Interesting article but...
I find it odd that he says that the ending is "very strongly foreshadowed", and yet only provides a single video (he could have more but for whatever reason doesn't show it).The fact is, most of people playing ME aren't going to know about those theories; that doesn't mean you can't use them, rather they need to be explained very well. I thought before ME3 came out that they would do something like this, that the Reapers kill to ascend living species, but it does seem, or at least the options the Catalyst gave, run counter to what Mass Effect is about i.e. unity through diversity and choice.
The scale idea is interesting, although it still doesn't make the Crucible as a story-telling device any better, still a deux ex machina. Also if Crucible is Type III tech, which species/group made it? He later says that it is a product of thousands of organic species, all supposedly Type 1 (because they got destroyed by the Type II Reapers), so how does that work? I have had my thoughts that the Crucible could be made by the Catalyst, that would explain why the Reapers don't seem to go near it and how it is so advanced and passed through the generations, could be wrong though. The race that set the plans in motion must be stronger than the Reapers, yet the machines are around and they are not.
Even if what he says about Hawking's theories are true, they still do not ring true with the main themes of ME, nor is anything about the Gray Goo ever brought up in discussion. It would have been interesting, but you can't say that it was the writer's intention, simply because of its absence in the game
When he mentions the Catalyst doesn't deny that EDI & the Geth are peaceful, I agree. However, it still runs counter to the story we were told, where synthetics and organics can co-ordinate. If this was a different story, fine, but not ME.
A lot of the article seems to be speculation, helpful but not substantial
I challenge those who hate the ending to read this
Débuté par
sp0ck 06
, avril 19 2012 04:04
Retour en haut
#302
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 07:46
KarlPilks
-
- Members
- 76 messages
This article is a pile of rubbish. Even this guy is speculating and doing his best to try and make sense of it.
#303
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 07:53
AIR MOORE
-
- Members
- 163 messages
Good thing I am a fast reader, so I didn't waste too much of my life.
For a minute there I thought this chum actually had something... and then I realized that this was a simpleton who thinks:
More words = better.
He has a ton of words, yet lacks content which hasn't already been discussed (read - speculated) to varying degrees.
For a minute there I thought this chum actually had something... and then I realized that this was a simpleton who thinks:
More words = better.
He has a ton of words, yet lacks content which hasn't already been discussed (read - speculated) to varying degrees.
Modifié par AIR MOORE, 19 avril 2012 - 07:53 .
#304
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 07:56
dkear1
-
- Members
- 618 messages
The article is a wall of text trying to explain why the ending doesn't suck. Sorry. If you have to write a wall of text to explain something, then that right there is a sign of Epic Failure!!!!!
Besides all the other stupid junk the article says this line right here made me say WTF:
"If you’ve seen any movies about natural disasters, like The Day After Tomorrow or Twister, most of them are pretty boring."
Hell those two movies are among my favorites. Seriously???? He is dumping on a movie (Twister) that has a soundtrack with songs from Van Halen?????
What a loser!
And to further invalidate his wall of text he calls the charity drive "...the ugly side of consumerism in plain sight". Clearly this nut case is a sick and twisted individual. Perhaps we can start a new charity to get him some mental help!
Besides all the other stupid junk the article says this line right here made me say WTF:
"If you’ve seen any movies about natural disasters, like The Day After Tomorrow or Twister, most of them are pretty boring."
Hell those two movies are among my favorites. Seriously???? He is dumping on a movie (Twister) that has a soundtrack with songs from Van Halen?????
What a loser!
And to further invalidate his wall of text he calls the charity drive "...the ugly side of consumerism in plain sight". Clearly this nut case is a sick and twisted individual. Perhaps we can start a new charity to get him some mental help!
Modifié par dkear1, 19 avril 2012 - 07:59 .
#305
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 07:57
DirtyBird627
-
- Members
- 150 messages
Read it, and I appreciate the amount of work that went into it. But, if the ending of a video game needs to be explained by a team of theoretical physicists then its probably not that good.
#306
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 07:57
EagleScoutDJB
-
- Members
- 740 messages
I copied the article into libreoffice to see exactly how long it is, all I have to say is if I need 18 pages of text and pictures to help me figure out the ending there is something wrong, and I don't think it's me.
