I challenge those who hate the ending to read this
Débuté par
sp0ck 06
, avril 19 2012 04:04
#126
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:14
balance5050
-
- Members
- 5 245 messages
"Shepard isn’t going to suffocate in the Catalyst area; there’s no reason at all not to suppose that the room has windows."
Really? Is this considered "smart" these days?
Retour en haut
#127
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:17
Sean
-
- Members
- 786 messages
That missed some of the main points.
---Synthesis:
-Synthetics don't have DNA
-Everything is now somehow a hybrid of organic and synthetic even though that is impossible (unless cyborg but that is an organic augmented with machinery)
-What constitues a synthetic in the crucible's "eyes"?
-is anything with a processor now partly organic? if leaves on a tree can now become a hybrid then that assumes
-A syntethic is an AI (Artificial Intelligence) (VI's would also be grouped into synthetic) so it is just a computer with extremely high processing to mimic sentience and for all intents and purposes it IS sentient
-So, the difference between an AI and a VI is just processing power. Again, HOW does the Crucible know the difference since they can be the same.
---The Indoctrination theory is flawed
-It is definately flawed
-Shepard wasn't indoctrinated the whole game, just (I believe it would work as this) after the beam ALMOST hit him/her
-Shep being unconsious AND right next to Harbinger (who is assumed to be the main reaper) could make it that Shep is now battling for his/her mind and that can fit with the way the ending is now
-I don't think that is how the game is now, just is the possibility (it could have been an early idea but scrapped very late)
---The Bioware quote that is referanced
-It would be different if the quote wasn't from January 10, 2012
-Games go gold about 2 months prior to release to get the games manufactured and small things like bug fixes done
---------------
Edit-
Even without windows it could be a sort of "Air bubble" using some kind of barrier
but that doesn't make sense if it wasn't meant for anyone to actually GO THERE
The SpaceBrat does say that Shep was the first organic (Which also doesn't make sense since that area is on a a pretty open spot right in the middle of the Citadel, from an outside perspective, and no one EVER thought to explore the Citadel?)
-----
Also wanted to say that why is traffic still moving normally on the Citadel if the Reapers took control of it, also doesn't make sense. Even ME1 didn't do that.
---Synthesis:
-Synthetics don't have DNA
-Everything is now somehow a hybrid of organic and synthetic even though that is impossible (unless cyborg but that is an organic augmented with machinery)
-What constitues a synthetic in the crucible's "eyes"?
-is anything with a processor now partly organic? if leaves on a tree can now become a hybrid then that assumes
-A syntethic is an AI (Artificial Intelligence) (VI's would also be grouped into synthetic) so it is just a computer with extremely high processing to mimic sentience and for all intents and purposes it IS sentient
-So, the difference between an AI and a VI is just processing power. Again, HOW does the Crucible know the difference since they can be the same.
---The Indoctrination theory is flawed
-It is definately flawed
-Shepard wasn't indoctrinated the whole game, just (I believe it would work as this) after the beam ALMOST hit him/her
-Shep being unconsious AND right next to Harbinger (who is assumed to be the main reaper) could make it that Shep is now battling for his/her mind and that can fit with the way the ending is now
-I don't think that is how the game is now, just is the possibility (it could have been an early idea but scrapped very late)
---The Bioware quote that is referanced
-It would be different if the quote wasn't from January 10, 2012
-Games go gold about 2 months prior to release to get the games manufactured and small things like bug fixes done
---------------
Edit-
balance5050 wrote...
"Shepard isn’t going to suffocate in the Catalyst area; there’s no reason at all not to suppose that the room has windows."
Really? Is this considered "smart" these days?
Even without windows it could be a sort of "Air bubble" using some kind of barrier
but that doesn't make sense if it wasn't meant for anyone to actually GO THERE
The SpaceBrat does say that Shep was the first organic (Which also doesn't make sense since that area is on a a pretty open spot right in the middle of the Citadel, from an outside perspective, and no one EVER thought to explore the Citadel?)
-----
Also wanted to say that why is traffic still moving normally on the Citadel if the Reapers took control of it, also doesn't make sense. Even ME1 didn't do that.
Modifié par RX_Sean_XI, 19 avril 2012 - 05:20 .
#128
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:17
jumpingkaede
-
- Members
- 1 411 messages
Shaigunjoe wrote...
ArchDuck wrote...
As for the glancing focus on science. The article just glosses over how the ending completely misconstrues evolution and never explains robo-DNA.
