5087 réponses à ce sujet

[drayfish]

 
Sorry to dip back aways in the thread, but I do declare, there is some fantastic writing going on in here. Wordy. I gots the vapours.
 
 
@ NobodyofConsequence: I am going to continue to be the shameless, lazy sack of crap that I am and just say, dear god I loved these paragraphs:
 

NobodyofConsequence wrote...
 
And on that basis, I'm actually no longer worried about the thematic revulsion the OP brought in to focus. It just doesn't make sense, and I'm done trying to find meaning in this particular collidascope, as any meaning I see will simply be a result of my own associations, rather than something deliberately implanted by the designer. I've learned more and had my thoughts stretched more simply through my brief participation in this thread than was actually contained in the endings. Any meaning we get from those endings comes from us. Not them. The only credit I will give the creative team, so far as the ending is concerned, is that they unwittingly burnt some toast in a way that looks like Jesus.

And then this one:
 

NobodyofConsequence wrote...
 
I'll say it again - it all (for me) comes down to relationships in ME. Change happens when we foster relationships with others and move them in some way or another, even if its only to react in opposition to us. And not so much through our tools. And even an AI is really just a smart tool, when you get down to it, though in at least one case, it was a chainsaw the original owner managed to decapitate themself with.

Knocking it out of the park, NobodyofConsequence. 
 
 
And @ SHARXTREME:
 
I love that discussion of individuality versus the imposed collective mind state in the presentation of the Reapers. That is some rich material there. And the way you tied it to that sense of a loss of control in the endgame? Fordamn.
 

SHARXTREME wrote...
 
What Catalyst did to Reapers is to change Reapers from independent beings to slaves, from consensus to victims of dictator that spawned from the conflict. "I control the Reapers". So he is the master/dictator, while Borg Queen is similar to Racchni Queen. They represent the knowledge and collective strength of their species, they are not masters,
Catalyst represents terror of individual idea on everyone. Exact description of infamous dictators.

I agree, I'm surprised they didn't explore this notion of the grotesque nature of ideological imprisonment further in this last game. If it was so important that we learn the Reapers motivations (personally I really didn't need to know the Reapers motivations, but as the inclusion of Star-Scream Jr. shows us, it was apparently significant to the writers), I don't know why it was so casually brushed over.
 
Indeed, as you so wonderfully stated, the whole driving propulsion of Mass Effect (both in-game and meta-textually) was individual choice – it seems like this was a fundamental horror that would have stabbed at the very heart of this narrative's themes. 
 
We have a mass-mass-mass-murdering sociopath, who not only kills people, but then fashions his victims' bodies into weapons to send out and kill others. The compounding monstrosity of that act is unfathomable. If these beings retain any self-awareness, if their consciousness has actually been funnelled into one conglomerate (as would make sense unless Caligulyst is only interested in DNA) then their pain and sorrow would be an echo of perpetual despair crying through the very fabric of space... But we get nothing. 
 
In the Control ending we seem to continue their enslavement (although now under the command of either an altruistic or ominous Shepard). I guess in Destroy we end their suffering – but no actual mention of that is made in text. And in Synthesis, who the hell knows what's going on? They seem happy enough, but then, to be honest I don't really know what's happening in that conclusion... Green eyes? Did we drink Ninja Turtle ooze?


EDIT: What what?  Top of page?  Okay, in honour of the new 'Refusal' ending: The Finn Brothers, 'Won't Give In':

Modifié par drayfish, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:41 .

[SHARXTREME]

EDIT: never mind, some other time.

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 03 juillet 2012 - 02:05 .

[NobodyofConsequence]

I've mentioned a Brit SF writer, Charles Stross, a few times of late in these forums, and happened to come across a quote that immediately puts me in mind of the the ME1 Reapers:

'The void laughs again, unfriendly: "There is life eternal within the
eater of souls. Nobody is ever forgotten or allowed to rest in peace.
They populate the simulation spaces of its mind, exploring all the possible
alternative endings to their life. There is a fate worse than
death, you know.''' A Colder War, Charles Stross 

Contrast this (let's go with) moment of eldritch horror with "You exist because we allow it, and will end because we demand it", and then contrast them both with not just the Caligulyst's dialogue (Drayfish, love it, have to use it at least the once), but the entire ending.

