5087 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

vallore wrote...
From this player’s perspective, Bioware gave us a kobayashi maru scenario, (as no ending is enjoyable). What we needed was for Shepard to pull a Kirk, and change the rules of the game, so she could win on her own terms.

From this player's perspective: post-EC I can play all primary endings with enjoyment, and had Shepard been able to "pull a Kirk", thereby keeping squeaky-clean hands, my rants would have filled half this thread because that would have invalidated any other option. 

The only problem I have is that the ending options are presented by the antagonist, even with the EC mitigating things a bit. The options as such are fine with me.

[robertthebard]

DistantUtopia wrote...

drayfish wrote...

(snip) 
My fundamental complaint is that the fiction itself forces all of its players (undoubtedly against their will; I can't imagine many people refusing conventional victory if it were offered) into a position whereby, through the necessity of our limited options, we are forced to choose a morally bankrupt option. It's an intentional ethical trap, 

(snip) 

I agree, hence the 2nd part of my signature.

If this were true, wouldn't a conventional victory mean much the same as destroy, or is there some assumption at work that indicates that, once you beat x number of Reapers, the rest will just run away?  No matter which of the two, destroy or conventional is chosen, genocide is a necessity.  As I indicated in an earlier post, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that the Geth have already been wiped out, or that they had to wipe out the Quarians, both of which are pretty easy to get.  However, if you asked the Geth, or could ask them, do you think they would prefer Refusal, so that everybody gets wiped out, including themselves, or do you think they would willingly sacrifice themselves, if given the option?  Before a bunch of supposition goes flying around, the answer to this is given on Rannoch.  Individual geth units were willing to sacrifice themselves to preserve Quarians, before they had the Reaper code.  You can see it while you're in the Geth Consensus.

At any rate, if the Geth are already destroyed, the only AI you know you're going to kill, aside from the Reapers with Destroy, is EDI.  Do you think she would choose self preservation over the preservation of the entire galaxy?  Or would her logic kick in, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?

[DistantUtopia]

robertthebard wrote...

DistantUtopia wrote...

drayfish wrote...

(snip) 
My fundamental complaint is that the fiction itself forces all of its players (undoubtedly against their will; I can't imagine many people refusing conventional victory if it were offered) into a position whereby, through the necessity of our limited options, we are forced to choose a morally bankrupt option. It's an intentional ethical trap, 

(snip) 

I agree, hence the 2nd part of my signature.

If this were true, wouldn't a conventional victory mean much the same as destroy, or is there some assumption at work that indicates that, once you beat x number of Reapers, the rest will just run away?  No matter which of the two, destroy or conventional is chosen, genocide is a necessity.  As I indicated in an earlier post, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that the Geth have already been wiped out, or that they had to wipe out the Quarians, both of which are pretty easy to get.  However, if you asked the Geth, or could ask them, do you think they would prefer Refusal, so that everybody gets wiped out, including themselves, or do you think they would willingly sacrifice themselves, if given the option?  Before a bunch of supposition goes flying around, the answer to this is given on Rannoch.  Individual geth units were willing to sacrifice themselves to preserve Quarians, before they had the Reaper code.  You can see it while you're in the Geth Consensus.

At any rate, if the Geth are already destroyed, the only AI you know you're going to kill, aside from the Reapers with Destroy, is EDI.  Do you think she would choose self preservation over the preservation of the entire galaxy?  Or would her logic kick in, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?

Not sure if you were replying to me or the quote the issue is not giving the option to the agreived party on if they want to sacrifice themselves; that was never in the narrative.  The issue is that Shepard himself is making that decision for them.  And as my signature says, no matter what decision you choose, someone will view "Shepard" as a d**k.

[robertthebard]

DistantUtopia wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

If this were true, wouldn't a conventional victory mean much the same as destroy, or is there some assumption at work that indicates that, once you beat x number of Reapers, the rest will just run away?  No matter which of the two, destroy or conventional is chosen, genocide is a necessity.  As I indicated in an earlier post, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that the Geth have already been wiped out, or that they had to wipe out the Quarians, both of which are pretty easy to get.  However, if you asked the Geth, or could ask them, do you think they would prefer Refusal, so that everybody gets wiped out, including themselves, or do you think they would willingly sacrifice themselves, if given the option?  Before a bunch of supposition goes flying around, the answer to this is given on Rannoch.  Individual geth units were willing to sacrifice themselves to preserve Quarians, before they had the Reaper code.  You can see it while you're in the Geth Consensus.

