4520 réponses à ce sujet

[killage_wizard]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Stargazer scene set thousands of years into the future + endgame text-box says otherwise. Go head and headcanon the Reapers rebelling and reaping again, it's your speculationz.

I'm gonna go by what's given.

You mean the same thing that happens no matter what ending you choose, ultimately justifying all three, and there by making your choice completely inconsequential in the first place?  Two people staring at the sky from the planet that the Normandy crash landed on, talking about what "the Shepard" did thousands of years after the events took place, is too ambigiuos to give you any idea of what really happend.  In fact the old man even says the details have been forgotten.  For all we know the crew of the Normandy are ultimately the only survivors of that particular Reaper cycle, and everyone else was destroyed.  And the endgame text can't be part of the argument when it essentially breaks the 4th wall. 

[The Angry One]

MegaSovereign wrote...

There was nothing to suggest that the Crucible would succeed in doing anything. No other cycle has successfuly deployed it. You're acting as if taking RISKS = BROKEN PLOT.

Not establishing the possibility as viable anywhere in the narrative = broken plot.

The ending is weak for other reasons. You're nitpicking at the themes (Control vs Destroy) when they clearly aren't the problem. Also what the hell does Shepard's readiness have to do with anything. All you need is a non-indoctrinated and strong willed individual utilizing a successfully constructed Crucible to control them. You're reading into things and trying to find problems WHERE THEY DON'T EXIST.

What the hell are you talking about? All you need is a non indoctrinated individual and the right technology?
To control billion year old machine gods with thoughts so immense and unknowable that even other machines running on their own code can't comprehend them?

You're just refusing to see the sheer scale of what we're being asked to accept here.

[balance5050]

The Angry One speaks the truth.

[killage_wizard]

The Angry One wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

There was nothing to suggest that the Crucible would succeed in doing anything. No other cycle has successfuly deployed it. You're acting as if taking RISKS = BROKEN PLOT.

Not establishing the possibility as viable anywhere in the narrative = broken plot.

Not to mention thematically broken.   The narrative for the entire series has been, up until you meet the kid, making you believe that anything the Reapers tell you is either false because they are attempting to coerce you (join us/control them), or false because you believe you can beat them (you can;t beat us because no one could in the past).  Why then would you take the words of the thing that controls the Reapers, after you just met him, as truth?

[comrade gando]

angry one's right, how can shepard possibly defeat the reapers? I think the writers made a mistake here, the villains are way to freaking strong, and all we play as is one human marine, talk about against all odds eh?

[Seival]

mauro2222 wrote...

Seival wrote...

The main downside of the Synthesis is that it's actually finishes the Reapers' initial job: "storing the old life in a reaper form". You just do it with one explosion instead of hundred years of war. This is the way to stop the war by surrendering, letting the Reapers to do their job much faster. And the other downside it that there is no Catalist after that anymore. What will all those uncontrolled Reapers do next? They have no independent minds. Someone will start to influence them?

...It's too risky cost for stopping the war. Why Reapers' creators didn't launch the Synthesis themselves long ago? It was too dangerous maybe? Too unpredictable? No, I don't wanna think more about the Synthesis till EC, it looks too "O_o" for me right now.

You seem to be the confused one.
Synthesis is not the same as destroy all synthetics and preserve organics in a shell. After StarChild reveals his plan, the Reapers (the ships) can't be considered AI anymore. Synthesis, with some magic, fuses organics with synthetics. Organics preserved in reaper form are just that... a powerful ship which works as container.

This is not ME2 anymore. The reaper larva simply never existed in ME3.

Yes, I'm still confused about Synthesis ending indeed. Control and Destroy were hard to understand, but I did it... But Synthesis... Well, looks like I don't have enough brain power or will. But I have all time I need, and EC will be released soon enough. I hope I'll get all answers I need 

Modifié par Seival, 31 mai 2012 - 08:27 .

[Seival]

The Angry One wrote...

Not establishing the possibility as viable anywhere in the narrative = broken plot.

Not establishing the possibility as viable anywhere in the narrative is just a scenario maneuver actually. Such maneuvers force you to think in addition to watching and listening.

The Angry One wrote...

What the hell are you talking about? All you need is a non indoctrinated individual and the right technology?
To control billion year old machine gods with thoughts so immense and unknowable that even other machines running on their own code can't comprehend them?

You're just refusing to see the sheer scale of what we're being asked to accept here.

Looks like you've just made your first step to understanding that BioWare used "Deus Ex Machina" concept in the endings for reason.

[The Angry One]

Seival wrote...

Not establishing the possibility as viable anywhere in the narrative is just a scenario maneuver actually. Such maneuvers force you to think in addition to watching and listening.