Modifié par dbollendorf, 19 avril 2012 - 08:07 .
#307
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 08:04
RShara
-
- Members
- 2 440 messages
sp0ck 06
I challenge you to read this thread Why the endings were Thematically Revolting
as well as
I came across something amusing in a writing book
These two threads have some very good points on why a lot of us are dissatisfied with the ending. Very little of it has to do with the science of Mass Effect.
I challenge you to read this thread Why the endings were Thematically Revolting
as well as
I came across something amusing in a writing book
These two threads have some very good points on why a lot of us are dissatisfied with the ending. Very little of it has to do with the science of Mass Effect.
#308
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 08:05
Piggytoes
-
- Members
- 10 messages
Let me preface this by saying that I read the article in its entirety, but not the entire thread following. Maybe some/all of these points have been brought up already, but let me try to outline why I think the article missed the point of the ending dissatisfaction.
1)Much of the outrage about the endings comes from the fact that they appear to be a product of laziness and/or Bioware succumbing to pressure from EA. From the multicolored cutscene, to the absence of war assets impacting anything about the final battle. Even the geth and quarians which represent a major part of the story arc within ME3 are absent from the battle cutscenes except for during Hacket's speech. Look at the scene where the combined fleet is arriving at earth, where are the geth and quarian ships? Look at the scenes of the ground battle, the war assets screen says that the geth have the largest cadre of troops in the galaxy, yet there is not a single geth seen partaking in the ground war.
2)Predictably, the endings also elicit significant anger from the community when compared to the statements from Bioware during the production of ME3. It is certainly true that things change over the course of development in any game, but the disparity between what was promised and what was received just seems... inexcusable. Especially considering how spot-on ME3 was prior to the final mission, and how well-executed the endings for ME1 and ME2 were.
3) The article admits there are several incoherencies in the ending, but suggests that the player should suspend disbelief and ignore them. This is not how suspension of disbelief (SoB) is supposed to work with a narrative. SoB is applied to parts of the narrative which contradict facts or observations we take from reality. For example, it is reasonable to expect the player to suspend disbelief when confronted with the idea of Element Zero producing a field which alters the mass of objects within it. SoB doesn't apply to parts of a narrative which are internally inconsistent.
4) I understand the catalyst's 14 line exposition perfectly and the article does a good job of outlining the reasoning for anybody who is still unclear about it. You don't need to know anything about astrobiology for the catalyst's solution to make sense. However, making sense and providing a satisfying conclusion to a trilogy are two very different things. The "solution" is far from foreshadowed anywhere in the previous two games except Harbinger's one line: "we are your salvation through destruction". The "solution" is jarring and ill-received because it does not fit with all the previous information we have received throughout the trilogy. It doesn't matter if it makes logical sense that the reapers are trying to prevent a technological singularity, this is simply not an issue that comes up anywhere else in the series. In fact the only two pieces of empirical data that we have (EDI and the Geth) are able to coexist peacefully with organics. Certainly, on the (for our purposes) infinite timescale of the galaxy a technological singularity is plausible, maybe even likely, it just fails as a plot device.
5.0) And here's the big one. The absolute worst part of the ending is that after hundreds of hours of building emotional attachments to the characters, races, and galactic civilization, the ending throws it all out the window. We are presented with an entirely new, unprecedented, god-like character which presents an entirely new conflict (tech singularity) which supercedes everything shepard has been fighting for and against. Players wanted, were promised, and were expecting an ending which focused on the threat of the reapers, and the part shepard and his/her allies played in neutralizing that threat. Players were also expecting to see the aftermath of the decisions Shepard made leading up to and during the end. Instead the player is asked to forget about everything they care about, and suddenly care about organic life in abstract.
5.1) I feel that the tricolor ending is a non-choice when compared to the end choices of ME1 and ME2, and other choices throughout the trilogy. If we accept the catalyst's words at face value as the choice is presented, there isn't a reason to choose Destroy over Control. You die, the relays are destroyed, and the reapers are gone in both cases. The only difference is that Destroy kills the geth and EDI. The fact that after you make your decision you are possibly rewarded with shepard living in Destroy doesn't make the tricolor choice better, it makes it worse by raising more questions "did the catalyst lie?" "was shep being indoctrinated?" "how did shep survive the citadel's destruction?". Synthesis is not explained well enough to really become part of any rational decision making process with respect to the end.
