858 réponses à ce sujet

[Psile_01]

At best, this article is stating that bioware assumes that in order to understand the ending you need to have an understanding of various scientific theories and priniciples that Bioware has no right to assume it's players are familiar with.

Realistically, the author of the linked article agrees with the starchild. Synthetics will innevitably destroy organics. That is a valid opinion and is a subject for a whole other debate. Whether that is the case, Shepard is given many options within the game to demonstrate whether he/she agrees with this opinion. Suddenly at the end Shepard is forced to agree with star child and accept his terms. That is why the ending fails. The player is not given the choice to disagree with starchild. That is a fail in terms of a game whose primary selling point is the vast array of choices.

[Barbarossa2010]

Too much extrapolation, and too many assumptions.  The author is using a veneer of science to establish some credibility in his view, but the science adds very little to the argument, is virtually irrelevant to the literary elements of ME, and appears to be more of an exercise in pedantry, and an argumentative ruse, than actually add anything objective to the argument that the endings are, in fact, actually good and the masses are "wrong" to not like it. 

In his attempt to be objective, the guy makes the mistake of admitting to simply handwaving away things that he doesn't want to believe.  So why in the world, should we buy into anything he says?  Objective arguments are consistent and do not walk in the realm of assuming away things you don't like.  Please. This is just an opinion piece.  Don't pretend that it's anything more.

I appreciate the attempt at objectifying an argument, but then again this is literature (interactive story-telling), and hence extremely subjective and are far more reliant on preference and taste,than objective facts.  The only real objective facts in literature are the literary rules and it's "measured" by how effective the author(s) are in executing them.  Everything else falls to emotional response and individual preferences. The underlying science in science fiction has more to do with the suspension of disbelief within the story elements, than how effective the author was in actually telling his story. 

And, in that, Bioware fumbled the ball.  No way around it. No amount of scientific exposition, especially scientific exposition relying on fragile assumptions that barely show relevance to the argument, can save them from that pure fail.

I'll just say that anytime you have to write a 20 page essay to explain a simple story's ending, you can be damn well rest assurred that something is wrong with that story's ending.

EDIT: Format

Modifié par Barbarossa2010, 20 avril 2012 - 03:11 .

[ShepnTali]

Everyone's welcome aboard the speculation bus. This will reach pop culture status soon. Wonder if Jay Leno has cracked a joke yet

[Cobra's_back]

After reading it a second time, I just can’t agree with this guy.

From his write-up:
“Also, the Catalyst does in fact offer Shepard the option to destroy just the Reapers. Having been granted control of them in the paragon ending, Shepard could choose to send them into intergalactic space, use them to enforce order in a way more compatible with the morals of Type I civilizations, or drive them all into a star and be rid of them once and for all.”


He doesn’t comprehend free will. Does anyone who understands the nature of an intelligent being think with mind control they will be able to force a power intelligent being to commit suicide?
This story hadn’t proved it. The reapers thought organics were beneath them. The Star Child asking reapers to kill organics isn’t out of line with their own personal beliefs. They are not total machines taking instructions for every action. They think and plot and execute very well. They know organics and see them as inferior.


He also wrote:
“The Catalyst deems this risk to be too high, and thus chose the Reapers as a way to prevent that from happening, much as any nuclear power on earth justifies preventing other nuclear powers from emerging by insisting that they may be trying to make weapons of mass destruction.
However, as an idealist, Shepard may choose to take his chances and bet on the inherent good will of sentient life. In the renegade option, his hope is that no synthetic would be so evil as to wipe out all life, and that no organic would be foolish enough to create such a synthetic. This is much the same as the way many people believe that nuclear power can and should be harnessed for good, and it’s why the Catalyst gives Shepard the option to destroy all synthetics.”



Here is where the writer has a moral compass problem. Eliminating, killing on the basis of a possible threat is a crime. There are other ways to solve this problem. Last time I check our society doesn’t excuse the killing of innocent for the action of a few.




He also wrote:
“The Crucible is Type III technology. It can propagate change across the entire galaxy, for example, by destroying all synthetic life in one fell swoop, or by merging all synthetic life with organic life.

The balance of power throughout Mass Effect is firmly grounded in the dynamics of the Kardashev Scale: the Type I Citadel/spacefaring species are threatened by the Type II Reapers, who are interested in preventing the Type I from becoming Type II or Type III (the protheans almost make it – at the end of the first game, it’s revealed that the Conduit is actually a mass relay) and destroying all of the Type 0 and non-civilized life. The Type I species, over millions of years, develop Type III technology, which at the end of Mass Effect 3, finally forces the Type II Reapers to surrender.”