All of the endings result in the Reapers being made ordinary, and defeated, through the agency of the Catalyst. It's like eldritch Cthulhu awakening from his eons-long sleep, and just as he's about to start destroying worlds, his Dad comes along and says, "Sorry for all the trouble. His mum and I made him to stop you lot from messing up the place, but he just needs to let off steam every once in a while. Now, what shall we do about all this mess?" The Catalyst resolves the dramatic and narrative tension by rendering it mundane, if not absurd.

Now, responses:
@MrFob - was writing the bit that you responded to from the point of view of the culture that creates the AI, rather than individuals. Or to put it another way, from the pov of the majority of Quarians before the Morning War. I've said before that I personally had issues with the Destroy option for the same reasons you seem to have. In the context I was attempting to create, an AI is a tool to assist with the development of that culture, which in turn has an impact on the whole individual v collective issue. You can just as readily say that individuals are tools toward the same ends as an AI would be, from some perspectives (late-model Capitalism, perhaps). Writing error on my side in the way I linked that concept in. Would like to know your thoughts on the relational elements.

Also, I don't feel as though I was implying that Synthesis means we become a collective in the sense of a hive mind (didn't really mention Synthesis at all there), and I don't feel the ending really answers the question of exactly what it does other than allow organics and synthetics to become more alike and on that basis understand one another better, which I find somewhat questionable in itself. The examples I used were intended to demonstrate the importance of individual action with the ME Universe, and how it affects the collective, which in turn was intended to demonstrate the way the relationships Shep forges within the game are actually more significant, thematically, than any of the endings. I get the sense you're responding there to a broader flow of concepts than I seem to have been keeping track of.

I will say though, I am 100% in agreement with you that the Catalyst/Reaper methodology does lead to an undesirable stagnation.

@SHARXTREME

I always presume that multicultural leap must come first, without that
technology will be used to impose some peoples will over the others.
That will bring war, war brings destruction, destruction brings need for
change or for "solution" ,etc in cycle that.will always repeat itself.

Very well put, agree entirely. And along with some others, I really liked this:

Then in the ending, Bioware in Collector General/Harbinger voice says:

-"I'm assuming direct control" and grabs the mouse/controler from your
hands and leaves the player shocked that he will now watch how the game
will end. .

And yet, I wouldn't have minded this so much if the actual endings hadn't been so thematically jarring. For instance, if we'd gone straight to the Best Seats ending, as others have suggested, I believe I'd have been a lot more accepting.

@Drayfish
All I can say is aww, shucks. You've made some mighty fine contributions yourself, so high praise, indeed.

I'll see your Finn Bros with something from the Finn The Younger, which seems appropriate - even the preamble works with this one: www.youtube.com/watch

(Earth, Thessia, Palavan, Tuchanka, Rannoch, Sur'Kesh and Khar'shan makes seven)

EDIT for one spelling error, that I've noticed, anyways

Modifié par NobodyofConsequence, 03 juillet 2012 - 03:23 .

[clos]

Man, this is still one of the best threads and still highly relevant with the garbage EC we received. Shame Bioware decided to crap on the franchise.

[delta_vee]

@NoC

"A Colder War" was brilliant. I still need to read the Laundry series.

All of the endings result in the Reapers being made ordinary, and defeated, through the agency of the Catalyst. It's like eldritch Cthulhu awakening from his eons-long sleep, and just as he's about to start destroying worlds, his Dad comes along and says, "Sorry for all the trouble. His mum and I made him to stop you lot from messing up the place, but he just needs to let off steam every once in a while. Now, what shall we do about all this mess?" The Catalyst resolves the dramatic and narrative tension by rendering it mundane, if not absurd.

A slight quibble here - the Reapers always straddled the line between Eldritch and Mundane (capitalized here to indicate the concept, not dismissal). That was one of the strengths of the Mass Effect universe, where soft-SF tropes were always given that veneer of legitimacy, always presented as comprehensible and knowable. The Reapers, terrifying and godlike as they could seem, were "merely" older and more advanced. This Mundane nature added to their terror in a fashion, because their power was implied to be derived from the same comprehensible universe we inhabited. They could be killed with sufficient numbers of big-ass guns, but I don't think that subtracted from their threat. Instead, that dawning understanding of their capabilities heightened our corresponding understanding of our doom.

