5087 réponses à ce sujet

[SpamBot2000]

It's sad that you can't even vote with your wallet (Thomas Friedman democracy!) when people keep forking over them clams for any shiny bauble these scammers dangle in front of them.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

To continue the song trend, This used to be my Mass Effect theme song.

And the shame, was on the other side
Oh we can beat them, for ever and ever
Then we could be heroes, just for one day

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 03 juillet 2012 - 10:18 .

[drayfish]

@ TrevorHill: 'Bioware-Jim'. Love it. ...So that's where my wallet went!
 
 
@ NobodyofConsequence:
 
You win all of the available kudos for the song recommend. I loves me some Crowded House, and that one is a winner. Also, I hope that some of your last messages weren't farewells for good – you've been a delight to quote. Like this here for instance:
 

NobodyofConsquence wrote...
 
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.

I happily agree. I'm sure I've said this (or variations of it) elsewhere, but I think one of the consoling upshots of this whole sad saga is that it has given birth to some of the most rich and diverse discussion to date of audience response and engagement in gaming. I hate that it had to be Mass Effect 3 that brought a number of new voices out, but the wealth of insight and passion in people's analysis in the wake of these endings has been thrilling.
 
Bioware might have had cause to hurt over the past few months, but they surely cannot want for a more enthusiastic, perceptive and creative fan base; I imagine there are countless other publishers out there who would kill for this kind of investment from such a discerning audience. 
 
It will be interesting to see in future how that relationship between creators and audience pans out, and where the way forward is, but certainly there is much to learn from (and be staggeringly impressed by) the voices I am hearing. Bioware would be fools to not take note.

 
@ CulturalGeekGirl: And Bowie!!! Just when I think I can't fall any more in love with this thread freaking Bowie gets some play! Too. Much. Love...
 
Also: I want that trap door. I want that trap door, with the speech from 'Refusal', and a side order of fries. I want Shepard to be peering into that hatch, her legs dangling as she stares down at the sparkly new console, still nodding as if she's listening while the Catalyst blathers on.  
 
'Oh, yeah, sure. Synthetics. Yeah, big problem. What can you do, right?'
 
All the time readying herself to tell him to screw off, slam her hand down on the mystery button, and let the universe and all its limitless mysterious potentialities prepare to unfold...
 
There's no way to say this that doesn't sound like a zombie, but here goes: I like your brain.

Modifié par drayfish, 03 juillet 2012 - 12:40 .

[NobodyofConsequence]

drayfish wrote...
but certainly there is much to learn from (and be staggeringly impressed by) the voices I am hearing.

You do realise that's a sign of indoctrination, right?

I have a week off before starting a new job, and my funds are mostly tapped out, so I'm spending far more time in front of my pc than I would normally. I'll have less time to post in future, and it's far less likely to be here, to be frank. But I think you'll see me around.

[SHARXTREME]

drayfish said..
Bioware might have had cause to hurt over the past few months, but they surely cannot want for a more enthusiastic, perceptive and creative fan base; I imagine there are countless other publishers out there who would kill for this kind of investment from such a discerning audience.

Drayfish said The thing.
Your move Bioware. How strong is your artistic vision really, how far does it go?
And what's even more important, what will YOU choose?

Destroy all negative critiques by sacrificing part of your fans?

Control your fans, or pretend to?

Synthesis- remix everything, fill the holes by making more holes, just to stick with bad ending ?

Refuse and stand by to hear "So be it" from your fan base?.

Or maybe you can come up with some way not to intrude in the GAME and take the control away from the PLAYER.
Choice is yours, will you give your fans a chance?
Oh, you can say "it's just a game" and by that to manage not just to insult your fans, but to damage your artistic vision and value beyond recognition.

And it's not "just a game". Its just a very good game and story, Complete krogan/turian/salarian/racchni story, Geth and Quarian story. Shadow broker. Arrival. Omega. Cerberus. Prothean sub-story, Suicide mission. That was all great.
In ME3 Rannoch and Tuchanka missions were one of the best written missions I've ever PLAYED, and my choices were relevant.

