Aller au contenu

Photo

"All Were Thematically Revolting". My Lit Professor's take on the Endings. (UPDATED)


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
5087 réponses à ce sujet

#4526
Pinax

Pinax
  • Members
  • 139 messages

Strange Aeons wrote...

Hi again,

I figured I ought to assemble a few words in the aftermath of the EC. It turned out to be more than a few, so rather than dump them all into a giant post I’ve linked them in the blog entries below.

For what it’s worth, if you’re interested in reading my take on the state of the ending post-EC, as well as some thoughts on how things in a better world might have proceeded differently, feel free to read on:

How the Catalyst and the ME3: EC failed

Part 1: the problem

Part 2: the solution



I just wanted to give thumbs up for the great analysis and offered solution and thank you very much for this excellent piece of work! I completely agree with your arguments, as well as with the logical outcome how the ending logically could (and should) look like.  My only and very small concern is that I had a feeling you focus mostly on Paragon perspective - do you think the Renagate could come to a "gold" ending in a similar way?

While reading your text it came also to my mind that maybe BW wanted us to be entirely surprised at the ending of the series to avoid cliché resolution of the Reapers-Shepard conflict (besides other reasons we sadly may suspect like: rush, internal politics and incorrectly targeting the perspective of the ME fans etc.). More likely all the talk about "artistic integrity" and "this would be no longer our story if done otherwise" is just a cloud to mask incompetence only, but maybe someone really thought like that.

The thing is that a complete shock at the ending is not something we have waited for; for example, at the end of ME1 it becomes quite obvious that the fight with the Reapers is not over, at the end of ME2 it is obvious that in the next part Shepard is going to unite the galaxy against the Reapers etc. and this is fine, expecting all this I blindly buy the game in pre order because this is what I want and look for. This, of course, does not mean that I do expect banality and do not want twists of action. Just like the crash of the Normandy and work with Cerberus in ME2 are the twists that make the players more "wow!", but they do not modify the logic of the story and the genre. (Like "Planescape: Torment" would turn into Mario Bros in the last minutes of the game - I am joking and exagerating of course, but you know what I mean ;) ).

What I think the majority of players has been waiting is a logical resolution of the conflict, based on everything - like you said - "the game taught us before" and hoping for a reward for all the hard work (questing and investments) during the 3 parts of the game. To be honest I thought that the final mission in ME3 would be like a multplication of the attack on Collectors base in ME2: you can work all the game to increase the chances of survival, the fate of your team depends from your personal decisions: who you put in charge, who is the specialist etc. And yet... no: :wizard:.

If BW would like to have feedback on their work and wouldn't like to follow every thread on the forum - your article is a perfect example where they could refer to.

Modifié par Pinax, 05 juillet 2012 - 11:38 .


#4527
frypan

frypan
  • Members
  • 321 messages
@Strange Aeons

Well written pieces. Really nailed it...again.

@Winterfly

Cheers. Bioware really missed the concept of a "good death" in the face of an invincible foe, something that has been around as at least as far back as the Thebaid. Bioware recognised that people wanted to spit in the face of fear and go out fighting, but refused to acknowledge people's desires in the way the scene played out.

Shepherd gets a few words and then just sags? Did they really feel that strongly about their pet project, that they saw nothing beyond the fact the player rejected it? I'm still stunned at the level of misunderstanding, or simple bull headedness involved. It beggars belief that they recognised how people felt, but decided their "point" was more important than player satisfaction.

This is the Shepherd who carved their way up the citadel tower straight towards Sovereign, the Shepherd who didn't hesitate to go through the Omega 4 relay or take on reapers with small arms. For crying out loud, he shouted down a planetary war!

I know that in those final moments my Shepherd would have been at his finest. If he could do nothing else, he would have made his last stand over the body of Anderson. Like Spartans over their fallen King, he would have died fulfilling his duty and whatever symbolic victory it represented. 

Channeling Capaneus, my Shepherd would have gone down unrepentant, a flourescent paragon shining his defiance in the dark . And when the gods turned their weapons on him, they would have done so in fear, and with the knowledge that all their power might still not be enough.

Ah, it would have been glorious, and even the reapers would have sung his name. .

Bah, even my hyperbolic ranting feels more satisfying than that last imagined slump of the shoulders. Such a shame.

Modifié par frypan, 05 juillet 2012 - 01:10 .


#4528
sagefic

sagefic
  • Members
  • 4 771 messages
 So, hey, I don't often post here, but some really great analysis going on.

I, myself, didn't care for the endings, but disliked the EC even more than the original endings. Took me a while to try and sum up my thoughts, but I did so in two blog posts.

1. The game totally baits and then switches the player, thematically speaking (kind of the point of this thread, so likely won't be surprise to folks here). But in doing so, it thematically makes a player feel like the ending to the game is not the ending to the story you started. Thus, you feel like whatever it was that was said doesn't complete or answer the real 'questions' of the game.

2. The game also jumps shark in a more personal way. Not only are 'big' themes lost, but the focus shifts away from Shepard so sharply, so dramatically, that you feel that the story lost sight of its own hero, and he/she was left behind. Even his/her sacrifice feels cheapened as a result.

So, that was my big issue: whatever the game started as way back in ME1, whatever it continued as in ME2, it simply wasn't that game anymore by the end of ME3. I have a hard time feeling anything but a sort of disappointed apathy, because it's not the same thing anymore.

the really sad thing is, it makes it really hard for me to want to play the game again, since i know the story i'm playing won't be completed.

Modifié par sagequeen, 05 juillet 2012 - 02:41 .


#4529
SHARXTREME

SHARXTREME
  • Members
  • 162 messages
edited: was too long, and repetitive.
     
 
 

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 05 juillet 2012 - 03:49 .


#4530
NobodyofConsequence

NobodyofConsequence
  • Members
  • 597 messages
I've been pondering the most efficient plot line to justify the Reapers existance. I've concluded that it would have been enough for the Reapers to simply wish to eliminate potential rivals for their domination of the galaxy. 50k years has been demonstrated to be long enough for civilisations to flourish without (as far as we can tell) hitting some sort of transcendental stage, such as a Singularity, which would make them a significant potential threat to the Reapers.

