858 réponses à ce sujet

[thefallen2far]

[quote]japinthebox wrote...
Then every science fiction and every fantasy has an extremely high standard of quality that they need to overcome -- and I think virtually all of them fail by your criteria.

Which if that's the case, sure -- you're jaded. And it's why a lot of people don't like science fiction. But I doubt the Mass Effect audience is *that* jaded. There are definitely other reasons that people are frustrated.
[/quote]


Why am I not surprised you're trying to think for other people? It's all taste.... all of it. As a scientist, you know that if your base assumption is wrong, then all futher assumptions are wrong. So, you think if this criteria is the same for all people and the ending was good, then everyone hates sci fi as opposed to just acknowledging the ending is just bad. I guess that means you're just wrong... that doesn't sit well with you, but you'll get used to it.


[quote]
[quote]
Virtually no one liked the Astro Boy ending either -- yet Atom became one of the most iconic characters in Japanese fiction history.
[/quote]
............ ?  What exactly is your point?[/quote]
My point is that the statistics you brought up about Garth Brooks is irrelevant.
[/quote]

So is Astro Boy, Shakespeare, music masters and every othermedia reference you bring up you think makes you appear smart.

[quote]

Would you take candy away from a kid because his mom stole it from the store? I wouldn't. But I'd definitely have an issue with the mom -- unless she had some seriously legitimate financial situation.
[/quote]

You're really bad at analogies. It's the mother who would give back the"candy" if it was immoral. And yes, if a person stole from a shop keeper, then the mothershould give the shop keeper back the candy, especially if the kid didn't lget the candy yet. If the mother accepts the candy, then she's accepting the moral implications of its presentation regardless of what she says.

[kookie28]

If I have to read an article to like a story's ending then the story writers failed. That's all there is to it.

[build319]

This article is actually very good. I liked the read A LOT. With that being said, I did not change any of my feelings regarding the flatness of the ending. But the perspective was great and really a good read.

The major premise of the article that I take point with is that the entire series was not esoteric up until the very end of the game. Bioware put almost everything right up in your face and then the ending just eschewed that in the final segment.

Plus, if you need to write an 8,000+ (yes I did check) word article to make your point on why the endings were good, there is a big problem somewhere.

[StElmo]

Read it, but to be honest, it still doesn't fix the plot holes. It makes more thematic sense, but that's a drop in the water compared to the narrative holes the ending creates.

Also, whats with this guys use of the word "esoteric" it's a little bit condescending the way he writes how regular joes wouldn't "get it" - maybe I;m a bit bitter.

I like my IT theory better.

[build319]

StElmo wrote...

Read it, but to be honest, it still doesn't fix the plot holes. It makes more thematic sense, but that's a drop in the water compared to the narrative holes the ending creates.

Also, whats with this guys use of the word "esoteric" it's a little bit condescending the way he writes how regular joes wouldn't "get it" - maybe I;m a bit bitter.

I like my IT theory better.

Yep, I feel the same way.  Mass Effect was not an esoteric game.  I don't see the point on that dramatic of a change in the final minutes.

But as far as theories go, I am working on my new theory on why the ending was the way it is.  Mass Effect is going to live on, I am sure of that.

[StElmo]

build319 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

Read it, but to be honest, it still doesn't fix the plot holes. It makes more thematic sense, but that's a drop in the water compared to the narrative holes the ending creates.

Also, whats with this guys use of the word "esoteric" it's a little bit condescending the way he writes how regular joes wouldn't "get it" - maybe I;m a bit bitter.

I like my IT theory better.

Yep, I feel the same way.  Mass Effect was not an esoteric game.  I don't see the point on that dramatic of a change in the final minutes.

But as far as theories go, I am working on my new theory on why the ending was the way it is.  Mass Effect is going to live on, I am sure of that.

Don't get me wrong, It;s actually prettyy cool the way he describes it, but yeah. It's just they didn't present it very well. So it makes me sad if thats really what they wanted to do, because it's not that great.

IT is genius though, so if that's true they are godly (if not massive massive trolls for making us wait for the real ending).

[stysiaq]

The article is good, I admit. But the same length it makes it a good read, shows the weakness of the endings.
If you must quote Stephen Hawking and explain modern astrophysical theories to show, that the ending of a space-opera video game is good - there's no way this background was ever intended. It was simply a bad writing.

If you make a statement in math, you must demonstrate a proof. I just can't state in the end of lecture, that the triangle inequality is false, and expect people to believe it. I'd have to spend several lectures on demonstrating a proof to earn myself a name of 'the guy who proved math wrong'.

