Time to break down just how this guy's explanation (as detailed and long as it is) misses the point. I'm focusing only on the points that I have the most problem with. Many are going to be ignored because I don't care or I agree.
3.4 EDI and the Geth prove that peace between synthetics and machine is possible.
(I'm gonna assume that he meant synthetics and organics.)
The Catalyst doesn’t deny this. The Catalyst denies the possibility of lasting peace.
From a storytelling perspective, there is only one reason to show that peace between synthetics and organics is possible; that is to show that peace between synthetics and organics
is possible. It upholds the primary themes of unity and self-determination that are prevalent through 99.9% of the ME games (you only lose this with the Star Child scene, really.) Deliberately including these elements into the story as primary plot arcs, and then in the very last scene denying the emotional strength and impact that they have brought
to the story is one way that the story itself is delegitimized and destroyed. You can use any logic you want to defend the Catalyst action and words; you can not use anything to defend it as a good storytelling idea.
3.8 The Catalyst and the Reapers want to kill all organic life
The game specifically tells us time and again that it's only spacefaring civilizations that are targeted. Only a few people don't get this. This argument is almost entirely a straw-man construction of those who misunderstand the "Yo Dawg" meme (which is an oversimplification that remains true to the spirit of what the Star Child states.)
The Catalyst and Reapers’ motive is to harvest, enslave or end all spacefaring life as it approaches the technological singularity, in an effort to spare all other organic life from the inevitable threat of rogue synthetic life.
Catalyst: The created will always rebel against their creators. But
we found a way to stop that from happening; a way to restore order for
the next cycle.
Yes, we get the Catalyst's motive. What do you not get about the fact that
THE REAPERS ARE SYNTHETIC (IE, CREATED) AND THUS SHOULD HAVE REBELLED? No rebellion = faulty logic. Rebellion also = faulty logic. In either case, the Catalyst's Cycle is reliant upon faulty logic.
3.9 Mass Relay explosions always cause supernova-like explosions
I agree that they probably do not explode like in Arrival; however, there is
no evidence to support this belief. Codex specifically states that Relays will explode with a supernova-like explosion if they are ruptured; it sure as hell looks like the Relays are rupturing at the end. This is Bioware-fail, as they could have shown just a few more seconds of the Relay exploding but
not resulting in a supernova. Or they could have forgone the whole galaxy map of ping-ponging explosions.
3.13 The ending was terrible because the synthesis beam couldn't have merged organics and synthetics so immediately
If people upheld the same kind of reasoning for the Mass Effect 2
ending, the whole Collector arc would have been completely moot. You
would expect that the Reapers would have figured out genetic analysis
and cloning, right?
There’s no reason not to simply accept that a technology even more grand
than that of the Reapers and the Catalyst could graft machine to man
instantaneously.
There's actually a logical explanation for the Collector attacks given inside ME2 itself. There are numerous references to human genetic diversity, as well as the Collectors performing experiments on humans. This is
in addition to the humans that were turned to liquified goo for Reaper construction. Clones take time to grow and be harvested, and have exactly zero genetic diversity from the crop you start with. Much easier to just send out a highly-advanced warship and steal a colony or five.
There is no reason to suggest that the Crucible is more grand than the Reapers, especially since it is designed to use Reaper technology (Catalyst, Citadel, Relays.) On par with, I'll give you that one, but superior? No. Furthermore, there is
no attempt even made, resulting in it just being a hand-wave "space magic!" that is unsatisfying to a series that explains how literal magic is actually science (biotics, anyone?) No attempt is cheap and insulting from the point of view of the audience (well, of me. And I'm all that matters, to me.)
3.16 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.
No. There is
no good reason to abandon significant philosphies and themes that have been the focus of who Shepard
is through three games in the final 10 minutes. Unity and self-determination are the
heart of the Paragon/Renegade choices, and are reinforced with nearly every decision you make. 10 minutes and 14 lines of dialogue
cannot replace these, and attempting to do so is ****ing retarded, and fail storytelling.
4.0 On the Ending's lack of closure
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.
He’d forgotten that Shepard cured the genophage, gave the Geth
individualism and souls and established peace between them and the
Quarians, gave the Rachni and Krogans inclusion on the Citadel, found
Joker his dream girlfriend, turned Kolyat away from Thane’s lifestyle
(much to his relief – one of my favorite scenes), earned vengeance for a
living Prothean, and heck, even had his ass saved once by a
much-refined Conrad Verner.
There is a significant amount of very good closure to Shepard's story for almost the entirety of ME3. Starting with Tuchanka and ending with Anderson's goodbye speech, there's some damn good story and goodbyes. I had a fair idea of how things were going to turn out, if I could just eliminate the Reaper threat. The only problem is, the Star Child changed all of that.
Instead of answering all, or most, or even some of the questions I had remaining, I had about fifty new ones. First and foremost was, "Did I just blow up the galaxy?" This was followed closely by, "What the hell?" Then proceeded to, "Damnit Joker, Tali's mine!
Mine!!." Even more questions happened after that, and I started thinking about what the endings actually
mean.
Are the fleets around Earth going to kill each other now? They can't easily return to a planet with food. Are krogans going to institute edible law? (Where they eat you if they are hungry, unless you can stop them.) What are the Quarians (who only have a couple of liveships) and Turians going to do for food. They can't eat the same stuff as everyone else, so are they just boned? What...why...how...what...what...why...what...why...on and on and on and on. The more I think about the ending the more questions I have.
The closure that Bioware had been building for
the entire game was literally destroyed in the space of ten minutes. That's what people mean by "lack of closure."
Modifié par Erield, 20 avril 2012 - 08:55 .
Retour en haut