Wow, this is s silly sick and unwise. Historically what has happen when mankind decided to cross breed animals? Anyone remember the Africanized bee? That didn’t go well, did it? This story reaches out and suggests the best option is to re-write the DNA of everything. How is this science? Are we to believe it is a safe thing to re-write DNA? I don’t think anyone who went through the collector base thought the new Collector (Prothean) was a good thing. Most of us thought the reapers didn’t care if their victims suffered from cancer and other health problems because someone re-wrote their DNA.



This writer states that we don’t understand. Actually, I think we understand better than he. These options lacked common sense and moral integrity.

[Nobrandminda]

 I can sum up the article's argument for why the ending is good in one sentence:

Sure, the ending is full of plot holes, the cut scene doesn't make any sense, and it abandons many previously established themes of the series, but the stuff that the Catalyst says would make sense in the real world (even if those ideas are poorly presented).

Geez, with friends like these...

Just one problem:  If any of the stuff in the article (Moore's Law, the Drake Equation, fears of the gray goo scenario) actually applied to the game it would be in the narrative.  The Kardashev Scale doesn't even get a codex entry.  The closest thing we get to a discussion about a technological singularity in the game itself is during the Project Overlord storyline, which is an optional side quest with no bearing on the main plot whatsoever.  Even there, the threat of a technological singularity just felt like a Macguffin.  It was thrown in to add tension to the scene since it couldn't ride on the coat tails of the drama built up in the rest of the story.

The article also goes off on a tangent about how terrible people are for disliking the ending, but that doesn't address the ending itself and is therefore irrelivent.

Modifié par Nobrandminda, 20 avril 2012 - 04:01 .

[Cobra's_back]

Nobrandminda wrote...

 I can sum up the article's argument for why the ending is good in one sentence:

Sure, the ending is full of plot holes, the cut scene doesn't make any sense, and it abandons many previously established themes of the series, but the stuff that the Catalyst says would make sense in the real world (even if those ideas are poorly presented).

Geez, with friends like these...

Just one problem:  If any of the stuff in the article (Moore's Law, the Drake Equation, fears of the gray goo scenario) actually applied to the game it would be in the narrative.  The Kardashev Scale doesn't even get a codex entry.  The closest thing we get to a discussion about a technological singularity in the game itself is during the Project Overlord storyline, which is an optional side quest with no bearing on the main plot whatsoever.  Even there, the threat of a technological singularity just felt like a Macguffin.  It was thrown in to add tension to the scene since it couldn't ride on the coat tails of the drama built up in the rest of the story.

The article also goes off on a tangent about how terrible people are for disliking the ending, but that doesn't address the ending itself and is therefore irrelivent.

so true

[Giantdeathrobot]

Grafting random scientific theories to it doesn't change the fact that the ending was extremely poorly done. Foreshadowed through the entire series, based on what? Sovereign's trash-talk, most of which turned out to be false? Not to mention the ending was supposed to be different originally, so that point is null and void. And forgive me, but I strongly doubt the people who wrote something as incredibly stupid as the Catalyst into this game are clever enough to have some sort of hidden meaning to all of it.

So, in essense, the article is yet another ''you just don't get it'' argument. Longer and better thought out than others, but it still is.

[SkaldFish]

While I appreciate the time that went into that treatise, and I enjoy exploring interesting scientific theories as much as anyone who likes hard science fiction, the treatise, IMO, is fundamentally flawed for at least the following reasons, some of which have already been pointed out:

• It's logically absurd to argue coherence on the basis of supposed consistency with certain theoretical positions when you have already admitted to fatal flaws on other, more valid grounds (see also points 3 and 5).
• Association does not indicate intent. The author, on numerous occasions, asserts that, because some particular event or setting or discourse is compatible with one scientific theory or another, the writers "obviously" were well-versed in this theory and thus leveraged it intentionally. In fact it is not obvious at all. For example, I would be astounded to find that the writers in fact made any conscious effort to align Mass Effect species with the Kardashev Scale. That such an alignment can be found simply demonstrates that the scale can be successfully applied to any reasonably detailed description of an alien civilization.
• Compatibility with some number of complex theoretical constructs does not magically legitimize a work, nor does it invoke some sort of literary mathematics that enable one to "balance the quality equation" within a narrative to demonstrate its validity.
• While I admire the scope of the author's interest, several statements are made (pointed out by many others on this thread) that indicate poor grasp of the subject matter. For example, at one point the author uses the odd notion that a dark-energy-induced Big Crunch could be a galaxy-specific event in order to contend that the Reapers could thus escape it by hiding in another galaxy. He must not be talking about the same Big Crunch I'm familiar with. These kinds of slip-ups seriously damage the credibility required to legitimize the author's position.
• Mass Effect is not hard science fiction, and so, while anyone is obviously free to explore the implications of the story as it relates to one science theory or another, and there should be no obvious absurdities that strain willing suspension of disbelief, one does not evaluate space opera on the basis of its level of scientific legitimacy.

