that the writing wasn't as tight and focused as ME1, the execution in the end wasn't as good as most of the conclusions to other missions - my favorite being Tuchanka.

3 months after release though, there's no point to being mad and pointing fingers.  Actually, the only thing that frustrates me on these forums are people that just want to berate BioWare like they owe them something.

Bioware owed it to themselves to make the ME series be the masterpiece it deserves to be. Masterpieces don't end with plotholes.

If we fans didn't love the ride so much there wouldn't be so much disappointment about that horrible destination. It was as if you'd been on a long roadtrip and developed a very strong bond with your friends and, then, they kicked you out of the car in the middle of nowhere (planet Gilligan) and drove off with your money.

I genuinely felt betrayal, but, I think it had everything to do with time constraints and EA likely rushing the developers to finish. I know it wasn't a Bioware game, but this ending felt a lot like KOTOR 2s ending. Just incomplete, unpolished and rushed.

[thisisme8]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Firstly, there are plenty of stories where the villain says over and over that defeating him is impossible. That doesn't necessarily mean it's true. It's a staple of villainy as old as the black hat. In a game where the tone has always been one of hope and triumph over impossible odds, to go back to NYAH NYAH WE TOLD YOU SO is both thematically jarring and incredibly childish. I mean I went on a suicide mission and everybody lived. I was told all throughout that game that such a thing was impossible. Does that mean that the ending to the SM was written badly? No.

You obviously don't know what my solutions are, which is fine. You're new here. One of the ones I've outlined several times is voluntary transhumanism. How is that less permanent than forcible transhumanism? It isn't.

Also, all of his solutions except for Synthesis are less permanent than any of mine. Destroy synthetics? We'll recreate them to an equivalent level in under a decade. No solution there. Control? Shep could just pilot the Reapers into the sun. Hell, even synthesis is mind-numbingly stupid and ineffective, since I can't conceive of any logical way it could prevent new true synthetics from being created.

I don't know, I just wish that all games had to come with a "Fatalistic simplistic xenophobic genocide ending INSIDE" sticker on the first installment, if they intended to trot out that old chestnut. It'd help me really sort out what I want to buy.

I'm the new guy again?    Dangit!

The first time I was the new guy was when ME2 came out and Vanguards were stupid and impossible and needed to be changed.  I created a thread (which became the official, unofficial Vanguard FAQ) showing how you could beat Insanity with them (which was deemd impossible at the time), added a few videos of mine and Sinosleep, and later, with a couple guys like RamsenC and Kronner, became the go to guys for all things Vanguard.  Crap, now I'm rehashing...  us old guys like to remenisce.

Anyway - When I was saying "his" solutions, I was referring to the cycle.  So, the cycle - regardless of logic, morality, whatever - is a more permanent solution.

Regarding the whole "defeating the reapers" deal.  I would have been sorely disapointed if we could have won by defeating them.  For me, the only acceptable outcomes after showing me this powerful enemy were compromise or peace.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

thisisme8 wrote...

First off: The catalyst is right about one thing. Sure, you have peace with the Geth and other races, but for how long? Besides, the peace you worked so hard for was only possible in the face of that threat, so how much peace would you have had otherwise? Anyway, your broad and nuanced view is also a temporary one, and his basic solution is a more permanent one. <----that's a huge generalization, and I know it - but it's true in its simplicity.

Finally, I've gone over the choices. I believe they are using the impossible decision tool of storytelling. It forces you to make a decision that is as horrific as the consequence. They did a good job of leading up to it. In all three games they constantly told you that you wouldn't win the battle against the reapers. Sure, you killed a few here and there but you stood no chance once they got there. One of the major themes in ME3 was Shepard descending into despair as a result of it. They are practically telling you that a complete victory is out of the question, and an impossible decision is looming.

EDIT:  Which is why I said the reveal wasn't that good because it happened with 45 seconds left on the clock and no sequals coming.

I found a way around it, but you have to screw up in a few places in ME2 on purpose, and Shepard can walk away with a guilt-free Destroy ending, and live.

The ME2 screw ups remove the temptation to be a suit-wetter and make peace between the Geth and Quarians. You no longer have that option, and you side with the Quarians simply because of numbers. I don't believe in the no-win scenario. I went Kirk on it.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Yes. If, prior to this, this hadn't been literally the best science fiction story and the best love story I'd encountered in a decade... I wouldn't be here. I'd have turned off the computer, sold my copies of all the games, and never thought about Mass Effect again for the rest of my life... except in the vague, bitter way I think about Xenosaga; or with the tinge of mild sadness I feel when I think about Lost.