Then you slapped me in the face by telling me that doesn't matter what you choose, how you progress, play..think..that everything ends in some completely different, ugly story with only way out with "so be it". Great story.(you didn't need 3 games to express that.

Rememeber, that is your communication with fans, Bioware. You assumed the role of the Catalyst directly. And it's really symbolic that you have used Reaper voice in strachilds holo-form to SHOUT that.

[SHARXTREME]

Something completely different, and not to be negative all the way about the ending(s).

I have found this in "indoctrination theory" thread. Largest thread here.

Players under attempts of indoctrination. Fits perfectly within what BW intended in the first place: make the player feel what Shepard feels.

What they did really intended, I can't be sure(fact that they have and how they have ADDED refusal ending tells us something else, that it wasn't really intended in the first place), but that aside, because results are what matter.(intention and motivation on part of authors can not work in vacuum, because the players see (through) the method, as I mentioned before in my small analysis: method vs logic vs moral)

And the results are positive in regard that good ideas are multiplying among fans, regardless what were real reasons for this ending..

Indoctrination Theory is a very special fenomenon. Yes, at the core it can only be the case of bad, vague enough writing, that you as a player can project anything really on the ending.
What overwhelming majority of speculating fans are really doing is to try to find some kind of possibility, or hope in their mind that there is more to story then we see.(Bioware left enough hints through the game and EC to support that, intentional or not). Then there's that fact that ending in quality and structure just doesn't fit the standards of rest of the story.
You can almost bend that mechanism the way you want, and it still works. It would be such shame for authors to ignore this open doors, and really expand on ending of this story.

[AlexMBrennan]

[redacted]

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 03 juillet 2012 - 03:52 .

[Gusman C. Harris]

Reading this post and a bunch of others comparing the three games in Shepard´s saga I came to some realisations that I post here as a way to organise my thoughts.

First off about the critique of the game. Games have evolved a lot in recent years, so much so that even for the most dumb game,  gamers will demand a script. Games are becoming a medium for immersive storytelling, and they are getting increasealy successfull  in doing so (and not in small part thanks to bioware).
However, although "professional" game critics are, in the majority, capable of analysing the game from it´s mechanics, visual and sound quality points of view, very few seem to be able (or even capable) to do so from a literary point of view (that´s a  generalization, there are few exceptions). That seems to be the root of the divergence of opinions between "professional" critcs  and the fan base. Mass Effect 3 is a great game, the combat system and power progression evolved a lot from the Mass Effect 1  begginings. But as far as the story goes it falls short, not because it´s incredibly terrible, but because it departed almost  completely, but not quite, from the story that began in Mass Effect 1.

The same way game critique has to evolve in order to be able to analyse a game in it´s entirety, the same seems to apply to game  writers. I believe they are more than capable to create great stories, and the dialogues in Mass Effect are memorable. But one thing is to write the script of an interactive movie (for example, Gears of War), for which theather and movie  writing devices and techniques can be used with little adaptation. It is another to try and write a script for an RPG trilogy.
Although I commend their boldness, I also condemn their hubris.

The result was disappointing, hence the fan backlash. Looking in retrospect Mass Effect 3 has very little connection with Mass  Effect 1. First the ambiance is completely different. Of course, now the galaxy is at war, but the game mechanic is  so changed that is hard to recognize it as the same universe. But more importantly, the story arc changed dramatically and abruptly in the last minutes of the game, effectively severing most of the (few) ties it had with the first game (if not dismissing it completely).
Mass Effect 2 is not mentioned because it´s plot is more of a parenthesis in Shepard´s saga than an essential part of the main  plot. Another poster, on another thead put it beatifully, it feels more like a spin-off.

