858 réponses à ce sujet

[guacamayus]

Erield wrote...

permeus2nd wrote...

OK personally you seam to desprat to get people to read that link and it kind of makes me think of a bad plot device to kill off a person in a bad game

""oh but you must try my tea""
""no thank" "

""But its good for you, please have some""
""I'm not a big fan of tea, I'll pass""

""But its good tea and your friends have already had there's""
""I said no I don't want the tea""

And then it starts again because the only way to move on is for you to drink the tea you know is a trap and be poisened,

Is the link poisoned?


CWR

Funny story, I had basically that exact conversation the first time I went to Georgia.  I was sitting down at a restaurant, and ordered water. 

The waitress said, "Would you also like some sweet tea?"  
And I was like, "No thank you."
And she was all, "You don't want any sweet tea?"  She seemed very incredulous.
I replied with, "No, water's fine."
Then she said, "Why don't you want no sweet tea, son?"
So I followed up with, "I...I'd just rather have water."
"You can have the sweet tea, too."
At this point, other people in the restaurant were starting to look at me weird, since she wasn't exactly quiet, and the people I was visiting were starting to look embarrassed, so I eventually ordered the sweet tea.  I didn't drink it; I would pour some of it into other people's glasses as they emptied theirs to make it look like I was.  I'd never before been scared of what I didn't order.

guacamayus wrote...
You are missing
the point, synthetics have the ability to upgrade themselves thus
mastering their own evolution. It is believed that their technology
would evolve so fast that organics wouldn't be able to keep up in a
matter of centuries, when that time comes it is impossible to predict
their reaction; maybe they'll see us as ants and don't even bother
crushing us, maybe they realize that peace is the only way to go, or
maybe their intentions revolve around gathering all resources of this
galaxy, or maybe they annalyze our history and decide that we are too
violent and unpredicatble to share a galaxy with.

Truth is, you can't know if the peace lasts because there is no way to predict the movements and logic of a superintelligence.

My point is that us not knowing if the peace lasts doesn't matter.  When you build a story, you start with a nice, solid foundation.  The people reading/watching/experiencing the story won't necessarily know what the foundation is entirely, or all of its parts or anything (I mean, how often do you really see the foundation in a house?  There's a lot that's hidden and covered up, and that's fine, as long as it does its job) but what isrevealed and showing is important. 

There is no point in saying, "Hey guys.  This plot is so important we're going to tell you about it in three different games.  In one of the games, it potentially plays a very pivotal role.  In the third game, we're going to make it a central part of the story.  After all that's said and done, at the very end, we're going to tell you we were just bull-****ting you the entire time. Because that's what the cool kids do.  ****."

Mass Effect isn't about cold logic and hard facts.  You can't expect to be given specific examples in-****ing-game that prove the lie of the Star Child's words and then to just accept it.  The only way to do that is with cold, hard, logic.  Also, the true logical extension of that line of thought is the elimination of all organic life, since they are the ones that create the problems.  And also also, there is zero explanation for how the space magic isn't, in fact, space magic (I get it, it's really advanced.  That's cool.  I understand how the Mass Effect works, sorta.  Well, the basic principles anyway.  You could at least do something to explain it away, like; "We think the Crucible uses the dark energy power source from the Relays to tap into an alternate dimension that, when channeled, will affect the galaxy in profound ways."  Complete bull****, yes, but that took me 3 seconds to think up, and is better than what we have.)  So I guess we can throw cold, hard logic out the window too.

All we're left with at the end is a ****ty ending.

In truth we agree about most of it; they failed to expose the plot correctly.

A couple of days ago someone from this boards posted an entry from ME2 codex that apparently was cut from the game. This entry explained the meaning of a technological singularity within the mass effect universe. The writers had it planned but for some reason they decided to change that to dark energy and then again to Synthetics vs Organics in ME3, this was the first blow to ME3 plot and ending.

With a well built plot any info about the possibility of a peace that lasts is indeed important because that's the point of that decision; should I sacrifice the Geth? will they turn on us? all this questions cannot be answered no matter how well you present the plot but the player can forge a solid opinion if the facts are exposed correctly, which they failed to do.

Anyway, my intention from my previous post wasn't to prove the ending is good, but to offer a different point of view on things that the forums seem to repeat over and over, people are mad, I get that and I sympathize because it was crushing for me too, but all this negativity is starting to cloud our judgement. We are blaming the theme behind the plot when in truth was their inability to develop it correctly what caused all this mess.

[Mixon]

Now days ending can't gift the sutisfy feeling to us. Ending can be bad, brutal, doomed, but it must give a sutisfy.

