5087 réponses à ce sujet

[Krunjar]

I disagree with alot of this.

1 . Destroy - A perfectly viable option for certain types of shephard. I.e those who do NOT care about synthetic life or indeed any other form of life other than humanity.

2. Control - All who attempted it before where already controlled. So it was impossible for them.

3. Synthesis - Is not talking about homoginising the galaxy. It talks about combining the two frameworks. Calling this homoginisation is like saying the humans and the turians are the same because they are both organic. I sort of imagine this as a new structure containing the processing power and scientific savvy of a synthetic and the emotional maturity of an organic.

This is just a wall of text that panders to anti - enders. Don't let eloquence fool you into thinking the message is infallable because it isn't .

Modifié par Krunjar, 02 mai 2012 - 10:21 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Krunjar wrote...

I disagree with alot of this.

1 . Destroy - A perfectly viable option for certain types of shephard. I.e those who do NOT care about synthetic life or indeed any other form of life other than humanity.

If you read the whole thread, you'll find that this has already been discussed. Indeed, Destroy is fine for many shepards. It actually completely vindicates my amoral sociopath Crow, for instance. If she were my only Shepard, I'd have no problem with the ending. See, this is a thread where people refine their points and concede when they think they may have overstepped. You'd know that if you read it.

Krunjar wrote...
2. Control - All who attempted it before where already controlled. So it was impossible for them.

The problem is that this is explained in one line by someone we have every reason to mistrust and hate. It's like if someone who is actively trying to kill you said "well, nobody else who ever jumped off the golden gate bridge was the Chosen One, so if you do it, you'll actually discover you can fly." We have absolutely no reason to believe this is possible, and every reason to disbelieve it. If you think Shepard is a credulous moron who instantly accepts anything he is told, I can see how this would work for you. However, most of us do not see Shepard as a credulous moron, so it doesn't work.

Krunjar wrote...
3. Synthesis - Is not talking about homoginising the galaxy. It talks about combining the two frameworks. Calling this homoginisation is like saying the humans and the turians are the same because they are both organic. I sort of imagine this as a new structure containing the processing power and scientific savvy of a synthetic and the emotional maturity of an organic.

This is just a wall of text that panders to anti - enders. Don't let eloquence fool you into thinking the message is infallable because it isn't .

Synthesis still decreases the scope of life. Right now we have animals, plants, fungi, various bacteria, and that thing that isn't any of the above. If suddenly we had the same number of species they were just all animals (no more plants, etc), that would represent a loss in diversity. Diversity isn't just number of species, it's the complete range of what "life" can mean.

Creating circumstances in which life existed on a gradient (some enirely organic, some synthetic, some half and half, and everything in between) would represent an awesome step forward and a gain in diversity. That is not what we have here - if you look at the synthesis ending, you'll notice that even the plants have circuits. 

It is also a fundamental change in their very natures forced upon every living thing in the galaxy by an outside force. This is a horrible thing if you believe in free will.

All of this has been covered, elaborated on, refined, and reiterated multiple times. If you read through the thread, you may find it edifying.

I kind of wish someone would make a primer of the best parts of the thread, for new readers. It's pretty intimidating, as is.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 02 mai 2012 - 10:47 .

[jbauck]

Like I said ... many essays.

[edisnooM]

Krunjar wrote...

This is just a wall of text that panders to anti - enders. Don't let eloquence fool you into thinking the message is infallable because it isn't .

I don't think any of us are allowing eloquence to persuade us into a certain viewpoint or way of thinking, and I certainly don't think anyone has demanded blind compliance to their view or declared theirs infallible. So far this thread has been for the most part a calm and reasonable discussion of the endings from both sides of the fence, and a dissection of the implications thereof.

I think that discussion such as this is vitally important for increasing understanding of a topic, and at least for me I find it helps me not only better understand my fellow discussers opinion, but get a better grasp of my own as well. 

Modifié par edisnooM, 02 mai 2012 - 11:11 .

[edisnooM]

Sorry double post.

Modifié par edisnooM, 02 mai 2012 - 11:10 .

[Luvinn]

Great read, I like this guy. Wish Bioware saw it the same way, but you know, 'artistic integrity'.........

[BunBun299]

Vorodill wrote...

Your professor has no right to say that. Mass Effect story is Bioware's property and they can do whatever they like with it. You guys don't have to like it, but it is what it is. You still want to whine about it? They are even giving you an ending DLC because your brains couldn't understand the end of the game. I'm tired of people like you. Close your web browser and move on.