Putting personal preferences aside, all three games are only marginally related. Most of the decisions made in a game that  were meant to have lasting consequences in the next, ended up as of no or little consequence (the deaths or survival of the Rachni  and Wrex, saving or destroying Maleon´s data or Okuda´s grey box). What effectivelly ties one game to another are only marginal plots, like Conrad´s comic reliefs. All three play better as stand alones.
To tie all the plots and subplots, minimizing plotholes would be a colossal undertaking for the writers team. The rhizomatic (hate this term) nature of the game story makes this task unprecedent in storytelling.
That would render the games unmarketable by the sheer timespan needed to finish the trilogy. Also, it is important to have in mind that the games plot should be able to stand alone. It is one thing to expect people to see Fellowship of the Ring in order to follow the plot in Two Towers, it´s completely different to make people play Massa Effec 1 in order to be able to play Mass Effect 2, specially if you are launching the game to a new plataform like PS3. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable, for market reasons that the plots in all three games have to stand alone.
But you cannot have the best of the two worlds, it seems, marketable standalone games and a consistent plot that spans the three of them. The result was disappointing, not only for the fans, but also (I believe) for people involved in creating the games.

We are witnessing the painful birth of a new form of art, it has some way to go before it is perfected, and despite our disapointment with the results we should all commend the Bioware team for their effort, their care for the community (although it did not corrected what I felt was wrong with ME3 endings, thank you for the free Extended Ending) and most of all for their boldness in braving a new world.

PS: Starbrat was mistake, and an incomprehensible decision to have him appear at all.

Modifié par Gusman C. Harris, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:53 .

[SHARXTREME]

Gusman C. Harris said...

Mass Effect 3 is a great game, the combat system and power progression evolved a lot from the Mass Effect 1 begginings. But as far as the story goes it falls short, not because it´s incredibly terrible, but because it departed almost completely, but not quite, from the story that began in Mass Effect 1.

I can agree to some extent. I also found that ME3 gameplay aspect was huge improvement,
Graphics and especially sound improved as well.
Story wise, I have enjoyed whole conclusion to genophage story that was brilliantly tied in every aspect to prequels and how the story progressed given previous different choices. Whole Tuchanka level is very good video game design in every aspect.

Then the marvelous Legion character.(and whole Geth-Quarian story) I don't know if i'm in the minority, but starting from ME2 missions with Legion, right until the point of its sacrifice that was some very, very good SF writing , where at many points, I was thinking to myself: "They are now going to slip in some bad derivative" but they have managed to surprise me.

Other aspects of ME3;
Cerberus sub-story, it has logical inconsistencies and almost became main story, but they have managed to get the feeling right: I just wanted to stop them. There and then, after every raid, experiment etc.
Normandy and Citadel gameplay/galaxy exploration. That was not very good. You feel boxed in somehow, with your hands tied with some almost peace time courier assignments while Reapers reap.
Flow of the complete story missions structure was not good.
Whole EMS thing was completely futile, which did make the Crucible and whole story/character progress futile in the end with inclusion of "catalyst" thing.

In my mind, I was expecting completely different endings based on Renegade/Paragon/EMS system. In the end it turns out that no matter how you did play, who lived, died, etc-just doesn't matter at all.
Logically I couldn't swallow that at all( but loving the story generally, and being open about new situations I could find the strength for that final push to stop the Reapers first time.
It didn't made any sense that you could play full Paragon or Renegade for 3 games and to end up in same situation in the end.
Like I have said before, Paragon and Renegade Shepard could have same immediate motivations and intentions, with different underlying long-term goals .
After all, they are both part of scheme of Reaper threat, scheme that simplifies things. All well, so they become separated by difference in methods. And such different methods could not possibly lead to same end. (or can they?) Whole cause-effect mechanism doesn't work that way, but hey, you can close both eyes on that in prospect that you will finally stop the Reapers. We all know the rest.

Then there's that thing with suspense and mystery building in codex, dreams, etc.
All that lead me to believe that there is much more to the story, like I missed something very important that stopped me from grasping the end.

