858 réponses à ce sujet

[Sable Phoenix]

Yeah, the article lost me with the first sentence when it mentioned "astrobiology". Not because I have no idea what that is. I'm a lifelong science and science-fiction fan and am very familiar with the concepts presented in that article (indeed, Fermi's Paradox and all its related areas of speculation have always fascinated me, and the fact that I made no such connection to the ending as it exists should say something about how badly they fit with the game). No, the problem with attributing such high-level concepts to BioWare's development of Mass Effect 3 can be broken down into two words:

Mac Walters.

Mac Walters has repeatedly demonstrated that the limits of his plotting capability max out at the Michael Bay level of "numerous explosions". I doubt such advanced concepts as astrobiology and the Kardashev Scale would even survive a trip through his mind.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 20 avril 2012 - 01:51 .

[Kreid]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Creid-X wrote...
There are several story-archs in Mass Effect, some deal with strenght through diversity, others with self-determination and never giving up, the themes presented at the end are in tehre too organics vs. synthetics is the very theme of the series (Shepard and the galaxy vs the Reapers) and we can see the Geth-Quarian conflict too. The ending is an elaboration of those ideas, the problem is that it's presented in a terrible way and IMO rusehd too.

Mass Effect 2 changed the idea that Shepard/galaxy vs. the Reapers is an organic/synthetic thing. First, you find out the Reapers are organic/synthetic hybrids, and then you get synthetics to join you fighting the Reapers. Generalizing the Reaper war into organics vs. synthetics forfeits all nuance and subtlety built during ME2 and pre-ending ME3.

The hybrid nature of the Reapers is inconsecuential in that regard, you can see they're primarely synthetics throughout the games.
I agree that there is a disconnection between what we are presented in the games and what is presented in the ending, you see many people saying that the Catalyst's argument is faulty because you can make the Quarians and the Geth achieve peace, but that's exactly the short-sighted point of view the Catalyst is trying to warn you against -life in the galaxy will continue for billions of years, eventually synthetic life will outrun organic life in terms of evolution and probably destroy it- the problem is trying to convey this ideas in the five last minutes.

[oksbad]

You simply cannot use Drake's equation to support the ending. Under that logic, the heretic geth would have simply created self replicating Von Neumann devices, utterly murdered every and any organic species and the reapers would simply throw a retirement party.

Hell, ignore AI's. With simple VI's, FTL and primitive self replicating machines (all of which are in the capabilities of the citadel), the citadel races could field a "drone" dreadnought for every citizen they have. This is not the case.

[TreguardD]

Snipping the damn quote pyramid.

[quote]
[quote]

It devalues the idea of a charity. A charity is something where you give something large to get back something smaller. It's not a fair trade, and the donor by definition gets the crap end of the stick because they're doing it on the principle that things will be better for someone else. It also brings awareness to the cause.[/quote]

u get mad at them for giving money to charities. [/quote]

Yes, because the way the money was given, many people actually insisted on having that money refunded to them.

$100,000 may seem like a large sum of money, but the bigger point of a charity is the principles and publicity that it carries. That's why Gabe of Child's Play was also upset about the situation.

[/quote]

Oh for the love of.. not THIS again. Come on. We're passionate, not stupid.

http://www.joystiq.c...-with-childs-p/

There was no "Mass" of refunds requested OR delivered.

(for the record, if you still want to donate to a good cause, we've reorganized at FullParagon.com

EA, on the other hand, has done the same thing with "BattleField Heroes"

http://www.cinemable...tion-41190.html

Gabe was upset because he disagreed with the charity's goal. He can deny it however much he wants. Doesn't lend a smidge of truth to his words.

[nwj94]

OdanUrr wrote...

Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...

Stopped reading when he advocated the control ending.

I don't understand why the big deal about control, in the end you sacrifice yourself to save everyone.