At any rate, if the Geth are already destroyed, the only AI you know you're going to kill, aside from the Reapers with Destroy, is EDI.  Do you think she would choose self preservation over the preservation of the entire galaxy?  Or would her logic kick in, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?

Not sure if you were replying to me or the quote the issue is not giving the option to the agreived party on if they want to sacrifice themselves; that was never in the narrative.  The issue is that Shepard himself is making that decision for them.  And as my signature says, no matter what decision you choose, someone will view "Shepard" as a d**k.

Then we are one from ME 1 up, since we give orders that get people killed, or can, all the way through the series.  Just one more detail for the school of being a d**k in that case, isn't it?  Are we also just being a d**k in Arrival?  We do, after all, destroy 400,000 batarians w/out asking them.  While that's not complete genocide, what other species that may have been indigenous to that galaxy did we destroy that maybe the Reapers would have left alone?  Just to stop the Reapers from attacking us.  This is that "greater good" that people always reference, but don't seem to understand.  It's a war, and people are going to die, and some of them are going to die, such as the possibility of the Council dieing in ME 1, due to orders Shepard gives.  We know that no matter which way we choose, we're going to stop Sovereign, but Shepard doesn't.  Why let the most powerful ship in the Council fleet get destroyed on a gamble that the Alliance fleet is going to be enough to stop Sovereign, when the ships present when Sovereign showed up weren't enough to stop it from getting into the Citadel?  So is that also just being a d**k, or is there more to it than that?

[elitehunter34]

Ieldra2 wrote...

From this player's perspective: post-EC I can play all primary endings with enjoyment, and had Shepard been able to "pull a Kirk", thereby keeping squeaky-clean hands, my rants would have filled half this thread because that would have invalidated any other option. 

The only problem I have is that the ending options are presented by the antagonist, even with the EC mitigating things a bit. The options as such are fine with me.

I would have much prefered the ending having no star child, and having the Crucible simply fire the Destroy beam, and if your EMS was high enough only the Reapers are destroyed.  If it was lower, it might only be able to stun the Reapers, so it would have to be used multiple times, and there would be many tense battles.  If it was too low, it misfires and destroys the mass relays, effectively wiping out all galactic Civilization.  If it was really low, the Reapers destroy the Crucible before it fires and Shepard watches in horror as the Reaper demolish the fleet.  How are those for bad endings?  Right now we have nothing even close to as bad as that, even Refuse leads to the destruction of the Reapers.  Which actually makes no sense because the Reapers now know about the Crucible so they would be extra thorough to destroy all plans of it.  They would also study it to see what it does and then probably learn how to shield themselves from it's effects.

I too think a conventional victory would be silly.  Sadly, the writers made the mistake of making the Reapers too strong and making Mass Effect 2's plot accomplish nothing towards achieving the goal of trying to stop the Reapers.  So they needed the Crucible or some similar device because a conventional victory would make almost as little sense as the current endings.

[3DandBeyond]

elitehunter34 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

From this player's perspective: post-EC I can play all primary endings with enjoyment, and had Shepard been able to "pull a Kirk", thereby keeping squeaky-clean hands, my rants would have filled half this thread because that would have invalidated any other option. 

The only problem I have is that the ending options are presented by the antagonist, even with the EC mitigating things a bit. The options as such are fine with me.

I would have much prefered the ending having no star child, and having the Crucible simply fire the Destroy beam, and if your EMS was high enough only the Reapers are destroyed.  If it was lower, it might only be able to stun the Reapers, so it would have to be used multiple times, and there would be many tense battles.  If it was too low, it misfires and destroys the mass relays, effectively wiping out all galactic Civilization.  If it was really low, the Reapers destroy the Crucible before it fires and Shepard watches in horror as the Reaper demolish the fleet.  How are those for bad endings?  Right now we have nothing even close to as bad as that, even Refuse leads to the destruction of the Reapers.  Which actually makes no sense because the Reapers now know about the Crucible so they would be extra thorough to destroy all plans of it.  They would also study it to see what it does and then probably learn how to shield themselves from it's effects.