5.2) Compare this to ME1 which made you choose between sacrificing humans to save the council, thereby earning the respect of the council races, or letting the council die and securing human dominance in the galactic government. Compare this to ME2 which made you choose between preserving the collector base and trusting cerberus to not misuse its technology in the hopes that it will help you defeat the reapers, or destroying the base on principle and resolving to fight the reapers on your own terms.
1)Much of the outrage about the endings comes from the fact that they appear to be a product of laziness and/or Bioware succumbing to pressure from EA. From the multicolored cutscene, to the absence of war assets impacting anything about the final battle. Even the geth and quarians which represent a major part of the story arc within ME3 are absent from the battle cutscenes except for during Hacket's speech. Look at the scene where the combined fleet is arriving at earth, where are the geth and quarian ships? Look at the scenes of the ground battle, the war assets screen says that the geth have the largest cadre of troops in the galaxy, yet there is not a single geth seen partaking in the ground war.
2)Predictably, the endings also elicit significant anger from the community when compared to the statements from Bioware during the production of ME3. It is certainly true that things change over the course of development in any game, but the disparity between what was promised and what was received just seems... inexcusable. Especially considering how spot-on ME3 was prior to the final mission, and how well-executed the endings for ME1 and ME2 were.
3) The article admits there are several incoherencies in the ending, but suggests that the player should suspend disbelief and ignore them. This is not how suspension of disbelief (SoB) is supposed to work with a narrative. SoB is applied to parts of the narrative which contradict facts or observations we take from reality. For example, it is reasonable to expect the player to suspend disbelief when confronted with the idea of Element Zero producing a field which alters the mass of objects within it. SoB doesn't apply to parts of a narrative which are internally inconsistent.
4) I understand the catalyst's 14 line exposition perfectly and the article does a good job of outlining the reasoning for anybody who is still unclear about it. You don't need to know anything about astrobiology for the catalyst's solution to make sense. However, making sense and providing a satisfying conclusion to a trilogy are two very different things. The "solution" is far from foreshadowed anywhere in the previous two games except Harbinger's one line: "we are your salvation through destruction". The "solution" is jarring and ill-received because it does not fit with all the previous information we have received throughout the trilogy. It doesn't matter if it makes logical sense that the reapers are trying to prevent a technological singularity, this is simply not an issue that comes up anywhere else in the series. In fact the only two pieces of empirical data that we have (EDI and the Geth) are able to coexist peacefully with organics. Certainly, on the (for our purposes) infinite timescale of the galaxy a technological singularity is plausible, maybe even likely, it just fails as a plot device.
5.0) And here's the big one. The absolute worst part of the ending is that after hundreds of hours of building emotional attachments to the characters, races, and galactic civilization, the ending throws it all out the window. We are presented with an entirely new, unprecedented, god-like character which presents an entirely new conflict (tech singularity) which supercedes everything shepard has been fighting for and against. Players wanted, were promised, and were expecting an ending which focused on the threat of the reapers, and the part shepard and his/her allies played in neutralizing that threat. Players were also expecting to see the aftermath of the decisions Shepard made leading up to and during the end. Instead the player is asked to forget about everything they care about, and suddenly care about organic life in abstract.
5.1) I feel that the tricolor ending is a non-choice when compared to the end choices of ME1 and ME2, and other choices throughout the trilogy. If we accept the catalyst's words at face value as the choice is presented, there isn't a reason to choose Destroy over Control. You die, the relays are destroyed, and the reapers are gone in both cases. The only difference is that Destroy kills the geth and EDI. The fact that after you make your decision you are possibly rewarded with shepard living in Destroy doesn't make the tricolor choice better, it makes it worse by raising more questions "did the catalyst lie?" "was shep being indoctrinated?" "how did shep survive the citadel's destruction?". Synthesis is not explained well enough to really become part of any rational decision making process with respect to the end.