As I understand the complant:

part of the reason is that right up until that moment control is painted as wrong and the mistake that ever cycle makes and the games main protaginist (TIM) is trying to hard for.  So either he picked the evil choice, or the ending was so out of left field that the evil option became the good option.  It would be like if at the end of Karate kid the Blonde Bully was sudenly the hero who needed to win.  It just wouldn't make sense based on what the story had been playing up to right until that moment.

Modifié par nwj94, 20 avril 2012 - 01:54 .

[SirBob1613]

ReggarBlane wrote...

Speculations based on sloppy work is equally sloppy.

[nwj94]

ReggarBlane wrote...

Speculations based on sloppy work is equally sloppy.

Give credit where credit is due this was a lengthy and well thought out arguement, I don't agree with it, but that doesn't make it bad.

[Geneaux486]

I tend to think that most ending hatred stems from the ending simply not being what each individual person wanted, which is not the same as the ending being bad. Just my opinion.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 20 avril 2012 - 01:57 .

[japinthebox]

For quarian/geth, show a small scene of the quarians and/or geth rebuilding their home on Rannoch.

For Krogan, show a scene where the krogan are shown breeding again (yeah, not the "act" itself). You could also show the result of the breeding, namely new children, or the realization that they have been betrayed.

For Turian, you can show Victus leading the rebuild of their fleet (showing their military focus).

I didn't need an epilogue to tell me that this is probably what happens. And yes, I'd like to leave that to my imagination -- especially the krogan part.

japinthebox wrote...
I can't say that the story "stops" or that the central conflict is replaced in any way. It's framed in a new way, sure, but it doesn't stop.

By the way, I'm human, and I know of a lot of stories that end with a sudden "stop" and an epiphany at the end.

You may have a point though -- all the examples I can think of are Japanese -- Tezuka and Hagio Motoo's works, Akira... It could be a cultural thing.

Central conflict up to elevator: "We need to stop the reapers before they kill us all".
Conflict after the elevator/catalyst: "We need to find a solution to the metaphysical conflict between organics and synthetics".

Sounds quite different to me. The first one kinda being solved by the solution of the second one doesn't really work.

I wouldn't call it metaphysical, I'd call it long-term. A lot of these kinds of conflicts are short-term long-term conflicts. We could pour hundreds of billions of dollars now into environmental research so that our kids might not have to live through an ecological collapse. Or we could do something about our economic situation.

Which should it be? I honestly don't know (other than to say that the current wastes of money would more than make up for the costs of environmental investments -- but that's another story).

And once again. I know that you're human, and seeing this different doesn't make you a weirdo or freak, it just shows that you have some different look at things, or different knowledge which makes you responds differently to the ME3 ending in this case. You kinda said that yourself.

Exactly. I also say in the article that I doubt I'd change too many minds.

My problem here is, the ME series always followed the plot structure of "The Hero's Journey" aka "Monomyth" by the book, ME3 simply "jumps out" in the last stage.

A lot of stories that follow "the hero's journey" end with the "tragic hero" hero template -- which Mass Effect also follows by the book. The only thing out of the ordinary is that Mass Effect is over a hundred hours long, and so people were incredibly attached.

And again, I think that's what Bioware overlooked.

[Kreid]

Hjelsao wrote...
It's still just a theory on his part, what they were thinking people were familiar with it. It is what he had extrapolated based on his (apparently) extensive scientific knowledge. He makes alot of assumptions in his article, including that there are actual mistakes made in the cinematics. 

As for your gravity/astrobiology point; I believe that those two notions operate on different planes, because one is far more known and understood than the other. Gravity is something we relate to every day. The Drake equation and  the Kardashev scale are not. If you shovel them into the foundation of your story, you have to make damn sure you adress them. Because the way it is explained in the story; the kid telling you that it is inevitable that the synthetic created will wipe out their creators, even though you have just resolved the only situation in the story that could fit into that category, is nothing short of narrative failure.

In my humble opinion.   