I too think a conventional victory would be silly.  Sadly, the writers made the mistake of making the Reapers too strong and making Mass Effect 2's plot accomplish nothing towards achieving the goal of trying to stop the Reapers.  So they needed the Crucible or some similar device because a conventional victory would make almost as little sense as the current endings.

The crucible originally was intended to be a dark energy weapon (I'd never want it to be a big space cannon) and as such if known or even if finally understood to be that, it would have been great and would have allowed for unconventional conventional warfare.  It would have altered mass effect fields around reapers weakening their shields by reducing their mass.  Their shields are kinetic barriers which are not resistant to temperature, toxins, or radiation, and when they are weakened cains may work.

A conventional fight using unconventional methods could have been done really well.  We got silly.  How's that working for you.  For me it is nonsensical, depressing, demoralizing, and fatilistic and futile.  And that's being kind.

[DistantUtopia]

robertthebard wrote...

DistantUtopia wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

If this were true, wouldn't a conventional victory mean much the same as destroy, or is there some assumption at work that indicates that, once you beat x number of Reapers, the rest will just run away?  No matter which of the two, destroy or conventional is chosen, genocide is a necessity.  As I indicated in an earlier post, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that the Geth have already been wiped out, or that they had to wipe out the Quarians, both of which are pretty easy to get.  However, if you asked the Geth, or could ask them, do you think they would prefer Refusal, so that everybody gets wiped out, including themselves, or do you think they would willingly sacrifice themselves, if given the option?  Before a bunch of supposition goes flying around, the answer to this is given on Rannoch.  Individual geth units were willing to sacrifice themselves to preserve Quarians, before they had the Reaper code.  You can see it while you're in the Geth Consensus.

At any rate, if the Geth are already destroyed, the only AI you know you're going to kill, aside from the Reapers with Destroy, is EDI.  Do you think she would choose self preservation over the preservation of the entire galaxy?  Or would her logic kick in, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?

Not sure if you were replying to me or the quote the issue is not giving the option to the agreived party on if they want to sacrifice themselves; that was never in the narrative.  The issue is that Shepard himself is making that decision for them.  And as my signature says, no matter what decision you choose, someone will view "Shepard" as a d**k.

Then we are one from ME 1 up, since we give orders that get people killed, or can, all the way through the series.  Just one more detail for the school of being a d**k in that case, isn't it?  Are we also just being a d**k in Arrival?  We do, after all, destroy 400,000 batarians w/out asking them.  While that's not complete genocide, what other species that may have been indigenous to that galaxy did we destroy that maybe the Reapers would have left alone?  Just to stop the Reapers from attacking us.  This is that "greater good" that people always reference, but don't seem to understand.  It's a war, and people are going to die, and some of them are going to die, such as the possibility of the Council dieing in ME 1, due to orders Shepard gives.  We know that no matter which way we choose, we're going to stop Sovereign, but Shepard doesn't.  Why let the most powerful ship in the Council fleet get destroyed on a gamble that the Alliance fleet is going to be enough to stop Sovereign, when the ships present when Sovereign showed up weren't enough to stop it from getting into the Citadel?  So is that also just being a d**k, or is there more to it than that?

Then we're going to have to agree to disagree.  I've never believed in the "greater good".  To me, all of the endings have always been about the lesser evil.  So no matter what, yes, it's all being a d**k.

Modifié par DistantUtopia, 18 juillet 2012 - 05:02 .

[3DandBeyond]

Nyoka wrote...

On why the Crucible kills the Geth and not the Earth.

It's because the writers wanted to make their point about organics and synthetics, space kid's theory. If space kid spews out his little theory and then the crucible's function is to kill only Reapers, or the Reapers and the Earth as a side-effect, then space kid's speech is pointless, as killing only the Reapers is not a solution to the problem he's trying to solve.

In short: Space kid has a problem. The Crucible has several solutions. Control is what space kid is already doing and you just replace him. The others are destroy synthetics and merge with synthetics because that what space kid's theory is about.