That is the case with the endings. Suppose that the author of the article is right; apparently only him and BioWare staff were aware of all the things he mentioned. Then BioWare made a bad assumption, that all their clients are aware of them as well, which is still a bad decision. ME was always about explaining things, not a lot of speculations [for everyone].

I think, the author does the same thing that the IT people do - he is twisting some facts to make the ending logical, whereas ITs see some of the facts and omit the others to make the ending unreal.

The author uses the words 'mistake in animation' instead of a simple 'bullsh*t'. He is aware he is just speculating, like ITs. He gives his interpretation for the things that should be explained by the game itself. The article is full of "mights" and "maybes".

to sum things up: its like IT, but on the other, less popular side of the barricade. The problem is that the theory behind the ending shouldn't come from the internet, but from the writing team, which simply blew the ending.

[GargamelLeNoir]

I disagree with this article too. It's well written, but far fetched. It pulls some theories and just say "hey, they say stuff barely consistent with those theories. Hence, genius". Of course it stays away from problems like "the catalyst itself is ass-pulled", and say the terrible "if they correct their terrible mistake, nobody will do daring stuff afterward". Once again, we have nothing against daring, but we don't want ****ty. ****ty has never been ok, ever. During the renaissance the church didn't accept ****ty from great artists. Neither should we.

[build319]

Don't get me wrong, It;s actually prettyy cool the way he describes it, but yeah. It's just they didn't present it very well. So it makes me sad if thats really what they wanted to do, because it's not that great.

IT is genius though, so if that's true they are godly (if not massive massive trolls for making us wait for the real ending).

Yes,  I think the IT is truly brilliant and I really like that idea and its a real possibility Bioware intended it.  

Unlike a few on here.  I cannot accept that it was just "bad writing" or "lazy". These guys are not stupid; Bioware has a big reason why the game ended in that fashion.  I am just not sure what else is in store.  OK, I am staying away from topic here.  

With all that being said. I still don't think Mass Effect 1-3 are esoteric games at all.  I don't mind having a game end on some type of cliff hanger.  I think they could have quelled a lot of the fan complaints if they put four simple characters in one of the final cut scenes.  (tbc?) 

[Unlimited69x]

I read it. Problem is the ending broke narrative cohesion.

[sfam]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

 If you hated/disliked/didn't understand/were let down by the ending, read this editorial.

http://galacticpillo...ffect-3-ending/

It really might make you look differently at not just the ending but the whole of ME3.  If you want to love the conclusion to the series but just can't, please give this a read.  It's long but worth it.  

This doesn't at all address the problem with the ending.  Contrary to the Sovrien convo they reference, the ending was not at all forshadowed.  And the problem isn't whether or not the ending makes sense from astrobiology, the problem is the ending doesn't at all fit with the rest of the narrative - it literally shifts the focus on the entire series from stopping the reapers to a bizarre interaction with a Deus Ex Machina who both controls the Reapers - who now wants you to choose between 3 bizarre endings...all of which look exactly the same minus the color.  Not counting all the crazy plotholes this creates, or hte apparent destruction of the inhabited galaxy, there is also no follow-through on any of the people you have collected.  

[zarnk567]

Unlimited69x wrote...

I read it. Problem is the ending broke narrative cohesion.

Bingo, all the sudden pulling a deus ex machina plot device (Space Child) out when the whole story of ME3 focused on this Mcguffin plot device (Crucible) was quite jarring from a narritive stand point. And for me at-least, it broke my suspension of dis-belief for the game..... not to mention they stole the ending from Deus Ex.... they even had the same colors Deus Ex had.

[idunhavaname]

Good read. I still don't like the ending but I agree with him. The ending could have been good but it's execution was poor.

[Cobra's_back]

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."


This is true, but the Catalyst and the reapers have an image problem.

The Paragon option Blue which the author mentions has a credibility problem.


ME1 and ME2 do not portray the reapers as just machines. “Sovereign has nothing but contempt for any lesser beings, seeing them as fleeting and temporary, whereas the Reapers are eternal. It also seemed angered by the attempts of organic life to defend their claim to the Citadel, claiming "this station is mine." This is from Mass effect wiki.

http://masseffect.wi.../wiki/Sovereign



The story hasn’t proven it is safe for Shepard to control them. It is not fully explained. It is the writer’s responsibility to tell us or convince us this can happen. Star Child is a mass murderer and so are the reapers. Their crimes are horrific. Yes, they have their reasons. All mass murderers do. By today’s standards and in this story as well, it is reasonable not to trust mass murderer.


