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

#2051
KitaSaturnyne

KitaSaturnyne
  • Members
  • 396 messages

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

EDIT 2:  I came to this thought a while after the game came out, when I noticed that many of those who despised the endings played pure Paragon, or close to it, and I have to wonder if the ending is only so jarring to those of us who played Shepard as a true hero, and not an anti-hero or villain protagonist.  It would be interesting to run a comparison of "what was Shepard's alignment", "how completionist are you", and "how did you react to the ending".  We might get some surprising results.

I agree. I have two characters, a paragon male and renegade female. I'm waiting for the EC to come out before playing through the game with my renegade character. It's hard to know what to anticiplate from a renegade perspective, but to me, the choices along that line were never quite so nihilistic.

Heh. Nihilus.

#2052
CARL_DF90

CARL_DF90
  • Members
  • 2 473 messages
I'm still taken aback at how awesomely this is written. :)

#2053
Fapmaster5000

Fapmaster5000
  • Members
  • 404 messages

CARL_DF90 wrote...

I'm still taken aback at how awesomely this is written. :)

Posted Image

This thread.

#2054
delta_vee

delta_vee
  • Members
  • 393 messages

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

Imagine further, this Shepard, who never activates Legion, who never trusts EDI, who chooses the Quarians over the geth, or the geth for their raw power (but never trusts them), as he staggers towards the Catalyst, the fear and weight of an era crushing down on him, trying to drive the machines back, back into the void. The Catalyst speaks to this Shepard, and says, "This problem is not unique. You are not the victim. This is an inherent function of the cycle, and your solutions will not succeed."

For this Shepard, Synthesis might be revelation, a sudden flare of light in the black, a desperate, terrible gamble to escape a world of constant antagonism and fear between two alien existences. For this Shepard, the price of the physical Synthesis might be worth the gains, if this is indeed the last open window from a doomed hall.

Well said. Snipped for size and not for awesome quotient.

However, since I'm predisposed to playing spoiler, wouldn't such a Shepard be more inclined to pick Destroy, with her fears of synthetics merely confirmed by the Catalyst, and thereby forewarned and forearmed against future uprisings? Would such a Shepard not be ecstatic for a means to end the threat from beyond, with the only casualties being those she could not trust to begin with?

I came to this thought a while after the game came out, when I noticed that many of those who despised the endings played pure Paragon, or close to it, and I have to wonder if the ending is only so jarring to those of us who played Shepard as a true hero, and not an anti-hero or villain protagonist.  It would be interesting to run a comparison of "what was Shepard's alignment", "how completionist are you", and "how did you react to the ending".  We might get some surprising results.

Then I might surprise you. My Shepards fall within a narrow range between paragade and renegon. Full paragon is a path of cringe-worthy, stilted hero-speak and facepalm-inducing naivete. Full renegade is realist realpolitik punctuated by counterproductive psychopathy. I can't stand either extreme long enough to have my Shepard(s) espouse such nonsense.

My geth were dead at the quarians' hands, a victim of only my lack of sufficient reputation at Tali's trial*. Still, when told the cost of Destroy, I flinched. Then I cursed the devs for trying so very hard to make the decision difficult for no reason good enough for me. Then, I limped towards the middle beam, hoping their space magic would prove useful in some capacity**. Despite my failure on Rannoch, I couldn't accept the necessity of synthetic genocide put forth by Starbrat (and, by extention, the devs themselves).

Then I saw the green-tinted version of the ending cutscene, and existential rage ensued.

* I didn't have quite high enough a reputation score during Tali's trial to exonerate her without revealing her father's negligence. It pissed me off to no end that I had no recourse to my larger understanding, that I couldn't appeal to Xen's technolust or Garrell's warmongering, but relied upon the red/blue I-win buttons. That this lack was perpetuated and expounded on Rannoch was unforgivable.

** I fully recognize the intensely problematic nature of the Synthesis option. It was ten in the morning, I'd been awake for more than twenty-four hours, and I wanted the farce over and done with. I was hoping they'd have something more coherent, somehow, magically, than they did.