I agree that it would be better if space kid didn't exist and the Crucible killed the Earth if less-than-perfect EMS score. Space kid's existence ruins everything really. I have no idea why innumerable civilizations from the past would contribute to build a device that just happens to address directly space kid's concerns. Especially the protheans, considering Javik's opinions! This is one of the reasons why I'm an adherent of the Bad Writing Theory.

The Bad Writing Theory-love that!!

[robertthebard]

Nyoka wrote...

On why the Crucible kills the Geth and not the Earth.

It's because the writers wanted to make their point about organics and synthetics, space kid's theory. If space kid spews out his little theory and then the crucible's function is to kill only Reapers, or the Reapers and the Earth as a side-effect, then space kid's speech is pointless, as killing only the Reapers is not a solution to the problem he's trying to solve.

In short: Space kid has a problem. The Crucible has several solutions. Control is what space kid is already doing and you just replace him. The others are destroy synthetics and merge with synthetics because that what space kid's theory is about.

I agree that it would be better if space kid didn't exist and the Crucible killed the Earth if less-than-perfect EMS score. Space kid's existence ruins everything really. I have no idea why innumerable civilizations from the past would contribute to build a device that just happens to address directly space kid's concerns. Especially the protheans, considering Javik's opinions! This is one of the reasons why I'm an adherent of the Bad Writing Theory.

I don't disagree that it was poorly handled, which is why I just end the game in London, but nobody, not even the Protheans, knew what the Crucible did.  They knew the Citadel was the Catalyst, but that's all they knew.  However, even had they completed it, unless they had hidden it on Ilos, they could have never used it, since the Citadel fell before they got it completed, presumably before they ever got it started.  We know from both Vigil and Javik that it took centuries for the Reapers to finish harvesting, and they took the Citadel first.

[AresKeith]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

On why the Crucible kills the Geth and not the Earth.

It's because the writers wanted to make their point about organics and synthetics, space kid's theory. If space kid spews out his little theory and then the crucible's function is to kill only Reapers, or the Reapers and the Earth as a side-effect, then space kid's speech is pointless, as killing only the Reapers is not a solution to the problem he's trying to solve.

In short: Space kid has a problem. The Crucible has several solutions. Control is what space kid is already doing and you just replace him. The others are destroy synthetics and merge with synthetics because that what space kid's theory is about.

I agree that it would be better if space kid didn't exist and the Crucible killed the Earth if less-than-perfect EMS score. Space kid's existence ruins everything really. I have no idea why innumerable civilizations from the past would contribute to build a device that just happens to address directly space kid's concerns. Especially the protheans, considering Javik's opinions! This is one of the reasons why I'm an adherent of the Bad Writing Theory.

The Bad Writing Theory-love that!!

The Bad Writing Theory aka Casey and Mac wrote

[AresKeith]

Nyoka wrote...

It's not a thing to love, but rather to be sad about.

I'm sure DA3 will be amazing in every aspect and this isn't sarcasm.

I'm not even gonna get DA3 because of this

Modifié par AresKeith, 18 juillet 2012 - 05:39 .

[TheMarshal]

robertthebard wrote...

I don't disagree that it was poorly handled, which is why I just end the game in London, but nobody, not even the Protheans, knew what the Crucible did.  They knew the Citadel was the Catalyst, but that's all they knew.  However, even had they completed it, unless they had hidden it on Ilos, they could have never used it, since the Citadel fell before they got it completed, presumably before they ever got it started.  We know from both Vigil and Javik that it took centuries for the Reapers to finish harvesting, and they took the Citadel first.

Surely in the long history of civilizations who were building the Crucible and adding to its design SOMEBODY had an idea of what it would do?

[robertthebard]

TheMarshal wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

I don't disagree that it was poorly handled, which is why I just end the game in London, but nobody, not even the Protheans, knew what the Crucible did.  They knew the Citadel was the Catalyst, but that's all they knew.  However, even had they completed it, unless they had hidden it on Ilos, they could have never used it, since the Citadel fell before they got it completed, presumably before they ever got it started.  We know from both Vigil and Javik that it took centuries for the Reapers to finish harvesting, and they took the Citadel first.

Surely in the long history of civilizations who were building the Crucible and adding to its design SOMEBODY had an idea of what it would do?