I agree with this, it's badfor the narrative and the story telling, but it's still true, we know the developers used this ideas while developing the series.

oksbad wrote...

You simply cannot use Drake's equation to support the ending. Under that logic, the heretic geth would have simply created self replicating Von Neumann devices, utterly murdered every and any organic species and the reapers would simply throw a retirement party.

Hell, ignore AI's. With simple VI's, FTL and primitive self replicating machines (all of which are in the capabilities of the citadel), the citadel races could field a "drone" dreadnought for every citizen they have. This is not the case.

That's not how it works, we're not talking about the Grey Goo scenario specifically, the general idea is that because of the nature of synthetic life and it's rapid evolution, eventually synthetics lifeform(s) will exist with the capacity of wiping out all organic life, that's what the Catalyst is trying to stop from ahppening.

[D_Dude1210]

Here's the best way to explain the ending:

Starkid: You have 3 choices. Control, Synthesis or Destruction.
Shepard: I choose Synthesis!
Shepard: SPLAT!
Harbinger: Duuuude! I can't believe he fell for that!
Starkid: I knowwww! LOL!.

[Iconoclaste]

Creid-X wrote...

The hybrid nature of the Reapers is inconsecuential in that regard, you can see they're primarely synthetics throughout the games.
I agree that there is a disconnection between what we are presented in the games and what is presented in the ending, you see many people saying that the Catalyst's argument is faulty because you can make the Quarians and the Geth achieve peace, but that's exactly the short-sighted point of view the Catalyst is trying to warn you against -life in the galaxy will continue for billions of years, eventually synthetic life will outrun organic life in terms of evolution and probably destroy it- the problem is trying to convey this ideas in the five last minutes.

This has been debated at lenghts, and there are other sound reasons why the Reapers logic is flawed. But the point here is that the Reapers are the fruit of some remote speculative theory that MAY be of some use today, but since Mass Effect portrays a Universe (galaxy, at least) where many sentient species cohabit in relative peace, this theory cannot apply in its present form.

[Gwtheyrn]

I'd tell you what to do with that article, but there are children present and I'm not entirely sure it's physically possible.

Modifié par Gwtheyrn, 20 avril 2012 - 01:59 .

[Asharad Hett]

nwj94 wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...

Stopped reading when he advocated the control ending.

I don't understand why the big deal about control, in the end you sacrifice yourself to save everyone.

As I understand the complant:

part of the reason is that right up until that moment control is painted as wrong and the mistake that ever cycle makes and the games main protaginist (TIM) is trying to hard for.  So either he picked the evil choice, or the ending was so out of left field that the evil option became the good option.  It would be like if at the end of Karate kid the Blonde Bully was sudenly the hero who needed to win.  It just wouldn't make sense based on what the story had been playing up to right until that moment.

Another anology would be at the end of the Lord of the Rings, Frodo reaches Mount Doom, decides to keep the ring, uses it to control Sauron, and they all live happily ever after.

Modifié par Asharad Hett, 20 avril 2012 - 02:00 .

[japinthebox]

Oh for the love of.. not THIS again. Come on. We're passionate, not stupid.

http://www.joystiq.c...-with-childs-p/

There was no "Mass" of refunds requested OR delivered.

I never said "mass". I said a situation was created where it could have, it happened at least once, and it shouldn't have.

EA, on the other hand, has done the same thing with "BattleField Heroes"

http://www.cinemable...tion-41190.html

I don't remember liking EA either.

Modifié par japinthebox, 20 avril 2012 - 02:00 .

[thefallen2far]

japinthebox wrote...

You think all of the "okay" and "good" and "pretty good" writers on par with the Mass Effect authors also make no mistakes in their plots?

No, but quality has to overshadow any plot holes... it's called suspension of disbelief.   You can fill in holes in the theory using quantum physics, it doesn't matter. 