5.2) Compare this to ME1 which made you choose between sacrificing humans to save the council, thereby earning the respect of the council races, or letting the council die and securing human dominance in the galactic government. Compare this to ME2 which made you choose between preserving the collector base and trusting cerberus to not misuse its technology in the hopes that it will help you defeat the reapers, or destroying the base on principle and resolving to fight the reapers on your own terms.
#309
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 08:08
wryterra
-
- Members
- 488 messages
sp0ck 06 wrote...
If you hated/disliked/didn't understand/were let down by the ending, read this editorial.
http://galacticpillo...ffect-3-ending/
It really might make you look differently at not just the ending but the whole of ME3. If you want to love the conclusion to the series but just can't, please give this a read. It's long but worth it.
OK I read it and it's filled with as many self-verifying speculations as indoctrination theory and a great deal of inaccuracies or asumptions without evidential backing as well.
In other words, just people trying to make themselves feel better about the ending, just like IT.
#310
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 08:09
Bmandakilla
-
- Members
- 12 messages
Nice read until the point where the text begins to argue that Shepard survives the the destruction in the renegade ending, which is actually the true paragon ending (indoc theory used here). The cutscene displayed concrete rubble, like London, not like the steel and synthetic materials of the citadel. All logic is defied and brain explodes.
#311
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 08:10
KingZayd
-
- Members
- 5 344 messages
The article gave no solution to the many plotholes except for "bad writing" so it doesn't help really. And it dismisses the only workable solution I've found on pretty weak grounds, so if i did believe it, I would only hate the ending more. I didn't read the rest, because it's the plotholes that bother me more than anything else.
but thanks for the link.
but thanks for the link.
Modifié par KingZayd, 19 avril 2012 - 08:10 .
#312
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 08:12
zarnk567
-
- Members
- 1 847 messages
DirtyBird627 wrote...
Read it, and I appreciate the amount of work that went into it. But, if the ending of a video game needs to be explained by a team of theoretical physicists then its probably not that good.
This is the main problem. when you as a writer make an ending so many people have a problem with you know you did something wrong. Somewhere during the storytelling process you missed something or did not put enough info in about something or just plain rushed something to get to get to a specific point in your story. Either way, when you fail to get a point across this bad you have to suck up your pride as a writer and a story-teller and say "I goofed" and take a look at it.
Modifié par zarnk567, 19 avril 2012 - 08:13 .
#313
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 08:14
Ariq
-
- Members
- 245 messages
Too many assumptions unsupported by the narrative of the game. Several straw man arguments. Admits and then dismisses without explanation a lengthy number of problems.
This was the worst bit of the essay, though emblematic of the whole thing:
Um. Ok. What are those very good reasons? And which of them excuses the necessity of narrative cohesion?
*crickets*
Science?
*more crickets*
Look, there's science at the top of the page! Science!
*even more crickets*
So, yeah. Pretty much sums up his whole essay.
This was the worst bit of the essay, though emblematic of the whole thing:
The ending discards important philosophies and themes
It does, but it doesn’t do so without very good reason. Unfortunately, Bioware assumes familiarity with some rather esoteric concepts. I explain these concepts in the “scientific basis” section.
Um. Ok. What are those very good reasons? And which of them excuses the necessity of narrative cohesion?
*crickets*
Science?
*more crickets*
Look, there's science at the top of the page! Science!
*even more crickets*
So, yeah. Pretty much sums up his whole essay.
#314
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 08:14
NoUserNameHere
-
- Members
- 2 083 messages
Yeah, there's not a dissertation in the world that is going to change my mind on this. I understand the damn ending, I just think it's not worth that one "Speculations!" page it was outlined on.
Also, there is no Renegade or Paragon ending. Those colors are merely to provide the illusion of different endings.
Also, there is no Renegade or Paragon ending. Those colors are merely to provide the illusion of different endings.
#315
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 08:15
beyondsolo
-
- Members
- 377 messages
Okay, I've read the whole thing. First of all, thank you for posting this. Here are my thoughts:sp0ck 06 wrote...
If you hated/disliked/didn't understand/were let down by the ending, read this editorial.
http://galacticpillo...ffect-3-ending/
It really might make you look differently at not just the ending but the whole of ME3. If you want to love the conclusion to the series but just can't, please give this a read. It's long but worth it.
