858 réponses à ce sujet

[Geneaux486]

AwesomeName wrote...
No need to be an arse.  I've played the first two games several times now.

Some people seem to think that if you don't agree with them then you just don't get the games, or obviously didn't play the first two, or some other nonsense.  I suspect it's a coping mechanism, but not sure.  Hmm, tests...

Modifié par Geneaux486, 20 avril 2012 - 05:06 .

[someone else]

Zine2 wrote...
It only goes to demonstrate that only idiots like the ending.

Not exactly - some very intelligent and thoughtful people like the ending - that is their privilege.   Only idiots, however, believe they can defend the ending.

Modifié par someone else, 20 avril 2012 - 05:08 .

[Iconoclaste]

Zine2 wrote...

Joeybsmooth4 wrote...

You don't think that it is unreasonable for people to know about the works of a Hawkins ? When the video game up to that point has not been going that deep into stuff up until the end ?  What they offer up is far more than speaking about a technilogical singularity.  And has pointed out many of the views are not even agreed on by all people.

All real computer scientists have shown that the technological singularity isn't real. At all.

Which isn't surprising because it was invented by a bunch of morons who had paranoid delusions about the robot apocalypse.

I didn't know that. Interesting.

[Geneaux486]

AwesomeName wrote...
Personally what the Catalyst said to Shepard, was pretty close to what I was expecting based on the conversation with Sovereign and the ending of ME2, so what foreshadowing they had worked for me.

Same here.  In Mass Effect we know that the Reapers harvest everyone every 50,000 years for undisclosed reasons and consider themselves to be perfect beings who impose order on the chaos of organic evolution.  In Mass Effect 2 we know that they turn organics into Reapers and proclaim themselves "salvation through destruction".  It pretty much added up to what the Catalyst told us in the end.

[Zine2]

someone else wrote...

Zine2 wrote...
It only goes to demonstrate that only idiots like the ending.

Not exactly - some very intelligent and thoughtful people like the ending - that is their privilege.   Only idiots, however, believe they can defend the ending.

Liking the ending involves some kind of self-justification, and every single pesented so far has been as retarded as this episode of "Ancient Aliens" from an idiot who clearly has no idea what Astrobiology really is.

[Eterna]

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.

The best endings are the ones that make you think.  

[oksbad]

You know what's funny? If the astrobiology arguments he mentioned actually were valid, I could use them to undermine the entire premise of the mass effect series.

[Zine2]

Iconoclaste wrote...
I didn't know that. Interesting.

Anyone who has done some actual computer science work would know that processing power has nothing to do with artificial intelligence; it is actually completely dependent on the architecture of your basic function. That is why AI is about designing various algorithms, functions, or structures that can support decision-making (software), and very little about designing a better microchip for more processing power (hardware).

So having more and more powerful hardware will not result in an infinitely smarter being. It will actually instead depend on the basic function of the intelligence and what kind of data it is "fed". EDI - who responds based on how well the crew treats her - is a much more "realistic" (and I use the term loosely) depiction of how an AI will develop.

So anyone who claims more and more powerful computers will result in a runaway intelligence who wants to kill us all is a paranoid lunatic who watched The Terminator series too many times, and completely failed to get the point of the series ("If a machine, a Terminator, can understand the value of human life. Maybe we can too).

[Zine2]

Eterna5 wrote...

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.

The best endings are the ones that make you think.  

I see very little thinking in the article, but instead a lot of blatant lying.

[Geneaux486]

AwesomeName wrote...

indyracing wrote...

Well I guess i'm weird, because as I finished playing Mass Effect 3, I thought I had just wiped out all life in all systems that had a mass relay, because the game had taught me that's what happens when a mass relay blows up, and that's sure what it looks like (even admitted by this article) happened after my choice was made.

Why would you think that?  The one time a relay gets destroyed and that's all the sample size of evidence you need to assume that that's what will happen no matter how one is destroyed?  Generally there are multiple ways to destroy a thing and the results will vary.

Besides, didn't you see the space magic flow all over Earth?  And how the planet didn't get destroyed by it?

Everything about the Alpha Relay incident was unique.   The Alpha Relay itself was significantly more powerful than an average relay, and it was destroyed when a rock was forcibly rammed into it.  Like you said, we have one case to compare it to, that's not enough to say "that's what always happens" when clearly it doesn't.  That tropical planet Joker landed on sure didn't look like it had been hit by a supernova to me.

[Johcande XX]

The challenge in reading it, is that it's boring as hell.

Quoting from established THEORETICAL astrophysicists doesn't really PROVE one thing or another. Your argument is that you found references to theoretical sciences in ME; therefore that was their intended goal/theme, and that is just wrong. Any space opera title (game or otherwise) will have those same elements from your link, that does not mean that the universe was created for those elements, or even to abide by those elements.