Sure Shepard won and he has the crucible. It is not explained how Shepard will control these intelligent arrogant reapers. The Catalyst controls them. How much control does the Catalyst have to exert to get them to kill?


Sovereign seemed to have control of his own senses when he talked to Shepard. The reapers are intelligent and self-aware. Will Shepard be given so much control that the reapers will commit mass suicide? This is the problem. It is not very well explained. What is explained in great detail is how easy it is for reapers to control organics, and no I don’t believe in IT.


Let’s look at the Green option. ME1 and ME2 had experiments on organics that didn’t go very well. How many players thought the experiments made on the Prothean to create the collectors was a good thing? We don’t believe reapers care if their victims suffered from cancer and other health problems as long as they did their job done for a period of time. In ME3, Protheans experimented on the Asari. There isn’t enough data to say this is a good or bad thing. We know Asari needs other races to mate with. Were they always like that? Sometimes when they mate with each other they create a monster.


It is the writer’s responsibility to prove that re-writing someone’s DNA is okay. It is hard to use Star Child to prove this because he is a mass murderer. It doesn’t matter the reason.


I hope the DLC will be able to fix the credibility problems.

[NorDee65]

Kardashev scale: is used here to underline the fact that reapers (type II) destroy type I-civilisations in order to save type 0-civilisations from being destroyed by type I-civilisations, which , by the way, have reached type I through the discovery of reaper type II technology: the mass relays.  Well, boggles the mind, it does. (Where have I heard this before?)

Drake equation: despite the possibities of stellar systems producing sapient life,  we have not been contacted.

The reason we have so far not been contacted is because FTL-travel is bloody difficult to actually be achieved. The alternative to ftl-travel to travel a ridiculus high distance would be wormholes and the like, but we do not even know if they actually exist. So.

But in the ME-universe not only is ftl-travel possible, wormholes in the form of the mass relays also exist. Therefore the second reason why alien civilisations are difficult to encounter comes into play: all civilisation follow the same (self-)destructive  technology curve,
and end up destroying themselves before going into space, or others,
after going into space. Hence the Reaper, so we do not have to destroy
ouselves or others. Great, thanks a lot.

Acttually, that seems to be a no win situation (just like the three endings)

Even as we discuss this, judgement is still out, whether AI is possible or even desirable. The problems are, among others, if AIs become self-aware, do" they have a soul?" In Bladerunner, based on Philip K. Dick's "do androids dream of electric sheep?" robots rebel because they have achieved self-awareness and resent being used and abused as slaves. There certainly is a parallel to the morning war, in which the geth were attacked just as they tentatively became self-aware, to forcibly return them to VI-status. The only synthetics actually attacking anyone with the sole purpose of destroying are the reapers.

It is quite a leap to suppose that civilisations in the Mass efffect universe are on the verge of destroying themselves or others. Throughout the three games I have neither experienced nor read any hint proving this. On the contrary: the citadel-council has established quite a stable almost galaxy-wide system which stands a good chance of keeping the peace.

Therefore: No, science does not explain ME3-endings....

(the rest of this article tries desperately to explain, why it all makes sense, but fails; plotholes and inconsistencies remain)

[sp0ck 06]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

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."


This is true, but the Catalyst and the reapers have an image problem.

The Paragon option Blue which the author mentions has a credibility problem.


ME1 and ME2 do not portray the reapers as just machines. “Sovereign has nothing but contempt for any lesser beings, seeing them as fleeting and temporary, whereas the Reapers are eternal. It also seemed angered by the attempts of organic life to defend their claim to the Citadel, claiming "this station is mine." This is from Mass effect wiki.

http://masseffect.wi.../wiki/Sovereign



The story hasn’t proven it is safe for Shepard to control them. It is not fully explained. It is the writer’s responsibility to tell us or convince us this can happen. Star Child is a mass murderer and so are the reapers. Their crimes are horrific. Yes, they have their reasons. All mass murderers do. By today’s standards and in this story as well, it is reasonable not to trust mass murderer.


Sure Shepard won and he has the crucible. It is not explained how Shepard will control these intelligent arrogant reapers. The Catalyst controls them. How much control does the Catalyst have to exert to get them to kill?


Sovereign seemed to have control of his own senses when he talked to Shepard. The reapers are intelligent and self-aware. Will Shepard be given so much control that the reapers will commit mass suicide? This is the problem. It is not very well explained. What is explained in great detail is how easy it is for reapers to control organics, and no I don’t believe in IT.