#2055
Hawk227

Hawk227
  • Members
  • 474 messages

delta_vee wrote...

* I didn't have quite high enough a reputation score during Tali's trial to exonerate her without revealing her father's negligence. It pissed me off to no end that I had no recourse to my larger understanding, that I couldn't appeal to Xen's technolust or Garrell's warmongering, but relied upon the red/blue I-win buttons. That this lack was perpetuated and expounded on Rannoch was unforgivable.


There is another way to exonerate Tali without a high Paragon/Renegade score. If you saved and talk to both Kal'Reegar and Vitor before heading off to the Alarei. Then you are given the opportunity to "incite the crowd" which results in Reegar and Vitor defending Tali's character, and the admirals exonerating her.

The major caveat being that both Reegar and Vitor are hidden off in the direction opposite the shuttle, so it can be hard to spot them.

#2056
delta_vee

delta_vee
  • Members
  • 393 messages

Hawk227 wrote...

There is another way to exonerate Tali without a high Paragon/Renegade score. If you saved and talk to both Kal'Reegar and Vitor before heading off to the Alarei. Then you are given the opportunity to "incite the crowd" which results in Reegar and Vitor defending Tali's character, and the admirals exonerating her.

The major caveat being that both Reegar and Vitor are hidden off in the direction opposite the shuttle, so it can be hard to spot them.

Yeeeaahhh...nope. Vitor I (stupidly) handed off to Cerberus (hey, it was early in the game, I was hoping I'd get another Prothean-vision-breakdown). Kal-Reegar...I didn't realize I could save him at the time. A mistake I corrected in my following playthrough, of course, but it stood as-is on my first run, like many mistakes.

#2057
Fapmaster5000

Fapmaster5000
  • Members
  • 404 messages

delta_vee wrote...

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

Imagine further, this Shepard, who never activates Legion, who never trusts EDI, who chooses the Quarians over the geth, or the geth for their raw power (but never trusts them), as he staggers towards the Catalyst, the fear and weight of an era crushing down on him, trying to drive the machines back, back into the void. The Catalyst speaks to this Shepard, and says, "This problem is not unique. You are not the victim. This is an inherent function of the cycle, and your solutions will not succeed."

For this Shepard, Synthesis might be revelation, a sudden flare of light in the black, a desperate, terrible gamble to escape a world of constant antagonism and fear between two alien existences. For this Shepard, the price of the physical Synthesis might be worth the gains, if this is indeed the last open window from a doomed hall.

Well said. Snipped for size and not for awesome quotient.

However, since I'm predisposed to playing spoiler, wouldn't such a Shepard be more inclined to pick Destroy, with her fears of synthetics merely confirmed by the Catalyst, and thereby forewarned and forearmed against future uprisings? Would such a Shepard not be ecstatic for a means to end the threat from beyond, with the only casualties being those she could not trust to begin with?


Trimmed for forum's quote pyramid mercy, not content.

Perhaps.  The angle I would think would be a Shepard who strove for idealism, but was pressed down upon by a dark reality, an anti-hero soldier striving to be a true paragon, his eyes suddenly blasted open in the final moments to realize that this war was not something to be won with bullets and dogged determination (which had carried him this far), but an existential problem that had to be solved with a radical perspective shift and cataclysmic event, something so far outside of his reach that he could only, in his final moments, reach for the hope that had been crushed out of him.

The problem for me is not this story, but that Mass Effect never struck me as a place for this type of narrative, nor the kind of game that locked you into such an introspective neo-noir viewpoint.  It's not a bad ending, it's just either the wrong ending, or an ending far too narrowly written.  (Maybe the writers played Shepard like this, and thus saw this as his "escape/salvation" from the grinding universe, intended as a spot of hope, instead of the horror it inspired.)

delta_vee wrote... 

Fapmaster 5000 wrote...

I came to this thought a while after the game came out, when I noticed that many of those who despised the endings played pure Paragon, or close to it, and I have to wonder if the ending is only so jarring to those of us who played Shepard as a true hero, and not an anti-hero or villain protagonist.  It would be interesting to run a comparison of "what was Shepard's alignment", "how completionist are you", and "how did you react to the ending".  We might get some surprising results.