Until the Catalyst, that is - and here I agree with you in concept at least. The Starbrat took on not only the role of space god, but the imagery and implied authority of same. Pre-EC, the scene was presented as a revelation from on high, without argument. Post-EC, while we got our chance to argue with the de facto deity, we were still constrained to submit to its "wisdom" in the manner of religious fiction, or else be destroyed. We had our revelation of the Reapers' ordinary nature, and the possibility of their defeat (however unlikely), all the way back in ME1 with Sovereign's death. The Catalyst, on the other hand, is the only figure to retain its eldritch invulnerability, and the only method of its defeat is the (similarly religious in nature) artifact of the Crucible. It's more like figuring out Cthulhu is mortal, and then facing Nyarlathotep instead.

[NobodyofConsequence]

@delta_vee - New Laundry novel about to come out in paperback, might be a good time for you to jump in. Personally, I absolutely love them.

Yeah, I take your point, I guess I just weight certain things differently. Sovereign's defeat has one element the player is aware of but the Council races are not, and that is the impact that defeating Saren had on Sovereign (which for me has always been nonsensical). I am reminded of the derelict Reaper mission in ME2, the way Legion speaks of the vastness of their thoughts in ME3, and all these things make me think we simply got lucky in taking Sovereign out. I feel as though the Reapers were initially incomprehensibly advanced, beyond that point you mention of being 'merely' older and more advanced, more akin to a higher order of life than simply a different level of technology. And with the notion of them 'warping reality' (cf Derelict Reaper mission) dancing through my head, I still, personally, feel as though they were robbed of that majesty by plot expedience during the suicide mission in ME2. It was a great battle from a play point of view, but I now begin to wonder if that was where the rot set in. In some ways, maybe giving us a chance to actually fight the Reapers was a mistake. Maybe the best outcome should have been trapping them forever in dark space by figuring out a way to manipulate the relay system to hoover them up and spit them back out, using the Crucible, rather than d/c/s/r. Dunno.

I will add that there seems to be a lot of posts and threads complaining about a lack of a conventional win option against the Reapers, and I suggest that suggests the Reapers are now pretty much mundane in the eyes of many. And even the Catalyst is 'only' an AI after all, and barely even God-like at that.

I don't think we had any clear idea of the Reapers numbers until the end of ME2. We did know by that point that it took them 300 years to wipe out the Protheans, but even this may have been a writing error, in that by setting a time line for the destruction of the Protheans, they had to place limitations on the Reapers. Given the emphasis throughout the series that this was not ever going to be about defeating the Reapers in a conventional war, but in surviving, I feel the team could potentially have, let's put it this way, left them Cthonic instead of moronic. But, that's a big issue, right there, as it goes to the importance of the way the creative team envisioned the Reapers to begin with, and wether the depeiction in ME2 and ME3 is closer to their initial concept than their depiction in ME1, the need to make ME1 a self-contained game in case it failed to hit its sales targets, and the extent to which gameplay decisions drove the Reaper depiction in 2 & 3.

[MrFob]

NobodyofConsequence wrote...
@MrFob - was writing the bit that you responded to from the point of view of the culture that creates the AI, rather than individuals. Or to put it another way, from the pov of the majority of Quarians before the Morning War. I've said before that I personally had issues with the Destroy option for the same reasons you seem to have. In the context I was attempting to create, an AI is a tool to assist with the development of that culture, which in turn has an impact on the whole individual v collective issue. You can just as readily say that individuals are tools toward the same ends as an AI would be, from some perspectives (late-model Capitalism, perhaps). Writing error on my side in the way I linked that concept in. Would like to know your thoughts on the relational elements.

