858 réponses à ce sujet

[D_Dude1210]

CronoDragoon wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

I have to applaud the OP, tho. He has successfully wasted 30-40 minutes of time from every person reading his article that could have been done to pursue more productive endeavors.

And people wonder why the world economy is in such bad shape.

Let's be honest, none of us would have used that time productively. 

I woulda.

[japinthebox]

D_Dude1210 wrote...

I have to applaud the OP, tho. He has successfully wasted 30-40 minutes of time from every person reading his article that could have been done to pursue more productive endeavors.

And people wonder why the world economy is in such bad shape.

:/ Honestly you're right.

Imma head out, I was supposed to go out drinking with friends tonight...

Thanks for reading and talking to everyone that did, minus maybe the flamers.

(And the people who claimed to have read the article but really didn't.)

Modifié par japinthebox, 20 avril 2012 - 02:35 .

[someone else]

japinthebox wrote...

someone else wrote...

OP hasn't been around for hours...trollololo...

No, but the author of the article has. Hi.

Nice to meet you - but really - even granting for the sake of argument that the dynamics of advanced civilizations may play out as you theorize, the ending is simply not of a piece with the rest of the story, plot-wise, narratively, thematically, nor most critically, in terms of the fundamental agreement between author and audience - in this case - that player choice matters most critically in determining the conclusion.

All the intellectual speculation - however intriguing - will not mitigate this defect.  Many have made this point more eloquently and persuavively than I, so I will not repeat the arguments - it matters not in the least whether you like or dislike the ending, feel it has solid roots in science or is simply space magic.  Opinion and preference are not open to debate.  What CAN be said is that the ending violates crucial tenets of good fiction, good story-telling and good drama - if you'd like a source on this, please see www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs

It fails as a conclusion to the triology because it breaks the rules of the game - rules the writers and developers themselves created.   Far from upholding "artistic integrity" the ending betrays it.

Modifié par someone else, 20 avril 2012 - 02:35 .

[D_Dude1210]

TheOptimist wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

I have to applaud the OP, tho. He has successfully wasted 30-40 minutes of time that could have been done to pursue more productive endeavors.

And people wonder why the world economy is in such bad shape.

In my case, he successfully wasted over 2 hours, cause I had to write an indepth response that no one will read.

I'm actually in the middle of putting together some sales forecasts that I'll be reporting to the board in abouuutt... 3 hours and I'm nowhere near finished.

Sadly, the silliness of this article has stunned me to the point of non-productivity.

Thanks a LOT , OP....

[3DandBeyond]

If you even just read the first parts of his theory there are flaws as there are with all the positions taken that the reapers destroy advanced organic life to prevent catastrophe. The Grey Goo thing where nanotech overtakes whole worlds therefore any organic that might develop technology leading to Grey Goo must be stopped to prevent Grey Goo. Stupid.

In the real world, cops aren't supposed to arrest and kill children who might kill other people when they get older. This interpretation of what these theories are saying is something like The Minority Report.

If this idea held true then the logical conclusion is that any learning is ultimately bad, when in reality us normal people realize that anything can be used for good or bad, or have good or bad consequences. Might as well just kill people in the Stone Age because those damn rocks might hurt somebody.

I am not Stephen Hawking. I watched and re-watched all of Cosmos. I have inhaled anything to do with space and you know what? Theories are theories. They are also not always determinants of action or inaction because they are often confounded by random human behavior. They are equations that always need that last piece of the puzzle, human interaction. Until then, they are incomplete.

So, in ME3, the writers made synthetic critters that cannot even comprehend of logic that allowed the Geth and Quarians to make peace. The good news should be that such an advanced being as the catalyst should be able to adapt, but it can't even adapt as fast as a geth, quarian, or human. It didn't imput the human (Shepard) factor into it's equations.

And, all synthetic life is doomed to some imperfection just as are organics. Synthetic life at its very beginning was created, most likely by organics. Their logic is then just as fallible, but even more so because organics know they make mistakes and try to adapt to contain them. Synthetics have a hard time seeing they can make mistakes. So much for perfection. That is why the story of geth and quarians is so compelling and should have mattered more. The geth learned.

[Iconoclaste]

Creid-X wrote...