And most importantly... nah, forget what I just said. I just read what I wrote and it looks like sh**. Don't stop criticizing the game! After all, they listen to your feedback!

This is probably about the billionth time this has been said, but it apparently needs to be said again. We understood the ending just fine. We just hate it with a firey passion for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that it is completely divorced from the themes of not only Mass Effect 3, but the entire series. We want Bioware to change it not only because it sucks, but because its beneath them. We know they can do better, and if they ever want to sell another game to us, then they need to live up to their own standards.

[drayfish]

Fantastic discussion of Art throughout this thread (amongst numerous other rich topics). I am loving it. 
 
I know that I am just going to be awkwardly rehashing what others have already said in far more articulate prose, but I would submit that the proof that videogames are (not can be, but are) Art is this. This thread. Comprehensive, thoughtful, multifaceted critique, deconstructing and exploring the medium, theme, expression, and form of this work. Each and every one of you prove this game to be a valid expression of Art. Whether the text ultimately communicates something we want to engage with, whether it follows its own structural, intellectual and emotional cues is another matter, and one always worth exploring further. But Art (capital 'A') it be.
 
Also, I'd like to call back on a comment made by Keyrlis  a few pages back:

Keyrlis wrote...

I have to wonder how often Dr. Dray wishes his students were as impassioned and willing to defend his ideas as the ME fans in the thread.

Any teacher/lecturer/writer/critic could only dream of finding such a wellspring of intelligent, passionate responses to a text as I have happily stumbled across here. You are all a heartening reminder of what all Art should and can inspire.
 
Plus, there's Wrex.




(EDIT: I would include the caveat though that I don't want anyone to defend my ideas. Their and your ideas are plenty enthralling enough, and frankly, more interesting.)

Modifié par drayfish, 03 mai 2012 - 12:03 .

[delta_vee]

@Hawk227:

I'm going to snip like a madman for the sake of space and my own coherency; please don't take it as either dismissal or insult.

If BW thought the other two were good (and synthesis the best) why did they feel it necessary to contrive to make the player fret over it? Why were the other two so obviously revolting to nearly everyone but Bioware? Why can those two choices be so easily connected to TIM and Saren (two indoctrinated antagonists)?

Short answer? They missed their mark, for many but not all. As Krunjar wrote:

1 . Destroy - A perfectly viable option for certain types of shephard. I.e those who do NOT care about synthetic life or indeed any other form of life other than humanity.

2. Control - All who attempted it before where already controlled. So it was impossible for them.

3. Synthesis - Is not talking about homoginising the galaxy. It talks about combining the two frameworks. Calling this homoginisation is like saying the humans and the turians are the same because they are both organic. I sort of imagine this as a new structure containing the processing power and scientific savvy of a synthetic and the emotional maturity of an organic.

That is, I believe, the intended response in a nutshell. Many of us disagree, and this thread is in large part about examining how and why the endings failed to elicit that response from so many.

Bioware was trying to make us think about what we were choosing. An easy choice is no real choice at all. Bioware had its preference in Synthesis, as evidenced by the functioning of the war assets mechanism (Synthesis is unlocked when the bar is full), and if its (cheap, lazy, trashy, empty) transhumanism is taken at face value, it is indeed the option which solves the claimed central conflict without enslavement or genocide.

That fade to white is seen 6 separate times in game. Three are the dream sequences, One is the Geth Consensus, One is Harbinger's beam and one is that magic elevator up to the catalyst. The first four are all dreams/virtual realities. So many people felt those ending scenes were surreal or dreamlike, because the game conditioned them to feel that.

You forget the whiteout when reaching the conduit, so seven. Three of which are presented literally. And both the dream sequences and the geth consensus have literal outro sequences - the key piece missing from Indoc theory.

The breath scene is an interesting thing. They've never said it was an easter egg. When people say "D*****, Gamble I can't get 4000EMS w/o multiplayer" He responds with "Did you do all the side missions and scan all the planets?" He doesn't say that wasn't the scene they were talking about. They've also been intent not to be prescriptive about which is best, maybe because they don't want to give their secret away yet (Just sayin')? I've always seen it as some sort of bug, like they attributed the wrong EMS values to something.

I think it's the same reason we're getting "clarification" - there are people who enjoy the ending as-is, and Bioware has to ensure their experiences are validated. And because of the EMS mechanism's particular workings - there's a max of under 3800 in available war assets, and the bar gets full at 2800 - if the real threshold for the real ending were that high, it would be shown as such, and if it were merely a bug, it would've been patched out by now. The only conclusion I can come to is that the mechanism is working as intended, and thus the breath scene is a multiplayer perk.