We don't know one way or the other.  If they did, they didn't record it.  We get that we don't know what it does in a dialog between Shep and Liara, very early on, that implies we feel like kids playing with a loaded gun.  Of course, until we talked to Vigil, we thought the Conduit was an actual weapon, instead of a "hidden" relay.

[TheMarshal]

robertthebard wrote...

TheMarshal wrote...

Surely in the long history of civilizations who were building the Crucible and adding to its design SOMEBODY had an idea of what it would do?

We don't know one way or the other.  If they did, they didn't record it.  We get that we don't know what it does in a dialog between Shep and Liara, very early on, that implies we feel like kids playing with a loaded gun.  Of course, until we talked to Vigil, we thought the Conduit was an actual weapon, instead of a "hidden" relay.

I really really hate the Crucible as a plot device.  The plans are remarkably intuitive, but we have no idea what it will do.  We have no idea what it will do, but we're willing to focus the entirety of our galactic resources to its construction.  Then we find out that it's not a Prothean device, but something which was handed down over generations of cycles as a weapon to defeat the Reapers.  Despite nobody knowing what it would do.  But the Protheans knew what the Catalyst was (or what they thought it was), but didn't think to include that little tidbit in the plans.

Seriously, would a conventional war REALLY have been such a terrible plot?

[3DandBeyond]

TheMarshal wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

TheMarshal wrote...

Surely in the long history of civilizations who were building the Crucible and adding to its design SOMEBODY had an idea of what it would do?

We don't know one way or the other.  If they did, they didn't record it.  We get that we don't know what it does in a dialog between Shep and Liara, very early on, that implies we feel like kids playing with a loaded gun.  Of course, until we talked to Vigil, we thought the Conduit was an actual weapon, instead of a "hidden" relay.

I really really hate the Crucible as a plot device.  The plans are remarkably intuitive, but we have no idea what it will do.  We have no idea what it will do, but we're willing to focus the entirety of our galactic resources to its construction.  Then we find out that it's not a Prothean device, but something which was handed down over generations of cycles as a weapon to defeat the Reapers.  Despite nobody knowing what it would do.  But the Protheans knew what the Catalyst was (or what they thought it was), but didn't think to include that little tidbit in the plans.

Seriously, would a conventional war REALLY have been such a terrible plot?

No because sometimes simple is more.  This is what I was often reminded of in learning to paint.  KISS.  Keep it simple stupid.  The more elaborate the design, the more room for error or misinterpretation.  The simpler a motivation of a character the more you can relate to it and the more "sympathetic" or understandable that character is. 

I can give you a whole heck of a lot of reasons for why the crucible is a terrible plot device.  Others can only give one as for why an attempt at a conventional fight is a terrible idea-it's impossible.  And it's only impossible because they've been told it is.  The crucible is never fully explained in any way and even the kid, who apparently knows about it, won't fully explain it. 

Less is more. 

[SHARXTREME]

Less is more

It's even simpler than that.
Vague enough(or unfinished) ending opens room for interpretation, that is what happened to ME3 ending. Given that there is no real substance, you are left with interpretation only, and it's purely individual. Let's not misinterpret lack of substance and individual interpretations as deeper meaning or philosophical complexity.

Painting/music is completely different form of art. It is not(it must not be) intellectual or logical per se. It certainly doesn't follow causality mechanism(music can, but greatest highs in music, for me, is in counterpoint, not in continuity).
Painting/architecture(or together) are completely different. Most elaborate objects/paintings done in impeccable or in perfectly mastered technique are most valued ones.
Good measure in art, in painting, music, literature, storytelling is also individual.
It is called style. So, less is not more. Not in art. In art there are no such terms. An art.piece is an art-piece. It is finished or it is not. There is no 'more' or 'less' in art.
In learning certain technique something can be applied less or more, but that's learning the technique - not using the technique to make art.

Less is not art. More is not art. And both are far from perfection.

[Overtkill]

If Mass Effect is art then the artist commune known as Bioware would still be working on it naked in the rain to this day.

Mass Effect is a product, there are artistic aspects to it, but art takes as long as it needs to, only a product has a deadline.

[3DandBeyond]

SHARXTREME wrote...