But you are correct, there are so much variables created from all choices, that would be colossal undertaking to come up with original ending for each individual Shepard AND in the same time for ME3 to function as stand alone game.
But it can be done. Conventionally. Without the Catalyst, who can also be interpreted as reaction agent to speed up the release of the game and mix all different Shepard characters into one simple ending and end the story,

It almost sounds like someone came in Bioware offices and said:
"OK, this is taking too long. You can't figure out how to finish it, and you can't find consensus.
I'm sending someone to speed up the release"
Therefore "Catalyst" and the whole quality disconnect.

(I'm going out of my way to find the excuse for this, but hey, there is always the possibility)

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 03 juillet 2012 - 08:33 .

[Pinax]

Hello all,

Just interfering into a thread again to give a small bit of hope for those who wanted to see a well written ending. I am pretty sure most of you heard about it/seen it already, so just a reminder for those who know and a recomendation for those who haven't seen yet.

As BW left "a lot in the ending to the imagination of the players" (vaguely quoting an interview with Casey Hudson and Mac Walters before the EC release, source: http://www.masseffec...t/extended_cut/ ) there is a proposition of such an imaginative ending:

http://koobismo.devi...rt.com/gallery/

What started as a joke turned out into a very good and still developing story and an touching audiobook project (to omit the joking part, I advise to start by episode 6) with all the subtle details, references and emotional impact that make a good writing (my lit graduated mind just <3 this )  Koobismo and his team's vision and work is really impressive and worth recomendation, not only as a remedy for "Why, oh why, BW?" trauma

[SHARXTREME]

Just one more thing on how everything (that crucible does) can be explained easily with technoburble that CulturalGeekGirl brought up.

Reading few posts in "Can Reapers be defeated conventionally" and switching to "Indoctrination Theory" topics, It came to me how to defeat the Reapers and Catalyst and by using the Crucible and without much tecnoburble with 1minute of additional story. Everything else could almost be left as it is.

How to defeat the Catalyst and Reapers SF style

Whole indoctrination bussines of Reapers was without any doubt familiar to species that designed the Crucible.
When I think about Reapers and Catalyst as their boss that indoctrinated them, controls them, reaperised them in the first place, whole husks, cerberus, marauders etc. as normal enemies-
I think that simplest, ancient-Rome-kind-of-way-with-SF-twist to win against them is to find the weakest spot in their organisational structure and to use Techno Divide and Conquer tactics. And Control is their weakest spot. Control is the biggest weakness of Catalysts army of horror.

Every technology is bunch of connections, and caveman could never disarm a bomb no matter how heroic or desperate a caveman he is. He doesn't see the mechanism.
So I thought that it would be smart to design Crucible as anti-indoctrination device, not a weapon, (Technoburble: Device that would actually disrupt/destroy Reaper code or transmitters, spread through network etc)

That would solve immediate threat in blink of an eye.
Catalyst loses his hold over Reapers so he becomes nothing that he really is,
Reapers lose communication and coordination AND their hold over husk, marauder and Banshee hordes, so they deteriorate from one giant coherent army to individuals without purpose.
Divided enemy is much weaker enemy. And when you are fully controlled and fully connected like the Reapers your biggest strength is your biggest weakness, and divide is total defeat.
Then you just clean up the mess and win conventionally. But that would be another story.

@Pinax
That was really funny on that site, I listened so far only the Million views party. Thanks

Edit: Comics on that site are GREAT, and story is even better. Thanks again. 

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 03 juillet 2012 - 11:15 .

[Pinax]

SHARXTREME wrote...

In my mind, I was expecting completely different endings based on Renegade/Paragon/EMS system. In the end it turns out that no matter how you did play, who lived, died, etc-just doesn't matter at all. Logically I couldn't swallow that at all( but loving the story generally, and being open about new situations I could find the strength for that final push to stop the Reapers first time. It didn't made any sense that you could play full Paragon or Renegade for 3 games and to end up in same situation in the end.

Like I have said before, Paragon and Renegade Shepard could have same immediate motivations and intentions, with different underlying long-term goals.
After all, they are both part of scheme of Reaper threat, scheme that simplifies things. All well, so they become separated by difference in methods. And such different methods could not possibly lead to same end. (or can they?) Whole cause-effect mechanism doesn't work that way, but hey, you can close both eyes on that in prospect that you will finally stop the Reapers. We all know the rest.