So, if we say that the treatise is an exercise that might be interesting to some, and might increase the enjoyment of the story for those who liked it and want to explore its alignment with certain theoretical positions, I think that's great. It actually did make some points I found scientifically interesting. But as an apologetic, while it does point out the flaws in a few overly simplistic versions of statements that have been made in criticism of the ending (which could be considered examples of strawman arguments, but there's no need to go there at this point), it fails, IMO, to address its most significant flaws from a relevant perspective.

Modifié par SkaldFish, 20 avril 2012 - 04:28 .

[UniqueNickname]

See point: 2.0 Definite errors in the ending

[sth128]

Creid-X wrote...

Second, it took a billion years of united efforts from the best of the best of many civilizations to create the Crucible, your coparision is nonsensical.

My point is a type 1 civilization cannot create type 3 technology, just as monkeys cannot create the internet, no matter how long you give them or how desperate they are. There's no evidence that that "the best of the best" worked on the project. In past cycles the "best" would have been either on the Citadel or in its database, which means when the Reapers came, they were the first to be wiped out. And before you say "Ilos", they NEVER worked on the Crucible. In fact, there's no evidence that every cycle added to the Crucible. We (meaning this cycle) certainly didn't. We just followed whatever instruction there is and made a device we don't understand.

(As an aside, ever seen the movie "Contact"? Remember what happened to the chair they added?)

My comparison is completely relevant as the article in question suggests that the desperate last minute measures of each cycle somehow resulted in a working type 3 technology perfectly capable of achieving the exact result base on technologies they themselves do not understand (for example, even Protheans barely understood Mass Relays), all while NEVER actually cooperating between cycles.

This is the equivalent of passing a typewriter from monkeys to baboons to chimpanzees over the course of a few thousand generations and suddenly find yourself with the complete works of Shakespeare. It is ludicrous.

japinthebox wrote...

The surrendered Japanese couldn't and wouldn't install American bases in Okinawa. That's something the US did.

That the point isn't it? Japan didn't say "we won't let you" or "we can't let you". Japan simply complied. Exactly what actions of surrender did Star Child perform? Did it shut down the Reapers? No. Yet you stated Star Child is in control of the Reapers and in fact operating them from behind the scenes (part of the reason you brought up the Vendetta quotes). Assuming the Crucible is the same regardless of your EMS (and I don't think why not, they were following a blue print), why did Mr. I-surrender not give the other two options should EMS be low? In fact, the only "surrendering" Star Child seems to actually do is powering the elevator. So the Crucible forced Star Child to surrender the elevator button?

Okay, I take serious offense to this.

That's because it was meant to cause offense, yet it was you who decided to use that particular example. By doing so you are directly comparing Star Child to Mr. H. Considering that Synthesis essentially creates a "master race" of hybrids (in some vague hope to solve all problems) I suppose your metaphor is apt. Whether or not the Fuhrer was as pragmatic as the Catalyst...

A dyson sphere isn't necessarily the most difficult of type 2 technologies, obviously. We're a type 0 civilization, yet we have the Internet.

Therein lies the rub, does it not? Why does the Reaper not wipe out the race creating type 2 technologies, but instead the rest of the cycle who are still far from the level of the Protheans?

Not sure what you meant by the internet. I don't think Kardashev stipulated that instant global communication is strictly type 1 technology. And even if that was the case, humans (IRL) are transitioning from type 0 to type 1. It's not like we'll one day "switch" to type 1 and invent everything in that instant.

Modifié par sth128, 20 avril 2012 - 04:42 .

[SkaldFish]

Nobrandminda wrote...

 I can sum up the article's argument for why the ending is good in one sentence:

Sure, the ending is full of plot holes, the cut scene doesn't make any sense, and it abandons many previously established themes of the series, but the stuff that the Catalyst says would make sense in the real world (even if those ideas are poorly presented).