I have read this sentence over about 5 times and I have come to the conclusion that either:

a) You are yanking my chain
You are suffering from concussion
c) You have not actually played Mass Effect 3

Because you cannot be serious.

Looks like you've just made your first step to understanding that BioWare used "Deus Ex Machina" concept in the endings for reason.

Yes. That reason being bad writing.

[killage_wizard]

Seival wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Not establishing the possibility as viable anywhere in the narrative = broken plot.

Not establishing the possibility as viable anywhere in the narrative is just a scenario maneuver actually. Such maneuvers force you to think in addition to watching and listening.

The Angry One wrote...

What the hell are you talking about? All you need is a non indoctrinated individual and the right technology?
To control billion year old machine gods with thoughts so immense and unknowable that even other machines running on their own code can't comprehend them?

You're just refusing to see the sheer scale of what we're being asked to accept here.

Looks like you've just made your first step to understanding that BioWare used "Deus Ex Machina" concept in the endings for reason.

Deus Ex Machina is an excuse not a reason.

[Seival]

The Angry One wrote...

Not establishing the possibility as viable anywhere in the narrative is just a scenario maneuver actually. Such maneuvers force you to think in addition to watching and listening.

I have read this sentence over about 5 times and I have come to the conclusion that either:

a) You are yanking my chain
You are suffering from concussion
c) You have not actually played Mass Effect 3

Because you cannot be serious.

Ok, this might be because of english is not my main language, and I might misunderstand your phrase. So, let me explain and then correct me if needed:

The entire ME3 is full of clues that Control is not possible... So, the possibility of Control was established as invalid... Till the very end, when Catalist tells you that Control is actually valid option. And your first reaction was: O_o... Typical reaction if you are trying to understand something complicated only by listening and watching... As I said - ME Trilogy scenario is much more complicated than you are currently thinking.

...So, was it my bad english or I've understood your phrase right?

The Angry One wrote...

Looks like you've just made your first step to understanding that BioWare used "Deus Ex Machina" concept in the endings for reason.

Yes. That reason being bad writing.

The writing was great, but too short and very complicated. That's why so many players didn't understand anything immediately. And that's why BioWare is making EC.

Modifié par Seival, 31 mai 2012 - 09:53 .

[Archontor]

Seival wrote...

Archontor wrote...

"Active Reapers are the hands of the Catalist. Catalist chooses how and when use the Reapers abilities. If Catalist chooses not to use mind-control abilities, then the Reapers will not try to possess anyone.

Destroyed Reapers are just a poisonous and radioactive remains that can just lie there and corrupt everything around them, and noone will be able to control that corruption.

In short: Nuclear power plants can provide you with pure energy. But you know what happens when such power plants become destroyed and uncontrolled... Many people will suffer before this problem will be solved."

 

Pure hypothesis. The reaper in the brown dwarf was able to indoctrinate even after death as you know. This suggests that their indoctrination abilities are autonomic and do not require conscious control or are actualy innate to their construction. 

Disagree. This only suggests that their uncontrolled remains are poisonous for the minds of organic beings.

...And ok, let's view this from the other side. Let's say they are always poisonous. But this is even greater reason to Control them, and then move them as far away as you can.

So go synthesis then, there's catalyst to try and indoctrinate them, the reapers fly away apparently under their own will and if anything is going to bring an immunity to indoctrination it's synthesis.

[MegaSovereign]

The Angry One wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

There was nothing to suggest that the Crucible would succeed in doing anything. No other cycle has successfuly deployed it. You're acting as if taking RISKS = BROKEN PLOT.

Not establishing the possibility as viable anywhere in the narrative = broken plot.

The ending is weak for other reasons. You're nitpicking at the themes (Control vs Destroy) when they clearly aren't the problem. Also what the hell does Shepard's readiness have to do with anything. All you need is a non-indoctrinated and strong willed individual utilizing a successfully constructed Crucible to control them. You're reading into things and trying to find problems WHERE THEY DON'T EXIST.

What the hell are you talking about? All you need is a non indoctrinated individual and the right technology?
To control billion year old machine gods with thoughts so immense and unknowable that even other machines running on their own code can't comprehend them?

You're just refusing to see the sheer scale of what we're being asked to accept here.

It's really funny how far you're taking this. At first you said that Control wasn't foreshadowed at all in the narrative. I presented you instances and you're now saying "well....it wasn't presented in the right way."

Because it wasn't foreshadowed in the right way, it breaks the narrative? Are..Are you serious?

Listen, the game is SUPPOSE to make you question the choice. Even the Catalyst says "or do you think you can control us?" One of the main drawbacks of Control was the uncertainty of the forseeable consequences. Plot holes are narrative breaking, personal insecurities towards certain themes are not.