That's not what Technological Singularity is about.
"Technological singularity refers to the hypothetical future emergence of greater-than-human intelligence through technological means. Since the capabilities of such intelligence would be difficult for an unaided human mind to comprehend, the occurrence of a technological singularity is seen as an intellectual event horizon, beyond which events cannot be predicted or understood. Proponents of the singularity typically state that an "intelligence explosion" is a key factor of the Singularity where superintelligences design successive generations of increasingly powerful minds."

That is just the point against the Reapers : they have organic minds. Now I don't see the point anymore to use the technological singularity theory towards the endings.

You gave me motivation to read weird stuff tonight! 

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 20 avril 2012 - 03:06 .

[Averdi]

japinthebox wrote...

Communication using quantum entanglement, as well as FTL travel and wormhole travel are all things that have been disproven by science. The Kardashev Scale and the Drake Equation haven't, and groups like SETI are still hard at work trying to figure out what the truth is. 

I'm not familiar with the science, but I don't see how the presence in the ME universe of things that have been disproven by real world science helps legitimize speculative real world theories concerning extermination of organics within the ME universe.

[NoUserNameHere]

japinthebox wrote...

Lancane wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

ALso: "the ending is strongly foreshadowed"

BULL ****ING ****!

We KNOW there was another ending planned, we know this. The main antagonist of this ending isn't even introduced until 10 minutes before the end. THAT IS NOT when you introduce a central conflict of the storyline.

Great Answer! 

There's plenty of times when the last boss of a game isn't introduced in the ending. Be glad that the Catalyst didn't do the cliche "This is my final form" stuff.

And no, if you'd read down into the article, the other ending was neither the first nor the last -- it was one of several that had been thrown around.

Your point? The last boss came right the freak out of nowhere in Deus Ex: HR. People thought that was stupid.

Both 'bosses' are deus ex machina's -- Starchild happens to be a DEM in all meanings of the word.

The Catalyst problem is the result of multiple issues intersecting on each other.

[robertm2]

i dont understand people complaining about the lack of player choice. in me1 you either let the council die or save them. in me2 you either give the base to cerberus or you destroy it. in me3 you have destroy, control, sythesis. none of those things have any actual impact on any of the other games so why are people acting like the ending of the third game has a lack of player choice? its got one more choice than any of the other games and it is as equally useless as the other games as far as outcomes. please drop the whole player choice argument because it is not different than any of the other games. plotholes i can understand but the entire mass effect series has only provided the minor illusion of choice with generally the same exact outcome. people just want any ammunition they can use against the ending and everyone will go along with it because they want to hate the ending without actually thinking about it. this is mob mentality at its finest.

[ashwind]

Even if everything said in the post is right, even if I agree with every point made. Bioware could still have made a better ending; hopefully that is what the EC DLC will cover.

The space battles could have been more Epic, the Reapers arent blind and the Crucible is not invisible, I am sure they will try to take it down when the Crucible is approaching the Citadel, scenes should have been made to show how Shield Fleet protected the Crucible, it would also explain why a high EMS is required to deliver the Crucible to the Catalyst while maintaining maximum functionality. Low EMS = Crucible severely damaged and hence only the Destroy option and it will vaporize earth etc.

Even those who agree with the "artistic portion" of the ending should feel that the ending could have been longer, more detail and more epic.

[edit] People who dislike the ending does not imply that they do not get the "true meaning". Forget the logic / implication / meaning behind the ending and look at it from "Presentation's stand point". It is... poorly presented especially when the rest of the game is presented so well.

Modifié par ashwind, 20 avril 2012 - 02:50 .

[bobafett007]

Thanks sp0ck 06, I hadn't read this yet. It definitely gave me more to think about and helped a little. don't let a lot of these guys get you down. they seem really stubborn. their minds are set. as long as they fix some of the continuity issues like the Normandy in the EC i'll be fine. good read.

[Banelash]

VERY long read.

Nice read, but he tends to veer off the topic a number of times.

I will just pose this question then.

Why don't the reapers just wipe out ALL organic life, if their only purpose is just to prevent organics from creating synthetic that will wipe out all life? Won't the extinction of all life help to prevent any creation of synthetic? Why leave organic alive to allow such a possibility?