Yes, I see it the same way. Any culture who develops an AI in the ME universe does so in order to develop a complex tool. They don't want to create a new species, that just happens by accident (not so sure about the creators of the star kid AI though).
As for the impact of individuals and their actions on the collective, I see that as a necessary part of almost any heroic story. In order for the actions of the protagonist to have weight, far reaching consequences that affect a large number of others is an effective narrative tool. Another way is to go down the route of very drastic personal consequences. I guess that touches on your point as to how most meaningful actions on ME arise from the relationships between character. IMO the most effective way to give weight to the characters actions is combining the two. This is why (at least IMO) the Liara romance plot works very well in the ME series. Because the personal relationship Shepard has with her is directly tied into far reaching galactic events. Same goes for Tali's LM in ME2 where her very personal issues (her pending exile and the rescue/death of her father) is so intricately tied into the big issue of the quarian struggle to regain their homeward. That was simply brilliant writing right there. Look at Wrex, look at Mordin, look at Thane. All of them have a similar conjunction in their stories. The ending still has the far reaching consequences but it is devoid of any personal impact for Shepard (or the player) at this point. It's yet another way in which the ending manages to disappoint (I hope I managed to answer to your point this time around. I am not sure I did...).

Also, I don't feel as though I was implying that Synthesis means we become a collective in the sense of a hive mind (didn't really mention Synthesis at all there),

Yeah, just went back and had a look. I am confused myself. Maybe I quoted something wrong , sorry.

and I don't feel the ending really answers the question of exactly what it does other than allow organics and synthetics to become more alike and on that basis understand one another better, which I find somewhat questionable in itself. The examples I used were intended to demonstrate the importance of individual action with the ME Universe, and how it affects the collective, which in turn was intended to demonstrate the way the relationships Shep forges within the game are actually more significant, thematically, than any of the endings. I get the sense you're responding there to a broader flow of concepts than I seem to have been keeping track of.

See above, I think these concepts are equally important and work best in conjunction.


Also, can I quickly interject on this other post?

Yeah, I take your point, I guess I just weight certain things differently. Sovereign's defeat has one element the player is aware of but the Council races are not, and that is the impact that defeating Saren had on Sovereign (which for me has always been nonsensical). I am reminded of the derelict Reaper mission in ME2, the way Legion speaks of the vastness of their thoughts in ME3, and all these things make me think we simply got lucky in taking Sovereign out. I feel as though the Reapers were initially incomprehensibly advanced, beyond that point you mention of being 'merely' older and more advanced, more akin to a higher order of life than simply a different level of technology. And with the notion of them 'warping reality' (cf Derelict Reaper mission) dancing through my head, I still, personally, feel as though they were robbed of that majesty by plot expedience during the suicide mission in ME2. It was a great battle from a play point of view, but I now begin to wonder if that was where the rot set in. In some ways, maybe giving us a chance to actually fight the Reapers was a mistake. Maybe the best outcome should have been trapping them forever in dark space by figuring out a way to manipulate the relay system to hoover them up and spit them back out, using the Crucible, rather than d/c/s/r. Dunno.

First off, I absolutely agree that ME3 and the endings in particular diminish the reapers no end and the fact that they are pawns now actually opens up a whole new sack of problems (I also like your condescending use of the phrase "barely even God-like" ). Not to be able to defeat them completely is essential IMO and I think any simple conventional victory - as good as it may sound now in comparison to what we got - would not have worked at all.
The "trap them in dark space" solution has been done quite often already though (first one that pops into my mind here is Freelancer) and on the risk of people getting bored of me invoking the old dark energy endings, that would have had the greetest opportunity of defeating the reapers without defeating them IMO. Suppose it doesn't take that long to build a human reaper but it does take really long to build the necessary infrastructure, say 500 years (for whatever reasons you want to come up with) and that the dark energy collapse will be irreversible in 300 years. Suppose also that the reapers had two of these infrastructures, one in the collector base (gone) and one in, say, the citadel. In the final fight ME3 Shepard takes control of the citadel and has his finger on the self district button. Suddenly the reapers are out of options. They may still be able to wipe out everyone in the galaxy but there is no point anymore. The only solution for them is to surrender and leave it up to Shepard/humanity to make the "right choice".
Not sure if this scenario is feasible but my point is that the strongest way for the reapers to go out is that they are not defeated by strength of arms or a deus ex machina (even one that was built up) but by rendering their superior position useless to their purpose.
Now, superficially, the current endings sort of do that and it may well be what the writers intended to do but the problem is that in the current endings, the reapers (or rather their master - cue the other sack of problems) gives up without a motivation to do so. That's what makes the options we are given so suspicious and that is what makes all the happy sunshine endings so non-sensical.

Modifié par MrFob, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:20 .