To counter, I'll use Occam's Razor.
Hudson/Walters created an awe inspiring thought provoking ending which stems from a deep understanding of studies in theoretical astrobiology, theoretical exobiology, and theoretical astrophysics.
- OR -
Hudson/Walters created an ending that was badly written with a quick wrap up in order to ship on time.

I'll go with the latter until I see a Master's of Science degree in Astrophysics from one of them.

[Sangheili_1337]

I can't take the link seriously when the very first point is already wrong. In no way does Sovereign's conversation with Shepard foreshadow the ending. Never did the writer explain why he thinks this is evidence as to why the ending that we have received was the most logical conclusion.

The Reapers are not a type 2 civilization. They are never seen to control stars or make Dyson spheres. They are also never capable of fighting the big crunch even if you take cut content into consideration which of course shouldn't. They are much stronger than the organic races but certainly not on a whole level above.

The notion that the Reapers understands things that organics can never comprehends then falls completely flat on its face. Is a Somalian unable to understand the ethics and morals of a American? That is the power scale we are talking about here and it is not big enough.

The Drake equation is silly. It is based on pure speculation. The inconsistencies of the ending should in no way be compared to inconsistencies throughout the rest of the game. Why? because suspension of disbelief can be stretched only to a certain extent. There wouldn't be a space battle if the Reapers camped the mass relay but that was what happened because it is the only possible way you would be able to see a entertaining scene unfold.

The ending however had dozens of inconsistencies in a 10 minute timeframe, and all was ridiculous to the extreme. At no other point in the series can you find such a condensed mess. Look at Mass Effect 1, can anyone think of plot holes in that game? I certainly cannot think of one off the top of my head and if you look hard enough, I doubt it would be so silly as to break suspension of disbelief. Certainly not dozens as was the case in the ME 3 ending.

I can't be bothered to respond to all the points when the author got the first few so terribly wrong.

Modifié par Sangheili_1337, 20 avril 2012 - 05:41 .

[Nobrandminda]

AwesomeName wrote...

Why would you think that?  The one time a relay gets destroyed and that's all the sample size of evidence you need to assume that that's what will happen no matter how one is destroyed?  Generally there are multiple ways to destroy a thing and the results will vary.

Yes, because that's how storytelling works.  This isn't the scientific method here.  A concept doesn't have to have proven repetition before it can be considered a fact.  If I see a character reveal a holstered gun, it's safe to assume that he is always armed unless otherwise specified.  It was never specified that the Relays exploding at the end of ME3 would be different from the explosion at the end of Arrival.  

Sure, the relays do explode in a somewhat different manner than the Alpha relay, so you could maybe assume that the resulting damage would be different.  But we had absolutely no way of knowing that before we actually saw the explosion, and neither did Shepard.

Besides, didn't you see the space magic flow all over Earth?  And how the planet didn't get destroyed by it?

Yeah, I saw the space magic hit earth... but that was before the relays exploded.  After the relay explodes, it immediately cuts to the scene with the Normandy, and we never see earth again.  For all we know, the planet that the Normandy lands on isn't in a system with a Mass Relay, so we can't use that to assume that everything turned out alright either.

Modifié par Nobrandminda, 20 avril 2012 - 05:50 .

[snfonseka]

Reading the article made it clear why the ending is so bad. Thanks to Shamus Youngs' article I can clearly express what I was hoping in the ending.

In general, an audience is probably looking for three key things at the end of a story:

Affirmation - Love conquers all, hope endures, freedom is worth fighting for, the truth will set you free, justice can't be denied, etc. You save the little kid, the evil overlord is defeated, somebody gets married, everyone celebrates the hero, cupcakes and ice cream. Ex: Frodo drops the ring into Mt. Doom and Saruon is defeated forever.

Explanation - All questions answered. Making sure it all makes sense also falls under this category. Ex: How did Gandalf come back from the dead? What made the Witch King undefeatable? What happens to the Three Rings if the One is destroyed?

Closure - How did things turn out? Did the characters have a happy ending? Ex: Sam married Rose. Frodo and Bilbo went to the Havens. Aragorn was crowned king.

ME3 ending didn't manage to provide at least one of the above. If someone believes that the audience should have a proper knowledge (external to the lore of the game) to understand the ending of a game, I sympathies that person due to his/ her poor understanding regarding "how to tell a story".

Personally I don't care about any connections between the games story and any mathematical or scientific theories or assumptions. Because the games story should be explained within the game, not outside of it. If someone is trying to prove that the ending "make sense" by using bunch of external sources, he/ she is proving (again) to the rest of the world "how bad is the ending".