There was no robo-DNA, a new DNA framework was created that makes evolution null and void..
Playing through ME2, it's interesting to hear Mordin's take on evolution. And how it contrasts with the ending of ME3.
Also the new DNA framework has to apply to both synthetics (such as the Geth) and organics. Hence, "robo-DNA".
...
What does evolution mean for the Geth, anyway?
#129
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:17
hopeisreal
-
- Members
- 137 messages
No....no...no
Sorry Original Poster, but this is just all wrong.
As someone said, once you have to read an ESSAY to "get" an ending or make it more bearable....then there is something SERIOUSLY wrong.
Sorry Original Poster, but this is just all wrong.
As someone said, once you have to read an ESSAY to "get" an ending or make it more bearable....then there is something SERIOUSLY wrong.
#130
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:17
stuka1000
-
- Members
- 115 messages
The only thing that I don't understand is why people continue to defend bad writing. Don't take my word for it, here is what Maggie Hamand ( who teaches creative writing and is a published writer ) teaches about ending a story:
Avoid the following:
1 Irrelevant endings: Don't introduce a new concept or character right at the end of your story, something or someone with no or little connection with what went before.
2 Fizzle - out endings: Don't just let your story fizzle out with no real climax or resolution, end with a bang not a whimper.
3 Endings that go on and on: Some authors can't bear to leave their stories and let them drift on after the main story has finished.
Okay so BW were not guilty of the last one but they certainly did the first and went at least halfway into the second, bad writing plain and simple.
Avoid the following:
1 Irrelevant endings: Don't introduce a new concept or character right at the end of your story, something or someone with no or little connection with what went before.
2 Fizzle - out endings: Don't just let your story fizzle out with no real climax or resolution, end with a bang not a whimper.
3 Endings that go on and on: Some authors can't bear to leave their stories and let them drift on after the main story has finished.
Okay so BW were not guilty of the last one but they certainly did the first and went at least halfway into the second, bad writing plain and simple.
#131
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:18
Jorji Costava
-
- Members
- 2 584 messages
Good read, but I think the article is missing the point on why the ending is bad. It's neither here nor there whether or not what the writers thought about the tech singularity is actually true; what matters is that the method of delivering the message is poor. Here's an admittedly super-cheesy analogy to illustrate:
Suppose you want to create a story about two lovers with the message that sometimes, love just isn't enough and some relationships aren't meant to work out. Here are two of the many ways in which you might do this:
1. The lovers have their ups and downs during the course of the story, but in the end, due to circumstances or just due to their own character flaws, they just can't make it work out in the end and separate. It could be as simple as a break-up or as tragic as one of the lovers dying.
2. The lovers have their struggles, but are able to work them out until just before the end, where an omniscient character appears and declares, "You two are just star-crossed. There's no way it's going to work." Upon hearing this, the characters decide, "Well, that settles it" and separate from each other with no further discussion.
I think we can agree that (2) is a really bad way to express this theme, and that this is so even if we agree that the underlying message (Love just isn't always enough) is completely true. Even if it turns out, for instance, that neuroscience has definitively established that love is an illusion, this will do nothing to vindicate the story-telling method of (2).
I hope it's pretty clear that ME3's ending falls into the second category, and that this is a huge part of what's wrong with it. It's just bad storytelling to resolve the issue of the tech singularity by simply having an all-knowing character appear in the waning moments and declare the correct answer. And it's bad story-telling even if it were to turn out that everything the all-knowing character says about the singularity is, as a matter of fact, true.
Suppose you want to create a story about two lovers with the message that sometimes, love just isn't enough and some relationships aren't meant to work out. Here are two of the many ways in which you might do this:
1. The lovers have their ups and downs during the course of the story, but in the end, due to circumstances or just due to their own character flaws, they just can't make it work out in the end and separate. It could be as simple as a break-up or as tragic as one of the lovers dying.
2. The lovers have their struggles, but are able to work them out until just before the end, where an omniscient character appears and declares, "You two are just star-crossed. There's no way it's going to work." Upon hearing this, the characters decide, "Well, that settles it" and separate from each other with no further discussion.
I think we can agree that (2) is a really bad way to express this theme, and that this is so even if we agree that the underlying message (Love just isn't always enough) is completely true. Even if it turns out, for instance, that neuroscience has definitively established that love is an illusion, this will do nothing to vindicate the story-telling method of (2).