[delta_vee]

@NoC

... left them Cthonic instead of moronic.

That's a great line. I'm totally going to steal that.

In some ways, maybe giving us a chance to actually fight the Reapers was a mistake.

I argued pretty much the same thing, far upthread. By wedding themselves to the war-story narrative, Bioware imposed a whole host of structural constraints on themselves, to what I see as no net gain (in fact, a net loss). On the one hand, they built our expectations of an epic battle, but on the other they kept chipping away at even the possibility of victory in a stand-up fight. Something had to give, and the Crucible was born.

Maybe the best outcome should have been trapping them forever in dark space by figuring out a way to manipulate the relay system to hoover them up and spit them back out, using the Crucible, rather than d/c/s/r.

A decent idea, with shades of the banishment of demons and hungry gods and Lovecraftian desperate attempts to keep Cthulhu asleep. It was one of the handful I was expecting the Crucible to do after "best seats in the house". Then a glowing elevator happened, and I don't remember the rest...

I will add that there seems to be a lot of posts and threads complaining about a lack of a conventional win option against the Reapers, and I suggest that suggests the Reapers are now pretty much mundane in the eyes of many. And even the Catalyst is 'only' an AI after all, and barely even God-like at that.

I think the complaints mostly stem from a feeling of impotence, of being trapped inside that giant dialogue wheel, with no way out but atrocity and/or madness. Can't say I blame them. You're right, though, in that the mundanity of the Reapers has, by now, been thoroughly established, for good or ill. I said before they straddled that line between eldritch and mundane well - but that was before, and now they fell down (on the wrong side of the fence, to boot).

As far as what the original concept was, well, I don't know if it even matters much given how schizophrenic their portrayal ends up being. Like many elements of ME, I think the devs hadn't come to a solid conclusion before it was almost too late.

[NobodyofConsequence]

@MrFob - thanks for the response

I think we're rather solidly in agreement. I am inclined to think the dark energy motif was a good idea, especially given some of the ways it was embedded. Still not sure what ever happened to the Klendagon thing, either. Nor Klencory with the Beings of Light, which I was so damn certain would prove significant in ME3. Nevermind.

Re Tali's thread - love the way that it was woven through the whole three games. That is one area where I think the writing team really did excel. Every single one of the original crew from ME, with the sole exception of the VS, had a great influence on the story, and their great story was a significant influence of my overall enjoyment. Not so sure why I feel so meh about the VS, might be because of the way their plot armour in ME2 prevented them from seeing anything clearly. And tbh, I still felt they weren't handled quite as well in ME3 as in ME1.

Just occured to me, reading your post, that the endings actually deny the protagonist the chance to morally defeat the antagonist, given the Catalyst effectively has to give us permission to act. Maybe that's part of the problem there - the bad guy never admits that he is wrong.

[NobodyofConsequence]

@delta_vee

Cheers, steal away.

Also occurs to me that there's a handy blackhole with a rather large event horizon floating around the middle of the Galaxy. Might have been the perfect place to banish the Reapers.

Like many elements of ME, I think the devs hadn't come to a solid conclusion before it was almost too late.

This is probably the single most important, and pertinent, factor. I'll go so far as to suggest that listening to fan feed back during the construction of the trilogy may have been a mistake, since it dliuted the impact of the overall narrative arc and they ran out of time to repair it before release. Never thought I'd see myself saying that, but there you go. Bioware, if you're listening, ignore your fans while you're making the game, just learn like hell from the aftermath.

Think it's time for a beer. And a shower. I feel... dirty...

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Guys... guys... honeys... sweethearts... bubbelahs...

You're getting to caught up on the idea of a "conventional victory."

What the hell is a conventional victory? Why do we need one? Who cares? I'd take a guerrilla victory, or an uneasy stalemate, or a bunch of intoctrination-immune AIs in meat suits pretending to be indoctrinated so they could spy on people who were really indoctrinated... or whatever. Screw convention. There are a great many unconventional roads to victory.

But even that may be considered splitting hairs.

"No, CGG" you say "They made it so we need some big superweapon maguffin, or it would be unrealistic."