So why harvest? Consider Sovereign's comments: 'Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire.' This functionally allows the Reapers a chance to strengthen their numbers, add to their overall knowledge, gain additional insights in to applications of their own base technology while simultaneously making sure they have an edge over any rivals.

Why leave any life alive at all, then? As mentioned above, new cultures actually empower the Reapers by adding their uniqueness to their own. It's like cultivating grapes, you don't want to pick them too early, when they're young and full of acid, but if you leave them too long they begin to shrivel on the vine. Best to pick them when they're bursting with flavour, then, You definitely don't want to not pick them at all, otherwise the parent vine will propagate, and anyone who has ever seen an ancient grapevine will know how incredibly tough they can be,

The Reapers exist to allow the Reapers to continue to exist. No need for Starchild, dark matter, morally-questionable resolutions, or hitherto unimagined clevernessess to wrap things up. 

Thoughts?

#4531
NobodyofConsequence

NobodyofConsequence
  • Members
  • 597 messages
A quick thought on the Catalyst - we do not know how it was programmed. We only know what instructions it was issued with. This is conflating, for example, the OS, the chipset and motherboard with a single program it was running.

#4532
Fapmaster5000

Fapmaster5000
  • Members
  • 404 messages
@StangeAeons 

I love your solution, I hoped for something very similar, as did many, but it has become apparent that someone in Bioware, as Frypan mentioned, was far too keen on one particular piece of *artistic* vision (*cough* they-read-a-Kurzweil-book *cough*) to see anything in the forest but a tree.

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 05 juillet 2012 - 04:39 .


#4533
Pinax

Pinax
  • Members
  • 139 messages

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

I've been pondering the most efficient plot line to justify the Reapers existance. I've concluded that it would have been enough for the Reapers to simply wish to eliminate potential rivals for their domination of the galaxy. 50k years has been demonstrated to be long enough for civilisations to flourish without (as far as we can tell) hitting some sort of transcendental stage, such as a Singularity, which would make them a significant potential threat to the Reapers.

So why harvest? Consider Sovereign's comments: 'Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire.' This functionally allows the Reapers a chance to strengthen their numbers, add to their overall knowledge, gain additional insights in to applications of their own base technology while simultaneously making sure they have an edge over any rivals.

Why leave any life alive at all, then? As mentioned above, new cultures actually empower the Reapers by adding their uniqueness to their own. It's like cultivating grapes, you don't want to pick them too early, when they're young and full of acid, but if you leave them too long they begin to shrivel on the vine. Best to pick them when they're bursting with flavour, then, You definitely don't want to not pick them at all, otherwise the parent vine will propagate, and anyone who has ever seen an ancient grapevine will know how incredibly tough they can be,

The Reapers exist to allow the Reapers to continue to exist. No need for Starchild, dark matter, morally-questionable resolutions, or hitherto unimagined clevernessess to wrap things up. 

Thoughts?

EDIT: Actually I found the original interview with Drew Karpyshyn I mentioned before and dived deep into SagaQueen blog. (And, yes, I admit I rather put aside the subtle information given me on the Haestrom mission). This is how I realized that I
messed up two different concepts and that the question of dark matter and energy appeared in the game in a different context than mentioned in my post. Please treat the below as my interpretation of the Reapers, lightly inspired on the
information on the interview I had when writing this post.

Ok, thoughts then (and please excuse me for the extremally long post):

The dark matter keep spreading the universe, so in the future it will become a cold place where organic life simply cannot live. The Reapers are a best-effort solution to keep a species remain "eternally" in this cold universe and not to be lost forever.

The Reapers harvest the galactic civilizations in the prime of their life and cultural advancement. They maintain the genetic code and diversity of developed organic species in a form of a Reaper who could „live” in a cold, lifeless universe. Then give place to flourish for new species for exactely the same reasons - just like the humans, asari where left when Prothean civilization was wiped out. The new species develop, get harvested, the cycle continues, as it is the only "inevitable" way (using Reapers terminology) to "conserve" the species after all organic life is gone.

As for me this makes sense and it would explain (or at least open paths for most efficient explanation of)
for example:
  • The so spoken "ascension" the Reapers talk about
  • Quotes like: "we are each a nation", "different voices speaking in Nazara" = Sovereign (conversation with Legion in ME2)
  • The relative intellectual independence of the Reapers, their „personality” (Sovereign and Harbinger)
  • And in the same time their "we stand together" attitude, as executors of the only inevitable solution that the short-living species „will not understand" (short-living in comparison to the Reapers „eternal” perspective, of course).
  • The superiority of the Reapers vs organics, not able to understand the real stake (=no life at all vs Reaper eternity) and just driven by a short term will of survive. This is why the Reapers are "beyond our comprehension".
  • The idea of indoctrination becoming not a simple brain wash „I wanna be a husk”, but an argument you cannot deny and this is how you come to accept it, even if the argument is horrible from an organic point of view.
Yesterday I was re-playing the attack on Collectors base mission in ME2 and found out that the game states
that not all the species are able to be harvested. This came from conversations with EDI when finding the Normandy crew in Collectors base. While Shepard says sth like: „But they are just Protheans, why would they like to wipe us out?”, EDI replies that it seems for some reasons not all the species are able to be transformed into a
Reaper form and apparently the Reapers failed to do it with the Protheans. She assumes this is the reason why they were just mutaded into the Collectors to serve a temporary purpose for the Reapers. Which could lead us into filling another plot holes and abandoned threats:
  • The Reapers interest in humans (confirmed by Mordin in ME2 in his loyalty mission the humans are more diverse genetically in comparison to other species from this cycle).
  • The Collectors' entrange research which is mentioned in the comics and books: they buy „exceptional” representants from different species (blue eyed batarians, one hand krogans etc. ;) - it is possible they are just analyzing the possibility of „reaperize” different species in the current cycle.
  • The will of Saren of at least „prove being useful” to the Reapers to avoid total extinction.

Modifié par Pinax, 05 juillet 2012 - 07:44 .