Let me tell you what the ending was for me.  It's a WWII game.  You're headed towards Hitler.  You fight the Germans, you hear the rumor mill about the atrocities in concentration camps.  In the end, you don't fight Hitler, you meet a newly introduced ghost kid that made Hitler who tells you that what they're doing is reshaping the "lesser people" into uniforms for their soldiers so they could live forever instead of being the cause of the downfall of western civilization.  It's not going to work anymore, so you have to:

1 Kill all Germans and German associated things.
2. Control all Germans and have them go away and destroy all German technology.
3. Synthesis so everyone is at least half German and all German technology is destroyed.

Virtually no one liked the Astro Boy ending either -- yet Atom became one of the most iconic characters in Japanese fiction history.

............ ?  What exactly is your point?

When did I say no money went to charity?

The point is that it's a bad way to raise money.

So... they didn't like the way the money was raised.... but didn't give back the money.  And.... again.... the people who donated to the charity... was in the wrong..... for giving money to charity.  And you really don't think you're just bitter that people found a productive way of expressing hatred for an ending you liked.

Wait... you're disgruntled against people that think the endings stink....  of course it makes perfect sense to you.  You filled in the plot holes with space magic.

Modifié par thefallen2far, 20 avril 2012 - 02:03 .

[TheOptimist]

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.  

So I just read the entire thing, and have successfully wasted 45 minutes of my life.  The author of the editorial, Rei, comes off as rather arrogant and outright admits the ending is littered with mistakes, but claims that shouldn't matter.  He also starts off really poorly for a persuasive piece by claiming the Retake movement 'misused' a charity and then utterly fails to back that assertion up, so it comes off as a backhanded snipe at the intended audience before he even gets started.  I'm going to summarize my thoughts on each section.

1.0 - Author claims the endings were foreshadowed throughout the game and as evidence posts a conversation with Sovereign, which I find amusing as Sovereign is one of the bigger continuity problems in ME3's conclusion.  To summarize the problem, there is no explanation for why triggering the Citadel is left up to the Keepers and later, Sovereign when the Citadel apparently already contains a being who created the Reapers.  There is literally no explanation I can think of that can justify setting the system up that way, instead of Starkid activating the Citadel himself when he judged the moment correct. The author actually admits this problem several paragraphs later, but doesn't discuss how it effects the points he makes in this paragraph. At any rate, author goes on to state that only someone with his clearly superior understanding of astrobiology would see and understand all that foreshadowing.  Great.

1.1 - Author introduces the Kardashev scale and then turns around and admits it's never mentioned in the game.  After explaining why the game's civilizations were still based on the Kardashev scale anyway, he then posts this quote:

This is why Shepard’s sense of ethics applies perfectly throughout most of the game, but is turned completely upside down when confronted with the potential for the known species to become a Type II civilization – thus why the ending throws out practically everything prior to it. It’s understandable that the emotional effect of Shepard’s epiphany is lost to people who haven’t given any thought to the significance of this transition.

Here the author admits the game throws out the logic used in the rest of the game, but characterizes the choices as an 'epiphany' that people simply didn't get, because again, the author is MUCH smarter than the rest of us.

1.2 Author pulls in the Drake Equation, which is another thing that never appears in the game itself.  The author then goes on to quote several highly regarded scientists and their speculation (oh yes, I went there) on why we haven't heard from any ET's yet.  And it is just that, which is why his explanation here falls apart.  All of the theories he posts, as well as the Drake Equation itself, could be proven wrong tomorrow.  They are all simply extrapolations from insufficient data, attempting to explain the galactic silence.  There are plenty of other theories out there, but the author cherry picks these ones and then attempts to tell us we should have expected and appreciated that those specific theories were being referenced, when (and this will bear repeating) it is NEVER mentioned in the game.

2.0 - Here the author again admits that there are a huge number of errors, even by his standards, in the ending, and then handwaves them with  

In any case, if you ignore the errors in the animation sequence and accept all the dialogue just before it, the ending becomes a lot more enjoyable – especially more enjoyable than the indoctrination theory.