That's fine. Who says that the big superweapon maguffin has to involve collaboration with the Catalyst? Nothing! Nothing but the Writers, that is! The crucible didn't have to be nothing but a big conversational gambit with a monster, it could have been a symbol of all the cycles that went before. There could have been several races who thought "Hey, you know what? Let's not have it interface with that AI. That's dumb. Let's have it turn him off. Or do something else. Why should we let this AI, who we may or may not know exists, be involved in the final decision AT ALL?"

The blueprints for that segment of the crucible (Let's call it the Big Purple Button) could have been devised by the last survivors of the race that made the catalyst. It could have been designed by that Leviathan guy who maybe we're gonna meet. It coulda been something we got from the Keepers, who could very well "know" the Catalyst exists, somewhere deep in what remains of their original psyche. Hell, it could be our cycle's big fancy solution, only achievable if you save the Rachnii, the Geth, the Krogan, and the Quarians.

This could still happen, if they weren't so all-fired dedicated to their "no DLC has any effect on the ending" thing. They could just show up tomorrow and say "GOOD NEWS, everyone! You unlock a new ending and variations on the old endings with every DLC you get, as you unlock new technologies to be used on the Crucible!"

The final conversation could go something like this:

"I can't do it. You must make a choice."
"Ugh, really?, I don't want to... wait, what's that over there?"
"What's what over where?"
"What's that trap door?"
"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE TRAP DOOR!"
"Oh man, there's like... some kind of a secret room down here. It's got a big purple button in it."
"Don't touch it! There's no telling what it does. Come back up here!"
"Hey, neat! Looks like a few civilizations got together and built a part of the Crucible that uses the power of the Citadel, but doesn't interface with the AI."
"What are you doing? Come back here where I can see you, or I'll totally do that thing where my voice gets all weird and I say SO BE IT."
"Man. I have no idea what this purple button does, but if it's just the product of the wisdom of all the previous cycles, not filtered through some insane guy, that's worth a shot."

What that button actually does... well it's kind of irrelevant. If you want some exposition for it, I'd recommend a Keeper shows you some kind of moving pictures, or communicates in some very simple way what it does. Maybe some Geth explain it and you have to trust them, therefore setting it in direct contrast with conventional destroy. I also don't want it to just be a better Destroy, because that's lame and ruins destroy for the people who like it now.

Whatever its function, I'd prefer it if Shepard lives and the Reapers aren't destroyed, but the Catalyst is. The Reapers fly out to Dark space and we have no idea if they'll come back or not. We don't know if, without the Catalyst controlling them, they've given up... or if they'll be back again in a few years once we've sorted things out. If they do come back, will it be as free-willed former monsters who have an interest in peace, or what? AMBIGUITY!

Plus, you have some really interesting future political implications: do we spend the next few centuries gearing up into a super war machine in case the Reapers come back, or do we focus on rebuilding society?  Factions! Infighting! Politics that Shepard is going to be inevitably caught up in! Vaguely annoying, bittersweet future of uncertainty and paranoia! 

I don't need any conventional victory. I'd be happy with adding another button to the crucible. All that it takes to do that is a few hundred war assets, right?

This is an ending that doesn't devalue anyone else's choice. It doesn't provide a stereotypically happy ending.  It gives Shepard a way to live without committing genocide, but at the risk of a future of uncertainty. And the best part: absolutely nothing about the current ending has to change... other than the introduction of a small trap door somewhere in the Catalyst room.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:56 .

[KLGChaos]

Wow, I remember reading this thread when it was first started... and here it is 178 pages later and still very relevant and very much true. I especially love the comparison to Cthulu rising up and then being slapped on the wrist by his mom. That's really what it feels like.

My vision of Mass Effect's ending, as the heroic game it is, always included a final, visceral showdown with Harbinger... not some chat with a kid in a hidden room that contradicts so much of the ME lore. I thought it would have been awesome if you were able to get inside Harbinger... and have the option to destroy him from the inside after a massive battle (with possible deaths if not handled properly) or even take control of him and turn him on the other Reapers... maybe even find a way to disable the Reaper's shields, giving a possibility of conventional victory.  There's so many better ways the ending could have been handled. In the end, we see the writers forgetting their own lore, like this:

Sovereign: "We are each a Nation. Independent. Free of all weaknesses."

Catalyst: "Durr... I control them all and you can kill them by blowing up this red thing over here."