#4534
Jorji Costava

Jorji Costava
  • Members
  • 2 584 messages
@Strange Aeons:

I'm quite a bit late to the party at this point, but let me echo the praise for your blog posts. Fascinating stuff, and spot-on. My first preference would be to strike the catalyst out of the game altogether, but given the constraints you've set, your proposal sounds as good as any I've heard.

@Nobody of Consequence:

That makes a heck of a lot more sense as the Reapers' motivation than what we got. I think the developers resisted this relatively obvious course because finding out that the Reapers were harvesting us out of pure self-interest would make for a particularly surprising reveal at the end. But I've already expressed my disagreement with the idea that there needed to be any such dramatic 'reveal' about the Reapers' motivations, so finding out that yeah, they really just are out for themselves would be perfectly fine with me.

@Pinax:

Just for clarification: I would be leery about citing that strategyinformer article; the idea that the dark energy concept was ever in place as the true ending of the game was explicitly denied by Karpyshyn here. The quotes about the dark energy concept that have been circulating around the internet came from a SomethingAwful forum post, and were attributed to a source inside Bioware, but this attribution has never been confirmed by any official source. Karpyshyn said "Dark energy was on the table at one point," but I don't think there's any way of knowing how much this concept resembled what we heard about, or how seriously they were committed to it before moving on to something else. Hope this helps!

#4535
Pinax

Pinax
  • Members
  • 139 messages
@ osbornep

Thanks a lot! :) I was not aware Karpyshyn denied this + I also realized my mistake in interpretation of this interview and the dark energy concept and corrected the post. Better know later than never, so thank you again!

#4536
edisnooM

edisnooM
  • Members
  • 748 messages
@NobodyofConsequence

My view on the Reapers existance was close to yours.

At the end of ME1 I didn't really have an explanation for the Reapers existance other than they seemed to take everything the perceived as value and burned the rest, so I sort of saw them as keeping the lesser races in check and harvesting any good technology they came across.

After ME2 my impression was similar to this but expanded to include that they used the races they killed as raw materials to create more of themselves. So my idea of them was that they saw themselves as the pinnacle of life and existed to exist and make more of themselves.

This was more or less what I assumed there MO was going into and during ME3, and I was fine with it. A very basic motivation, but an effective one when backed up with the obvious strength they possessed.

Also there was a certain poetic irony (maybe? never too sure about the usage of irony) that the Reapers who saw themselves as the pinnacle of life were dependent on these lesser beings for "Reaperduction".

#4537
SHARXTREME

SHARXTREME
  • Members
  • 162 messages

Pinax wrote...

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

I've been pondering the most efficient plot line to justify the Reapers existance. I've concluded that it would have been enough for the Reapers to simply wish to eliminate potential rivals for their domination of the galaxy. 50k years has been demonstrated to be long enough for civilisations to flourish without (as far as we can tell) hitting some sort of transcendental stage, such as a Singularity, which would make them a significant potential threat to the Reapers.

So why harvest? Consider Sovereign's comments: 'Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire.' This functionally allows the Reapers a chance to strengthen their numbers, add to their overall knowledge, gain additional insights in to applications of their own base technology while simultaneously making sure they have an edge over any rivals.

Why leave any life alive at all, then? As mentioned above, new cultures actually empower the Reapers by adding their uniqueness to their own. It's like cultivating grapes, you don't want to pick them too early, when they're young and full of acid, but if you leave them too long they begin to shrivel on the vine. Best to pick them when they're bursting with flavour, then, You definitely don't want to not pick them at all, otherwise the parent vine will propagate, and anyone who has ever seen an ancient grapevine will know how incredibly tough they can be,

The Reapers exist to allow the Reapers to continue to exist. No need for Starchild, dark matter, morally-questionable resolutions, or hitherto unimagined clevernessess to wrap things up. 

Thoughts?

EDIT: Actually I found the original interview with Drew Karpyshyn I mentioned before and dived deep into SagaQueen blog. (And, yes, I admit I rather put aside the subtle information given me on the Haestrom mission). This is how I realized that I
messed up two different concepts and that the question of dark matter and energy appeared in the game in a different context than mentioned in my post. Please treat the below as my interpretation of the Reapers, lightly inspired on the
information on the interview I had when writing this post.

Ok, thoughts then (and please excuse me for the extremally long post):

The dark matter keep spreading the universe, so in the future it will become a cold place where organic life simply cannot live. The Reapers are a best-effort solution to keep a species remain "eternally" in this cold universe and not to be lost forever.


@NobodyofConsequence

Your description of Reapers is logical, but it's 99,9% Borg concept, harvesting-assimilation, Borg also don't assimilate inferior/tecnologically less advanced species and only assimilate species that "have something to show for"
In case of humans, borg and assimiliation, Borg Queen described it this way:
" We won't turn you into a drone. You're much too valuable to us with your individuality intact. But you've left humanity behind. Try to abandon their petty emotions as well. Fear... anger... vanity... They've corrupted you. But the damage can be repaired"

and this way:-
-"They've left behind their trivial, selfish lives, and they've been reborn with a greater purpose. We've delivered them from chaos into order". 
-"You are in chaos, Data. You are the contradiction: a machine who wishes to be human."
-"Human! We used to be exactly like them. Flawed. Weak. Organic. But we evolved to include the synthetic. Now we use both to attain perfection. Your goal should be the same as ours"
Borg Queen: -"Are you offering yourself to us?"
Picard: -"Offering myself...? That's it, I remember now! It wasn't enough for you to assimilate me...I had to give myself freely to the Borg. To you!"