Let’s look at the Green option. ME1 and ME2 had experiments on organics that didn’t go very well. How many players thought the experiments made on the Prothean to create the collectors was a good thing? We don’t believe reapers care if their victims suffered from cancer and other health problems as long as they did their job done for a period of time. In ME3, Protheans experimented on the Asari. There isn’t enough data to say this is a good or bad thing. We know Asari needs other races to mate with. Were they always like that? Sometimes when they mate with each other they create a monster.


It is the writer’s responsibility to prove that re-writing someone’s DNA is okay. It is hard to use Star Child to prove this because he is a mass murderer. It doesn’t matter the reason.


I hope the DLC will be able to fix the credibility problems.

You're correct on all accounts, but I think those are all things that can be "clarified."  They don't invalidate the ending, they just illustrate how poorly executed the sequence was after the Crucible choice is made.

Also, Shepard is a mass murderer as well don't forget.  S/he killed hundreds of thousands of batarians, not to mention how many mercs, krogans, asari, etc in the name of a greater purpose.  The Catalyst believes it has done the same.

Modifié par sp0ck 06, 20 avril 2012 - 08:50 .

[sp0ck 06]

NorDee65 wrote...

It is quite a leap to suppose that civilisations in the Mass efffect universe are on the verge of destroying themselves or others. Throughout the three games I have neither experienced nor read any hint proving this. On the contrary: the citadel-council has established quite a stable almost galaxy-wide system which stands a good chance of keeping the peace.

Therefore: No, science does not explain ME3-endings....

(the rest of this article tries desperately to explain, why it all makes sense, but fails; plotholes and inconsistencies remain)

I don't think that's much of a leap at all.  There have been numerous times in the three games Shepard thwarted an AI apocalyse.  The Rogue VI on Luna in ME1, and especially Overlord are just two examples, not to mention all the side missions involving crazed AIs.  And it isn't that the civilizations are on the verge of creating those synthetics, its that the Catalyst believes that is an inevitable outcome.

[Cobra's_back]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

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."


This is true, but the Catalyst and the reapers have an image problem.

The Paragon option Blue which the author mentions has a credibility problem.


ME1 and ME2 do not portray the reapers as just machines. “Sovereign has nothing but contempt for any lesser beings, seeing them as fleeting and temporary, whereas the Reapers are eternal. It also seemed angered by the attempts of organic life to defend their claim to the Citadel, claiming "this station is mine." This is from Mass effect wiki.

http://masseffect.wi.../wiki/Sovereign



The story hasn’t proven it is safe for Shepard to control them. It is not fully explained. It is the writer’s responsibility to tell us or convince us this can happen. Star Child is a mass murderer and so are the reapers. Their crimes are horrific. Yes, they have their reasons. All mass murderers do. By today’s standards and in this story as well, it is reasonable not to trust mass murderer.


Sure Shepard won and he has the crucible. It is not explained how Shepard will control these intelligent arrogant reapers. The Catalyst controls them. How much control does the Catalyst have to exert to get them to kill?


Sovereign seemed to have control of his own senses when he talked to Shepard. The reapers are intelligent and self-aware. Will Shepard be given so much control that the reapers will commit mass suicide? This is the problem. It is not very well explained. What is explained in great detail is how easy it is for reapers to control organics, and no I don’t believe in IT.


Let’s look at the Green option. ME1 and ME2 had experiments on organics that didn’t go very well. How many players thought the experiments made on the Prothean to create the collectors was a good thing? We don’t believe reapers care if their victims suffered from cancer and other health problems as long as they did their job done for a period of time. In ME3, Protheans experimented on the Asari. There isn’t enough data to say this is a good or bad thing. We know Asari needs other races to mate with. Were they always like that? Sometimes when they mate with each other they create a monster.


It is the writer’s responsibility to prove that re-writing someone’s DNA is okay. It is hard to use Star Child to prove this because he is a mass murderer. It doesn’t matter the reason.


I hope the DLC will be able to fix the credibility problems.

You're correct on all accounts, but I think those are all things that can be "clarified."  They don't invalidate the ending, they just illustrate how poorly executed the sequence was after the Crucible choice is made.

Also, Shepard is a mass murderer as well don't forget.  S/he killed hundreds of thousands of batarians, not to mention how many mercs, krogans, asari, etc in the name of a greater purpose.  The Catalyst believes it has done the same.

Yes. Sadly Shepard is a mass murderer. Let us hope Bio Ware takes this information and expands on the
dialogue so that the players know the correct path to take. Again great job on all your hard work.

[NorDee65]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

NorDee65 wrote...

It is quite a leap to suppose that civilisations in the Mass efffect universe are on the verge of destroying themselves or others. Throughout the three games I have neither experienced nor read any hint proving this. On the contrary: the citadel-council has established quite a stable almost galaxy-wide system which stands a good chance of keeping the peace.