Shortly after reading this post I fell on an interesting discussion under http://www.melindasn...g/bad-guys.html with a point which fits well into this discussion:

On Mass Effect Villainy
written by RS,
July 03, 2012

The odd thing is that Mass Effect 1 had a good villain in Saren. Saren's actions directly affected the actions of Shepard. Moreover, he is like a mirror image of Shepard, creating a very effective dynamic between them. You find out that Saren and Shepard are both trying to save the galaxy from the Reapers, their only difference being their choice of how to implement their plans.

Everything you list was actually done in the first game. It seems so strange, then, that this was lost somewhat in Mass Effect 2, and very much so in Mass Effect 3.


I think this could be a good path to follow how the Paragon/Renegate might look like:

- follow the renegate path of Saren (in this case the pure Renegate ending could be Synthesis - Saren is suggesting this directly in the end conversation on the Citadel. Control could be like second one, following the TIM way). War assets could be a way to enforce Reaper domination or a way to "continue the cycle", like the krogan facility on the Vermire or the "heretic" geth. The Reapers may have a lot to offer after all. EDIT: Or maybe simply use the Reaper tech against them? (If Cerberus is able to create it's own husks and "enhancements" why cannot sent them/use them against the Reapers - victory at all cost)?

- or find another solution (Destroy...? Refuse...?) + war assets to stand against the Reapers

This would, of course, require recalibrating a little bit the optic of the game and creating maybe more tension on Shepard-TIM relation, a reflexion on Cerberus goals... Which could similar to what we had on Mordin's loyalty mission: save Maelon's data even if obtained in a terrible way or not? Are the Reapers worth studying or should we simply focus on eradicating them? Their way or Our way (remember conversations with Legion in ME2)? These are the themes which appeared already in the game.

This could also lead to an interesting analogy while re-playing ME1 and ME2, giving a new dimension to the already interesting personages of Saren and the Illusive Man, and would not harm the sole integrity of ME3 as a unique game:

- You didn't play ME1 and ME2 before ME3 - no worries, you have a integral project in ME3. Here's your ship, here's your crew, here are the problems to resolve. What would you do, looking at your chances in the incoming battle?

- You did? Oh cool, so you know even more what's going on! you have some resources you might not have, what would you do with them? Is this enough (is it ever enough?) while standing face to face to the inevitable threat? If you'd have a chance to re-start this adventure, would you make the same choices as before? (And then again: knowing already how this all can end etc.)?

The game "rewards" the player for playing previous parts and DLCs: in ME2 you receive e-mails from the people you helped or meet them "directly" (like meeting the asari who gives you a message from the Rachni Queen), in ME3 you may recruit some of them as war assets (Kasumi, Zaeed, brothers Archer from the Overlord DLC etc.). Plus (at least as far I know) you are not able to reconcile the Geth and the Quarians if you don't have enough Paragon/Renegate score. This is impossible to achieve on a newly created character, you must import Shepard to make it right - so... another reward for playing at least ME2 or re-playing ME3. So... if this all matters, why couldn't it fully matter in the ending, I don't know, by having some additional slide with these people "this is how they stood at your side"/"they betrayed you because they did not share your goals" etc. Hey, BW, I know you could do it, as I all I do now is just making examples from your own work!

I like threads echoing in different parts of the story and giving a new dimension to the initial perspective - this keeps me wondering,  getting back to find out more "clues" and makes a plot interesting not only from an emotional point of view, but also intelectual one. This is what's art for me, simply spoken.

EDIT: clarification and some typos I spotted. Also excuse my English, if you find it "rogue" - I am not a native and it's late night here; being tired affects severely my language skills :innocent:

Modifié par Pinax, 03 juillet 2012 - 10:54 .