And on techncal side: "Cranium size under average. Minimal redundant organs. Previous attempts to assimilate were direct conflicts and they have all failed and they will fail again unless we find out the nature of their resistance. We will adapt"

That is why they didn't directly copy the concept, instead expanded upon it to give Reapers some ominous/mysterious goal.
@Pinax

That Dark Energy scenario was more complex, if I remember correctly. What you describe is basically the problem of entropy(almost exact copy of "The Last Question") 
What would(could) have been interesting in Reapers goals is original scenario as I remember(maybe I have imagined it):
Haelstrom mission gave the clue about this problem, with dark matter somehow affecting that system sun. Dark energy(or was it dark matter?)somehow expanding in the sun's core. 
It was only the sign of bigger problem. Eventually whole galaxy would be consumed.
Reapers creators found about that problem and they even found a solution. Mass relay network and Citadel would serve the purpose(like in the ending) to spread immense amount of energy throughout the galaxy and stop dark energy expansion destroying every technology, except Reaper tech.   .
Only problem, they have found about that the solution was only temporary. About 50.000 years before problem with dark energy returns.
So the cycle of harvesting began, where they harvested advanced species to try to find permanent solution by basically expanding their knowledge by assimilation. Nothing worked.
Then in the time of Racchni wars(which was actually started by Reapers) was the time harvesting cycle was about the begin. They didn't do it for the sole reason that no species could provide advantage, and delayed the cycle. Then we jump to ME1 time, when Sovereign took notice of humans. Somehow the humans could break the cycle and provide the solution, or so they thought..
That is where Crucible comes in play. Every cycle improved upon its design and it was designed not to stop the Reapers directly, but rather to solve the problem. Since the cycle was delayed there was only 100 years before even temporary solution stops being viable.
Crucible(reaper version of crucible) was actually needed for energy to be accumulated, Citadel for energy to be released, and Mass relay network to spread throughout the galaxy.
Alliance didn't know anything about the bigger problem. Reapers actually tried to make only the Human Reaper, all other species would be turned to Reaper army to harvest humans, and preserved behind omega 4 relay.
("your species has the attention of those infinetely greater then you")
That ending would be very hard to resolve.
I imagine something along the lines, when Reapers army strength diminishes in the face of united galaxy, that Harbinger would start talking and present Shepard with real problem behind this situation and give Shepard the option to
a) give up and let humanity be harvested for infinitely greater good
B) fight and doom entire galaxy to extinction by destroying the Reapers

Could they find the solution in 100 years that was left?
Could Shepard trust the Reapers?
Could they cooperate?etc 

There is also one interesting aspect in ME. Homogenity vs Diversity. They have somehow hinted that original Reapers, and following cycles were basically genetically more complex, or dominated by one species then this cycle.
I was wondering where this would go, besides obvious fact that homogenity or dominance is not sustainable, and that evolution process results in/and gain from diversity, not homogenity. 

Edit: Again wall of text. I just get carried away sometimes. Sorry to everyone.

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 05 juillet 2012 - 11:08 .


#4538
NobodyofConsequence

NobodyofConsequence
  • Members
  • 597 messages
@Strange Aeons - there is one way forward (and I do like the run down you give in part 2, particularly) - a new post-Reject ending unlockable through DLC along the lines of what you've proposed is, I would imagine, technically feasible. Yes, most likely unlikely, but one can torment themselves if they wish. Sigh.

@SHARXTREME - I suspect that most here, like myself, enjoy your walls of text, never any need to apologise for them. :)

So, in summary, the 'efficient' motivation is simply too derivative to be workable? The bit where I disagree with you is that the Reapers were shown, early in the piece, to have elements consistant with being a higher order of life, rather than merely more technologically advanced. The Borg, to me at least, were always shown to believe that their way was better but without ever mounting an effective argument to persuade the _viewer_ that it was actually true. All the arguments (Borq Queen etc) always seemed to be more about raising dramatic tension through 'tempting' one of our heroes. That, to me, is extremely significant.

Another thing I wish to add is that the Reapers do see themselves as being a higher order of life, and not in
the slightest bound by any considerations for lesser life forms such as us, so why wouldn't their motivation be entirely based on their requirements, obviating any need for us to approve of it, either in-universe or via player agency?


@osbornep

I think the developers resisted this relatively obvious course because
finding out that the Reapers were harvesting us out of pure
self-interest would make for a particularly surprising reveal at the
end.


Maybe, but I feel as though it would have been, "Oh, ok", rather than "Oh, Fck off".  Also, I get the notion that you and a lot of the more 'senior' contributors to this thread have already hashed over things I'm only just thinking of, pretty much every post I make these days. Oh well. :blush:

@edisnooM

Also there was a certain poetic irony (maybe? never too sure about the
usage of irony) that the Reapers who saw themselves as the pinnacle of
life were dependent on these lesser beings for "Reaperduction".



Speaking of 'senior' posters! Umm, firstly, yes, very good point, I'd go with irony too, and just remember, the poetic bit is at least as important.

@pinax
I appreciate your contribution, and I was someone who expected the whole Dark Stuff thread would play a huge role in ME3. It didn't as we all well know. It could certainly have been interesting, and perhaps an even more interesting path was there, in including the effects of Dark Stuff as a side-line, without attaching it in any respect to the Reapers actual motivations. Would have added another level of angst to Shep's decision making, were we to have had the same types of choices available to us in the end-game. Destroy then becomes not only about EDI/Geth, but the potential destruction of all life in the galaxy further down the track, in exchange for the freedom to find our own solutions.

Modifié par NobodyofConsequence, 06 juillet 2012 - 12:12 .


#4539
Strange Aeons

Strange Aeons
  • Members
  • 247 messages

Pinax wrote...

Strange Aeons wrote...

Hi again,

I figured I ought to assemble a few words in the aftermath of the EC. It turned out to be more than a few, so rather than dump them all into a giant post I’ve linked them in the blog entries below.

For what it’s worth, if you’re interested in reading my take on the state of the ending post-EC, as well as some thoughts on how things in a better world might have proceeded differently, feel free to read on:

How the Catalyst and the ME3: EC failed

Part 1: the problem

Part 2: the solution



I just wanted to give thumbs up for the great analysis and offered solution and thank you very much for this excellent piece of work! I completely agree with your arguments, as well as with the logical outcome how the ending logically could (and should) look like.  My only and very small concern is that I had a feeling you focus mostly on Paragon perspective - do you think the Renagate could come to a "gold" ending in a similar way?


Thanks :) (as well as to everyone else who offered kind words)

Yeah, it did occur to me that I was taking a decidedly Paragon tone in my description, as the focus was very much on strength through working together.  I'll admit that I'm biased toward that perspective, and it's hard for me to conceptualize the renegade point of view.  I've always played Bioware games as a good/Paragon character (heh...I actually tried making a Sith character the first time I played KotOR because I thought it would be cool, but I just couldn't take it.   I felt like such a piece of s*** that I had to restart as good guy.)