I hope it's pretty clear that ME3's ending falls into the second category, and that this is a huge part of what's wrong with it. It's just bad storytelling to resolve the issue of the tech singularity by simply having an all-knowing character appear in the waning moments and declare the correct answer. And it's bad story-telling even if it were to turn out that everything the all-knowing character says about the singularity is, as a matter of fact, true.
#132
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:18
LucasShark
-
- Members
- 3 894 messages
jumpingkaede wrote...
Shaigunjoe wrote...
ArchDuck wrote...
As for the glancing focus on science. The article just glosses over how the ending completely misconstrues evolution and never explains robo-DNA.
There was no robo-DNA, a new DNA framework was created that makes evolution null and void..
Playing through ME2, it's interesting to hear Mordin's take on evolution. And how it contrasts with the ending of ME3.
Also the new DNA framework has to apply to both synthetics (such as the Geth) and organics. Hence, "robo-DNA".
...
What does evolution mean for the Geth, anyway?
In the case of the Geth: I'd imagine it had been mostly active experimentation. Which would explain how they developed the "hoppers" indipendantly. Ending is still rubbish.
#134
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:19
sp0ck 06
-
- Members
- 1 318 messages
hopeisreal wrote...
No....no...no
Sorry Original Poster, but this is just all wrong.
As someone said, once you have to read an ESSAY to "get" an ending or make it more bearable....then there is something SERIOUSLY wrong.
Of course theres something seriously wrong, lol. I never claimed the ending "as is" was fine, and neither does the linked article. I am just trying to throw some positive light on it.
#135
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:19
paul165
-
- Members
- 556 messages
Read it thanks for the link - however the link itself boils down to the fandom is too stupid to understand Bioware's genius! Artistic Integrity!
Yes I understand what Casper was trying to do, yes I understood before the article using dodgy science to reference the ideas (grey goo really?)
And no understanding what Casper wanted does not make the ending better - it doesn't explain anything about the Normandy, its doesn't offer resolution for the squad or the others you met and it sure as hell doesn't offer hope for a galaxy totally dependant on the mass relays which have just been destroyed.
You still end up with
followed by subtle shades of rocks fall everybody dies.
And incidentally if the ending is poorly executed then yes it makes the ending 'objectively' bad.
Want to make it better? Don't blow up the mass relays and cut the Normandy scene. Still won't offer any resolution but at least the resulting speculation won't be arguing about the degree to which the galaxy is utterly screwed.
But thanks for link anyway - it's good to know that some people are happy with what we got.
Yes I understand what Casper was trying to do, yes I understood before the article using dodgy science to reference the ideas (grey goo really?)
And no understanding what Casper wanted does not make the ending better - it doesn't explain anything about the Normandy, its doesn't offer resolution for the squad or the others you met and it sure as hell doesn't offer hope for a galaxy totally dependant on the mass relays which have just been destroyed.
You still end up with
followed by subtle shades of rocks fall everybody dies.And incidentally if the ending is poorly executed then yes it makes the ending 'objectively' bad.
Want to make it better? Don't blow up the mass relays and cut the Normandy scene. Still won't offer any resolution but at least the resulting speculation won't be arguing about the degree to which the galaxy is utterly screwed.
But thanks for link anyway - it's good to know that some people are happy with what we got.
#136
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:21
firebreather19
-
- Members
- 422 messages
Working is a bad term for this situation. It is an ending. Some don't like it, some do. The value of someone trying to convince someone else it is good is higher than the opposite, because the intended outcome is that someone is happier, as opposed to the opposite where someone is upset or disappointed.
Not saying people should shove it down anyone's throat, but dont be mad because someone wants to help you be okay with it.
Not saying people should shove it down anyone's throat, but dont be mad because someone wants to help you be okay with it.
#137
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:21
Faded-Myth
-
- Members
- 675 messages
iggy4566 wrote...
Nope still horse ****.
#138
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:22
LucasShark
-
- Members
- 3 894 messages
sp0ck 06 wrote...
hopeisreal wrote...
No....no...no
Sorry Original Poster, but this is just all wrong.
As someone said, once you have to read an ESSAY to "get" an ending or make it more bearable....then there is something SERIOUSLY wrong.
Of course theres something seriously wrong, lol. I never claimed the ending "as is" was fine, and neither does the linked article. I am just trying to throw some positive light on it.
Why throw positive light on something which IS objectively badly written and poorly concieved? It should be ridiculed as such, and then either improved or abandoned.