Edit: 

And, as I've said before, there is a "win win" solution to this: be a sociopath.

I have a Shepard who is a sociopath, and she'd have absolutely no problem committing genocide just to see the pretty explosion, so she experiences no negative consequences to the ending whatsoever.

The moral of Mass Effect 3 is that sociopaths always win.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 26 juin 2012 - 04:23 .

[thisisme8]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I found a way around it, but you have to screw up in a few places in ME2 on purpose, and Shepard can walk away with a guilt-free Destroy ending, and live.

The ME2 screw ups remove the temptation to be a suit-wetter and make peace between the Geth and Quarians. You no longer have that option, and you side with the Quarians simply because of numbers. I don't believe in the no-win scenario. I went Kirk on it.

I saw your thread.  Looks like you went and had a strategy session with Zaeed and Jack.

[Hawk227]

thisisme8 wrote...

First off: The catalyst is right about one thing. Sure, you have peace with the Geth and other races, but for how long? Besides, the peace you worked so hard for was only possible in the face of that threat, so how much peace would you have had otherwise? Anyway, your broad and nuanced view is also a temporary one, and his basic solution is a more permanent one. <----that's a huge generalization, and I know it - but it's true in its simplicity.

Erm, what was he right about? I don't see anything he was objectively right about. Nothing he says is supported by any evidence. And the fact that he decided to make the Reapers does not constitute evidence. I can burn down my house so that you can't burn down my house, but that isn't proof that you wanted to burn down my house.

[KitaSaturnyne]

@thisisme8

I find it very interesting that you were considering compromise or peace with the Reapers, especially in the face of their many diatribes centered around destroying us, and the fact that when they arrive, they actively begin destroying us. I'm interested to find out about the mentality behind that because, while I usually find myself considering both sides of every story (thank you, Phil Collins), my goal was simply to stop them, no matter what.

Their demeanor and methods of operating all seem to dictate that they're coming to kill us, and will not stop until every last one of us is dead. As such, it's a matter of our survival as living beings, so my response was to find a way to kill them, as it seemed to be the only way to end the threat.

So, I'm really wondering how peace or compromise entered your mind because in this situation, it seems like a completely alien concept.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Hawk227 wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

First off: The catalyst is right about one thing. Sure, you have peace with the Geth and other races, but for how long? Besides, the peace you worked so hard for was only possible in the face of that threat, so how much peace would you have had otherwise? Anyway, your broad and nuanced view is also a temporary one, and his basic solution is a more permanent one. <----that's a huge generalization, and I know it - but it's true in its simplicity.

Erm, what was he right about? I don't see anything he was objectively right about. Nothing he says is supported by any evidence. And the fact that he decided to make the Reapers does not constitute evidence. I can burn down my house so that you can't burn down my house, but that isn't proof that you wanted to burn down my house.

Also, as I said a few pages ago: look at the three species you potentially save from extinction in Mass Effect. I'd vote the Rachnii "most likely to start a galactic war again," with the Krogan as a first runner up and the Geth a distant third.

War may very well be "nearly inevitable," but war between synthetics and organics seems substantially less likely than one organic species wiping out all other organics, based on everything we've seen.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 26 juin 2012 - 04:29 .

[Hawk227]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Also, as I said a few pages ago: look at the three species you potentially save from extinction in Mass Effect. I'd vote the Rachnii "most likely to start a galactic war again," with the Krogan as a first runner up and the Geth a distant third.

War may very well be "nearly inevitable," but war between synthetics and organics seems far less likely than one organic species wiping out all other organics, based on everything we've seen.

Well, I'd stick the Rachni at the back with the Geth (mostly because of the Asari on Illium) and the Yahg at the front with the Krogan but that's just nitpicking and I otherwise agree. The Krogan in particular were much more believable threat than "synthetics". I genuinely sweated over the Genophage decision, and only chose the cure because 1) I trusted Mordin, Wrex, and Eve and 2) Without the Krogan there wouldn't be a universe for them to maybe wreak havoc in eventually.

Modifié par Hawk227, 26 juin 2012 - 04:35 .