Therefore: No, science does not explain ME3-endings....

(the rest of this article tries desperately to explain, why it all makes sense, but fails; plotholes and inconsistencies remain)

 And it isn't that the civilizations are on the verge of creating those synthetics, its that the Catalyst believes that is an inevitable outcome.

Yes, that is how it is written, but the artile is quoted as providing a scientific basis to that assumption. The problem is, that these theories are used in a circular argumentation, just as the catalyst is quoted. But that does not help in endearing the provided endings. It might just highlight what the writers were on about (if they were...), no more.

[PMC65]

Why does that thread title make me think of people who say "Not like deer meat? Well, you haven't tried mine!"

I played the game when it first came out and when I got to the ending it answered nothing. I didn't even understand what had just happened, if my choice was correct and why was Joker, Liara and Javik crash landing when Liara had been running down the hill with Shepard?

This feeling of "Am I being punked?" was not due to reading anything on the BSN ... I had stopped coming here to keep away from spoilers ... it was my own personal moment. If Bioware has to sit me down, like a child, or an editorial has to be written to help me understand then the ending for me failed.

Because it was such a WTF I have not been able to play it since ... this translates that I will not spend $$$ to purchase any additional DLC. If others loved/liked the ending or were able to just ignore it and create their own ending to replay it ... Hey, I tip my hat to them.

Bioware does not have to do anything with the ending. They can stand by their "Creative Vision" for all I care. But I do think that they might (just might) want to know why any further DLC's may not sell to a portion of their fanbase. It is us to them. I enjoyed so much of the game its a shame that the part that they "failed" (for me) so horribly at was the actual trilogy finale ... Shepard's moment of victory or defeat depending on how you had played the game. 

[bc525]

I really enjoyed the astrobiology article, and I thought it was very interesting. Yes, obviously it is one person's speculation about the intent of the ME3 ending, and he/she attempts to fit the Mass Effect series into some existing theories. And does that pretty well in my opinion.

I just don't understand the hostility that the astrobiology article gets met with.

[oxdarkfirexo]

After reading that article I still dislike the current ending and still believe that the Indoctrination Theory is a good substitute for several reasons. However that article was very well researched and presented. I like to think that some of the reasons in the article, such as the Reapers being a galactic wide police as rather interesting ideas and could work with some more explanation.

[Psile_01]

Hey bro,

I hear your class 2 species are gonna destroy each other and all class 1 species. So I made some class 3 species to destroy all the class 2 species.

Problem not solved by putting science words in. Please try again.

[sp0ck 06]

Psile_01 wrote...

Hey bro,

I hear your class 2 species are gonna destroy each other and all class 1 species. So I made some class 3 species to destroy all the class 2 species.

Problem not solved by putting science words in. Please try again.

What?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

It's the problem with the Control ending. Let's assume that somehow magically Shepard uploads and becomes the AI in the Citadel and controls the Reapers. Now Shepard has the responsibility of making sure that the galactic civilizations don't develop synthetics that destroy organic civilizations, or she may just say, as ye sow so shall ye reap and be done with it since she's a machine now. But let's say she decides to play cop.

Okay, she sends Harbinger to issue the warning -- "Hey, guys, you're getting too close here, you're about to reach a technological singularity and that's really bad not only for you but for everyone else. I'd strongly advise you stop right now."

And they say "Pbbbbbbbt. We no listen to you. You silly cuttlefish!"

So Shepard has to send in the Reapers to do some reaping and ascend this race. Shuts down the mass relays via the Citadel and brings them all in via the Citadel relay to do their thing again, but maybe a bit more focused than before, with a message to the rest of the galaxy, unless of course the civilization has a galaxy wide civilization, then it's going to be just like before, except Shepard gets her hands dirty with it.

Or Shepard is going to focus on destroying the tech research, or the synthetics. But the reapers are going to take losses and then eventually she'll have to do some reaping to replenish the police force. See people don't voluntarily get turned into reaper goop to make replacements.

"We are the Harbinger of your ascension through your destruction."

So how can any of the endings be Paragon if the tech singularity is destined to happen and the reapers are going to be necessary? Sucks to be Shepard.

Putting the morality of hybridizing everyone in the galaxy aside, one can almost see why synthesis would be the best option. Still it sucks to be Shepard. Why does the catalyst need Shepard's DNA? Why can't it use say, Anderson's DNA?

But why destroy the mass relays with the Synthesis ending? or the Control ending?

Destroy? You can live but there is a price for your survival.