Less is more

It's even simpler than that.
Vague enough(or unfinished) ending opens room for interpretation, that is what happened to ME3 ending. Given that there is no real substance, you are left with interpretation only, and it's purely individual. Let's not misinterpret lack of substance and individual interpretations as deeper meaning or philosophical complexity.

Painting/music is completely different form of art. It is not(it must not be) intellectual or logical per se. It certainly doesn't follow causality mechanism(music can, but greatest highs in music, for me, is in counterpoint, not in continuity).
Painting/architecture(or together) are completely different. Most elaborate objects/paintings done in impeccable or in perfectly mastered technique are most valued ones.
Good measure in art, in painting, music, literature, storytelling is also individual.
It is called style. So, less is not more. Not in art. In art there are no such terms. An art.piece is an art-piece. It is finished or it is not. There is no 'more' or 'less' in art.
In learning certain technique something can be applied less or more, but that's learning the technique - not using the technique to make art.

Less is not art. More is not art. And both are far from perfection.

Oh I agree.  Just stating that you can have a great simple idea with a straightforward satisfying conclusion and once you start tinkering with it and pile on you end up with something that does not even resemble what you started.  That doesn't mean you actually added to it in a meaningful way, it means you added stuff to it.  The EC is an example of that.  The original endings were horrible.  The EC ones are worse.  They used more words to try and excuse the choices that no hero of ME would logically make.

And I was referring to the mechanics of art as in painting.  The more paint you add to one place (in oils especially) the muddier it gets and you end up with a mess.  I meant that you often create problems by adding to things for no reason, so if you start simple and build onto things simply it's better.

I can only state this again in painting terms.  If you paint wet on wet you really have to go for some simpler elements.  But the elaborate paintings you describe require a long time-even wet on dry, so you must let elements dry before adding more detail and so on.  Great elaborate works are made of many layers.

I think a story is like that.  You start with a simple idea and build it where necessary, bit by bit.  If we needed to know why the reapers did what they did and who was in control that would have or could have started in an earlier layer and built upon for some final "AHA" moment at the end.  Same with the kid.  If he existed, the ending was the wrong place to insert him.  The ending is the wrong layer for a story to start.  And that's where the kid's story started.

I think they tried to give the ending a lot of words and they tried to make it contain a lot of everything, so it became nothing.  It instead needed to gather meaning not from all the words the kid said or the choices Shepard could but would never pick, it needed to gather meaning from the much "simpler" events that should have taken place.  Simpler because it should have been more about action and prior and even current choice at that point and not the mess that it was.  It got too muddy to have any meaning and it tried too hard to reach for some explanation for what the reapers were doing and what Shepard should do.  At that point who cares why the reapers are doing anything or who's making them do it and you already know what Shepard should do.  You just aren't given the option of doing it.

I certainly don't mean that unfinished is fine-it might work for other stories but this was not one of them.  It needed definite real closure especially as the end of Shepard's story.

[Pinax]

Overtkill wrote...

If Mass Effect is art then the artist commune known as Bioware would still be working on it naked in the rain to this day.

Mass Effect is a product, there are artistic aspects to it, but art takes as long as it needs to, only a product has a deadline.

Well, just to point out that a "product" does not contradict "art" - Michelangelo and Da Vinci also had very strict deadlines. Moreover, all the artists I know want in reality to sell their art: if you want to live from it and you didn't inherit a fortune, you should find people who actually would like to pay for your creativity.

This is actually I am so surprised that Bioware took a risk to outrage a big part of their fan base and thought (???) nobody would really care about the stupidity of the endings (???).

When I heard or read some of BW employees quotes during Comic Con I came to conclusion that the game story, dialogues, characters were written by so many persons that it was really easy to make a plot mistake. It's normal though. However this is where the lead writer should come in: maintain a unique and coherent vision so that all components match together.

Currently I come to think there was no vision at all as for the ME3 story shape, there were only some ideas "I would like to see...", "I wish we could add more..." and all this had to somehow stick together.
IMO, the Crucible is one of those sticky concepts that is designed to give some direction to Shepard's actions, just like finding the Conduit was in ME1. The main difference though is that in ME1 we do not look for the Conduit for itself (it's special skills, magical technology etc.), but only because Saren searches it and given that Saren's motives are shady, we need to stop him in case the Conduit reveals itself something that can be used against the galaxy.