From what I remember, most of the major stuff (the Geth/Quarians, the suicide mission, the loyalty missions, the Krogan homeworld, the Normandy, etc.) can be resolved equally well using a Paragon or Renegade approach, though I can't say for sure since I've only played Paragon.  I suppose to be fair things like blowing up the Destiny Ascension or letting the Feros colonists die or killing off the Rachni (if you consider that a Renegade choice)  would have to be counterbalanced by other assets, such as keeping the Collector base, that are available through more Renegade-oriented paths.   That would require deeper revisions in the game, I guess, because as it currently stands the Paragon approach is definitely more suited for building alliances.  Obviously the dialogue about strength through togetherness would also have to be modified on that side of the coin to emphasize more of the "strength" than the "togetherness" angle. 

If anyone more familiar with the Renegade side of the game wants to write something equivalent from that angle, I'd be interested to read it!

#4540
AnsinJung

AnsinJung
  • Members
  • 247 messages

Pinax wrote...

Strange Aeons wrote...

Hi again,

I figured I ought to assemble a few words in the aftermath of the EC. It turned out to be more than a few, so rather than dump them all into a giant post I’ve linked them in the blog entries below.

For what it’s worth, if you’re interested in reading my take on the state of the ending post-EC, as well as some thoughts on how things in a better world might have proceeded differently, feel free to read on:

How the Catalyst and the ME3: EC failed

Part 1: the problem

Part 2: the solution



I just wanted to give thumbs up for the great analysis and offered solution and thank you very much for this excellent piece of work! I completely agree with your arguments, as well as with the logical outcome how the ending logically could (and should) look like.  My only and very small concern is that I had a feeling you focus mostly on Paragon perspective - do you think the Renagate could come to a "gold" ending in a similar way?

While reading your text it came also to my mind that maybe BW wanted us to be entirely surprised at the ending of the series to avoid cliché resolution of the Reapers-Shepard conflict (besides other reasons we sadly may suspect like: rush, internal politics and incorrectly targeting the perspective of the ME fans etc.). More likely all the talk about "artistic integrity" and "this would be no longer our story if done otherwise" is just a cloud to mask incompetence only, but maybe someone really thought like that.

The thing is that a complete shock at the ending is not something we have waited for; for example, at the end of ME1 it becomes quite obvious that the fight with the Reapers is not over, at the end of ME2 it is obvious that in the next part Shepard is going to unite the galaxy against the Reapers etc. and this is fine, expecting all this I blindly buy the game in pre order because this is what I want and look for. This, of course, does not mean that I do expect banality and do not want twists of action. Just like the crash of the Normandy and work with Cerberus in ME2 are the twists that make the players more "wow!", but they do not modify the logic of the story and the genre. (Like "Planescape: Torment" would turn into Mario Bros in the last minutes of the game - I am joking and exagerating of course, but you know what I mean ;) ).

What I think the majority of players has been waiting is a logical resolution of the conflict, based on everything - like you said - "the game taught us before" and hoping for a reward for all the hard work (questing and investments) during the 3 parts of the game. To be honest I thought that the final mission in ME3 would be like a multplication of the attack on Collectors base in ME2: you can work all the game to increase the chances of survival, the fate of your team depends from your personal decisions: who you put in charge, who is the specialist etc. And yet... no: :wizard:.

If BW would like to have feedback on their work and wouldn't like to follow every thread on the forum - your article is a perfect example where they could refer to.


Thank you, Strange Aeons, and the person I'm quoting for finding his post.

This part in particular stands out as why the ending fails, quoting the first EC blog:

Video games generally work by teaching you something and then testing you on it


IT had hoped for that "metagaming," where the destroy option, supposedly evil, was the good one, which is at least consistent in that it would have allowed us the satisfaction of outsmarting the Reapers through clever use of the dialogue wheel and button pushing.

Besides that, as Strange Aeons explains so well, the series teaches you the opposite of almost everything the Catalyst says, through experience, training, etc.

I hope Bioware can do whatever it takes to do some real talk with the community, not PR statements about artistic integrity.  Admitting the endings are awfully done, even though some people like them for reasons I can't fathom, would be the first step towards some real integrity.

Modifié par AnsinJung, 06 juillet 2012 - 02:28 .


#4541
edisnooM

edisnooM
  • Members
  • 748 messages
@NobodyofConsequence

I don't think you need to worry about repeating something that's already been said, certainly it doesn't hurt to express your opinion, and quite often someone can say the same thing from a different perspective that can help to better discuss something.

Also at 182 pages it's pretty hard to remember what's been said and who said it. :-)

And I just realized I never said in my reply, but good post. I like the idea of the Reapers carefully cultivating species in some sort of galactic garden. I kind of picture Harbinger in a large wide brimmed hat and overalls inspecting planets.

HMMM, YES, GONNA BE A GOOD HARVEST

Modifié par edisnooM, 06 juillet 2012 - 02:44 .


#4542
NobodyofConsequence

NobodyofConsequence
  • Members
  • 597 messages

edisnooM wrote...

@NobodyofConsequence

I don't think you need to worry about repeating something that's already been said, certainly it doesn't hurt to express your opinion, and quite often someone can say the same thing from a different perspective that can help to better discuss something.

Also at 182 pages it's pretty hard to remember what's been said and who said it. :-)

And I just realized I never said in my reply, but good post. I like the idea of the Reapers carefully cultivating species in some sort of galactic garden. I kind of picture Harbinger in a large wide brimmed hat and overalls inspecting planets.

HMMM, YES, GONNA BE A GOOD HARVEST


"Heya there, Jim-Harbinger. You want summa these Rachni fritters?"

Oh, and, good point, very true and thank you.

#4543
NobodyofConsequence

NobodyofConsequence
  • Members
  • 597 messages

sagequeen wrote...

 So, hey, I don't often post here, but some really great analysis going on.

I, myself, didn't care for the endings, but disliked the EC even more than the original endings. Took me a while to try and sum up my thoughts, but I did so in two blog posts.