I should add that he makes some more claims here, like Control being the Paragon ending. (I vehemently disagree, but the author goes into this later, so I'll say why there.) He also doesn't list even half the problems with the endings, such as why it is Shepard walks toward the thing he's making explode instead of shooting it from a distance. But at any rate, he admits there are several problems and then dismisses them by pointing out there are plotholes scattered around the series.

3.0 The author now goes in to a long diatribe on why other arguments regarding the endings are wrong.  He also says we can trust the catalyst dialogue but throws out the sequence immediately afterwards, which already means he's altering the endings to suit himself.  Which is fine, but shouldn't be expected to make the endings palatable for others who aren't so willing to dismiss the games ending animations.

3.1- The author explains why IT is wrong.  I don't care, never been an IT fan.

3.2 - Here's where the author goes into his pet theory on why Control is the best ending.  Despite the fact that we have seen Saren, Benezia, the Illusive Man, and many others wilt under prolonged indoctrination and exposure to Reaper thought, he handwaves the worry that the same will happen to Shepard and again brings up the scientific speculation in section 1 that is never mentioned in the ME series.  We have no reason to trust the Catalyst, but the author argues we should do so anyway, because...well, because he says so.  Shepard gets lied to plenty of times in the series (to bring up one example, Elnora lies in ME 2 when she claims she didn't know how bad the Eclipse mercs were).  The Illusive Man lies several times in ME 2, most egregiously when he sends Shepard to the collector ship.  And last but not least, the Catalyst lies when he says you will die no matter what choice you make.  (Although the author unilaterally retcons that as a 'mistake').  The difference is that in every other case, Shepard can call out people who are telling her things she knows to be incorrect.  That doesn't happen in Starkid's case, and it's a huge problem people have with the ending.

3.3 - Never thought control of Reapers meant control of all synthetics.

3.4 - Here we go. The author claims that because of the Drake Equation/Gray Goo, the Catalyst is correct when he says eventually Synthetic life will wipe out organic.  This is crap and always has been.  For one thing, why couldn't a friendly synthetic race (EDI/The Geth) help stop an unfriendly one? No explanation given. 

3.5 - The author handwaves the enormous question of why the Catalyst can't just destroy the Reapers by claiming that the Crucible wasn't designed that way, even though there's no reason it can't be.  He claims that prior civilizations are far more likely to have hated synthetics (which Javik is the only evidence for) and that anyway, control lets you destroy the Reapers if you want, which seems needlessly complicated.  There isn't, and never has been, a reasonable explanation for why some variety of space magic can't just disable the Reapers, since clearly the Crucible/Catalyst is perfectly capable of sending out a signal that effects only them.

3.6 - In this point the author argues again that the ending animations were clearly mistaken since Control shouldn't have needed the Crucible to work.  I find this highly amusing, but don't really care.  The Crucible has never been one of my objections to the ending.

3.7 - Again, another theory to which I don't subscribe but which the author dismisses as not making sense to him, which I again find amusing.

3.8 - The author mentions a convenient simplification many people use to disparrage the Starkid's logic, the 'making synthetics to kill organics so organics won't be killed by synthetics' meme.  What the author ignores is that there is effectively no difference between wiping out all organic life, and waiting until they are spacefaring races and THEN wiping them out.  They still have no future and no hope of creating a lasting impression in the galaxy.  They are simply allowed to wallow in futility and then have the rug pulled from under them.

3.9 - Author admits again that the ending sequence makes no sense but argues again that if we ignore everything after the catalyst and accept HIS interpretation of what happened, the ending totally works.

3.10 - Never really cared whether the Starkid could have done Synthetic or Destroy endings himself, I actually agree that the entire point of building the crucible was making a weapon that could defeat the Starkid.