Geez, with friends like these...

Just one problem:  If any of the stuff in the article (Moore's Law, the Drake Equation, fears of the gray goo scenario) actually applied to the game it would be in the narrative.  The Kardashev Scale doesn't even get a codex entry.  The closest thing we get to a discussion about a technological singularity in the game itself is during the Project Overlord storyline, which is an optional side quest with no bearing on the main plot whatsoever.  Even there, the threat of a technological singularity just felt like a Macguffin.  It was thrown in to add tension to the scene since it couldn't ride on the coat tails of the drama built up in the rest of the story.

The article also goes off on a tangent about how terrible people are for disliking the ending, but that doesn't address the ending itself and is therefore irrelivent.

Well put. Science fiction writers (good ones, anyway) use some mechanism to tell the reader when they want them to know they are referring to a real cosmological phenomenon or scientific theory. Most of the great hard science fiction authors like Clarke, Asimov, or Niven will actually go to great lengths to explain, either in omniscient exposition or using some device like a lecture or a conversation, any theory they are leveraging. Even in space opera like Mass Effect, a character might "name drop" relevant terms to create the illusion of legitimacy so suspension of disbelief can be maintained without the need for lenthy exposition: "Captain, I believe a carefully-timed tachyon pulse at an intensity exceeding point-six-eight might disrupt the subspace link during a micro-pause in data transfer. This would effectively interrupt the security breach."

OK, Data, cool. I have no idea what you just said, but it sounds freakin' perfect.

Good writers know they must explicitly support their narrative, and that they have a large toolbox of mechanisms at their disposal for providing that support. They do not require that their readers create volumes of apocryphal material to create a coherent narrative infrastructure on their behalf.

[edwards_77]

LucasShark wrote...

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

You are wrong. Real end of story.

[zarnk567]

edwards_77 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

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

You are wrong. Real end of story.

No, he is kinda right.... it losses narrative coherence in the ending.... to the point where the narrative just gets tossed out the window for a "deus ex machina" ending.

Modifié par zarnk567, 20 avril 2012 - 05:02 .

[Malordus]

Severyx wrote...

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.'

Cool your temper there, Severyx. I daresay his reply lacks a little refinement but that gives you no right to attack his 'intelligent base' and insinuate he posesses less intelligence than yourself.
The reason none of the 'raging playerbase' have considered any of the materieal offered up in said article is because it was never there to see in the first place. The fact that aspects of the game and it's ending run parallel to those various scientific theories is all well and good, but it does not change the fact that the ending broke cardinal rules in good narrative. Bioware has far from confirmed their writing was based on any of it so it is all nothing more than speculation anyway.
A large article on scientific theories and Astrobiology should not be required to understand the ending to a piece of entertainment. It has been said a million times now, and frankly, that alone renders any argument to the contrary invalid - to once again say nothing of the sheer lack of thought for obeying some of the golden rules for good storytelling.

[SkaldFish]

UniqueNickname wrote...

See point: 2.0 Definite errors in the ending

Were you responding to my post or an earlier one? If it was mine, I don't want to appear to be ignoring you...

[edwards_77]

zarnk567 wrote...

edwards_77 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

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

You are wrong. Real end of story.

No, he is kinda right.... it losses narrative coherence in the ending.... to the point where the narrative just gets tossed out the window for a "deus ex machina" ending.

I was beeing fascetious. Of course I can't say he's wrong. It's an opinion, but unlike you he didn't build them on anything.

[SkaldFish]

edwards_77 wrote...

zarnk567 wrote...

edwards_77 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

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

You are wrong. Real end of story.

No, he is kinda right.... it losses narrative coherence in the ending.... to the point where the narrative just gets tossed out the window for a "deus ex machina" ending.

I was beeing fascetious. Of course I can't say he's wrong. It's an opinion, but unlike you he didn't build them on anything.

LOL- yes, kinda reminds me of that old Monty Python "I'd like an argument please" sketch:

"No you wouldn't."
"Well, yes, I would."
"No, you WOULDN'T..."

It's easy for us all to be dismissive, because we've all put a lot of thought into this. But point taken. We do need to try to support our positions. Assertions by themselves don't have a lot of conversational potential.

[sp0ck 06]

sth128 wrote...

Creid-X wrote...

Second, it took a billion years of united efforts from the best of the best of many civilizations to create the Crucible, your coparision is nonsensical.