1. The game totally baits and then switches the player, thematically speaking (kind of the point of this thread, so likely won't be surprise to folks here). But in doing so, it thematically makes a player feel like the ending to the game is not the ending to the story you started. Thus, you feel like whatever it was that was said doesn't complete or answer the real 'questions' of the game.

2. The game also jumps shark in a more personal way. Not only are 'big' themes lost, but the focus shifts away from Shepard so sharply, so dramatically, that you feel that the story lost sight of its own hero, and he/she was left behind. Even his/her sacrifice feels cheapened as a result.

So, that was my big issue: whatever the game started as way back in ME1, whatever it continued as in ME2, it simply wasn't that game anymore by the end of ME3. I have a hard time feeling anything but a sort of disappointed apathy, because it's not the same thing anymore.

the really sad thing is, it makes it really hard for me to want to play the game again, since i know the story i'm playing won't be completed.


Thanks for posting. You make a lot of really strong points, some of your structural insights especially standing out.

if there were a thumbs up emoticon on this board, you might reasonably find at least two of them right about......
here.

#4544
Sable Phoenix

Sable Phoenix
  • Members
  • 1 564 messages
I haven’t had a chance to catch up on this thread completely since returning from my business trip; I’m still perhaps ten pages behind, so I apologize if part of this has been brought up before, but given that the conversation has skirted this area and then veered away again a few times I’m willing to bet it hasn’t.

I’ve also been somewhat hesitant to post my thoughts on the Extended Cut, given the potentially controversial nature of those thoughts, but if there’s one place I’ve seen on the internet where they have a chance of being discussed and analyzed rationally, I believe that place is here.

I have not played the Extended Cut (and neither will I), but have watched the entirety of them on YouTube.  I did not find anything to like about any of the updated material, except perhaps, on a purely intellectual level, the new Refusal ending.  In fact, it clarified for me two things about my initial response to the ending that I had not realized before, and because of that, I found the entire exercise to be both more depressing than the original ending, and even more deeply offensive.

My first response (in terms of importance, although not in chronology) is one of philosophy.  I don't mean sitting-in-a-leather-chair-smoking-a-pipe philosophy, I mean philosophy in the sense of worldview.  This only became clear to me after watching the Extended Cut and assimilating and digesting most of the discussion on this thread, as well as various other outside sources.  What gave me the final lens to really crystallize it was the blog entry Film Crit Hulk Smash: HULK VS. TWILIGHT, in which he dissects the Twilight series on a similar level as we have done here with Mass Effect 3.

In "Part 2: The Thematic Nightmares" (sometimes it's eerie, the parallels to this thread), Hulk mentions that the concept of Twilight came to Stephanie Meyer in a dream.  He accompanies this with a video where she is interviewed and relates how surprised she was during every step of the process of writing and publishing the first book.  He notes that she essentially vomited her id all over the paper, and that this style of unconscious writing gives us a deep and penetrating glimpse of her pyche and worldview (and the problems therein).

WHILE THERE IS A CAPACITY TO WHICH ALL WRITERS ARE WORKING THROUGH RELATIVE PSYCHOSIS, EMOTIONS, AND RESERVATIONS, YOU CAN AT LEAST TRY TO HAVE THEM SERVE REAL THEMATIC PURPOSES OF THE STORY. YOU CAN TRY TO PROVIDE A KIND OF CATHARTIC NARRATIVE OR INTELLECTUAL PERSPECTIVE FOR YOUR READER.

BUT WHEN YOU LACK THAT AWARENESS, YOU LIKELY START PARTICIPATING IN SOME KIND OF INDULGENT FANTASY IN A STATE OF SEMI-MASTURBATORY GLEE. WHICH ISN'T TO SAY THOSE KINDS OF THINGS CAN'T BE GOOD EITHER, JUST THAT MOST OFTEN RESULT IN SOMETHING PURELY INDULGENT FOR THE READER AS WELL AND LET'S BE HONEST. MOST OF THE TIME THEY AREN'T THAT GOOD, AT LEAST NOT THE SAME WAY. THE MORE UNAWARE AND UNFOCUSED WRITING BECAUSE "GOOD FOR OTHER REASONS." THE WORK IS OFTEN MORALLY TROUBLESOME TO BOOT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY DON'T REALIZE HOW THEY INDULGE IN THIS MASTURBATORY GLEE WITHOUT ACTUAL CONSEQUENCE THAT ACCOMPANIES REAL LIFE. HULK KNOW THIS ISN'T JUST COMMON TO JUST STEPHENIE MEYER. IT'S TRUE OF EVEN GREAT AUTHORS. LIKE HOW DAVID FOSTER WALLACE FAMOUSLY (AND CORRECTLY) DIAGNOSES THE CHIEF PROBLEM OF ALL OF UPDIKE'S WORK IS THAT HE CAN'T UNDERSTAND THAT HE'S AN ****. HULK REALLY WANTS TO CLARIFY THAT HER PROBLEMS ARE NOT UNIQUE.

BUT THEY ARE REAL PROBLEMS.


I won't go into the ways in which Twilight is thematically revolting (and it is); the specifics don't apply here.  But the principle does.  The Mass Effect series, once it fell under the purview of one Mac Walters, was in hindsight quite obviously written in a similar seat-of-the-pants manner as Meyer's dream-induced literary paroxysms.  That he and Casey Hudson separated themselves into a room and came up with the ending to Mass Effect 3 in isolation over a short period of time grants us a similarly id-fueled glimpse of their subconscious, as their ingrained worldview bled into the ink of their pens.

What we find there is, in a word, Progressivism, and Progressivism at its vilest, terminal expression.  Walters and Hudson were given a story about initiative, free will, strength in the unity of differences, and the power of a remarkable individual to change the world.  They chose not to honor that story; instead, they grafted it onto a fabricated dilemma which promotes the subjugation of the individual for the good of the collective.  In this new paradigm, one life has no inherent value beyond what it contributes to society as a whole, and that existence would be vastly improved if the individual would simply submit to those who know better how its energies should be spent.