In the end, it was just a bad way to finish off the series that gave little respect to the games that came before it.

Modifié par KLGChaos, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:58 .

[TrevorHill]

I think one of the lamest parts about the entire crucible plot point is this:
For the first two games, after you beat them, your thoughts were somewhere along the lines of "man, how in the f*ck am I gonna beat the reapers?" And then at the beginning of ME3, you really wonder how you're going to manage it. But not 15 minutes into the game, your best friend, Bioware-Jim, comes over and says, "hey, dude, don't worry. I found this reaper off switch on the street yesterday. It was really convenient, I know, but you can have it so that you don't have to worry about beating them anymore." And you go, "thanks Bioware-Jim. That's a load off my back. Now I can focus all my resources on finding batteries that work for it, for the entire game." And then right before you press the button, Bioware-Jim comes up and punches you in the solar plexus. And while you're squirming around trying to breath, he starts to monologue. "Hahaha! It was my plan all along to lure you into a false sense of security and then ruin your sh*t. I told you beating the reapers was damn near impossible, and then I gave you some random piece of crap garage-door-opener and told you it would beat the reapers. And you bought it, noob!" And then he steals your wallet. The end.

[MrFob]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
 They could just show up tomorrow and say "GOOD NEWS, everyone! You unlock a new ending and variations on the old endings with every DLC you get, as you unlock new technologies to be used on the Crucible!"

And thus hope returns to this thread.

... or a bunch of
intoctrination-immune AIs in meat suits pretending to be indoctrinated
so they could spy on people who were really indoctrinated... .

And here is my personal new favorite fan twist.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

MrFob wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
 They could just show up tomorrow and say "GOOD NEWS, everyone! You unlock a new ending and variations on the old endings with every DLC you get, as you unlock new technologies to be used on the Crucible!"

And thus hope returns to this thread.

Oh, one other thing I thought of: 

You unlock these new endings by buying DLC... OR BY PLAYING COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF MULTIPLAYER, and promoting each class ten times or something! See, you don't have to buy DLC, you can get them for free if you do the other thing we want you to do!

[NobodyofConsequence]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
 They could just show up tomorrow and say "GOOD NEWS, everyone! You unlock a new ending and variations on the old endings with every DLC you get, as you unlock new technologies to be used on the Crucible!"

I read that in Professor Farnsworth's voice. You know how his plans always turn out. But yes, one hell of a way to progress this story. Only, I really don't think they'll go for it. Arti... yeah.

MrFob wrote...
And thus hope returns to this thread.

Interesting you should say that, because I've only just realised that I've given up on the endings, and my posts here are just part of the process of making enough sense of why I care.

EDIT - almost forgot - @TrevorHill - laughed out loud, thank you.

Modifié par NobodyofConsequence, 03 juillet 2012 - 08:29 .

[TrevorHill]

Speaking of giving up on the endings......
Stupid-ass embedding....

Modifié par TrevorHill, 03 juillet 2012 - 08:39 .

[helloween7]

You know, back when I didn't know exactly how ME3 was going to end (although I had heard some rumors), I sort of imagined that letting the cycle continue would be an option. That's why I like reject so much, I think (and because I also Rreject a tweet dictating how to interpret it). I also believed I would be given the chance to greatly sacrifice humanity to ensure victory (maybe losing Earth itself, but not the colonies). I was hoping for a chance to win conventionally (through great sacrifice, yes, but on the galaxy's own terms).


When I was playing the new endings (especially Reject) I thought: "Wait. There's a way right here. Get the fleets to destroy the Citadel (or even only the Presidium Tower), kill the Starbrat and let's see what the Reapers do once they are free". I think that'd be interesting to watch, actually. Some Reapers continuing to attempt to destroy everything, driven insane by their eons of enslavement. Some comitting suicide. Some drifting back to back space, purposeless and uncaring, and some actually helping the current cycle defeat the crazy rampaging ones. That would also leave an interesting future galaxy, in which, during space travel, people could encounter Reapers flying around, some derelict, some awake, some evil, some not-entirely-benevolent, all crazier than a bag of nuts.


On an entirely unrelated topic, I'd argue that you people are giving the Catalyst entirely too much credit by calling it an AI. It's a completely amoral ******, unable to break from its programming. Thus, it's a VI. As advanced as you like it, but not truly intelligent.