Let me first say that I will discard the inconsistencies in logic, narrative, physics, and biology of the ending presents, and I will take it at face value (so no indoctrination theory or anything of the sorts). I will also ignore the fact that the ending breaks pretty much every rule of narrative structure--and not in a good way.
The strongest point the linked article makes is that the reason why pretty much everything that made the series what it was is thrown out of the window in the last ten minutes is because galactic civilization experiences a transition from Type I to Type II, thus entering an entirely new set of morals. Therefore, Shepard's final choice is put into a whole new context of responsibility, and Type I civilization philosophy and morals become irrelevant.
For the moment, let's ignore the fact that we don't learn anything about the details of what Shepard's choice will actually do in advance (we have to trust the Starchild) and that we get little to know information of it plays out in the long term (that's where all the speculation comes from).
There are major problems in the definitions of machine life, synthetic life, and organic life, mostly because BioWare uses the first two interchangeably. For the sake of the argument, let's assume a clear definition that is Mass Effect lore-friendly: machines are created by organics and include artificial intelligence. Synthetic life is also created by organics; it may, however, contain both organic and machine constituent parts, and can also be considered AI. Organic life is the only form of life native to the galaxy and a result of evolution. It is not created (I will not discuss creationism here).
The Reapers are not life. Both Mass Effect 1 and 2 operate on the premise that Reapers are sentient machines. However, if Mass Effect 3 is taken at face value, which I decided to do, then the Reapers are an archive of all organic species that is completely devoid of change or motivation. The Reapers are tools that operate along very simple, programmable pattern according to instructions they received millions, possibly billions of years ago when they were first created.
The purpose of the Reapers is to harvest all organic life and archive it in Reaper form in order to prevent it from creating machine or synthetic life that is more powerful than the Reapers, powerful enough to break the cycle and spread throughout the universe, destroying all organic life forever without giving anyone the chance to preserve it, for what it's worth.
The reason why the Catalyst's rationale is so revolting from a philosophical point of view is because it's outdated. The Catalyst is dormant and the Reapers are programmed machines. They operate on the basis of thinking that has happened billions of years ago and must forever be true (I know that this is not entirely accurate, but I'll get to that in a moment). The Catalyst and the Reapers follow a static logic that is easily accepting genocide on an incomprehensible scale, justified by an assumption that cannot be proven. The Catalyst calls letting the organic life have it's way "a risk." That is where the Catalyst pretty much admits that there is no proof.
So what is it that ultimately breaks the cycle? It is the event in which organic life finally ascends from Type I to Type II, and across all cycles manages to acquire Type III technology. Supposedly this ability makes the evolution of organic life powerful enough to decide for themselves. The Reapers don't work anymore as a solution. The Catalyst is defeated in a sense that he cannot make the decision anymore, and therefore leaves it to Shepard.
And here is where it all collapses. Type II organic life would be able to create even more powerful machine life than anyone before them (the Reapers are proof of that, if only for the machine part). We can speculate that life this powerful doesn't need machine life anymore and therefore the threat is over (at least in this galaxy). That's also why there is a destroy-option. Further, the Mass Effect civilization is so heavily dependent on machines and pseudo-intelligent software (which, as seen in ME1, can gain consciousness on their own [EDI, the AI in the Citadel computers]), that the threat is not over for another few centuries. The Catalyst should not be surrendering.
Therefore, it makes no sense that no option offered to Shepard includes surrendering to the Reapers and having them make a human Reaper in order to continue the cycle. That would have been the true decision on Type II-level.
Ultimately, if what the article states was truly BioWare's plan all along (which it wasn't because they changed it after the leak, although what they had before was not entirely different), then the following would have been a better solution to get it across:
Mass Effect 1: stays as it is.
Mass Effect 2: The entire Collector sub-plot is dropped and ME3 placed here instead.