My point is a type 1 civilization cannot create type 3 technology, just as monkeys cannot create the internet, no matter how long you give them or how desperate they are. There's no evidence that that "the best of the best" worked on the project. In past cycles the "best" would have been either on the Citadel or in its database, which means when the Reapers came, they were the first to be wiped out. And before you say "Ilos", they NEVER worked on the Crucible. In fact, there's no evidence that every cycle added to the Crucible. We (meaning this cycle) certainly didn't. We just followed whatever instruction there is and made a device we don't understand.

(As an aside, ever seen the movie "Contact"? Remember what happened to the chair they added?)

My comparison is completely relevant as the article in question suggests that the desperate last minute measures of each cycle somehow resulted in a working type 3 technology perfectly capable of achieving the exact result base on technologies they themselves do not understand (for example, even Protheans barely understood Mass Relays), all while NEVER actually cooperating between cycles.

This is the equivalent of passing a typewriter from monkeys to baboons to chimpanzees over the course of a few thousand generations and suddenly find yourself with the complete works of Shakespeare. It is ludicrous.

japinthebox wrote...

The surrendered Japanese couldn't and wouldn't install American bases in Okinawa. That's something the US did.

That the point isn't it? Japan didn't say "we won't let you" or "we can't let you". Japan simply complied. Exactly what actions of surrender did Star Child perform? Did it shut down the Reapers? No. Yet you stated Star Child is in control of the Reapers and in fact operating them from behind the scenes (part of the reason you brought up the Vendetta quotes). Assuming the Crucible is the same regardless of your EMS (and I don't think why not, they were following a blue print), why did Mr. I-surrender not give the other two options should EMS be low? In fact, the only "surrendering" Star Child seems to actually do is powering the elevator. So the Crucible forced Star Child to surrender the elevator button?

Okay, I take serious offense to this.

That's because it was meant to cause offense, yet it was you who decided to use that particular example. By doing so you are directly comparing Star Child to Mr. H. Considering that Synthesis essentially creates a "master race" of hybrids (in some vague hope to solve all problems) I suppose your metaphor is apt. Whether or not the Fuhrer was as pragmatic as the Catalyst...

A dyson sphere isn't necessarily the most difficult of type 2 technologies, obviously. We're a type 0 civilization, yet we have the Internet.

Therein lies the rub, does it not? Why does the Reaper not wipe out the race creating type 2 technologies, but instead the rest of the cycle who are still far from the level of the Protheans?

Not sure what you meant by the internet. I don't think Kardashev stipulated that instant global communication is strictly type 1 technology. And even if that was the case, humans (IRL) are transitioning from type 0 to type 1. It's not like we'll one day "switch" to type 1 and invent everything in that instant.

Uh...the Star Child relinquishes control of the galaxy to Shepard and lets him make the final decision?

As the author has said, the choices the player is presented with are not of the Catalysts creation.  It didn't build the Crucible.  It just tells Shepard what those choices are.  No matter what you choose, the Catalyst is "defeated" in the sense that its purpose is no longer relevant.

Its a flaw in the conversation that Shepard doesn't question the Catalyst.  Of course Shepard doesn't like any of the choices.  It's not meant to be an easy situation.  But those choices are a product of the Catalyst, they're simply what the Crucible is capable of doing, and the Catalyst is just telling Shepard what they are.

Your EMS is linked to the choices.  If you have low EMS, you didn't gather enough people and resources to tap the full potential of the Crucible.  Destroy is the most basic principle.  It's always easier to destroy than to create.  Synthesis is creating in essence a new form of life, hence why it requires the highest level of EMS.  

If a caveman found a car, it would be relatively easy for him to destroy it.  Figuring out how to drive it would be harder.  And building a new car would be nearly impossible.  Thats how I saw EMS relating to the Crucible choices.

[Malordus]

Severyx wrote...

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.

Someone actually got it?

That statement alone gives voice to the very issue with the ending - the ending wasn't written for some select few super-brains and 'to hell with the rest of ya'll.' It was meant to be understood by everyone. Once again, this remark has themes of 'those that hate the ending and dont get it are actually idiots.'

The game carries a Cert of 15 - find me a 15-year old who can read that article and understand the ending any better. You are still missing the point entirely, much like the author of the article.

[Icinix]

So it took me a little while, I read it in patches at different times, but I read it all.


..and the endings still suck.