Then I might surprise you. My Shepards fall within a narrow range between paragade and renegon. Full paragon is a path of cringe-worthy, stilted hero-speak and facepalm-inducing naivete. Full renegade is realist realpolitik punctuated by counterproductive psychopathy. I can't stand either extreme long enough to have my Shepard(s) espouse such nonsense.


Perhaps I was too blunt about "pure paragon".  By that I meant, "Paragon enough to always possess the blue escape button while being a full completionist" or its Renegade counterpart.

However, you don't match that description, either.  The question remains, though.  Are you the outlier, or is there another root cause to the harsh reactions?

#2058
Hawk227

Hawk227
  • Members
  • 474 messages

delta_vee wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

There is another way to exonerate Tali without a high Paragon/Renegade score. If you saved and talk to both Kal'Reegar and Vitor before heading off to the Alarei. Then you are given the opportunity to "incite the crowd" which results in Reegar and Vitor defending Tali's character, and the admirals exonerating her.

The major caveat being that both Reegar and Vitor are hidden off in the direction opposite the shuttle, so it can be hard to spot them.

Yeeeaahhh...nope. Vitor I (stupidly) handed off to Cerberus (hey, it was early in the game, I was hoping I'd get another Prothean-vision-breakdown). Kal-Reegar...I didn't realize I could save him at the time. A mistake I corrected in my following playthrough, of course, but it stood as-is on my first run, like many mistakes.


I actually saved both of them on my first playthrough, but didn't realize they were there. I left for the Alarei wondering why I hadn't gotten to talk to Admiral Xen. Oops. I also hadn't played ME1 prior to my first ME2 playthrough, so I wasn't yet aware of how important those blue and red meters were late in the game. Since it was made with the default ME1 decisions (Romanced Ash, Killed Kaidan, Wrex, Council) that playthrough was ultimately discarded before ME3.

#2059
Fapmaster5000

Fapmaster5000
  • Members
  • 404 messages

Hawk227 wrote...

delta_vee wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

There is another way to exonerate Tali without a high Paragon/Renegade score. If you saved and talk to both Kal'Reegar and Vitor before heading off to the Alarei. Then you are given the opportunity to "incite the crowd" which results in Reegar and Vitor defending Tali's character, and the admirals exonerating her.

The major caveat being that both Reegar and Vitor are hidden off in the direction opposite the shuttle, so it can be hard to spot them.

Yeeeaahhh...nope. Vitor I (stupidly) handed off to Cerberus (hey, it was early in the game, I was hoping I'd get another Prothean-vision-breakdown). Kal-Reegar...I didn't realize I could save him at the time. A mistake I corrected in my following playthrough, of course, but it stood as-is on my first run, like many mistakes.


I actually saved both of them on my first playthrough, but didn't realize they were there. I left for the Alarei wondering why I hadn't gotten to talk to Admiral Xen. Oops. I also hadn't played ME1 prior to my first ME2 playthrough, so I wasn't yet aware of how important those blue and red meters were late in the game. Since it was made with the default ME1 decisions (Romanced Ash, Killed Kaidan, Wrex, Council) that playthrough was ultimately discarded before ME3.


Yeah, my first playthrough (from which NOTHING has been imported, ever), was default, without maxing a bar.  Everything since then has been full-complete, max-rep, with optimal choices.  Until the ending...

#2060
edisnooM

edisnooM
  • Members
  • 748 messages
One thing I was thinking about the endings is that while my Shepard was Paragon, I think it was the fact that the whole Catalyst thing seemed to come completely out of left field that perhaps through me off the ending more so than my moral alignment in game.

In the final moments of the game we were introduced to a completely new character who overwrites our enemies motives for the previous 2.9 games. Not only that but we are given no means with which to counter or at least question it's claims.

While I did find the choices repugnant to my Shepard's character, I don't think that was my sole reason for disliking the endings.