[NobodyofConsequence]

TIM takes over the role Saren plays. Maybe that was another mistake in ME1, building up such a great villain and killing him off completely, rather than leaving themselves with a loophole they could reasonably exploit later should they choose to bring him back. Though there was much to enjoy in TIM, especially Martin Sheen, I also feel that throwing in so much backstory through the books and comics detracted from the game, by locking the creative team in to certain pathways
BEFORE the final installment's story was set in concrete. IMO, a very big mistake.

I like threads echoing in different parts of the story and giving a new dimension to the initial perspective - this keeps me wondering, getting back to find out more "clues" and makes a plot interesting not only from an emotional point of view, but also intelectual one. This is what's art for me, simply spoken.

Nicely put. Very definitely adds a great deal to replay value.

I've got to a point where I feel the only way forward is for the creative team to add endings alongside the current endings through DLC unlocking them (thanks CGG!). Anything else, woulda coulda shoulda... didn't.

@alleyd Nicely done, but you've forever taken that song and linked it with ME3s endings for me now, so, uh... thanks.

Modifié par NobodyofConsequence, 04 juillet 2012 - 12:44 .

[edisnooM]

@Pinax

I agree the Marauder Shields comics are awesome.

And Ms. Snodgrass, who I discovered only recently had written one of my favourite episodes of TNG. Her blog posts on Mass Effect were also quite good.

[delta_vee]

@Gusman C. Harris

Starbrat was mistake, and an incomprehensible decision to have him appear at all.

Seconded. Thirded. Carved in granite. Emphasis on "incomprehensible".

@SHARXTREME

I wish, oh how I wish BW would have made discovering the secrets of indoctrination (and how to defeat it) central to the plot in the manner you describe instead of (or even alongside) the Crucible.

@KLGChaos

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.

The possibility of a final level inside a fully-awake Reaper, if done properly, would have been awesome. BW cribbed a fair amount from Fred Saberhagen's Berserker series - why not also use the strategy of boarding parties employed against those other city-sized death machines?

@alleyd

Nice job yet again. Keep it up.

[MrFob]

delta_vee wrote...
The possibility of a final level inside a fully-awake Reaper, if done properly, would have been awesome. BW cribbed a fair amount from Fred Saberhagen's Berserker series - why not also use the strategy of boarding parties employed against those other city-sized death machines?

Sorry guys, I know it is redundant, futile and maybe even a bit annoying to always go back to alternate endings but this mirrors my very first thought after I finished ME3 about 4 months ago. IMO the perfect final challenge would have been on the inside and - even more cool IMO - on the outside of Harby. Basically you would not have a final boss battle but a boss map, extremely dynamic with lot's an lot's of moving environmental elements, shifting and changing as Harby tries to get rid of the insect on it's skin that is Shepard (I am thinking e.g. dynamic cover elements that move out of anf into ground randomly, etc.). All that before the background of London beneath you, filled with soldiers fighting reaper troops and the sky above full of fighters and oculi. Then, Harby takes off and while Shepard and team stay on Harby's hull, caught in its ME field, the player gets to see a shifting skybox, slowly changing from the atmospheric high altitude vista of London to the space battle in earth's orbit while fighting husks, laser firing oculi that are swinging at the team from metal tentacles coming out of Harbinger, etc. etc. You could have a human fighter slam into the level at some point (or a Rachni ship if you saved them, giving you some extra reinforcements in the form of Rachni troops that come out of the wreckage). It could have been spectacular!
I am actually quite happy they didn't go down the route of the good old boss fight (I still shiver at the picture of the reaperfied TIM monster in the art book) but I would have been stunned by something like that.

Modifié par MrFob, 04 juillet 2012 - 03:40 .

[NobodyofConsequence]

@MrFob - sounds like fun. My personal wish was for a Citadel fight as you work your way toward the Presidium, much like the one in ME1 (book-ending), but yours sounds pretty cool.

[delta_vee]

@MrFob

I had a similar thought at a similar time - but mine lacked the exterior bit and the transatmospheric element, both excellent additions. I think it would've been much better than a traditional boss fight.