The concept of the Crucible is badly written (I also became a fan of the Bad Writing Theory, maybe worth creating a group?) because there is no real motivation for putting all the effort and resources into it's construction. As a scaffolding to construct all the ME3 story the Crucible has a very weak base as it is all the time moving from key component into a plot-filling feature and vice versa. Just because to defeat the Reapers (=realize our goal) are we supposed to focus on the research on the Crucible (and by "research" I mean reveal it's function or find it a function in a first place) or on gaining resources to build the Crucible? Why should we build it when we even don't know what for? Or maybe we should just focus on gaining resources to have an option if the Crucible will reveal itself useless? Generally the Crucible is badly introduced and maintained, as we actually have no idea why are we even bothering with it, but the game gives us no other choice than to bother.

Speaking of which, I had almost the same feelings when it came to Shepard's motivations in ME2 to suddenly work with Cerberus ("why I am doing this and why cannot just go away and join back the Alliance, telling TIM to **ck off?"), but I could excuse it to the game, as it had relatively little plotholes that would affect the gaming experience. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about ME3.

[TheMarshal]

I'm not even sure what the Bad Writing Theory™ is, but if it's anything like it sounds like, it's got my membership dues incoming. I called out the Crucible as a crap plot device the moment that Liara introduced it on Mars. Sure enough, it reduced the entirety of ME3 into a single progress bar, not even sub-divided by "Crucible Completion" and "War Assets". Nope. You located a volus bombing fleet for orbital bombardment? Great. You recovered an interferrometric array to install in the Crucible to help it discern the location of every Reaper in the galaxy? Excellent. Convinced C-Sec to ignore minor misdemeanors and focus on uncovering Cerberus plots? Good for you. Thanks to the magical storytelling properties of the Crucible, those are effectively interchangeable, reduced to numeric values which ultimately have no effect on anything. The theme COULD have been about uniting the galaxy against an impossible threat and ensuring that not only was everyone ready to fight, but everyone was ABLE to fight. But nah, let's have this thing where we can have the player dump every single thing they do into a blender. We'll call it "Little Crucy's Galactic Readiness Slurry" and we can just dump it on the player and call it "deep".

[robertthebard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

TheMarshal wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

TheMarshal wrote...

Surely in the long history of civilizations who were building the Crucible and adding to its design SOMEBODY had an idea of what it would do?

We don't know one way or the other.  If they did, they didn't record it.  We get that we don't know what it does in a dialog between Shep and Liara, very early on, that implies we feel like kids playing with a loaded gun.  Of course, until we talked to Vigil, we thought the Conduit was an actual weapon, instead of a "hidden" relay.

I really really hate the Crucible as a plot device.  The plans are remarkably intuitive, but we have no idea what it will do.  We have no idea what it will do, but we're willing to focus the entirety of our galactic resources to its construction.  Then we find out that it's not a Prothean device, but something which was handed down over generations of cycles as a weapon to defeat the Reapers.  Despite nobody knowing what it would do.  But the Protheans knew what the Catalyst was (or what they thought it was), but didn't think to include that little tidbit in the plans.

Seriously, would a conventional war REALLY have been such a terrible plot?

No because sometimes simple is more.  This is what I was often reminded of in learning to paint.  KISS.  Keep it simple stupid.  The more elaborate the design, the more room for error or misinterpretation.  The simpler a motivation of a character the more you can relate to it and the more "sympathetic" or understandable that character is. 

I can give you a whole heck of a lot of reasons for why the crucible is a terrible plot device.  Others can only give one as for why an attempt at a conventional fight is a terrible idea-it's impossible.  And it's only impossible because they've been told it is.  The crucible is never fully explained in any way and even the kid, who apparently knows about it, won't fully explain it. 

Less is more. 

Actually, I can, and have, given a lot of reason why a conventional ending won't work within the confines of the game itself, as presented, according to why most that want it want it:

Resources:  We don't have 'em.  The Council, and their governments, including our own, spent more time denying the threat than preparing for it.  If they had spent more time between ME 1 and 3 preparing, we'd be better prepared, but I'm still not sure we'd be ready.  Most of the scenarios laid out in the threads that discuss it seem to discount heavy losses for our side, just trying to take back one system, let alone all the other systems we'd have to take back/protect.