#2061
Hawk227

Hawk227
  • Members
  • 474 messages

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

EDIT 2:  I came to this thought a while after the game came out, when I noticed that many of those who despised the endings played pure Paragon, or close to it, and I have to wonder if the ending is only so jarring to those of us who played Shepard as a true hero, and not an anti-hero or villain protagonist.  It would be interesting to run a comparison of "what was Shepard's alignment", "how completionist are you", and "how did you react to the ending".  We might get some surprising results.


I have my own suspicions about what pre-requisites there are to liking the endings. I suspect that at the very least you have to:

1) Trust the Catalyst at his word.

2) Be renegade in your perception and treatment of synthetic life (if nothing else).

I think other factors (like your interpretation of the main themes) help, but I suspect one of these two are mandatory. The problem is there is no reason to trust the catalyst beyond superstitious awe, and the game goes to great lengths to portray synthetic life as sympathetic and "human".

#2062
edisnooM

edisnooM
  • Members
  • 748 messages

Hawk227 wrote...

delta_vee wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

There is another way to exonerate Tali without a high Paragon/Renegade score. If you saved and talk to both Kal'Reegar and Vitor before heading off to the Alarei. Then you are given the opportunity to "incite the crowd" which results in Reegar and Vitor defending Tali's character, and the admirals exonerating her.

The major caveat being that both Reegar and Vitor are hidden off in the direction opposite the shuttle, so it can be hard to spot them.

Yeeeaahhh...nope. Vitor I (stupidly) handed off to Cerberus (hey, it was early in the game, I was hoping I'd get another Prothean-vision-breakdown). Kal-Reegar...I didn't realize I could save him at the time. A mistake I corrected in my following playthrough, of course, but it stood as-is on my first run, like many mistakes.


I actually saved both of them on my first playthrough, but didn't realize they were there. I left for the Alarei wondering why I hadn't gotten to talk to Admiral Xen. Oops. I also hadn't played ME1 prior to my first ME2 playthrough, so I wasn't yet aware of how important those blue and red meters were late in the game. Since it was made with the default ME1 decisions (Romanced Ash, Killed Kaidan, Wrex, Council) that playthrough was ultimately discarded before ME3.


Wait the default choices for a new game has a romance? Wow nothing like forcing new players into sticking with the LI or being a two timer.

Edit: Of course there were no "Dire Consequences" as was suggested in ME2, so it probably doesn't matter too much, mainly for narrative appeal I guess.

Modifié par edisnooM, 14 mai 2012 - 06:11 .


#2063
Hawk227

Hawk227
  • Members
  • 474 messages

edisnooM wrote...

Wait the default choices for a new game has a romance? Wow nothing like forcing new players into sticking with the LI or being a two timer.


I don't know if it was official, but when I romanced Liara for my "official" playthrough she took on some of the roles Ashley had in my first playthrough. I only saw Ash on the burning Normandy and Horizon, but she's so obnoxious and useless I'm not sure why you'd save her otherwise.

in the final moments of the game we were introduced to a completely new
character who overwrites our enemies motives for the previous 2.9 games.
Not only that but we are given no means with which to counter or at
least question it's claims.


The new character thing didn't offend me in and of itself, it was what they did with the new character. They dramatically changed the theme and conflict of the game (as my mostly paragon Shepard had experienced it) at the last second. It had the effect of invalidating all of it. Nothing was as I had been led to believe for 2.99 games.

Modifié par Hawk227, 14 mai 2012 - 06:15 .


#2064
Fapmaster5000

Fapmaster5000
  • Members
  • 404 messages

Hawk227 wrote...

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

EDIT 2:  I came to this thought a while after the game came out, when I noticed that many of those who despised the endings played pure Paragon, or close to it, and I have to wonder if the ending is only so jarring to those of us who played Shepard as a true hero, and not an anti-hero or villain protagonist.  It would be interesting to run a comparison of "what was Shepard's alignment", "how completionist are you", and "how did you react to the ending".  We might get some surprising results.