#139
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:23
Shaigunjoe
-
- Members
- 925 messages
jumpingkaede wrote...
Shaigunjoe wrote...
ArchDuck wrote...
As for the glancing focus on science. The article just glosses over how the ending completely misconstrues evolution and never explains robo-DNA.
There was no robo-DNA, a new DNA framework was created that makes evolution null and void..
Playing through ME2, it's interesting to hear Mordin's take on evolution. And how it contrasts with the ending of ME3.
Also the new DNA framework has to apply to both synthetics (such as the Geth) and organics. Hence, "robo-DNA".
...
What does evolution mean for the Geth, anyway?
Haha, man, even lots of speculation to read others posts. I thought he meant robot DNA as definied prior to the synthesis. The new DNA would not be beholdon to our traditional views of robots.
Not familiar with moridins view on evolution, maybe I'll look it up. I'm surprised I don't remember it as the Moridin arc was my fav in ME2.
#140
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:23
jumpingkaede
-
- Members
- 1 411 messages
LucasShark wrote...
jumpingkaede wrote...
Shaigunjoe wrote...
ArchDuck wrote...
As for the glancing focus on science. The article just glosses over how the ending completely misconstrues evolution and never explains robo-DNA.
There was no robo-DNA, a new DNA framework was created that makes evolution null and void..
Playing through ME2, it's interesting to hear Mordin's take on evolution. And how it contrasts with the ending of ME3.
Also the new DNA framework has to apply to both synthetics (such as the Geth) and organics. Hence, "robo-DNA".
...
What does evolution mean for the Geth, anyway?
In the case of the Geth: I'd imagine it had been mostly active experimentation. Which would explain how they developed the "hoppers" indipendantly. Ending is still rubbish.
But how does that work now? A hopper Geth seems to be an "evolution" for the Geth.
Is that now irrelevant? Is a Geth with wings and/or a rocket pack an evolved Geth?
I thought this was the transhuman/Deus Ex/Metacon War problem all over again. That as awesome and evolved as you are, you can still... I dunno, stick a laser-beam eyeball on yourself and have a pretty big advantage. That's not really an "evolution" but it's the problem that led to the Metacon War and the Deus Ex endings that Bioware tried to emulate.
Is that somehow no longer a problem after Synthesis? Does a technological singularity event horizon blah blah mean no one will bother sticking laser-beams on stuff?
#141
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:23
balance5050
-
- Members
- 5 245 messages
LucasShark wrote...
Why throw positive light on something which IS objectively badly written and poorly concieved? It should be ridiculed as such, and then either improved or abandoned.
THIS^
#142
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:24
Tairram
-
- Members
- 73 messages
The article dont change that the end of mass effect 3 sux.I already read this and know this theories and with me3 doesnt change anything about the end. The ending is bad writing and never this will changed. Why the rage of the fans ? Because we wait for the best, wait for a lot of things bw said and we were deliviried with nothing in the end. I never taught the last battle could be so ****. Take earth back ? We didnt take the earth back. Everytime i remeber when Shepard speak with his crew, his friends, before the last battle and after. The after is the problem and the 10 min final is the ****.
If we compare with suicidal mission, they could had put something like that (crew doing things) with our war asset in the battle. Maybe they become lazy and dont know how to end this game.....
They changed the focus of the history, put new things at the last 10 min ? for what ? wasnt me3 supposed to be the end of shepard history ?
And the worst thing is ...We dont have a end. I cant even call that a end. Even, the fans dont try to make a explanation why the ending have a possible logic (sometimes this happen with fanboys trying justify **** endings because they love the game). If the fans dislike its because there is something very,very wrong. Thet didnt found the logic... There isnt any logic or any good thing at this catalyst thing and the colors.
I hope bw respect us and do a good job at this extended. I cant imagine how with this end and its ''clarification''. But i just want to see they try.....
If we compare with suicidal mission, they could had put something like that (crew doing things) with our war asset in the battle. Maybe they become lazy and dont know how to end this game.....
They changed the focus of the history, put new things at the last 10 min ? for what ? wasnt me3 supposed to be the end of shepard history ?
And the worst thing is ...We dont have a end. I cant even call that a end. Even, the fans dont try to make a explanation why the ending have a possible logic (sometimes this happen with fanboys trying justify **** endings because they love the game). If the fans dislike its because there is something very,very wrong. Thet didnt found the logic... There isnt any logic or any good thing at this catalyst thing and the colors.