Use of what resources we have:  Are we going to go after them aggressively, or defend free systems.  This is kind of important, because if we're going on the offensive, we need to keep a system with manufacturing and agriculture free of Reapers too.  We're going to need new ships, and we're going to need food.  The Reapers don't have to worry about the latter, they can take as long as they need to, after all, if they're not killed, they'll live forever, as far as we know.

Time:  Again, as far as we know, the Reapers live forever, however, the Turians, Salarians, and Humans, off the top of my head, do not.  Salarians live what, 40 years?  I don't remember seeing anything about the average lifespan of a Turian, but I'd guess them to be about the same as Human.  This leaves the Asari, and the Krogan that will be able to fight long after Shepard is too old to be in active combat.  Liara estimates that it would take 100 years to wipe our cycle, we can figure on at least that, maybe longer, to defeat the Reapers.  This puts the screeching halt to why everyone seems to want a conventional victory-time with the LI/crew.  It's going to be a very long, very nasty war, and there's no guarantee that anyone on the Normandy, assuming the Normandy makes it, when the war is over was on it when it started, save maybe Liara, if she stays aboard once people get too old to fight any more.

Could we win?  Maybe, but it's going to be expensive, and we don't have unlimited resources, unlike the Reapers that don't even need fuel.  Even if nothing costs any money, it still has to be grown, harvested, mined and processed for use.  How long until we deplete any worlds that are free of Reaper control trying to supply an army made up of the entire galaxy.  Do we have enough troops for an extended ground war?  All of these things come into play, but Conventional Victory seems to view it as another Easy Button.  We could run ourselves completely ragged, out of ships and men, and still lose, it's a possibility.  So yeah, I'm against a Conventional Victory, until it can be laid out strategically, and realistically for the setting.

The quotes in game take our current state of readiness into account, which means, despite all the warnings, they caught us with our pants down, and a conventional victory isn't possible.  Considering all the factors I laid out above, I can see why they may think that way.

[Pinax]

3DandBeyond wrote...

- snip -
I think they tried to give the ending a lot of words and they tried to make it contain a lot of everything, so it became nothing.  It instead needed to gather meaning not from all the words the kid said or the choices Shepard could but would never pick, it needed to gather meaning from the much "simpler" events that should have taken place.  Simpler because it should have been more about action and prior and even current choice at that point and not the mess that it was.  It got too muddy to have any meaning and it tried too hard to reach for some explanation for what the reapers were doing and what Shepard should do.  At that point who cares why the reapers are doing anything or who's making them do it and you already know what Shepard should do.  You just aren't given the option of doing it.

I certainly don't mean that unfinished is fine-it might work for other stories but this was not one of them.  It needed definite real closure especially as the end of Shepard's story.

As usually, very true and very well said, 3DandBeyond. While reading your reply I was thinking that actuallu ME1 and ME2 had these "simple" endings - the only things they answer were actually 1) did we win?, 2) under what conditions?, 3) is Shepard alive?, 4) is my crew alive?

And actually this is what counts the most, other questions may come later!

We had lots of chances to talk with our crew and their plans and dreams, so we could imagine where could they go after our mission is over, if the writers would decide to leave an "open path" for the gamers interpretation. I surely wouldn't be satisfied to have this at the end of the trilogy, but it would be much better than long and still nonsense explanations from the Catalyst-ex-Machina side about the things I do not care, I do not need to know and would be even better for the whole story ambience if I wouldn't know it.

[drayfish]

@ Sajuro:
 
Thanks for the reference. I know that this might come across as needlessly picky (I am a fan of the band and this feeds into my larger argument), but 'Fight Test' by The Flaming Lips is actually about being willing to take a stand for what you believe in – something that Shepard does repeatedly throughout the series before that ending, where suddenly she agrees to the enemy's methodology.
 
The song is not about being prepared to compromise one's integrity and values – quite the opposite in fact. It's about refusing to stand idle while injustice is being performed. I would therefore interpret its meaning in this circumstance to be a declaration of the need to reject evil – to refuse to acquiesce to villainy, rather than to embrace its methodology. As the lyrics go: 'For to lose I could accept / But to surrender I just wept / And regretted this moment.'