I have my own suspicions about what pre-requisites there are to liking the endings. I suspect that at the very least you have to:

1) Trust the Catalyst at his word.

2) Be renegade in your perception and treatment of synthetic life (if nothing else).

I think other factors (like your interpretation of the main themes) help, but I suspect one of these two are mandatory. The problem is there is no reason to trust the catalyst beyond superstitious awe, and the game goes to great lengths to portray synthetic life as sympathetic and "human".


Your hypothesis would work on me, at least as a test.  I immediately found Captain "The Reapers Are My Solution" Catalyst immensly suspect, and tend to think relatively paragon in game, and am pretty positive about science and technology in general.

#2065
delta_vee

delta_vee
  • Members
  • 393 messages
 

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

The problem for me is not this story, but that Mass Effect never struck me as a place for this type of narrative, nor the kind of game that locked you into such an introspective neo-noir viewpoint.  It's not a bad ending, it's just either the wrong ending, or an ending far too narrowly written.  (Maybe the writers played Shepard like this, and thus saw this as his "escape/salvation" from the grinding universe, intended as a spot of hope, instead of the horror it inspired.)

It's a bad ending for this particular game, comprising this particular possibility space. I sincerely believe the ending we received was not crafted out of malice or deception - I think it was an attempt to grasp at the transcendent which failed, utterly and miserably, at the hands of the better writers who had led us to that precipice.

However, you don't match that description, either.  The question remains, though.  Are you the outlier, or is there another root cause to the harsh reactions?

I am, in this case at least, the exception which tests the rule.

I think there's another root cause. I think you have to go far down the path of not just renegade actions, but suspicion of the game itself, to justify the mindset of the ending. As I said far upthread, the game rewards completionism above all else. No completionist fails to activate Legion. No completionist fails to launch the geth server mission. No completionist is unaware of the subtleties and legitimacy of synthetic life.

Paragon, renegade, purveyor of the red or blue victory buttons, or muddler such as myself - all who have engaged the game in its totality have been exposed to sufficient information to undermine the Catalyst's assertions. That those assertions remain the linchpin of the final decision can confuse and anger even those who did not play as paragons of virtue nor all-conquering, all-accepting demigods.

Modifié par delta_vee, 14 mai 2012 - 06:22 .


#2066
edisnooM

edisnooM
  • Members
  • 748 messages

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

EDIT 2:  I came to this thought a while after the game came out, when I noticed that many of those who despised the endings played pure Paragon, or close to it, and I have to wonder if the ending is only so jarring to those of us who played Shepard as a true hero, and not an anti-hero or villain protagonist.  It would be interesting to run a comparison of "what was Shepard's alignment", "how completionist are you", and "how did you react to the ending".  We might get some surprising results.


I have my own suspicions about what pre-requisites there are to liking the endings. I suspect that at the very least you have to:

1) Trust the Catalyst at his word.

2) Be renegade in your perception and treatment of synthetic life (if nothing else).

I think other factors (like your interpretation of the main themes) help, but I suspect one of these two are mandatory. The problem is there is no reason to trust the catalyst beyond superstitious awe, and the game goes to great lengths to portray synthetic life as sympathetic and "human".


Your hypothesis would work on me, at least as a test.  I immediately found Captain "The Reapers Are My Solution" Catalyst immensly suspect, and tend to think relatively paragon in game, and am pretty positive about science and technology in general.


That's another problem for me, why exactly should I believe what the villain is telling me? I didn't believe Saren. I didn't believe Dr. Kenson. I didn't believe TIM. But now I'm supposed to believe the man behind the curtain, and trust him implicitly?

#2067
M.Erik.Sal

M.Erik.Sal
  • Members
  • 75 messages

edisnooM wrote...

That's another problem for me, why exactly should I believe what the villain is telling me? I didn't believe Saren. I didn't believe Dr. Kenson. I didn't believe TIM. But now I'm supposed to believe the man behind the curtain, and trust him implicitly?


From out of the shadows! It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's just some guy!