[3DandBeyond]

I'm beginning to see a different meaning to the Catalyst's created/creator statements. My thoughts don't make the ending any better, but maybe this is just what part of it supposedly meant.

The created are the organics. The Creator quite literally truthfully or not, is the Creator of life. It may be God (or the Creator by any name as other organics see it in the game), or maybe it just sees itself as God. God sees advanced, scientific organic life as always rejecting religion and in order to keep this from happening always destroys the most advanced organics.

To put it simply, it's a Noah's Arc kind of thing. The created (organics) will always rebel against the creator (God). The people of Noah's time were rejecting God, acting sinfully, developed new technology for the time, and so on. I'm stating what is commonly believed about Noah by those who have this belief.

In modern times, a lot of people see science as a rejection of God. So, if someone has a belief in God, they could see how the created are destroying the Creator. I personally don't think this, but it is a common thought that is out there.

[guacamayus]

The Lightspeaker wrote...

guacamayus wrote...

I agree with many things you said but are you suggesting they keep writing cliche stories about love, carnage of war and stuff like that? I'm sorry but authors of all types of media produce a billion stories like that every year, why use this genre in mass effect as a main plot?

You're actually inadvertantly answering your own question here. It is cliche. And yes, there are billions of stories about the examples I gave. You know why? Because people actually give a damn about those kind of things.

It doesn't matter specifically what it IS. What matters is you choose something that people will connect with emotionally. Let's say ME3 had finished a different way. Let's say that they'd chosen the specific details of how a Thanix cannon works as a theme for the ending. Would it be interesting intellectually? Perhaps. Would that be a good ending? No, because it sucks as a theme.

Cliches are cliches for a reason. If they'd chosen a cliche theme then yeah, it wouldn't exactly have been a ground-breaking plot but it would have at least been emotionally stimulating and coherent. Or they could have chosen a different emotional theme. But for a story that absolutely THRIVES on emotion to go all scientific at the end makes absolutely no sense and is quite jarring.

Yes but the trick is balancing both things, I believe they could achieve this had they develop the plot better. Which is why I defend it, it could've work but they presented it in such a cold and horrible manner that now eveyrone is just sick of the catalyst and everything related to it.

[The Lightspeaker]

guacamayus wrote...

Yes but the trick is balancing both things, I believe they could achieve this had they develop the plot better. Which is why I defend it, it could've work but they presented it in such a cold and horrible manner that now eveyrone is just sick of the catalyst and everything related to it.

Sorry but I flat out cannot agree that using a complex scientific intellectual "idea" as the central theme of the finale for a piece of work like ME is a good idea. Not only is it a weak way to make people connect with the ending but it isn't even a central concept of the story, it doesn't even really matter.

I'm a scientist. when I read a scientific paper I expect an intellectual idea as the basis for that. When they've presented a hypothesis, detailed their methods and explained their results I don't expect them to turn around in the conclusions and start speculating on the implications it has to the meaning of life. I expect them to wrap up the main ideas they've already presented; it doesn't matter to me what it might do to how people view war and peace, it matters to me what their data shows in a nutshell.

Likewise when I experience a literary work (whatever form it comes in) in which concepts such as overcoming adversity, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, second chances and all of those kinds of philosophical and emotional things. Well, I don't expect them to turn around at the end and start blathering on about a minor intellectual detail that I've already hand-waved as part of my suspension of disbelief.

Modifié par The Lightspeaker, 20 avril 2012 - 01:26 .

[M.Erik.Sal]

guacamayus wrote...

The Lightspeaker wrote...

guacamayus wrote...

I agree with many things you said but are you suggesting they keep writing cliche stories about love, carnage of war and stuff like that? I'm sorry but authors of all types of media produce a billion stories like that every year, why use this genre in mass effect as a main plot?

You're actually inadvertantly answering your own question here. It is cliche. And yes, there are billions of stories about the examples I gave. You know why? Because people actually give a damn about those kind of things.

It doesn't matter specifically what it IS. What matters is you choose something that people will connect with emotionally. Let's say ME3 had finished a different way. Let's say that they'd chosen the specific details of how a Thanix cannon works as a theme for the ending. Would it be interesting intellectually? Perhaps. Would that be a good ending? No, because it sucks as a theme.

Cliches are cliches for a reason. If they'd chosen a cliche theme then yeah, it wouldn't exactly have been a ground-breaking plot but it would have at least been emotionally stimulating and coherent. Or they could have chosen a different emotional theme. But for a story that absolutely THRIVES on emotion to go all scientific at the end makes absolutely no sense and is quite jarring.