Mass Effect 3: You have to deal with the consequences of your decision on the Citadel. If you chose to resist the Reapers you would have to fight them for the entire game and either win by conventional means (high enough EMS) and doom the galaxy, or lose, or you gave in to the Reapers and spend the time in ME3 fighting the last pockets of organic resistance. Of course this wouldn't be the most efficient way of game design, but locations can pretty much be reused, and much of the organic side can be shown regardless to show the consequences of Shepard's decision.
Modifié par beyondsolo, 19 avril 2012 - 08:17 .
#316
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 08:18
Peranor
-
- Members
- 4 003 messages
DirtyBird627 wrote...
Read it, and I appreciate the amount of work that went into it. But, if the ending of a video game needs to be explained by a team of theoretical physicists then its probably not that good.
This says all that needs to be said really.
#317
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 08:19
Rob_Nix
-
- Members
- 117 messages
Excerpt from that article:
"There’s a saying in the music business: “play the beginning and ending well; no one will remember anything in between”. Never has this held truer than for Mass Effect."
What about screwing up the song so bad at the end, that no one remembers how good the rest of it was?
"There’s a saying in the music business: “play the beginning and ending well; no one will remember anything in between”. Never has this held truer than for Mass Effect."
What about screwing up the song so bad at the end, that no one remembers how good the rest of it was?
#318
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 08:25
Ariq
-
- Members
- 245 messages
DirtyBird627 wrote...
Read it, and I appreciate the amount of work that went into it. But, if the ending of a video game needs to be explained by a team of theoretical physicists then its probably not that good.
And it's worse when the team of theoretical physicists fails to explain it.
#319
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 08:28
bpzrn
-
- Members
- 632 messages
MattFini wrote...
When you have to start referencing the work/theories of astrobiologists as a means of suggesting this was ALWAYS the intended direction of the series, you have absolutely failed.
Yep
And when you have to create more content to clairfy an ending you fail
EC DLC = perfume on a ppig
#320
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 08:33
GAMMARAYBURST
-
- Members
- 13 messages
I think the whole basis of the kardashev scale being fitted to the reapers, crucible and the various civilizations does not really work. Sure, parts of it can be used, but not in it's entirety, and it hardly makes the ending any more bearable even if it did fit tidily in place.
The various space faring races did work together to create the crucible, which the author of this article describes as being a Type III technology. Just because this thing can supposedly alter the entire galaxy does not mean that we have acheived a level 3 kardashev scale civilization.. that is ridiculous. The races did not even understand what they were creating. They had no idea how to utilize it or what it does. It wasn't even usable without the citadel/catalyst which the reapers created. And the whole thing would not even be conceived if it weren't for the threat of the reapers in the first place. Not to mention, the energy output and consumption of the entire galactic civilization is no where near what a level 3 civ would theoretically produce and utilize, let alone level 2.
This article states that "Reapers are interested in preventing the Type I from becoming Type II or Type III (the protheans almost make it – at the end of the first game, it’s revealed that the Conduit is actually a mass relay) and destroying all of the Type 0 and non-civilized life". If this was the case then the reapers should not encourage and provide the means for type I civs from advancing at an extremely accelerated pace. They should cut them down before they obtain space travel. No? Why not bump up the cycle a couple thousand years, where they will experience zero resistance when decimating all the species. Better yet, why even have a cycle. Just put a reaper in orbit around each life-providing planet and periodically scan them to asses their technology, and decimate them before they are a threat. Why even the need to retreat to darkspace and hibernate there?
And, if the reapers are a level 2 civ, why do they take it upon themselves to prevent other species from obtaining it? They apparently did not fall victim to what they propose would happen. They never destroyed all "Type 0 and non-civilized life". What reason would their be to suppose that another race would do so? Their own existence proves themselves wrong. Shouldn't they be more focused on obtaining level 3+ civilization, themselves? They are extremely advanced, posses unthinkable amounts of knowledge and scientific understanding.. and they are concerned with.. preventing level 0 scale civs from eventually reaching level 3? I'm sorry but this absolutely makes no sense. Unless the reapers are not sentient and are mindless machines following strict programming - which is contrary to everything we are presented with.
Nope, applying the kardeshev scale does not suddenly make the ending any better. It does nothing at all, actually, except partially label the levels of technology that are present in the game.