I have a problem with the counter-argument being "Bioware was lazy/ran out of time/had budget constraints" for a number of reasons. [...]

I don't think I've argued for laziness other than conceptual, running out of time except as a too-short overall timeframe, or budget constraints outside of the norm of AAA development. Others may have, but not me. What I'm arguing is the presence of structual constraints, both of narrative and of gameplay, many of which were self-imposed or a direct result of previous design decisions. I don't think the game is "unpolished" so much as "structurally unable to support their ambition".

Besides - once the metatextual arguments begin, there is no limit to the recursion available. We can go up as many levels as required to find the answers we seek.

At what point does it stop being coincidence?

At the point where Bioware releases or unlocks an ending which makes use of it, and not before. And, quite frankly, the window to do so successfully has come and gone. If they had that particular ace, it would've been played shortly after international releases were complete.

The game is always moving forward yes, but that is because it was striving towards this point. Not all decisions are equal...

...The Final Hours app says the mechanic was discarded, not the idea. We've always maintained that to Indoctrinate Shepard requires indoctrinating the player....

I typically avoid this device, but I'll succumb this time and use a personal anecdote as a metonymy.

My roommate, during his first playthrough of ME2, dawdled along during the period when your squad was using the shuttle (while the Normandy was integrating the Reaper IFF), completing a couple of non-urgent side missions. When the Collectors hit, he still hadn't done Legion's loyalty mission, as the game hadn't ever before rushed loyalty missions. I'd given him a cryptic warning earlier about acting quickly once the moment came, which he took to mean diving into the Omega-4 relay immediately (not knowing about the one-mission grace period before your crew was liquefied). This triggered the endgame and locked out Legion's mission. Legion died in the suicide run.

He...didn't react well.

He felt, quite rightly, that the game had changed its own rules on him, without sufficient information to understand the change. He felt it was too opaque about its limits and didn't communicate to him, the player, what was required. He never really forgave the game for it.

This was an example of poor design. If IT were true, imagine how betrayed those who chose blue or green given the information at hand. They would not, by and large, gracefully admit defeat. They would feel deceived, not by themselves or by their opponents, but by the game itself, And before you tell me that's the point (I know), remember that the game has never outright lied to the player before. Obfuscated at times, acted unpredictably, lacked clarity, but never told the player one thing and expected another. If you expect a player to discern the truth, you have to show you're capable of lying before the crux.

That's what I mean when I say there was no gameplay precedent, no mechanical prelude, and thus from a design perspective no chance that IT was intended in the final form of the game.

The producers also promised that the Reapers can win, and yet at face value they cannot. You can do the minimum, unite noone and bring a puny armada to earth and the cycle still ends. Unless (possibly) Shepard is turned at the pivotal moment.

I will point out here that the kill-em-all ending in ME2 is actually terrifically hard to attain, requiring that the player actively ignore any and all suggestions within the game itself of how to play it. There are many good arguments for how the perfect ending was too easily attained, but few are arguing it was as easy to "lose" as IT suggests ME3 was.

There's a reason so many people feel that IT fixes the narrative and a reason the most prevalent counter-arguments against it are speculation about laziness, budgets, and timetables. It doesn't fix the narrative, it is the narrative. Either BW royally screwed up its own narrative, giving people three awful choices, and invalidating much of the previous journey, or they screwed up the nuances of delivering an ambitious meta-gaming experience. One of those seems a much easier mistake to make.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."

"Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

Since the ending robbed me of my ability to gloss over the series' faults, I've looked closely at not just the ending, but the entirety of the game. I've come to the awful conclusion that yes, BW screwed up its own narrative in a dozen ways, from the very beginning of the game, which merely culminated in the atrocity at the end. The last ten minutes are a symptom, not the disease. They're simply the most prominent problem, and their failure exacerbates the others instead of redeeming them.

EDIT: Actually, my real fear is that the post on Penny Arcade Forums attributed to Patrick Weekes was legit, and arguably the two weak links in the writing/dev team froze out the talented support writers like Weekes himself who brought us all the moments we actually love.

See above.

[delta_vee]

Ab_Normal wrote...

That's part of my visceral negative reaction to the ending -- I'd seen it done right, on a shoestring budget, on cable TV, over a decade ago.

B5 had its many faults (and that fifth season besides), but yes, the end of season four is everything ME3 should've been. Minus the awkward JMS dialogue, that is.

EDIT TO ADD: Unless they hit the target they were aiming for, which circles back around to the literary analysis of the endings that I'm interrupting.