[bc525]

Sorry to be so late with these thoughts, but I wanted to replay a considerable amount of ME3 in order to experience the Extended Cut. So I went back to the missions on Tuchanka and then jumped back in, mainly because I truly enjoy that section of the ME3 story but also because after being away from the game for so long I felt like it would be a great way to get back into things. Simply watching the new ending scenes on YouTube without being actively engaged in the story again wasn't very appealing to me. Unfortunately work kicked into high gear about that same time and this took much longer to accomplish than I had anticipated.

The major difference that I experienced with this new playthrough was the Catalyst. In my original ending the Catalyst was annoying and vacant, but nothing that really sparked an angry or vengeful reaction from me. At least not that I remember. Certainly not to the point of having Shepard fire at the holographic image in disgust. Back then, the thing seemed more like an automated mechanism than an active and intelligent "construct", but this time around the Catalyst became much more sinister.

This time around there was a clear message that this thing is a demented, homicidal monster. This thing is the true source of it all. Apparently its solution to its programmed mission statement was to 'reaperize' its creators and begin this cycle of systematic annihilation. All the mindless atrocity and galactic mass murder began with this maniacal 'construct'. Yeah, this time around I felt like having Shepard shoot the little bugger.

Most of you arrived at that distinction right away in the original ending, but I have to confess that I didn't. In my earlier playthroughs I saw the Reapers as the ultimate evil, and Shepard needed to destroy them at all costs. Not stop, as Control or Synthesis stops them. But eradicate them, eliminate them. I misunderstood the Catalyst's true role in all of this. The Reapers were just tools.

Destroy still fundamentally works because it eliminates both of the pieces of this madness, both the Catalyst and its Reapers. That's the distinction the Destroy option still holds for me, it achieves Shepard's base goal. Though it's an ugly and horrific solution, it still works.

This time around I wanted so desperately to choose Synthesis, and finishing up the EC tonight I did choose Synthesis for this particular Shepard. But sitting here in the aftermath, I'm completely conflicted. Nevermind the fact that everyone appears as haunted techno-ghouls with their glowing green eyes, the execution of Synthesis is still a forced (and very unnatural) evolution without the consent of those being affected.

I also wonder if Synthesis is more genocidal in its process than Destroy. True, it isn't mass murder in the technical sense, but it is the elimination of the known intelligent races. There are no Humans, Turians, Salarians, Quarians, etc. any more, there is this new organic/synthetic-mixed master race now. Does that really count as genocide though? I'm not sure.

The real kicker for me is that Synthesis is the Catalyst's "ideal" solution. Whew, with the added conversation of the EC between Shepard and the Catalyst, that statement hits me pretty hard. As the player I simply have to trust the information that the game is presenting to me. Otherwise this is all a lie, and then what's the point?

So I'm forced to believe a demented AI monster. This is getting tough to rationalize but right now my feeling is that the Catalyst has literally gone insane and some actions it takes are reasonable while some just don't have any discernible logic to them. On some points it could be deceiving Shepard while in other cases it's actually being very accurate. I suppose being utterly inconsistent plays into the maniacal AI role. Is it telling the truth? Is it lying? Make your best guess.

That's my EC ending conflict boiled down. With this new clarity I have to ask, why would the Catalyst even present the Destroy option? If the Catalyst proposes Synthesis as its "ideal" solution, does that automatically mean Synthesis is as evil as that little monster? I will say that the presentation of the Synthesis ending was trying so hard to be hopeful by "uniting" the galaxy that it was clearly what the writers had in mind for the conclusion. But everything about that ending was just ... creepy.