3.11 - Again he argues for his pet theory that Control was the best Paragon ending.  I disagree, and all the evidence I need is the Illusive man, and the old addage that power corrupts, and absolute power will corrupt absolutely.

3.12 - Again, the author essentially says Bioware made mistakes but you should ignore them in favor of the author's pet theories on why Starkid was totally right. 

3.13 - He admits that synthesis makes no sense, but argues that one should suspend disbelief, even though making one of the three main endings one big plothole is enough of a reason to want the endings changed by itself.

3.14 - He admits Soveriegn needing to use the Citadel to open the way for the Reapers was a plothole and then speculates to try to fill it in. Imagine my surprise.

3.15 - I technically agree with him here, in that who created the Catalyst is one of those chicken or the egg questions.  It has no bearing, whoever they are, they seem to be long gone.

3.16 - He admits the ending discards important themes and concepts, but again, argues that doesn't matter because of the astobiology theories he admits are never referenced once in the game.

3.17 - Bioware is clarifying and expanding the ending not because they think it sucks, but because so many of their fans have told them in no uncertain terms that it sucks.  Whether they can fix the problems with the endings that way is up for debate.  He seems to be arguing for artistic integrity here, to which I will respond with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Fallout 3. 

3.18 - He doesn't like the Dark Matter ending because he can't shoehorn his favorite astrobiology theories into it.  He also doesn't like natural disaster movies.

4.0 - Here the author says that the entirety of Mass Effect 3 was the ending of the game and that therefore the consequences of our actions don't need closure.  This, in my opinion, is junk.  You should see the consequences of curing the genophage and uniting the Geth and Quarians.  You should see the consequences of your choices on your shipmates and crew.  You should see the consequences of your decision to free or destroy the Rachni.  Yes, Shepard united the Galaxy.  Much as in Dragon Age, I expected a glimpse of the things I had accomplished.  Instead, I am left to...speculate.

5.0 - I am once again going to take issue with the mischaracterization of the Retake charity drive, the author clearly wishes to believe the worst when in fact it was confirmed that very, very few people had done anything like ask for their money back or gotten confused. Want evidence? Here you go:

http://gamepolitics....y-charity-drive

The entirety of 5.0 is a sop to the author's ego and a berating of anyone who dared to take exception to the ending and decided to try and do something about it.  The author calls these attempts 'bullying'  and attacks theories he personally finds unpalatable while once again admitting he ignores the cinematics and relies on dialogue to make sense of the endings. The author ends by wishing everyone was as smart as he/she is so they'd have known what the endings were trying to say.

In conclusion, I have now wasted an hour and a half of my life responding to an article I spent 45 minutes reading.  I doubts anyone will read this and knowing my luck if they do it will be to say I clearly am too stupid to 'get' what the author is saying.  But I made the effort, if for nothing else just to prove I read the whole thing...

And will still hold the line.

[Kreid]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Creid-X wrote...

The hybrid nature of the Reapers is inconsecuential in that regard, you can see they're primarely synthetics throughout the games.
I agree that there is a disconnection between what we are presented in the games and what is presented in the ending, you see many people saying that the Catalyst's argument is faulty because you can make the Quarians and the Geth achieve peace, but that's exactly the short-sighted point of view the Catalyst is trying to warn you against -life in the galaxy will continue for billions of years, eventually synthetic life will outrun organic life in terms of evolution and probably destroy it- the problem is trying to convey this ideas in the five last minutes.

This has been debated at lenghts, and there are other sound reasons why the Reapers logic is flawed. But the point here is that the Reapers are the fruit of some remote speculative theory that MAY be of some use today, but since Mass Effect portrays a Universe (galaxy, at least) where many sentient species cohabit in relative peace, this theory cannot apply in its present form.

Why is it any different? The Kardashev scale, the Drake equation and the Technological Singularity should apply in the ME universe pretty much in the same way than in ours. 