PS This thread is only a little intimidating.

Oh, please, you're not interrupting. Thanks for expanding on the JMS/B5 thing for me.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

BunBun299 wrote...

Vorodill wrote...

Your professor has no right to say that. Mass Effect story is Bioware's property and they can do whatever they like with it. You guys don't have to like it, but it is what it is. You still want to whine about it? They are even giving you an ending DLC because your brains couldn't understand the end of the game. I'm tired of people like you. Close your web browser and move on.

And most importantly... nah, forget what I just said. I just read what I wrote and it looks like sh**. Don't stop criticizing the game! After all, they listen to your feedback!

This is probably about the billionth time this has been said, but it apparently needs to be said again. We understood the ending just fine. We just hate it with a firey passion for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that it is completely divorced from the themes of not only Mass Effect 3, but the entire series. We want Bioware to change it not only because it sucks, but because its beneath them. We know they can do better, and if they ever want to sell another game to us, then they need to live up to their own standards.

I want to clarify this further: I will probably keep buying Bioware games. Even though this broke my heart like the loss of a pet, I still have hope, and I cherish my time being completely in love with the series. I didn't like DA2 but I liked Varric and Anders. There is still a lot of value here.

But what I'm not going to be doing anymore is spending hundreds of dollars on steam every holiday season to give the gift of Steamsale Mass Effect to everyone I know who owns a PC.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 03 mai 2012 - 12:06 .

[x-Killision-X]

 This narrative has not until this point been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity – indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make the sacrifice meaningless.
 

This is brilliant. I could not agree more.

Modifié par x-Killision-X, 03 mai 2012 - 12:10 .

[x-Killision-X]

Krunjar wrote...

3. Synthesis - Is not talking about homoginising the galaxy. It talks about combining the two frameworks. Calling this homoginisation is like saying the humans and the turians are the same because they are both organic. I sort of imagine this as a new structure containing the processing power and scientific savvy of a synthetic and the emotional maturity of an organic.

If I woke up with circuitry running through my arms, I would most likely have a mental meltdown and try to get it out. How in the world joker was ok with a cricuit board for skin is beyond me. I'm sorry but the idea behind sythesis is kinda like creating a master race. . . a failed idea.

Modifié par x-Killision-X, 03 mai 2012 - 12:29 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

The Synthesis ending brings up a medical question for me.

Since everyone would be constructed from the same DNA-type framework (called DNA here for simplicity's sake), would organ transplants across species become viable?

For instance, could a Turian recieve a lung from a Human? I realize the structures of Turian and Human lungs would likely differ, but would the Turian's body be more able to accept a human organ after being built of this new DNA?

[edisnooM]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

BunBun299 wrote...

Vorodill wrote...

Your professor has no right to say that. Mass Effect story is Bioware's property and they can do whatever they like with it. You guys don't have to like it, but it is what it is. You still want to whine about it? They are even giving you an ending DLC because your brains couldn't understand the end of the game. I'm tired of people like you. Close your web browser and move on.

And most importantly... nah, forget what I just said. I just read what I wrote and it looks like sh**. Don't stop criticizing the game! After all, they listen to your feedback!

This is probably about the billionth time this has been said, but it apparently needs to be said again. We understood the ending just fine. We just hate it with a firey passion for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that it is completely divorced from the themes of not only Mass Effect 3, but the entire series. We want Bioware to change it not only because it sucks, but because its beneath them. We know they can do better, and if they ever want to sell another game to us, then they need to live up to their own standards.

I want to clarify this further: I will probably keep buying Bioware games. Even though this broke my heart like the loss of a pet, I still have hope, and I cherish my time being completely in love with the series. I didn't like DA2 but I liked Varric and Anders. There is still a lot of value here.

But what I'm not going to be doing anymore is spending hundreds of dollars on steam every holiday season to give the gift of Steamsale Mass Effect to everyone I know who owns a PC.

I agree to an extent, and I'm not going to say I'm never going to buy a Bioware game again (I certainly still hope to play Dragon Age at some point) but as it stands I can't see myself pre-ordering again.

Bioware once had my unequivocal trust when it came to making games, and only financial or time constraints prevented me from playing them. But now I think I'll need proof from trusted sources that their games are worth my money and time.

[delta_vee]

From a couple pages back:

Grotaiche wrote...
Also, I loved BioShock's "would you kindly" moment Of course, it's not without flaws, but I believe it's a step in the right direction. Most successes arise from countless failures ; BioShock's "twist", while imperfect, had the merit of being there and shook off the gaming world a bit. Which is always a good thing.