Anyways, this is one of the core problems with the Catalyst as an infodump machine and it's been touched upon multiple times throughout the thread, but we as players and our character have absolutely no reason to trust a single sounds that issues from the Star Child's mouth.

There are similar problems with Vigil on Illos, but it comes early enough in the narrative and drops enough information on us (potentially) that it can be rationalized by the player. Vigil is a small speedbump early enough on the road that you're not entirely sure you haven't just run over a hobo while the Catalyst represents a speedbump so big you slam into it and now your car is sputtering and dying but manages to crawl along for those last few feet before dying forever.

#2068
daveyeisley

daveyeisley
  • Members
  • 204 messages
Ya know... I hated the endings. Tons of reasons covered in many places by myself and others.

This thread is an example from which many who criticise can draw some validation.

Heck, even between the PR speak in some of the official responses, if you extrapolate a little (maybe more than a little), you can kind of tell that folks at BW are starting to see the faults, they just don't want to seem to say "Okay, we get it, we screwed up. Sorry, we'll fix it". I can understand that, though I still wish they would come clean.

On the flip side, I think this thread is also a great compliment to Bioware and Mass Effect.

I don't think I have ever heard of a video game drawing this much analysis from academics and bonafide scholars. I think thats one favor Bioware has done us all with Mass Effect. They have elevated this medium with their work. I don't think there is really any question of that, furthermore I think this thread is proof of it.

I hated the endings, and yeah, the most painful part to me is the wasted potential and missed opportunities. I was expecting so much, because of what I know BW is capable of, and got disappointed.

But even though ME3's ending may be an albatross around the studio's neck until the end of time, there is little doubt they have managed to bring video game storytelling to new heights, and they deserve applause and recognition for that.

Modifié par daveyeisley, 14 mai 2012 - 08:04 .


#2069
NorDee65

NorDee65
  • Members
  • 52 messages

delta_vee wrote...

 

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

The problem for me is not this story, but that Mass Effect never struck me as a place for this type of narrative, nor the kind of game that locked you into such an introspective neo-noir viewpoint.  It's not a bad ending, it's just either the wrong ending, or an ending far too narrowly written.  (Maybe the writers played Shepard like this, and thus saw this as his "escape/salvation" from the grinding universe, intended as a spot of hope, instead of the horror it inspired.)

It's a bad ending for this particular game, comprising this particular possibility space. I sincerely believe the ending we received was not crafted out of malice or deception - I think it was an attempt to grasp at the transcendent which failed, utterly and miserably, at the hands of the better writers who had led us to that precipice.

However, you don't match that description, either.  The question remains, though.  Are you the outlier, or is there another root cause to the harsh reactions?

I am, in this case at least, the exception which tests the rule.

I think there's another root cause. I think you have to go far down the path of not just renegade actions, but suspicion of the game itself, to justify the mindset of the ending. As I said far upthread, the game rewards completionism above all else. No completionist fails to activate Legion. No completionist fails to launch the geth server mission. No completionist is unaware of the subtleties and legitimacy of synthetic life.

Paragon, renegade, purveyor of the red or blue victory buttons, or muddler such as myself - all who have engaged the game in its totality have been exposed to sufficient information to undermine the Catalyst's assertions. That those assertions remain the linchpin of the final decision can confuse and anger even those who did not play as paragons of virtue nor all-conquering, all-accepting demigods.


I imagine the writers - who I assume (!!) to have at least some knowledge of the game lore - tried to have put a spin on the original "Dark Energy"-plotline, and failed subsequently (and I fully understand that, because the whole plotline was quite iffy, to start with). And thus they seemed to have agreed on a new ending and started unraveling the plot backwards, symbolised by the Catalyst and its "reasoning".

Picking the end as the beginning of developing a plot so late into the game/s serves its own problems because you suddenly have to wonder not only how and why to stop the Reapers, but also how to get Shepard into this position where she more or less (re-) acts under remote control*. Maybe it would have worked better if they could have taken their on sweet time with it. As it stands they tried to pound a square thing through a round thing.