Modifié par helloween7, 03 juillet 2012 - 08:43 .

[NobodyofConsequence]

@TrevorHill - hahahaha, thank you!

Ok, well it's been nice interacting with you all, but now that I'm free, I will finally have the time to play a game from a company with a long, proud history of solid game design and a track record comparable to the old Bioware's, Diablo 3. I bet you a dollar to a grain of salt they've done the better job.


























Ahem. Or not.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I don't... actually have hope that they'll do anything like that but... well... anything's possible.

I'm really, really bad at giving up hope. I should have given up hope the instant the EC was announced with its specific caveats, but you guys (and the rest of this board) convinced me that better was possible. I shoulda given up when the EC came out, and everyone's hopes were dashed. I shoulda given up two days after the EC came out, when it became clear that a lot of people legitimately believed everything had been fixed, most of the outcry was dying down, and the few holdouts were now, truly, the vocal minority.

Yeah, if there's one thing I suck at, it's giving up in the face of hopeless odds.

Oh.

[SpamBot2000]

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

@TrevorHill - hahahaha, thank you!

Ok, well it's been nice interacting with you all, but now that I'm free, I will finally have the time to play a game from a company with a long, proud history of solid game design and a track record comparable to the old Bioware's, Diablo 3. I bet you a dollar to a grain of salt they've done the better job.

Hope yours starts up, mine doesn't.

[NobodyofConsequence]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I don't... actually have hope that they'll do anything like that but... well... anything's possible.

I'm really, really bad at giving up hope. I should have given up hope the instant the EC was announced with its specific caveats, but you guys (and the rest of this board) convinced me that better was possible. I shoulda given up when the EC came out, and everyone's hopes were dashed. I shoulda given up two days after the EC came out, when it became clear that a lot of people legitimately believed everything had been fixed, most of the outcry was dying down, and the few holdouts were now, truly, the vocal minority.

Yeah, if there's one thing I suck at, it's giving up in the face of hopeless odds.

Oh.

You don't ever give up hope. You just find a better place to put it.

[MrFob]

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

MrFob wrote...
And thus hope returns to this thread.

Interesting you should say that, because I've only just realised that I've given up on the endings, and my posts here are just part of the process of making enough sense of why I care.

Well, I wrote this in a weird mix of sarcasm, cynicism and a flicker of actual hope. I mean, isn't the whole story here about hope against incomprehensible odds? And then, even if we never get this DLC that could save the day, at least the end of this story will be in sync with the game.

[NobodyofConsequence]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

@TrevorHill - hahahaha, thank you!

Ok, well it's been nice interacting with you all, but now that I'm free, I will finally have the time to play a game from a company with a long, proud history of solid game design and a track record comparable to the old Bioware's, Diablo 3. I bet you a dollar to a grain of salt they've done the better job.

Hope yours starts up, mine doesn't.

On a serious note (and I'll assume you saw the little somethin' at the bottom of my post before, yes, haha), D3 is another example of what happens when you're pushing to get something out and cutting story corners to do so. Massive issues with the game, and for me at least, a much lesser reward for playing. I lasted 9 months on WoW several years ago, and ultimately realised how completely pointless it was (for me at least) because the business model requires it to NOT provide players with closure (otherwise, why resubscribe). I hate the thought of Bioware heading in that direction.

[NobodyofConsequence]

MrFob wrote...

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

MrFob wrote...
And thus hope returns to this thread.

Interesting you should say that, because I've only just realised that I've given up on the endings, and my posts here are just part of the process of making enough sense of why I care.

Well, I wrote this in a weird mix of sarcasm, cynicism and a flicker of actual hope. I mean, isn't the whole story here about hope against incomprehensible odds? And then, even if we never get this DLC that could save the day, at least the end of this story will be in sync with the game.

Fair point. I guess my hope in contributing to this thread is to be part of a conversation that actually helps raise the overall standard of future Bioware releases. Or just other releases at all.The odds are that there aren't game developers reading this, but there may well be, and even though they will no doubt have their own opinions on how to do things, I think trying to give them something to chew over is worth the effort. Plus, it's fun reading all the contributions you and others make. Plus, I'm supposed to be researching advertising costs and don't really want to do it.