It was certainly an evocative moment at the time. The effect had worn off, though (at least for me) by the time you reach the final boss. In fact, the very fact there was a boss was problematic at best.

It's a pity seemingly no one else has deigned to take it further.

[fle6isnow]

Gonna keep this brief because my CTS has been acting up, but I think many of you here do not like the Crucible as an idea? I loved it, though. I certainly didn't see it as a Reaper trap or anything like that. To me, it was a symbol of not just this cycle's will to defeat the Reapers, but the willpower and defiance of every single being that ever worked on its construction throughout the countless cycles. That the choices were presented by the Catalyst was of no consequence to me--it was an unreliable narrator who was desperately trying to adapt the choices to its theory that synthetics and organics would not work together. As such, even if the consequences of each choice were distasteful, I saw it as a greater betrayal to not use the Crucible. If my Shepard refused to choose because she stood by her principles, she would be wasting not just the efforts of Hackett et al, but the efforts of all the organics that ever fell to the Reapers and all the organics that would fall to them in the future.

Just sharing that thought, and now back to icing my wrist. =/

[jbauck]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

The Synthesis ending brings up a medical question for me.

Since everyone would be constructed from the same DNA-type framework (called DNA here for simplicity's sake), would organ transplants across species become viable?

For instance, could a Turian recieve a lung from a Human? I realize the structures of Turian and Human lungs would likely differ, but would the Turian's body be more able to accept a human organ after being built of this new DNA?

Good question.  Having no background in biology whatsoever, I can only guess that the organic bits of turians and humans (because they'd still have organic bits) being from Team Dextro and Team Levo, respectively, would still make them incompatible ... ?  That's my understanding of the ME lore, anyway, despite the fact I have no understanding of the actual real-world biology involved.

If that's the case, then I nominate Dextro/Levo tension as the new source of war, death and doom in the Galaxy post-synthesization.  The idea that that making everyone and everything an organic/synthetic hybrid is going to lead to peace is ... not right, as it entirely discounts the likelihood that sentient beings will just come up with a new reason to kill each other.  Removing one difference - the synthetic/organic split - is unlikely to lead to a lasting peace.  Only an evolution in thought that allows everyone to accept that which is different could lead to a lasting peace - or a perfect elimination of >all< differences, not just one.


 

[delta_vee]

fle6isnow wrote...

Gonna keep this brief because my CTS has been acting up, but I think many of you here do not like the Crucible as an idea? I loved it, though. I certainly didn't see it as a Reaper trap or anything like that. To me, it was a symbol of not just this cycle's will to defeat the Reapers, but the willpower and defiance of every single being that ever worked on its construction throughout the countless cycles.

I, for one, didn't mind the Crucible in and of itself (merely its lack of foreshadowing and awfully convenient introduction, in the larger context of the series) - and the reason you cite is the heart of my acceptance.

There's an awfully good piece on ME3 and the inducement of a sense of wonder and scale in SF here:

http://forums.penny-...od-by-jacobkosh

Relevant excerpt:

Learning that the Crucible wasn't a Prothean device but an ongoing project worked on by thousands of races over millions of years was fantastic. That was an example of the sense-of-scale approach actually working, because suddenly you're entrusted with not just a rinkydink Prothean laser but the collected heritage of all life in the galaxy ever.

[edit: damn formatting]

Modifié par delta_vee, 03 mai 2012 - 01:20 .

[nicethugbert]

edisnooM wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

But, ME3 did convey meaning. ME3 said that you can have your morality, your paragon or renegade choices or what have you, but evolution is deus ex machina and does not care about your morality. Evolution is the master, and because of it you exist in it's world. Alive or dead, you will be another brick in the foundation of the future regardless of your morality.

I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.

If you mean our final choice than the only one that I can think of to have any effect on "Evolution" would be Destroy since it removes the Reapers who have been perverting the development of civilizations for countless cycles.

In Synthesis it is forcing a drastic change upon the Galaxy, which I wouldn't really consider "Evolving". And in Control the Reapers (and now Shepard) still continue to affect the course of the Galaxy (possibly in Synthesis as well).

Do humans stop evolution when they harvest plants and animals?  Do they pervert it?  The reapers did not stop Evolution in total.  They harvested it, catalogued it.  If anyhing, the reapers may have saved evolution if it is true that synthetics would have eradicated organic life and synthetics do not evolve. 

Show me objective proof that Evolution can be perverted.  It seems perverted to you.  But, that does not mean that Evolution can be perverted.