*Just to clarify, an example: Shepard is by now a seasoned veteran of many battles, and yet just accepts that she is to run through an open field without even attempting to go behind cover occasionally (as she advised everyone to do on Tuchanka, for instance) to escape the Reaper's death-ray (and there was cover, not much, but maybe sufficient to hide one or two people behind...)? When I saw that open field the first time I thought "no way will my Shepard mad-dash through there" and than she did, with unsurprising consequences. But she had to, because the (new) plotline demanded that she be injured, maybe even traumatised when meeting the end.

Maybe it was the writers way of saying "goodbye Shepard, this is your curtain call!" or maybe Shepard was supposed to be in a vulnerable state of mind, or whatever. If the writers had taken the "real" Shepard into consideration they might not have taken this abrupt and immersion breaking approach, but the plotline demanded it and they delivered. Now, I do not mind the fact that Shepard gets injured (badly if I am to believe that one scene where she looks at her bloody hand/arm), but I want it to mean something, like the fight on the asteroid in "Arrival", that was epic. But to just run into a deathray? No, not logical nor epic.

#2070
edisnooM

edisnooM
  • Members
  • 748 messages

M.Erik.Sal wrote...

edisnooM wrote...

That's another problem for me, why exactly should I believe what the villain is telling me? I didn't believe Saren. I didn't believe Dr. Kenson. I didn't believe TIM. But now I'm supposed to believe the man behind the curtain, and trust him implicitly?


From out of the shadows! It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's just some guy!

Anyways, this is one of the core problems with the Catalyst as an infodump machine and it's been touched upon multiple times throughout the thread, but we as players and our character have absolutely no reason to trust a single sounds that issues from the Star Child's mouth.

There are similar problems with Vigil on Illos, but it comes early enough in the narrative and drops enough information on us (potentially) that it can be rationalized by the player. Vigil is a small speedbump early enough on the road that you're not entirely sure you haven't just run over a hobo while the Catalyst represents a speedbump so big you slam into it and now your car is sputtering and dying but manages to crawl along for those last few feet before dying forever.


I think another thing that helped Vigil is that while he did give us a lot of info in a short space of time, it went along with what we had already learned. We knew that the Protheans had been wiped out by the Reapers, we knew that the Reapers were these ancient sentient "ships", and so Vigil gave us answers and helped us expand upon our already gleaned knowledge. The Catalyst on the other hand starts telling us things that to me don't make a lot of sense, or coalesce with the knowledge we already possessed.

#2071
edisnooM

edisnooM
  • Members
  • 748 messages

NorDee65 wrote...

Maybe it was the writers way of saying "goodbye Shepard, this is your curtain call!" or maybe Shepard was supposed to be in a vulnerable state of mind, or whatever. If the writers had taken the "real" Shepard into consideration they might not have taken this abrupt and immersion breaking approach, but the plotline demanded it and they delivered. Now, I do not mind the fact that Shepard gets injured (badly if I am to believe that one scene where she looks at her bloody hand/arm), but I want it to mean something, like the fight on the asteroid in "Arrival", that was epic. But to just run into a deathray? No, not logical nor epic.


Interestingly we had just fought a rather epic battle defending the Thanix Missiles, that, or something similar (perhaps non-stop waves of enemies), could have served as a possible way for Shepard to end up bloody and beaten as opposed to the "THIS HURTS YOU" ray from Harbinger.

#2072
sH0tgUn jUliA

sH0tgUn jUliA
  • Members
  • 16 818 messages
Or perhaps the end is a lie.

#2073
edisnooM

edisnooM
  • Members
  • 748 messages

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Or perhaps the end is a lie.


No, you're thinking of cake.

#2074
KitaSaturnyne

KitaSaturnyne
  • Members
  • 396 messages

edisnooM wrote...

No, you're thinking of cake.

Which we see is actually real, contrary to the insane grafitti.

#2075
edisnooM

edisnooM
  • Members
  • 748 messages

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

edisnooM wrote...

No, you're thinking of cake.

Which we see is actually real, contrary to the insane grafitti.


True. The cake itself is not a lie, but the possibility of obtaining it is.