[OdanUrr]

nwj94 wrote...

As I understand the complant:

part of the reason is that right up until that moment control is painted as wrong and the mistake that ever cycle makes and the games main protaginist (TIM) is trying to hard for.  So either he picked the evil choice, or the ending was so out of left field that the evil option became the good option.  It would be like if at the end of Karate kid the Blonde Bully was sudenly the hero who needed to win.  It just wouldn't make sense based on what the story had been playing up to right until that moment.

Maybe it comes down to choosing control for the right reasons as opposed to choosing it for the wrong reasons. TIM wants control over the Reapers for the sake of control itself while Shepard would choose control over the Reapers for the sake of everyone else in the galaxy. Remember, Shepard's been advocating to destroy the Reapers but he never really knows how to bring about their destruction. Sure, conventional means would destroy some but, as Hackett said, it won't destroy them all and it won't win them the war. So Shepard believes the Crucible will destroy the Reapers, but he doesn't really know if it will or even how it will bring about their destruction. And, like the article says, once Shepard's in control he could simply order the Reapers into the sun and that would be the end of it.

[CronoDragoon]

Creid-X wrote...
The hybrid nature of the Reapers is inconsecuential in that regard, you can see they're primarely synthetics throughout the games.
I agree that there is a disconnection between what we are presented in the games and what is presented in the ending, you see many people saying that the Catalyst's argument is faulty because you can make the Quarians and the Geth achieve peace, but that's exactly the short-sighted point of view the Catalyst is trying to warn you against -life in the galaxy will continue for billions of years, eventually synthetic life will outrun organic life in terms of evolution and probably destroy it- the problem is trying to convey this ideas in the five last minutes.

I actually don't think the Catalyst's logic is faulty provided you agree with him that the extermination of organics will, at some point in the future, occur. On a long enough time line this will probably happen, because on a long enough time line almost anything is possible. Of course, the problem with using the infinite prism to judge events is that, on a long enough timeline, the AI that wiped out organics will fail for one reason or another and organic life will be born again, so on a long enough timeline taking any stance one way or another is silly.

That being said, we have something close to zero evidence presented to us in the story to support the Catalyst's argument. At no point in the story were synthetics close to wiping out organics. This is a huge narrative problem. If you were writing a paper that required you to support the Catalyst with in-game evidence, your paper would get destroyed by someone using in-game evidence to support the "well take that chance" viewpoint.

And you know what? THAT'S OKAY because the Catalyst is the VILLAIN. He is supposed to have an understandable motivation that is nevertheless disproved through events in the story initiated by the hero. Destroy was supposed to represent the option for total rejection of the Catalyst, but nobody feels that way because you still have to destroy ALL synthetic life.

Anyway, I can't tell how much of that response is relevant to your post or is just me talking about the ending sucking in general again. I think you already said the story fails as a narrative with this ending so meh.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 20 avril 2012 - 02:09 .

[DarkShadow]

japinthebox wrote...
A lot of stories that follow "the hero's journey" end with the "tragic hero" hero template -- which Mass Effect also follows by the book. The only thing out of the ordinary is that Mass Effect is over a hundred hours long, and so people were incredibly attached.

And again, I think that's what Bioware overlooked.

This is a small part where I disagree. A "tragic hero" is a hero whose (god I hope I used that word right ) actions are the reason for his own demise (see Hamlet, MacBeth, etc.), and Shepard isn't that type of hero. Well, depending on playstyle, you could argue that Shepard being unable to unite all races are those actions, but for someone like me playing full Paragon and finishing every single sidequest, this just doesn't work.