Yes but the trick is balancing both things, I believe they could achieve this had they develop the plot better. Which is why I defend it, it could've work but they presented it in such a cold and horrible manner that now eveyrone is just sick of the catalyst and everything related to it.

That is a terrible reason to defend the ending, because you're nto defending the ending at all. You're defending a hypothetical ending that is actually DIFFERENT than the one we got, what you're saying is this; "Yes, what we got is terrible, but it might have been better if they'd done a better job of building up to it."

You're making an excuse for what they did based on them doing things differently. That's not ok.

[guacamayus]

Well maybe I didn't express myself as I wanted, I'm defending the theme behind the plot not how it was executed. I don't like the normandy scene, the numerous plot holes after harbinger's beam and the fact they avoided many vital information in favor for "more speculation" etc

So to sum up, I never said the ending was good, I like the idea behind it but that's it.

Modifié par guacamayus, 20 avril 2012 - 01:38 .

[Cazychel]

Challenge accepted!

[MassiveEffects]

Rationalization is an art.

EDIT: Interesting read, though, if not necessarily all that agreeable.

Modifié par MassiveEffects, 20 avril 2012 - 01:46 .

[sirjimmus86]

Read the whole thing. Have a masters degree in Astrophysics, understood what you were saying. I am personally very happy for you if invoking the musings of astrobiololgy philosophers means you are able to enjoy the ending.

That said, I will still pull you up on a few things.

You are quick to say, like many others, that indoctrination can't be true because "well any scene could really be when Shepard was indoctrinated, therefore its proponents can pick and choose evidence to support their theory and ignore evidence that goes against it" (A fairly standard counter argument to any theory really, not necessarily a good one)

You however fall for the same problem, and explain everything that doesn't quite add up as "bad writing" "miscommunication between the authors and artists" (i.e. the citadel explosion) or Bioware just failing to explain their brilliance and the theoretical background to their epic finale, by not referencing different types of Civilisations, the Drake equation etc.

If you want to apply physics to the endings I would take a different approach: Occam's razor says hi.

If Bioware didn't mention this stuff at any point in the game, why would they base the entire ending around it? On the other hand, they mention indoctrination all the way through the series; hell its the plot of the first game, it makes an appearance for sure in the second, and it is definitely a huge feature of the third game. Compared to some fairly obscure (i.e. I only picked it up on my 3rd playthrough) reference about Dark Energy and the fate of the galaxy, IT is still a much more effective way to try and make sense of the endings.

But the really simple way to make sense of them, again getting a close shave from Occam, is that they were just poorly written.

[M.Erik.Sal]

guacamayus wrote...

Well maybe I didn't express myself as I wanted, I'm defending the theme behind the plot not how it was executed. I don't like the normandy scene, the numerous plot holes after harbinger's beam and the fact they avoided many vital information in favor for "more speculation" etc

So to sum up, I never said the ending was good, I like the idea behind it but that's it.

Ii understood that. I suppose I didn't explain my point fully/very well.

The theme, as a theme, divorced from context is not a problem. But you can't defend the theme as part of the ending if you admit it wasn't built up to; because themes are not things that only show up at one point or another, for it to actually be a theme it must be built up and weoven throughout the narrative.

People who defend the ending in general often seem to operate under the miapprehension that people who do not like the ending, don't like it because the individual parts are somehow offensive to them or beyond their grasp, or just unpalatable. I won't say there aren't some people for whom that is the case; but for me and the vast majority of people (so far as I can tell) it is a case that the ending was not built to. It is divorced from the previous narrative, without any lead up and without foreshadowing.

Yes, in the strictest sense, the themes are fine, but all themes are neutral. They are neither good nor bad on their own, but they have to fit with what you put on the page/screen/etc otherwise you end up with somethign that is an incoherent mess.

[FataliTensei]

I read it

I still hate it

[Severyx]

This article -from beginning to end - details all of my thoughts in more words and far more clarity. I will, from now on, be pointing to this when I hear the silly and selfish rantings of the players. Unlike a lot of the 'theories' and 'opinions' cropping up on these forums and throughout the media, this article uses actual logic to look at the details that a GREAT DEAL of players missed.

I've always stood my ground that the problem with the ending is after the decision is made, not during or before - and I didn't know a darn thing about astrobiology before reading this. This is why I'm looking forward to the Extended Cut: It's addressing the main REAL issue with the ending - messy and confusing sequences.

[sp0ck 06]

Severyx wrote...