Why is drastic change not Evolution?  It is the diirection both synthetics and organics are heading if synthetics do not eradicate organics? 

[Hawk227]

@Delta_Vee

I'm getting a little self-conscious about side-tracking this wonderful thread into a discussion of IT, so I'm going to try to keep this short-ish.

I don't think I've argued for laziness other than conceptual, running out of time except as a too-short overall timeframe, or budget constraints outside of the norm of AAA development. Others may have, but not me.

Sorry. I was speaking in more general terms, rather than you specifically, but neglected using a needed clarifier.

You forget the whiteout when reaching the conduit, so seven. Three of which are presented literally. And both the dream sequences and the geth consensus have literal outro sequences - the key piece missing from
Indoc theory.

Are the final three presented literally, or just more subtly? I guess that's the question. I'll point out that the initial 4 establish the pattern of entering/exiting non-real environments. Those scenes set the precedent to create doubt regarding the reality of the ending sequences. Hence why they were described by many as dream-like.

Delta vee....

Hawk227....
If BW thought the other two were good (and synthesis the best) why did they feel it necessary to contrive to make
the player fret over it? Why were the other two so obviously revolting to nearly everyone but Bioware? Why can those two choices be so easily connected to TIM and Saren (two indoctrinated antagonists)?

Short answer? They missed their mark, for many but not all. [snip]

That's it? I know hindsight is 20/20, but I don't think these mistakes were subtle. People saw those choices and thought of Saren on Virmire, Vendetta on Thessia, Legion and the Heretics, and TIM not 5 minutes earlier. The series provided its own counterargument to both control and synthesis. They were large enough to lead to this backlash. And yet Bioware seems to have anticipated people's response to control and synthesis, by including collateral damage in destroy to complicate the decision. If there was already equal footing amongst the three choices, this would not have been necessary.

Delta Vee..

I will point out here that the kill-em-all ending in ME2 is actually terrifically hard to attain, requiring that the player actively ignore any and all suggestions within the game itself of how to play it. There are many good arguments for how the perfect ending was too easily attained, but few are arguing it was as easy to "lose" as IT suggests ME3 was.

My issue is that without IT it is impossible to lose, and yet we were promised it would be possible. And why shouldn't it be easy to lose ME3? As well as everything has gone through 2 games, we still needed a Deus Ex Machina super weapon to even stand a chance. The Reapers have been successfully reaping for a billion years, but we can bring the Alliance, a half built crucible, and the Quarians and get the job done? I thought ME was about striving to do the impossible, not coasting through and succeeding almost by accident.

As for your anecdote regarding your roommate, I had a similar experience when the Cerberus captured the citadel, locking me out of a bunch of fetch quests and the ability to talk to meet with Miranda. But then I remembered the qualifiers on all those emails, "make sure to come meet me soon". Perhaps they learned from their mistake in ME2.

As for how fans would react to IT, I don't know. The IT threads are filled with people saying "I picked synthesis... Haha, I guess I got indoctrinated". I myself am one of those people (control). So the backlash may not be so big. I think the difference is in the payoff, in the experience. ME2 changed the pacing without warning, with the payoff of saving Chakwas and some minor crew members. If IT is true, the payoff is the experience of being indoctrinated. In insight into that insidous device that felled Saren, TIM, and the prothean empire. It adds depth to the story, making Saren and TIM sympathetic rather than black and white Evil.

Delta_Vee....

Since the ending robbed me of my ability to gloss over the series' faults, I've looked closely at not just the ending, but the entirety of the game. I've come to the awful conclusion that yes, BW screwed up its own narrative in a dozen ways, from the very beginning of the game, which merely culminated in the atrocity at the end. The last ten minutes
are a symptom, not the disease. They're simply the most prominent problem, and their failure exacerbates the others instead of redeeming them.

I'm curious which "dozen ways" you speak of (seriously, although I'm also a little scared). I've never thought that Bioware was pure brilliance, at least not big picture. The strengths were always in the details (Tuchanka, Rannoch, virmire). I didn't like the intro for the obvious reasons. Why was Shepard twiddling his thumbs for 6 months rather than cajoling the Galaxy to prepare? Why clumsily force that kid into the opening scenes. Vancouver is getting melted down, Shepard is going to lose his S**t over one 7 year old? We're really only finding a super weapon now? When did the writing get so bad ("get well soon Kaidan... that's an order")? Why am I being forced to be so torn up over Kaidan's injury, the guy was a punk? There's also plenty of little inconsistencies here and there throughout the series, but I expect that for a universe that requires that big of a codex. Only one or two of those really "screws" the narrative, and all of them pale in comparison to the end.