Edit: Also I like to thank OP for refering this article, but have to say that OP challenge is doomed from start because it looks like OP believes if someone can succesfully describe (personally, I don't think so) the games' story using bunch of external sources that makes the story better. OP, that's not the way of "storytelling"; the story shoould be explained within the given medium.

Modifié par snfonseka, 20 avril 2012 - 05:59 .

[Sangheili_1337]

I just have to say again how ridiculous a notion that a race that is capable of only kiloton firepower will somehow have the knowledge and technology  that enables the capability of stopping the big crunch. So dumb.

Modifié par Sangheili_1337, 20 avril 2012 - 05:52 .

[JaylaClark]

I'm going to once again say that I can see what they were trying to say with this ending.

I approve of the intent of the message.

But they failed at saying it coherently, elegantly, or ... well, competently even.

[Norman250]

The whole "it was a different kind of relay explosion" is moronic. When Shep blew that relay, it wasn't specifically the asteroid that caused the catastrophic explosions. It was the eezo core at the center of the relay detonating, because the hardware of the relay (the actual device itself) was the only thing keeping it in check. It doesn't matter HOW you destroy a relay, they all still have eezo cores that would all still have a meltdown.

[Koobarex]

Norman250 wrote...

The whole "it was a different kind of relay explosion" is moronic. When Shep blew that relay, it wasn't specifically the asteroid that caused the catastrophic explosions. It was the eezo core at the center of the relay detonating, because the hardware of the relay (the actual device itself) was the only thing keeping it in check. It doesn't matter HOW you destroy a relay, they all still have eezo cores that would all still have a meltdown.

This.

Also, read the whole article and let me just say that  I haven't seen such a desperate attempt to prove an unprovable point by throwing unrelated stuff together since my university years. Plus for the author for really wanting to believe that the crap we got had a hidden (or, according to the author, SO OBVIOUSLY VISIBLE!!) meaning.

[Personuknow]

I read through the entire thing from start to finish, and early on found myself thinking the exact same thing many say about Indoctrination Theory:

"Would be nice if it were true, but there's no way it was BioWare's intent."

[Daedalus1773]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Yeah, we get it. We're not too dumb to understand what they changed their story to attempt to say at the last minute. That's not the problem with the ending. Sorry.

This is listed in the pro-ending compendium, by the way. You might find other interesting reading there.

I know its listed there, so is my take on the endings.  But I really believe if people read this article it might at least make the ending bearable.  I honestly just want to help people, I'm not trying to prove anything.

Your effort is genuinely appreciated, and I am genuinely happy that some are able to enjoy the entirety of ME3. I dearly wish I was able to as well.

I've read it, and I do not agree with it. It unfortunately doesn't provide me a new lens with which to see the ending. I still see it as fundamentally broken, an it still feels fundamentally broken.

Thanks for trying, tho.

[Evil_Nerjuna]

I might be nitpicky, but if the writer of that essay was trying to convince the readers that his views and opinions are stand corrected, then he had failed due to explaining his arguements by using a first person voice.

An accademic/intellect should remember that in order to get their arguements across in written essays such as this, they had to use third person voice, where it gives them an air of detachment and objectivity. Using the first person voice, such as "I"; will make their arguements subjective and informal. Which makes the audieance take the essay less serious than what the writer had in mind.

Speaking of subjective, personally I don't like the way he writes at his closing paragraph, especially if has a thinly veil mocking tone to the opposing party of his arguement. Not only it's going to be hard to convince for the opposition member to agree with his view points, but it reminds me of one the weekly newpaper columns that I used to run into a few years ago, where this writer had the same snide tone to it, whenever he had to belittle a few sensitive things that pushes on the borderline of being offensive.

Bottomline, I don't think I'll take this article seriously anytime soon. No offence to OP, but we had our differances with the endings and the article. Let's leave it at that.

Modifié par Evil_Nerjuna, 20 avril 2012 - 06:27 .

[JrSlackin]

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.

[Joeybsmooth4]

AwesomeName wrote...

indyracing wrote...

Well I guess i'm weird, because as I finished playing Mass Effect 3, I thought I had just wiped out all life in all systems that had a mass relay, because the game had taught me that's what happens when a mass relay blows up, and that's sure what it looks like (even admitted by this article) happened after my choice was made.

Why would you think that?  The one time a relay gets destroyed and that's all the sample size of evidence you need to assume that that's what will happen no matter how one is destroyed?  Generally there are multiple ways to destroy a thing and the results will vary.

Besides, didn't you see the space magic flow all over Earth?  And how the planet didn't get destroyed by it?

The Condex said that they will also  they will always blow up like that .