This worldview is responsible for the moral relativism that declares in absolute terms that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and erupted into such blights as the Soviet gulags and the Killing Fields of Cambodia; it is responsible for the Orwellian statism that establishes the central government as the final arbiter of all rights, and holds billions under oppression and poverty in such places as Communist China and North Korea; it is responsible for the idolization of homogeneity that spawns ethnic cleansing, and created such horrors as Auschwitz and Jasenovac.  Red collectivism, blue tyranny, and green eugenics: three great tastes that taste great together!

In these three color-coded, "acceptable" options, we are required to submit to at least one of these Progressive tenets in order to "succeed"; if we remain true to the principles we fought for during the previous games, if we assert the right of the individual to live free, we are ground to nothingness underneath the weight of that ultimate collective, the Reapers.  This is why so many players instinctively felt that the new Refuse ending was little more than a middle finger extended from BioWare's metaphorical hand.  "You can't fight City Hall.  Pick a color, or die."  It's encouraging to me how many recognize that death is, in this situation, the most desirable choice.  It's equally discouraging to me how many find one of those awful colors to be an acceptable compromise.

I do not for a moment believe that Walters and Hudson consciously believe in or promote any of these things.  Nevertheless, it is, based upon all historical evidence, the ultimate result of the paradigm to which the endings adhere.  They are free, as Meyers was, to indulge their utopian fantasy without the horrific consequences that worldview creates in real life, but as the creators of those endings, they ask us to actively participate in atrocity; indeed, they make atrocity a prerequisite of victory.

I did give warning that this viewpoint might be controversial.  But as a staunch libertarian, I cannot express the level of repugnance and even, after a fashion, anger, that I feel when I consider how badly the story of Mass Effect has been twisted at the very end of the series to adhere to this morally bankrupt, Social Darwinist worldview.  I now know, in the future, to actively avoid anything with Walters' or Hudson's names on it, as I find the philosophical perspective that they believe at a deep, subconscious level to be both historically and ethically indefensible.

My second response to the Extended Cut is an emotional one, and while it was the first response I was aware of consciously, it ultimately springs up from the deeper value system of the reaction I discussed beforehand, combined with my own creative input into the character of Commander Shepard.  It's the more powerful of the two because it is the surface reaction, but is ultimately a manifestation of my feelings towards the themes of the more subtle and subconscious one.

I’ve mentioned before how I felt, upon completing my initial playthrough of Mass Effect 3, as if my character Jessica Shepard had been kidnapped.  She simply vanished at some point in the story, but I finally realized I was watching an imposter only after the Catalyst’s elevator pulled her into the Receiving Chamber of Doom (the subconscious view of the Catalyst as the kidnapper may be, for many players, a significant source of the ire directed towards it, but that’s a separate discussion for a different place and time).  The lack of closure was the worst part, that sense of waiting with no hope of an end.  It was one of the major reasons I loved (and still love) the idea of the Indoctrination Theory, even though I knew intellectually that it could never happen.  I did not know what had happened to Jessica; I did not know where she was; I did not know if she was alive or dead.  I did not know.

Well, now I know.  BioWare has given us closure with a vengeance.  And in doing so, they have assassinated Jessica in a manner far more total than any sniper’s bullet could possibly have accomplished.

In the backstory I created in my head for this part of the Mass Effect universe, much of Singapore is a downtrodden slum under the control of Chinese organized crime.  It was here that the orphan Jessica grew up, her life one of deprivation, exploitation, abuse, and murder until she escaped to the Alliance.  Although she would vehemently deny it, the traumas of her past rule her actions; she is guarded with her trust, unshakeable in her loyalty, utterly incapable of forgiveness, pragmatic to a fault, and if there is one thing she despises more than any other it is a bully.  She will reflexively defend anyone who is too weak to protect themselves, will give anyone the benefit of the doubt once and once only, and habitually distrusts authority figures. Her inherent mechanical brilliance lets her tear apart any engineering or coding to its component parts and reassemble it better than it was, and because of this, while she can develop a relationship with synthetic beings, she never subconsciously views them as anything more than tools.  And underneath all this runs an almost feral current of primitive survival instinct that manifests in coldblooded ruthlessness and an absolute inability to surrender.  She is a damaged, flawed, beautiful creature and the most Renegade Paragon you’ll ever meet.

I have not played the Extended Cut to put her in front of the Catalyst for her final test, but I don’t need to.  I know her intimately and can project her into that environment to watch what she would do.  And I know that, as much as I would wish her to stand on principle and tell the Catalyst and his Reaper thugs to go to hell, she never would.  It would feel, to her, like giving up.  She would grasp at the one chance for survival, the one chance to save the people like Liara and Garrus whom she would sacrifice hundreds of other lives to save, the one chance to wreak vengeance upon the biggest bullies the universe has ever seen.  She would sacrifice the needs of the few for the needs of the many, for the few are merely machines.  She would gamble that the Catalyst was not lying with every word, because really, the Reapers are already out there annihilating the combined military might of the galaxy, what does she have to lose?  She would succumb to the collectivist worldview, and choose Destroy.  And in so doing, her virtues would putrefy into hamartia, and her faults would crack and gape and release a monstrosity.

Are not the most stirring tales those in which the heroes’ faults become their strength?  What then shall we say of the tales where the heroes’ virtues become their downfall?

It hurts me to discover that a character I love, as strong as she is, cannot, at the end of it all, be as strong as I hoped.

I refuse to subject Jessica to this nihilism, this perversion, this complete and utter destruction of character.  I am convinced that the narrative abortion that was the Lazarus Project is the point at which the Mass Effect story suffered its mortal wound (also a discussion for a different place and time), despite limping on for two games before succumbing.  But to me that is now the demarcation point of the series.  Shepard died there; what moves and talks and shoots its way through the rest of the series is a construct fashioned only in Shepard's likeness.  And so, to me, the original Mass Effect is the one, the only game of the series.  I will remember Jessica as she was then, striding through a universe of mystery and wonder, vital and indomitable and real.  Her tale is a tale of perseverance and triumph, the damaged young criminal growing into the savior, a bright icon of terrible righteousness ascending from the morass of her own shadowed past.  No tale hers of compromise, of failure, of precipitous collapse back into the mire of amorality.  Not as BioWare would have it.