PS: Sorry, this got a lot longer than intended.

Modifié par Hawk227, 03 mai 2012 - 01:43 .

[nicethugbert]

Devil Mingy wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

But, ME3 did convey meaning. ME3 said that you can have your morality, your paragon or renegade choices or what have you, but evolution is deus ex machina and does not care about your morality. Evolution is the master, and because of it you exist in it's world. Alive or dead, you will be another brick in the foundation of the future regardless of your morality.

Which seems to betray the feelings that Hudson said ME3's endings were going for, "victory and hope in the context of sacrifice and reflection".

I really don't think he intended the choices to appear sadistic and deceptive. I really don't think the message that they were aiming for was "nothing you do really matters". I really don't think Mass Effect 3 was supposed to be a nihilistic tragedy.

I think either something was lost in translation in the creation of the endings or that the writers were so enamored with the idea that they didn't see the forest for the trees. 

I don't see how there was no victory, hope, sacrifice, and reflection in the endings.

In all three endings, there was sacrifice or either Shepard or the Synthetics.  And, it's a war.  War entails sacrifice, Anderson for instance.

There was a reflective sequence when Shepard chooses an ending.  My Shepard saw Anderson and Liara.

One way or another, The Cycle is interupted which is victory.  And hopefully, forever.

It may not be the ending you wanted but it satisfies the criteria you mention.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 03 mai 2012 - 02:16 .

[edisnooM]

nicethugbert wrote...

edisnooM wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

But, ME3 did convey meaning. ME3 said that you can have your morality, your paragon or renegade choices or what have you, but evolution is deus ex machina and does not care about your morality. Evolution is the master, and because of it you exist in it's world. Alive or dead, you will be another brick in the foundation of the future regardless of your morality.

I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.

If you mean our final choice than the only one that I can think of to have any effect on "Evolution" would be Destroy since it removes the Reapers who have been perverting the development of civilizations for countless cycles.

In Synthesis it is forcing a drastic change upon the Galaxy, which I wouldn't really consider "Evolving". And in Control the Reapers (and now Shepard) still continue to affect the course of the Galaxy (possibly in Synthesis as well).

Do humans stop evolution when they harvest plants and animals?  Do they pervert it?  The reapers did not stop Evolution in total.  They harvested it, catalogued it.  If anyhing, the reapers may have saved evolution if it is true that synthetics would have eradicated organic life and synthetics do not evolve. 

Show me objective proof that Evolution can be perverted.  It seems perverted to you.  But, that does not mean that Evolution can be perverted.

Why is drastic change not Evolution?  It is the diirection both synthetics and organics are heading if synthetics do not eradicate organics? 

But through the use of the Mass Relays the Reapers altered the course of civilizations development from the course it would have followed naturally, this would seem a perversion of natural flow. And by harvesting civilizations I would say they stop the development. If left unchecked could not species reach whatever level the civilization that created the Reapers achieved?

Padok Wiks actually speaks about the exact topic of drastic change on Surkesh, and how interferenc in the natural development of a species is a mistake. While Synthesis is perhaps the course that life is headed to in the ME universe, having it suddenly happen could have incredibly bad side effects. Perhaps the journey to the destination would have made them prepared for when they got there.

On the topic of the Synthetics vs Organics though we again have only the Catalyst telling us that this will happen without any chance to argue back, and the evidence I saw in my playthrough proved him wrong. Interestingly enough EDI and Javik had a discussion on the topic of Synthetics evolving, and the Geth themselves do not seem stagnant in their development. 


Edit: If I understand your original point correctly however what you are saying is that all the choices we made did not matter, and it was always going to come down to the ending we got because "Evolution"? Because I really don't see that presented anywhere throughout the series. In fact the series seemed to emphasis overcoming the impossible, defying the odds, and as Legion said "Building our own future".

Modifié par edisnooM, 03 mai 2012 - 02:17 .

[delta_vee]

@Hawk227

I'm getting a little self-conscious about side-tracking this wonderful thread into a discussion of IT, so I'm going to try to keep this short-ish.

Eh, I'm not worried. There are core gameplay concepts at play here, which have applicability outside of IT. If anyone else is feeling threadjacked, though, let us know.

Are the final three presented literally, or just more subtly? I guess that's the question. I'll point out that the initial 4 establish the pattern of entering/exiting non-real environments. Those scenes set the precedent to create doubt regarding the reality of the ending sequences. Hence why they were described by many as dream-like.