The various space faring races did work together to create the crucible, which the author of this article describes as being a Type III technology. Just because this thing can supposedly alter the entire galaxy does not mean that we have acheived a level 3 kardashev scale civilization.. that is ridiculous. The races did not even understand what they were creating. They had no idea how to utilize it or what it does. It wasn't even usable without the citadel/catalyst which the reapers created. And the whole thing would not even be conceived if it weren't for the threat of the reapers in the first place. Not to mention, the energy output and consumption of the entire galactic civilization is no where near what a level 3 civ would theoretically produce and utilize, let alone level 2.
This article states that "Reapers are interested in preventing the Type I from becoming Type II or Type III (the protheans almost make it – at the end of the first game, it’s revealed that the Conduit is actually a mass relay) and destroying all of the Type 0 and non-civilized life". If this was the case then the reapers should not encourage and provide the means for type I civs from advancing at an extremely accelerated pace. They should cut them down before they obtain space travel. No? Why not bump up the cycle a couple thousand years, where they will experience zero resistance when decimating all the species. Better yet, why even have a cycle. Just put a reaper in orbit around each life-providing planet and periodically scan them to asses their technology, and decimate them before they are a threat. Why even the need to retreat to darkspace and hibernate there?
And, if the reapers are a level 2 civ, why do they take it upon themselves to prevent other species from obtaining it? They apparently did not fall victim to what they propose would happen. They never destroyed all "Type 0 and non-civilized life". What reason would their be to suppose that another race would do so? Their own existence proves themselves wrong. Shouldn't they be more focused on obtaining level 3+ civilization, themselves? They are extremely advanced, posses unthinkable amounts of knowledge and scientific understanding.. and they are concerned with.. preventing level 0 scale civs from eventually reaching level 3? I'm sorry but this absolutely makes no sense. Unless the reapers are not sentient and are mindless machines following strict programming - which is contrary to everything we are presented with.
Nope, applying the kardeshev scale does not suddenly make the ending any better. It does nothing at all, actually, except partially label the levels of technology that are present in the game.
#321
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 08:37
The Invisible Commando
-
- Members
- 604 messages
The only part of the article that got me thinking is if the blue ending is the meant to be the Paragon ending. Everyone, even the Reapers, lives and the Illusive Man was right?
The destroy ending does come off as Renegade, but if EDI and the Geth could live as well as Shepard, then why not? It depends on whether or not the friendly robots are destroyed.
The green ending is utter space magic bull though.
The destroy ending does come off as Renegade, but if EDI and the Geth could live as well as Shepard, then why not? It depends on whether or not the friendly robots are destroyed.
The green ending is utter space magic bull though.
#322
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 08:38
Sireniankyle1
-
- Members
- 101 messages
I always find it funny when nobody has regard for the person that bought the game. Maybe it was a 10 year old who only had that bit of money, and was so mad at the ending, that he cried. Maybe it's someone from the lower/middle class, that all they can look forward to is good entertainment, and only want what they were promised.
At the end of that article, the author basically bashes owners of the game for involving the government (tattling). If Bioware and EA had lived up to their end of the deal, they wouldn't have to worry about this. They shouldn't be surprised that we expect a standard that they themselves set. We are indeed at a crucial point. BioWare, among other developers, will look at this, and ask themselves "how much can we get away with?" They know now that we don't buy into bull****. We aren't a magical well where you toss in a load of garbage, and money pops out. We demand quality, and honesty.
I fully intend to play this extended cut once it's released, but since I know that it is just more crap, my expectations are low. I just hope that knows that they have lost much loyality over this. Not just from me, but others, too.
My final thought is; BioWare, and others feel that the game is art, and should be protected, but will art keep them, and their families warm when EA shuts them down? Ea owns BioWare, and can do what they like. Including closing it down, and assigning mass effect to someone else.
At the end of that article, the author basically bashes owners of the game for involving the government (tattling). If Bioware and EA had lived up to their end of the deal, they wouldn't have to worry about this. They shouldn't be surprised that we expect a standard that they themselves set. We are indeed at a crucial point. BioWare, among other developers, will look at this, and ask themselves "how much can we get away with?" They know now that we don't buy into bull****. We aren't a magical well where you toss in a load of garbage, and money pops out. We demand quality, and honesty.