I hope bw respect us and do a good job at this extended. I cant imagine how with this end and its ''clarification''. But i just want to see they try.....
#143
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:24
Khajiit Jzargo
-
- Members
- 1 854 messages
"There’s the problem right there: he’d played the whole game just to
rack up points and forgot that all the major issues in the story were
resolved during the last game – not at the end.
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."
Thats where this article is completely wrong. Theres to much speculation to know what happens, does wrex get to go back to tuchanka? does EDI die int he destroy ending, so it doesn't matter what I do because the ending left me speculating.
rack up points and forgot that all the major issues in the story were
resolved during the last game – not at the end.
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."
Thats where this article is completely wrong. Theres to much speculation to know what happens, does wrex get to go back to tuchanka? does EDI die int he destroy ending, so it doesn't matter what I do because the ending left me speculating.
#145
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:25
Sean
-
- Members
- 786 messages
jumpingkaede wrote...
LucasShark wrote...
jumpingkaede wrote...
Shaigunjoe wrote...
ArchDuck wrote...
As for the glancing focus on science. The article just glosses over how the ending completely misconstrues evolution and never explains robo-DNA.
There was no robo-DNA, a new DNA framework was created that makes evolution null and void..
Playing through ME2, it's interesting to hear Mordin's take on evolution. And how it contrasts with the ending of ME3.
Also the new DNA framework has to apply to both synthetics (such as the Geth) and organics. Hence, "robo-DNA".
...
What does evolution mean for the Geth, anyway?
In the case of the Geth: I'd imagine it had been mostly active experimentation. Which would explain how they developed the "hoppers" indipendantly. Ending is still rubbish.
But how does that work now? A hopper Geth seems to be an "evolution" for the Geth.
Is that now irrelevant? Is a Geth with wings and/or a rocket pack an evolved Geth?
I thought this was the transhuman/Deus Ex/Metacon War problem all over again. That as awesome and evolved as you are, you can still... I dunno, stick a laser-beam eyeball on yourself and have a pretty big advantage. That's not really an "evolution" but it's the problem that led to the Metacon War and the Deus Ex endings that Bioware tried to emulate.
Is that somehow no longer a problem after Synthesis? Does a technological singularity event horizon blah blah mean no one will bother sticking laser-beams on stuff?
Of course they wouldn't do that at their evolution's apex. That would break the artistic integrity of their evolution.
Modifié par RX_Sean_XI, 19 avril 2012 - 05:25 .
#146
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:25
jumpingkaede
-
- Members
- 1 411 messages
Shaigunjoe wrote...
Haha, man, even lots of speculation to read others posts. I thought he meant robot DNA as definied prior to the synthesis. The new DNA would not be beholdon to our traditional views of robots.
Not familiar with moridins view on evolution, maybe I'll look it up. I'm surprised I don't remember it as the Moridin arc was my fav in ME2.
Maybe less to do with evolution and more to do with scientific advancement. Same/similar principle applies though, I would think.
All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming, compensating, for limitations. Can't carry a load, invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations. No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates. Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready, disastrous." - Mordin Solus
So what happens now after Synthesis?
Modifié par jumpingkaede, 19 avril 2012 - 05:25 .
#147
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:25
Tairram
-
- Members
- 73 messages
balance5050 wrote...
LucasShark wrote...
Why throw positive light on something which IS objectively badly written and poorly concieved? It should be ridiculed as such, and then either improved or abandoned.
THIS^
I write,write and write
But this is direct and represent all our angry feelings.
#148
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:26
Darkwulfjj
-
- Members
- 40 messages
Interesting read, but if the ending requires someone to read an editorial that long, they have failed horribly.
The ending sucks, and needs to be fixed, maybe the idea of the ending could have been "right" and was just not implemented well, if you agree with this editorial. Yet that is giving a lot of credit to bioware to be that detailed, when we have game that relies on a lot of "space magic"
The ending sucks, and needs to be fixed, maybe the idea of the ending could have been "right" and was just not implemented well, if you agree with this editorial. Yet that is giving a lot of credit to bioware to be that detailed, when we have game that relies on a lot of "space magic"
#149
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:26
xztr
-
- Members
- 181 messages
Sorry I cant read, by eyes still bleed...
#150
Posté 19 avril 2012 - 05:29
Dannycni
-
- Members
- 1 200 messages
The article does make a good point about what this means for big games in the future coming up with endings, and will we only see safe, non daring endings because companies will be worried about upsetting the fan base?