I'd argue that the dream-like section between Harbinger and Conduit is specifically meant to evoke the cinematic, slow-motion, hero-arises-after-near-defeat sequences drilled into our brains by dozens of movies. Once the Citadel is reached, Shepard's still limping but the slow-mo is gone. Thinking it's anything but a stylistic choice seems like making the data fit the hypothesis.

That's it? I know hindsight is 20/20, but I don't think these mistakes were subtle. People saw those choices and thought of Saren on Virmire, Vendetta on Thessia, Legion and the Heretics, and TIM not 5 minutes earlier. The series provided its own counterargument to both control and synthesis. They were large enough to lead to this backlash. And yet Bioware seems to have anticipated people's response to control and synthesis, by including collateral damage in destroy to complicate the decision. If there was already equal footing amongst the three choices, this would not have been necessary.

I don't think the mistakes were subtle, either. But from BW's POV, destroy had to carry extra baggage, if only to get people to stop and weigh their options. There are some who buy into synthesis, filling BW's information void with speculations of their own, and are fine with it. Others choose control because for them, sacrificing a principle is better than sacrificing a friend. (Also, it should be noted that control is the only option wherein the Citadel survives.) These are the arguments the player is meant to have within themselves, while limping towards the RGB machine.

Always remember: de gustibus non disputandum est. 

My issue is that without IT it is impossible to lose, and yet we were promised it would be possible. And why shouldn't it be easy to lose ME3? As well as everything has gone through 2 games, we still needed a Deus Ex Machina super weapon to even stand a chance. The Reapers have been successfully reaping for a billion years, but we can bring the Alliance, a half built crucible, and the Quarians and get the job done? I thought ME was about striving to do the impossible, not coasting through and succeeding almost by accident.

It depends on your definition of "lose". Under 1750 EMS, you have a single option (destroy, with the complications to IT that entails) which cauterizes the whole planet (and possibly, by implication, the galaxy). The Reapers go with it, but that feels even more like losing than the high-EMS endings.

As for your anecdote regarding your roommate, I had a similar experience when the Cerberus captured the citadel, locking me out of a bunch of fetch quests and the ability to talk to meet with Miranda. But then I remembered the qualifiers on all those emails, "make sure to come meet me soon". Perhaps they learned from their mistake in ME2.

That was entirely them learning from their mistake. The signposting of timed missions was much, much better.

As for how fans would react to IT, I don't know. The IT threads are filled with people saying "I picked synthesis... Haha, I guess I got indoctrinated". I myself am one of those people (control). So the backlash may not be so big. I think the difference is in the payoff, in the experience. ME2 changed the pacing without warning, with the payoff of saving Chakwas and some minor crew members. If IT is true, the payoff is the experience of being indoctrinated. In insight into that insidous device that felled Saren, TIM, and the prothean empire. It adds depth to the story, making Saren and TIM sympathetic rather than black and white Evil.

I think the backlash would've been far, far worse had IT's conclusion been implemented within the framework of the current game. It's easier for fans to speculate on their own reactions as it stands, without feeling like they're actually, currently missing out on the Right Answer.

I'm curious which "dozen ways" you speak of (seriously, although I'm also a little scared). I've never thought that Bioware was pure brilliance, at least not big picture. The strengths were always in the details (Tuchanka, Rannoch, virmire). Only one or two of those really "screws" the narrative, and all of them pale in comparison to the end.

I'm not sure this thread is the best place for a thorough evisceration. Gets messy. People might slip.

If you want a sample, though, here's one (which isn't big, but may get people upset with me): the popularly-chosen version of Mordin's death is narratively indefensible and manipulative as all get out. Thematically effective, and they sure as hell made the scene evocative, but the only reason he dies in that permutation is to pluck at your heartstrings. The spire blowing up (slowly, WTF?) was a contrivance to give Mordin an excuse to sacrifice himself.

Consider the context: you need all the support you can. The greater good demands it. Curing the genophage can wait; there are no scores to settle if the Reapers win. The Salarians can be haggled with afterwards, but you need their fleets now. You need every fleet now.

Remember that Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead quote? "Events must play themselves out to aesthetic, moral and logical conclusion."

The only permutation of that scene which fits those criteria is for you to shoot Mordin in the back. All others are a cop-out.

Modifié par delta_vee, 03 mai 2012 - 02:32 .

[edisnooM]

@Hawk227

Not to interrupt your discussion but I think someone from Bioware stated that the "Crucible was Destroyed" critical mission failure was the "Reapers Win" ending. Which seems odd because it wasn't really an ending.