That is why their logic suck. If they had stuck to the original dark matter reason, harvesting civilisations to create more reapers to deal with it, that would make more sense than preventing organic from creating synthetic

[DanteTrixter]

I won't bother reading it because as ive said. I get the ending. But it sucks,nothing you can say will magically change my mind. Ive seen fans do everything from making an amazing remake of talis face because the one we got was lazy instead of giving us an alien yet familiar Tali

link to pic bellow.

http://nebezial.devi...ly=69&offset=20

To making their own endings because the ending they got just wasn't the ending they worked for and in some of the fan made shep even dies but it's done way more tasteful then the slop bioware tried to feed us.



It's sad to see a bunch of people trying to salvage something that they hold dear to them because the people who we paid by buying this game couldn't deliver and instead want to stroke their ego.

We are doing their job and from the looks of it a HECK of a lot better.

I want my 16 different endings!

[survivor_686]

While I agree with the author on some aspects, I also find some of arguments quite repulsive. Regardless when the ending goes over the head of your audience, it means you haven't done the ending well.

When you start introducing new characters and concepts (at no point has it ever been suggested that the Reapers are benevolent...until Starchild) at the ending, you break narrative flow.

[SparkyRich]

Hmm, I failed my post-grad Mass Effect doctoral thesis apparently.

Interestingly enough, all of these amazingly complex scientific theories have been kicked around by regular jackasses playing games like Space Master (Iron Crown Enterprises), Space Opera (Fantasy Games Unlimited) and d20 Modern/Future (Wizards of the Coast).  Regular role-playing nerds.  I guess it's nice to have some big time professor put numbers to it, but big deal - the ideas have been there for a while.

So I guess my point is, none of this disproves indoctrination exactly - I was never on the "Shepard is now indoctrinated" boat anyway.  I sit with the opinion that the end sequence was the Reapers trying to indoctrinate Shepard.  The Catalyst appears in a form screened from Shepard's mind (one that has been particularly troublesome for Shepard lately, in fact) and presents some arguments designed to let our hero feel he's being reasonable.  Do you think Saren didn't think he was doing something to help galactic civilisation?  Do you think the Illusive Man didn't want the best for humanity?  The whole thing with indoctrination is that it should in fact be easier to lead truly compassionate and intelligent people because they want to do what's right and to avoid unnecessary conflict.  So, a little mental judo and you've got a mostly willing helper who thinks this is all their own idea.

The reason I thought this was the case is that, if it's not why the hell did I sit up in a pile of asphalt after the cinematic?  How did I survive the fall from the Citadel?  Where did I leave my car keys?

Modifié par SparkyRich, 20 avril 2012 - 03:10 .

[Iconoclaste]

Banelash wrote...

Why don't the reapers just wipe out ALL organic life, if their only purpose is just to prevent organics from creating synthetic that will wipe out all life? Won't the extinction of all life help to prevent any creation of synthetic? Why leave organic alive to allow such a possibility?

That is why their logic suck. If they had stuck to the original dark matter reason, harvesting civilisations to create more reapers to deal with it, that would make more sense than preventing organic from creating synthetic

I agree with that, and I asked that same question a few times. The first answer that came back was "They are trying to maintain a fragile balance".

You can ask the next question, like I did, but it will get nowhere from there, since the story / Codex doesn't say more.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 20 avril 2012 - 03:12 .

[indyracing]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

This ending is worthless, period. It violates the very themes and design choices of ME1 and 2, end of story.

Reading that article might change your mind about that.

I read it, and he even points out

"but to see it, you need to be aware of the some of the rather esoteric theories and hypotheses in astrobiology"

At this point, as Bioware deemed to not include that anywhere in their game, they failed.  Full stop.

And remember, these are just THEORIES and HYPOTHESIS, so I, personally, question the validity of using such a background of information (that you don't give to your audience) in a very mainstream story.  It's, quite simply, poor writing and poor knowledge of your market. 

As theories, there's no actual proof they'll end up being real.  Even now knowing about them, I don't care about them, as I will not ever live to see one proven true or false.  They're good intellectual theories, and worth keeping around as we advance, but shouldn't ever be used at the very end of a 100+ hour popcorn-popping mainstream action story.

"3.9 Mass relay destructions always cause supernova-like explosions" 

As far as anyone who's played through all the Mass Effects and DLC, they do.  And he even says in the section "That said, the ending animation sequence does show the relays exploding
so spectacularly that they’re visible from intergalactic space the way
supernovae are. This is one of the many errors that riddle the ending
sequence, as I explain in another part of this post."