[sth128]

Also, as has been previously pointed out by others, Rei's entire argument boils down to "you hate it because you don't understand it":

It’s hard to appreciate the ending without knowing a thing or two about the rather esoteric field of astrobiology,

Bioware is the artist. Mass Effect is popular entertainment. If BW writes an ending completely outside the comfort zone of its audiences, it is Bioware who's at fault for not getting who their customers are, despite having made 3 games.

Second, Bioware has, ever since the involvement of EA, been pushing the franchise toward shooter territory. Anyone who disagrees with this is simply denying facts. BW wasn't pushing for a more philosophical game or deeper science fiction plots (as evidenced by the "Miranda butt-cam" and clarification of the Reapers). BW pushed for more generic, accessible, and massively marketable games.

So even if what Rei assumed and speculated about the (deep, incredible) ending is true (I'm saying no), BW is still at fault for tacking on a "Y-U-No-Get-Ending-Stupid-Head" slap in the face to its fans.

[durasteel]

The OP's linked article is simply irrelevant. The ending was bad, for me, because my paragon Shepard had already satisfactorily closed the issue of synthetic intelligence. This unit had a a soul, this pilot has a girlfriend, this issue is resolved. When "I" arrived at the ending, my goal was to save the galaxy from devastation. Ending the reaper cycle is only a means to an end, the end is to protect the people and places that I have grown to care about across the trilogy of games.

That goal cannot be realized, and the plot is instead derailed to re-open an already closed sub-plot, to invalidate every fact and decision established already in that sub-plot, and to replace the emotionally fulfilling resolution of it with stupid crap.

There is no amount of extra-game science or philosophy, no matter how well presented, that can make the Catalyst ending to the synthetic life issue even remotely as satisfying as the Legion and EDI story lines. It simply cannot be done. Similarly, nothing will make an ending satisfying so long as Shepard fails to save the great majority of the people and places that I care about. If Shepard must be sacrificed for victory, then victory must be unequivocal.

The ending sucks.

[sth128]

First off, don't block-quote everything. Are you replying to everything? Even the stuff I quoted from other posters? Seriously don't make wall of quotes followed by wall of text.

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Uh...the Star Child relinquishes control of the galaxy to Shepard and lets him make the final decision?

As the author has said, the choices the player is presented with are not of the Catalysts creation.

You know what is the Catalyst's creation? The Reapers. You know what else he had? The control of the Reapers. You know what he could have surrendered? The war. Catalyst was within its ability to tell the Reapers to go fly into the Sun. It didn't. Instead it said "Shepard, you want to stop the Reapers? Go blow yourself up". Seriously, in every ending Shepard is either blown up, vapourized, or completely burned to a crisp. How does Shepard know the Catalyst is telling the truth? Why do type 3 technologies require an infinite-ammo pistol to activate? By shooting it?!

Your EMS is linked to the choices.  If you have low EMS, you didn't gather enough people and resources to tap the full potential of the Crucible.

Your list of factual evidences have convinced me. Not!

Where does it say that the Crucible is "better" with higher EMS? If you open up the items under Crucible in-game, they just say what is added to the rest of the fleet, not the Crucible itself.

If a caveman found a car, it would be relatively easy for him to destroy it.  Figuring out how to drive it would be harder.  And building a new car would be nearly impossible.  Thats how I saw EMS relating to the Crucible choices.

Yet countless cycles of cavemen apparently created a flying space car in the game ending. I guess if you have a lot of cavemen, you also magically get technical know-how.

Modifié par sth128, 20 avril 2012 - 05:33 .

[Malordus]

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.

I will agree with you Lightspeaker, and echo my own feelings on this.

Grab a bunch of your favourite stories, think long and hard on the core colfict of the story, and you will find that most of them will be the same. Think, 'The Hero's Journey.' Yes, billions of stories have been written about the same simple idea....but this is utterly irrelevant, What matters, is HOW it is written.
It is very hard indeed to create a story that steers clear of the simple, what you call 'cliches'...which in truth are not. 

'Soldier saves galaxy from total destruction.'
'Fireman rescues cat from tree.'
'Small frail boy overcomes school bullies.'
'Rapper finally finishes battle on-stage without choking.'
'Princess finds eternal love.'
Etc etc etc. These are all, as you put it, cliches. As they are written above, they suck - and that is where the skill of the writer comes into play. It is the writer who takes these simple conflicts and transforms them into something magical. Some of the best loved films, books and games have at their heart been about  the same thing...its the telling of it that sets them apart.

[xsdob]

We need a kevorkian forum mod to kill this thread already. It's suffering from textwall lesions and can barley support it's own topic.