I fully intend to play this extended cut once it's released, but since I know that it is just more crap, my expectations are low. I just hope that knows that they have lost much loyality over this. Not just from me, but others, too.
My final thought is; BioWare, and others feel that the game is art, and should be protected, but will art keep them, and their families warm when EA shuts them down? Ea owns BioWare, and can do what they like. Including closing it down, and assigning mass effect to someone else.
#323
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 08:39
MassEffecter132
-
- Members
- 257 messages
Master Che wrote...
*pushes article aside*
If I have to be convinced that the ending is acceptable, then it probably wasn't that good of an ending.
This
#324
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 08:44
iggy4566
-
- Members
- 855 messages
Faded-Myth wrote...
iggy4566 wrote...
Nope still horse ****.
This kills me:lol:!
#325
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 08:49
TreguardD
-
- Members
- 268 messages
All right. I'll play. Let's take a snip:
"Peace with Geth proved that Synthetics will not always destroy Organics."
From the article:
Catalyst: You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want, including the geth, and most of the technology you rely on. Even you are partly synthetic.
Shepard: But the Reapers will be destroyed?
Catalyst: Yes, but the peace won’t last. Soon your children will create synthetics, and then the chaos will come back.
Shepard: Maybe.
What part of we do not want to destroy the Geth do you not understand? They have just as much to Self Determination as we do. That's the *point*.
... let's try another:
From the article: "The ending is very strongly foreshadowed throughout the whole series, but to see it, you need to be aware of the some of the rather esoteric theories and hypotheses in astrobiology being discussed in the past few years by the likes of Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking. Bioware may have been able to make the ending more poignant and emotional if it had elaborated on the concepts for the people who aren’t aware of them.
What? So you're saying the basic precept wasn't *Free Will* - the basic concept for Mass Effect 1 it was... something by the hack Hawking?
Come on. Gene Roddenberry had more influence in Mass Effect.
From the article:
"SETI senior astronomer explained a couple years ago that if we discover life, it will most likely be synthetic, "
For one: This presupposes that AI can actually exist. I'm not convinced. This is the Mass Effect universe so we'll give it a pass.
"An interesting side effect of the extinction cycle is that all the civilizations are in lock step. Everyone, except the Reapers, are Type 0 or Type I. "
Except they're not. Asari hit space and colonization thousands of years before we did. Or, to put it another way... the Quarrians have been *trapped* in Space long before we were able to explore it.
There's others I could I whack on, but I'll settle for these. This article isn't just a different point of view. It is just bad.
"Peace with Geth proved that Synthetics will not always destroy Organics."
From the article:
Catalyst: You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want, including the geth, and most of the technology you rely on. Even you are partly synthetic.
Shepard: But the Reapers will be destroyed?
Catalyst: Yes, but the peace won’t last. Soon your children will create synthetics, and then the chaos will come back.
Shepard: Maybe.
What part of we do not want to destroy the Geth do you not understand? They have just as much to Self Determination as we do. That's the *point*.
... let's try another:
From the article: "The ending is very strongly foreshadowed throughout the whole series, but to see it, you need to be aware of the some of the rather esoteric theories and hypotheses in astrobiology being discussed in the past few years by the likes of Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking. Bioware may have been able to make the ending more poignant and emotional if it had elaborated on the concepts for the people who aren’t aware of them.
What? So you're saying the basic precept wasn't *Free Will* - the basic concept for Mass Effect 1 it was... something by the hack Hawking?
Come on. Gene Roddenberry had more influence in Mass Effect.
From the article:
"SETI senior astronomer explained a couple years ago that if we discover life, it will most likely be synthetic, "
For one: This presupposes that AI can actually exist. I'm not convinced. This is the Mass Effect universe so we'll give it a pass.
"An interesting side effect of the extinction cycle is that all the civilizations are in lock step. Everyone, except the Reapers, are Type 0 or Type I. "
Except they're not. Asari hit space and colonization thousands of years before we did. Or, to put it another way... the Quarrians have been *trapped* in Space long before we were able to explore it.
There's others I could I whack on, but I'll settle for these. This article isn't just a different point of view. It is just bad.