Well, great!  I saw what confirms what I already know to be true - having seen it happen before in the games, but it was probably just a mistake by Bioware - that's how we're supposed to respond?  So I should just ignore it and not assume everyone's dead.  Super!

There's more to critique, but while it's an interesting article, it doesn't at all make the ending "good".  And the author's acceptance of the Catalyst relies on "superbrain theories" that the vast majority of the audience has never heard of, and also may not even turn out to be true.

My main problem with it is that he just simply accepts the Catalyst.

And whether or not Bioware was thinking of these theories when writing the ending, and whether or not the ending makes sense when taking these theories into consideration, the fact is that if I play a game (or read a story, or watch a tv series) for 100+ hours with the goal of "save the galaxy from the reapers", or something else similar, to find out in the last 5 minutes of that 100 hours that the Reapers aren't the real problem is very disappointing.  

To play a, mostly, action game for 100+ hours, and then to have the highly billed epic ending be conversation (and conversation that ignores the major themes that most players took from the story to that point) is very disappointing.

To be told, both directly and indirectly (via saves transferring and they being reflected in the next game, however lightly) that my choices MATTER, and then to have the game end with what appeared to me, all life in all systems with a mass relay being destroyed, is disappointing.  Does it matter that I brokered peace between the Quarians and Geth (or Turians and Krogan) - does it matter that I saved the Rachni queen (twice) -  Does it matter that I cured the genophage - does it...? 

Nope, everyone's dead.

You can say bad ending animations, lack of understanding little known astrobiology theories, or lack of time and money are the cause of it - but the end result is a horribly bad ending.

"When people complain about all of their choices throughout the 3
games having been for nought, I ask them what they’d been doing
throughout the whole of Mass Effect 3. Here’s what one guy said:
I got maximum EMS, I did every mission, thinking, hoping that it
would make a difference as my choices actually made changes within the
narrative, but then the ending hits you like a tonne of bricks, not in
an emotional way of narrative, but more in the way that you’ve just
realised, this whole series, you’ve performed these choices, all for
nothing because Bioeware and EA decided not to give it a proper send –
off
There’s the problem right there: he’d played the whole game just to
rack up points and forgot that all the major issues in the story were
resolved during the last game – not at the end."

People rack up points because the game encourages them to.  That's how games work.  In ME 2 you did the loyalty missions for, perhaps, various reasons.  You may like the character, you may like the character's mission, you may feel underleveled for the time and need the XP, or you may know a bit about the end of ME 2 and know it's a "good idea" to do everyone's loyalty mission (if for no other reason than to have more content in the next $60 game).

So you learn this in ME 2, and quite naturally assume that when a similar system is introduced in ME 3, it will mean somthing similar.  When it (war assets) doesn't, you simply feel cheated.

At this point I'll toss in the obligatory line about bold-face lies pre-release by producers.

I have a hard time agreeing with him with regards to games and art.  For me, art (and beauty) are in the eye of the beholder.  And consumer products, I would contend, are not the place to be "aiming for art" unless you are willing to accept people don't like it.  Bioware doesn't seem to find it acceptable that people don't like their "art".  They DO seem willing to placate customers so they see a lesser financial hit in the future, but as a publicly traded company, that is, quite simply, their duty (to their shareholders).

For example, I find Metallica's "Orion" to be a beautiful instrumental.  Others hear it as heavy metal garbage or noise.  Neither of us are wrong.  Just as I'm not wrong in calling Mass Effect 3 entertainment instead of art - well, I'd call it good entertainment until it tries to shoehorn in a very bad "artistic" ending.  But I get the impression people are trying to tell me I'm simply wrong, including Bioware as well as game critics.

That just makes me even madder - but at THEM and not the game.

[brian_breed]

TheOptimist wrote...
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.

Tangent:

Assuming ET sapients exist, the most likely reason we've never heard any ETs over the radio is because our civilizations weren't broadcasting/receiving at the same epoch.

Second most likely cause? We just don't know what to listen for, and that listening - that is, hearing - has any value to any planets other than our own.

[Iconoclaste]

And now that I'm genuinely intrigued by this "technological singularity", which reminds me of Douglas Adams, I wish I knew what plain, simple intelligence is, for a starter.