This article -from beginning to end - details all of my thoughts in more words and far more clarity. I will, from now on, be pointing to this when I hear the silly and selfish rantings of the players. Unlike a lot of the 'theories' and 'opinions' cropping up on these forums and throughout the media, this article uses actual logic to look at the details that a GREAT DEAL of players missed.

I've always stood my ground that the problem with the ending is after the decision is made, not during or before - and I didn't know a darn thing about astrobiology before reading this. This is why I'm looking forward to the Extended Cut: It's addressing the main REAL issue with the ending - messy and confusing sequences.

Wow, this thread took off overnight.  Thanks to everyone for your insights, and thanks to the original author for stopping in as well.

This is how I feel as well.  The real issue with the ending is after the Crucible decision is made.  Sure, there are problems with it plot wise...but there were problem's with ME1 and ME2's ending as well, problems that were easy to overlook because the final sequences were so well done.

ME3's final cinematic is just utterly confusing, short, doesn't explain anything, and that's why I think the endings have been such a disaster.  If they had given players a great epilogue based on your choices throughout the series, shown what happens to the galactic races, I think the ending, while perhaps not being loved, would have gone over much better.

[Elite Midget]

Read it.

Only reinforced my distaste over Bioware destroying their star series.

[Orumon]

Piggytoes wrote...

 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.

This should remain up, since it addresses many issues within the article itself.

[Severyx]

Elite Midget wrote...

Read it.

Only reinforced my distaste over Bioware destroying their star series.

But why? This just sounds like a combination of too much pride and a stubborn refusal believe that someone actually got it, and that their conclusion doesn't agree with yours.

[Elite Midget]

It was a shoddy rushjob that failed to live up to the hype and the many promises that weren't kept. People were told by Bioware to expect Blizzard and Valve Quality, what they got was standard EA faire quality. It shows as the game winds down and the quality starts to take a progressive drop after Tuchunka with the random thrown in ending being the last straw for many.

Though as the guy who spearheaded the variables debate I do enjoy the bitter irony in knowing that all the doom I foretold came to pass and that EA would compromise Bioware despite many holding faith and trying their hardest to spam my topics and get me banned.

[Norrax]

read it OP, blow it, its some one whose grasping at straws to desperately justify why he likes the endings using little various scientific theory, when deep down he knows the end sucked big time.

[Severyx]

Norrax wrote...

read it OP, blow it, its some one whose grasping at straws to desperately justify why he likes the endings using little various scientific theory, when deep down he knows the end sucked big time.

Your utter lack of consideration, intelligent base, and depth of thought appalls me. How far did you get, the first picture?

There's no 'grasping at straws' here. He takes a hotly debated subject and adds new perspective with details that none of the raging playerbase has considered thusfar. I'd say it has far more factual credibility than the absurd 'indoctrination theory.'

[mo_chai]

Mass Effect 3 was targeted at main stream audiences. Surprisingly, most of us aren't astrobiologist and many of these things would go over our head. If, you had to come down and explain to your audience to make the story comprehensible than you have failed at writing a decent story. It's fine to put in references about this theory or that but if it confuses your target audience it means your did something wrong.

Modifié par mo_chai, 20 avril 2012 - 02:47 .

[DJBare]

Severyx wrote...
But why? This just sounds like a combination of too much pride and a stubborn refusal believe that someone actually got it, and that their conclusion doesn't agree with yours.

The author did not get it, he hypothesised it, very different thing.
People on here have hypothesised the indoctrination theory, what makes their arguments any less valid?

It's hypothesis, you either agree with it or you do not, I personally don't agree with the authors take, especially as he appears to be calling people dumb for not getting it.

[sp0ck 06]

DJBare wrote...

Severyx wrote...
But why? This just sounds like a combination of too much pride and a stubborn refusal believe that someone actually got it, and that their conclusion doesn't agree with yours.

The author did not get it, he hypothesised it, very different thing.
People on here have hypothesised the indoctrination theory, what makes their arguments any less valid?

It's hypothesis, you either agree with it or you do not, I personally don't agree with the authors take, especially as he appears to be calling people dumb for not getting it.

Where does he call anyone "dumb" for not getting it?  He criticizes Bioware for not (if they indeed have any of these astro theories in mind when creating the ending) including more in the game to explain the agenda of the Catalyst to those not familiar with the science stuff.

[iggy4566]

So sp0ck 06 any luck with ya quest?

[sp0ck 06]

iggy4566 wrote...

So sp0ck 06 any luck with ya quest?

Haha not sure, seems like the article gave a least a few people a more positive outlook on this whole mess.  And there have been a lot of really insightful comments from people who read it and disagreed.  Even if you aren't swayed, I still think its worth a read.