I reject their choices.  I reject the story they told.  I reject their claim upon my imagination.  Jessica Shepard is mine, and they shall never take her from me.

Image IPB

Jessica Shepard - 2154-2012
Semper Fi, Marine!
Godspeed.


Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 07 juillet 2012 - 05:52 .


#4545
NobodyofConsequence

NobodyofConsequence
  • Members
  • 597 messages
@Sable Phoenix

Great post. I've had the notion of Progress(ivism) bounce through my brain a couple of times without ever actually locking it in, so thanks for that.

Maybe this is just me, but I wouldn't say this is controversial, so much as lucid. I, too, think there is something significant in the ME1 Shepard being killed and then resurrected, and in hindsight, ought to have realised at the time, and especially by the end of ME2.

Re the endings: We thought we were in Braveheart, but it turns out we were in Highlander?

#4546
TrevorHill

TrevorHill
  • Members
  • 27 messages
If it was Highlander, we would have gotten to decapitate the catalyst, absorb his power, and then blow up the Reapers with it.

#4547
SHARXTREME

SHARXTREME
  • Members
  • 162 messages

Sable Phoenix wrote...
(...)as I find the philosophical perspective that they believe at a deep, subconscious level to be both historically and ethically indefensible....
I reject their choices. I reject the story they told. I reject their claim upon my imagination. Jessica Shepard is mine, and they shall never take her from me.


Great post, and I have just cut this part off to agree completely with it.
Everything they offer in the ending is to comply or to ignore such monstrous attack on Logic, moral and nature.
Their Synthesis ending is not synthesis at all, as their Catalyst is basically anticatalyst, logical conflict is forced, their thesis is not thesis, but rather their solution. and "catalyst" is creature without any respect for anyone or anything, creature without purpose that tries to enforce his idea, solution (ideology) no matter what method is required, or how long it takes.
..to fit the nature itself in its world view, because that creature is demented, wrong, anti.. on core level.
What is even more insulting is that player was left without any counter point, for antithesis if you will, narative offers no counter-point in the ending, you are alone, cut-off in that demented microuniverse. whole galaxy is silent, as if there is only you that matters, that can make the choice. You must comply to synthesis by means of control, destruction or defeatism in their view, and you must do it freely.. and that's unacceptable logically and on every other level.
And yes, the best guess is they are corrupted on subconscious level if they can create such monstrosity AND to leave the player slim chance to see through it and none to defeat it.
As I have said before, you played this ME not to win, but to lose.
To become "legend" is not the same as to win against such enemy. It is to lose.

@ NobodyOfConsequence

..Another thing I wish to add is that the Reapers do see themselves as being a higher order of life, and not in
the slightest bound by any considerations for lesser life forms such as us, so why wouldn't their motivation be entirely based on their requirements, obviating any need for us to approve of it, either in-universe or via player agency?
.


The Borg fit in same description, only on smaller scale.(they are not so strong or tech.-advanced as the Reapers on galaxy level) They also indoctrinate, but with pure physical force(advantage in numbers and technology), they do not wage open broad war, and because you can talk to them via borg queen and liberated former borg members, their goals and motives sound "less scary". But when you put it in context of Borg invading some helpless world it sounds like this:

" Brave words. I've heard them before, from thousands of species across thousands of worlds, since long before you were created. But, now they are all Borg. "
""We are the Borg. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile."

As you can see from the quotes here and those I have put in previous post Borg see their method as superior to exploring, learning, cooperating, adapting that humans represent in ST, with the "same" goal as humans to prosper, grasp the universes secrets,"to better themselves". It is, at the core, difference between attack - defense, force-adapt-manipulate. It is the difference in method, in nature. In logic. In heart and soul.
Difference to Reapers is that Reapers goal is implied as final and only goal that we cannot comprehend. You can expand this line of reasoning and say that Borg would be future Reapers, and when you extend their power in grotesque, you would clearly see the whole ugly nature of singular idea and any ideology in contrast to learning and adapting yourself, not adapting the world. to yourself

Yes, you can say that Reapers goals can be left incomprehensible, or be uninfluenced by your actions, but in the ME3 Reapers play side role, its like they are degraded to husks by intrusion of catalyst. Main role in ME3 is puppet hero Shepard, not smart, brave or cunning Shepard, its corrupted, weak Shepard with the gun on his head... forced, manipulated, controlled in the position to decide for everyone. Galaxy's "Last hope" that bioware crushes in the end.
If they have thought players want that, strive to be that(legend, hero) at all costs, that is the biggest insult ever.

They will need to speak directly to the fans of Mass Effect, at some point. "It's inevitable".

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 06 juillet 2012 - 12:50 .


#4548
Sable Phoenix

Sable Phoenix
  • Members
  • 1 564 messages

KLGChaos wrote...

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.


Sounds like the ending I had worked up in my head during the interregnum between ME 2 and 3, which I posted here many pages back.  I was expecting that the Lazarus Project would actually serve some narrative function and that the Six Million Dollar Shepard was the Illusive Man's secret weapon for indoctrinating the Reapers, or at least one specific Reaper, which would then be able to, under Shepard's guidance, use whatever the Dark Energy thingummy turned out to be that was killing Haestrom's sun to finally stop the Reapers.

It would have been much better than what we have now if only for the fact that it would have made Mass Effect 2 actuallly matter.  But no.  The entire second game of the trilogy might as well not have happened, it has so little impact on the events of the third.

Hmm.  Also, it seems my Great Wall of Text a few posts back killed the thread.

#4549
Sable Phoenix

Sable Phoenix
  • Members
  • 1 564 messages

helloween7 wrote...

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.


Yes, I'm slowly working my way through the thread backlog, and this, THIS is fantastic.  This I would love.  And what a great way to continue further adventures in the ME universe.  It's the only way I could stomach finishing the game and leaving the Reapers "alive".

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 07 juillet 2012 - 10:11 .


#4550
NobodyofConsequence

NobodyofConsequence
  • Members
  • 597 messages
@Sable Phoenix

Hmm. Also, it seems my Great Wall of Text a few posts back killed the thread.


Nah, that would be the weekend. Have some posting to do myself but I need a day to be as lazy as possible, so... later.