[jeweledleah]

just like indoctrination theory, the author is trying to over complicate something very simple.

colorful explosions, funky animations, quasi Hollywood ending (not every Hollywood movie ends with hero living, quite a few end with dramatic death - it almost feels like they were going for a cross between Matrix and Terminator 2 type of sacrifice there)

there IS no deeper meaning to ME3 endings. and whether you subscribe to indoctrination theory or any other philosophical interpretation - in the end its all grasping at straws, trying to make silk purse out of sow's ear.

[ZombieChad]

That is a well written article and quite interesting to read tbh. However it still doesn't make it feel to me as though any ending was worth playing a paragon for. I'm going to be fine if the DLC explains the gaping questions left by the ending (Normandy etc) as my Renegade the Starchild could've been singing and dancing as soon as it said "I made the reapers" the only thing I cared about was pressing the Reaper's off switch. My death and EDI's death were the cost of breaking the cycle. Fantastic more or less the ending I'd envisaged, it echoed the first lines in Mass Effect where they discuss the type of person who can save the galaxy. I'd chosen Torfan.

Yet as a paragon, someone who actually cares about those around him and not as ruthless but playing as a good man in a bad situation the endings were deeply unsatisfying. Shepard simply capitulates to the Starchild's logic admitting "TIM was right!" I see it as power corrupts etc. How long until Shepard-Catalyst thinks "Hmmm might need to set up Cycle 2.0", that just means some other poor bastard will have to go through it all and it was all for nothing. Synthesis just feels wrong somehow as pretty much every time someone get's implants it's not a good thing in the series and I just really didn't like the idea that in some creepy way I'd now be related to Harbinger and his space squid posse. Which leaves Destroy... this time killing EDI and the Geth (who this playthrough I'd actually saved and not brutally gunned down Legion) actually makes this end equally disgusting as the other two for the Paragon imo, as I'd be fine about killing myself (again) but now I'm committing Genocide and murder... yay....

So it was a good read thanks for posting it but its not changed my mind. ME3 still sits on my shelf until Summer.

[Dendio1]

I enjoyed the read and learned a bit about the universe and how it works

[bobafett007]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Banelash wrote...

Why don't the reapers just wipe out ALL organic life, if their only purpose is just to prevent organics from creating synthetic that will wipe out all life? Won't the extinction of all life help to prevent any creation of synthetic? Why leave organic alive to allow such a possibility?

That is why their logic suck. If they had stuck to the original dark matter reason, harvesting civilisations to create more reapers to deal with it, that would make more sense than preventing organic from creating synthetic

I agree with that, and I asked that same question a few times. The first answer that came back was "They are trying to maintain a fragile balance".

You can ask the next question, like I did, but it will get nowhere from there, since the story / Codex doesn't say more.

it's a cycle to keep organic life alive. how does wiping them all out accomplish that? wtf??

[Iconoclaste]

brian_breed wrote...

Assuming ET sapients exist, the most likely reason we've never heard any ETs over the radio is because our civilizations weren't broadcasting/receiving at the same epoch.

Second most likely cause? We just don't know what to listen for, and that listening - that is, hearing - has any value to any planets other than our own.

On the first point, we have to take distance into account. At the time we receive anything intelligible, it's possible that civilization is already extinct.

On the second point, I think SETI does try to sort out all assortments of signals and wave patterns to try to find anything that looks like a deliberate structure in the noise all around us. The problem may also arise if the technology gap between emitter and receiver is just too advanced.

[Iconoclaste]

bobafett007 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

Banelash wrote...

Why don't the reapers just wipe out ALL organic life, if their only purpose is just to prevent organics from creating synthetic that will wipe out all life? Won't the extinction of all life help to prevent any creation of synthetic? Why leave organic alive to allow such a possibility?

That is why their logic suck. If they had stuck to the original dark matter reason, harvesting civilisations to create more reapers to deal with it, that would make more sense than preventing organic from creating synthetic

I agree with that, and I asked that same question a few times. The first answer that came back was "They are trying to maintain a fragile balance".

You can ask the next question, like I did, but it will get nowhere from there, since the story / Codex doesn't say more.

it's a cycle to keep organic life alive. how does wiping them all out accomplish that? wtf??

Why? Do Reapers enjoy flowers?