[generalleo03]

Hi All,

I've thought about this some more and I think I've found the crux of my problem with the endings. They are dictated by the enemy. For instance lets say the ending went something like this

When Hacket boards your ship he actually briefs you on what the crucible does. He says "
It can do one of three things. We have written a virus that will use the citadel to transmit itself everywhere in the galaxy. This virus will shut down any AI it encounters. Unfortunately, because AI is constantly rewriting its code, we are only able to detect AI patters, rather than identify specific AI. It will probably shut down the Geth and EDI" Then the geth and EDI can interject with their opinions, if they would be willing to die, etc. Your teammates can give their opinions, your remaining allies. "Second, we have developed a virus that will attempt to take control of any AI it encounters [a slight alteration is necessary for continuity between the first option and this, but for this we'll assume we can just release EDI and the Geth when it's done], once complete we should be able to control all AI" again queue, EDI, Geth, discussion with allies. "and third we can combine ourselves with AI in an attempt for better understanding. Since the reapers do not view us as beneficial life forms we could open a dialogue with them or attempt to trick them into thinking we are reapers", again queue discussions. You could have Anderson try to convince you to shut down the AI's on Earth. TIM could give you a push to control them for the future. Then you could even have the Catalyst appear as the avatar representing the reapers wishes, but instead of dictating terms of victory to you that force you to agree with his philosophy, he's just another influence on a decision you already had to make and been thinking about since the briefing. He could represent the reapers wishes, and as the EC so clearly presents, its preference is synthesis. You could still even reject all options and say, I disagree with all of you, and fight to the death.

I would be much more satisfied with that style of ending I think, and it leaves most of the important parts of the ending intact. What does everyone else think?

[Ajensis]

This is an epic thread. People are posting thoughtful walls of text, joke with each other, treat each other respectfully instead of banging each other's heads. This is what the internet should be like everywhere

I've read many words of wisdom here and I haven't even had time to do more than simply scratch the surface of what you guys have put in here. It's a darn shame, really. But from what I have seen, you're on the spot about so very many things (although, in my opinion, also at times derailing too much, but even then it's usually an entertaining read). I really hope someone at BioWare has taken the time to consider the points you're raising and the arguments to why this ending just doesn't cut it.

And although I may voice my appreciation for BioWare and the Extended Cut on this forum, don't worry, I'm still in total agreement with your general criticism of the ending and won't refrain from occasionally expressing that when the threads seem reasonable enough for it.

And lastly:

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.

Brilliant way of subtly tieing the player's position into the player's character's position! Very creative!

To sum up: nothing worth replying to here, just wanted to extend a genuine greeting and let you know that you've built a truly amazing thread here with your thoughts and the way you've delivered them. Keep it up!

[Pinax]

Another article worth sharing - nothing which has not been mentioned already in this thread, just (once again) put together (quoted after this Tweet: https://twitter.com/...543872181338112 ) :

http://attackofthefa...3-extended-cut/

Cheers!

[Pinax]

@generalleo03

This is generally related to the question: how can top scientists of the galaxy can build an omni-weapon that literally no ones knows how to use?

Would you imagine ANY project of this type without a clear goal and a functionality to achieve? They are not studying a ruin of an big, unknown, ancient something, they are building the Crucible from a scratch - and all these top minds (and the players, of course) need a deus ex machina (Star Child - Catalyst) to explain it's functionality 

Modifié par Pinax, 04 juillet 2012 - 05:01 .

[generalleo03]

Pinax wrote...

@generalleo03

This is generally related to the question: how can top scientists of the galaxy can build an omni-weapon that literally no ones knows how to use?

Would you imagine ANY project of this type without a clear goal and a functionality to achieve? They are not studying a ruin of an big, unknown, ancient something, they are building the Crucible from a scratch - and all these top minds (and the players, of course) need a deus ex machina (Star Child - Catalyst) to explain it's functionality 

Well, this doesn't bother me as much as it does others.  Yes, it is a plot hole the size of a crater, but compared to the whole catalyst crap, it is just really small.  Black box development is done all the time.  Its fine to build the crucible and not know exactly what it does in the greater scheme.  But the Catalyst says it is little more than a power source, which begs the question.  If he's had literally millions of years of time, and all it takes to change the variables is a bigger power source, what has he been doing?  Was that really that hard to come up with?  "Well, if I had a bigger power source I could do synthesis, guess I better wait until someone else figures it out..."  Its silly really.  They should have known that the crucible was a power source.  To be honest, in the greater scheme of the ending, that little thing is a small plot hole (relative the to the whole organics vs synthetics coming from nowhere).