[nwj94]

OdanUrr wrote...
Maybe it comes down to choosing control for the right reasons as opposed to choosing it for the wrong reasons. TIM wants control over the Reapers for the sake of control itself while Shepard would choose control over the Reapers for the sake of everyone else in the galaxy. Remember, Shepard's been advocating to destroy the Reapers but he never really knows how to bring about their destruction. Sure, conventional means would destroy some but, as Hackett said, it won't destroy them all and it won't win them the war. So Shepard believes the Crucible will destroy the Reapers, but he doesn't really know if it will or even how it will bring about their destruction. And, like the article says, once Shepard's in control he could simply order the Reapers into the sun and that would be the end of it.

A good point, but once again thats not really depicted in anyway prior to the star child saying

"[TIM] couldn't control them, but you can."

Its still out of left field and thats generally a sign of poor writing.  If they wanted to foreshadow doing something that seems wrong for the right reasons they shouldn't introduce it in the last game, let alone the last 5 minutes.  That should have been a theme since the begining.  Just as destroy the reapers was a theme from the begining.

Modifié par nwj94, 20 avril 2012 - 02:10 .

[japinthebox]

No, but quality has to overshadow any plot holes... it's called suspension of disbelief.   You can fill in holes in the theory using quantum physics, it doesn't matter.  

Then every science fiction and every fantasy has an extremely high standard of quality that they need to overcome -- and I think virtually all of them fail by your criteria.

Which if that's the case, sure -- you're jaded. And it's why a lot of people don't like science fiction. But I doubt the Mass Effect audience is *that* jaded. There are definitely other reasons that people are frustrated.

Virtually no one liked the Astro Boy ending either -- yet Atom became one of the most iconic characters in Japanese fiction history.

............ ?  What exactly is your point?

My point is that the statistics you brought up about Garth Brooks is irrelevant.

So... they didn't like the way the money was raised.... but didn't give back the money.  And.... again.... the people who donated to the charity... was in the wrong..... for giving money to charity.  And you really don't think you're just bitter that people found a productive way of expressing hatred for an ending.

Would you take candy away from a kid because his mom stole it from the store? I wouldn't. But I'd definitely have an issue with the mom -- unless she had some seriously legitimate financial situation.

Modifié par japinthebox, 20 avril 2012 - 02:14 .

[CronoDragoon]

nwj94 wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...
Maybe it comes down to choosing control for the right reasons as opposed to choosing it for the wrong reasons. TIM wants control over the Reapers for the sake of control itself while Shepard would choose control over the Reapers for the sake of everyone else in the galaxy. Remember, Shepard's been advocating to destroy the Reapers but he never really knows how to bring about their destruction. Sure, conventional means would destroy some but, as Hackett said, it won't destroy them all and it won't win them the war. So Shepard believes the Crucible will destroy the Reapers, but he doesn't really know if it will or even how it will bring about their destruction. And, like the article says, once Shepard's in control he could simply order the Reapers into the sun and that would be the end of it.

A good point, but once again thats not really depicted in anyway prior to the star child saying

"[TIM] couldn't control them, but you can."

Its still out of left field and thats generally a sign of poor writing.  If they wanted to foreshadow doing something that seems wrong for the right reasons they shouldn't introduce it in the last game, let alone the last 5 minutes.  That should have been a theme since the begining.  Just as destroy the reapers was a theme from the begining.

Not to mention that Shepard's ultimate rejection of TIM's wish is that "we(humans) are not ready." It isn't a question of motivation, ultimately, but that no single mortal man/woman should have that kind of power.

[Iconoclaste]

Creid-X wrote...

Why is it any different? The Kardashev scale, the Drake equation and the Technological Singularity should apply in the ME universe pretty much in the same way than in ours.

Mass Effect is a speculative fantasy world, where proof exist that organic life has never been wiped out until the moment we play the game. Nobody in that speculative universe would think of a "technological singularity theory" since its purpose was to explain why advanced species never made contact with others. To portray that subsequent type I civilizations succeeded in making type III devices (Crucible) where the Reapers (type II) never advanced to that stage, even so long lived, makes a point against the usage of these concepts in the story prior to the endings, and even then, it would just be weakly thought and written.