What the hell are you talking about? All you need is a non indoctrinated individual and the right technology?
To
control billion year old machine gods with thoughts so immense and
unknowable that even other machines running on their own code can't
comprehend them?

Derp. You use billion year old technology to control other billion year old technology. If they were gods wtf is the point in even trying to fight back?

The crucible doing ANYTHING to the reapers is a MASSIVE undertaking, whether it be controlling them or destroying them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I've seen you post on other threads that you would have preferred the war to be won via conventional strategy...Isn't this logic a bit hypocritical? Clearly the narrative states that winning the war conventionally isn't even possible.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 31 mai 2012 - 09:50 .

[Archontor]

Seival wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Not establishing the possibility as viable anywhere in the narrative is just a scenario maneuver actually. Such maneuvers force you to think in addition to watching and listening.

I have read this sentence over about 5 times and I have come to the conclusion that either:

a) You are yanking my chain
You are suffering from concussion
c) You have not actually played Mass Effect 3

Because you cannot be serious.

Ok, this might be becouse of english is not my main language, and I might misunderstand your phrase. So, let me explain and then correct me if needed:

The entire ME3 is full of clues that Control is not possible... So, the possibility of Control was established as invalid... Till the very end, when Catalist tells you that Control is actually valid option. And your first reaction was: O_o... Typical reaction if you are trying to understend something complicated only by listening and watching... As I said - ME Trilogy scenario is much more complicated than you are currently thinking.

...So, was it my bad english or I've understood your phrase right?

The Angry One wrote...

Looks like you've just made your first step to understanding that BioWare used "Deus Ex Machina" concept in the endings for reason.

Yes. That reason being bad writing.

The writing was great, but too short and very complicated. That's why so many players didn't understand anything immidiately. And that's why BioWare is making EC.

What makes you so special, why have you understood where others havent despite ranging from philosophy majors like myself through to engineers bioligists and a freaking lit professor?

[Seival]

Archontor wrote...

Seival wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Not establishing the possibility as viable anywhere in the narrative is just a scenario maneuver actually. Such maneuvers force you to think in addition to watching and listening.

I have read this sentence over about 5 times and I have come to the conclusion that either:

a) You are yanking my chain
You are suffering from concussion
c) You have not actually played Mass Effect 3

Because you cannot be serious.

Ok, this might be becouse of english is not my main language, and I might misunderstand your phrase. So, let me explain and then correct me if needed:

The entire ME3 is full of clues that Control is not possible... So, the possibility of Control was established as invalid... Till the very end, when Catalist tells you that Control is actually valid option. And your first reaction was: O_o... Typical reaction if you are trying to understend something complicated only by listening and watching... As I said - ME Trilogy scenario is much more complicated than you are currently thinking.

...So, was it my bad english or I've understood your phrase right?

The Angry One wrote...

Looks like you've just made your first step to understanding that BioWare used "Deus Ex Machina" concept in the endings for reason.

Yes. That reason being bad writing.

The writing was great, but too short and very complicated. That's why so many players didn't understand anything immidiately. And that's why BioWare is making EC.

What makes you so special, why have you understood where others havent despite ranging from philosophy majors like myself through to engineers bioligists and a freaking lit professor?

Special? Not at all. I was confused as much as many other players after the first playthrough. It took a lot of time for me to understand Control and Destroy endings... And I still didn't process Synthesis ending completely... Hopefully, EC will help me to understand it

Modifié par Seival, 31 mai 2012 - 10:06 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Seival wrote...

The writing was great, but too short and very complicated. That's why so many players didn't understand anything immediately. And that's why BioWare is making EC.

The writing was shocking, the entire end segment is attrocious in pretty much every way. 

Being injured and moving slowly alone serves no purpose, the situation on the Citadel is nonsensical and overly complicated, it again serves no purpose. 

The Catalyst being the child of Shepard's dreams, speaking with an air of omniscience, is overly pretentious. Its very existence throughs established plot points into ambiguity.

The problem it proposes is completely stupid, it comes out of nowhere and whoever wrote it should be ashamed. 

Control, even though I advocate it as the best choice, is hilarious in that you've literally spent the last game under the assumption that it is wrong. 

Destroy advocates the death of an entire species as a viable solution to a problem, borderline genocide, the writer's forced despicable costs on it to make the others seem nicer.

I don't feel well thinking about synthesis, like control, it jumps from the long grass like a velociraptor. Nothing about it makes any sense at all. 

Shepard unavoidable death is overly pretentious. 

The extreme lack of any consequence is horrendous. 

There are no epilogues, and the Normandy scene is just.......... words cannot describe just how bad that entire idea is. 

Then we have stargazer, more pretentiousness with bullsh*t dialogue. 

After the worst finale to any fiction I have ever seen, they have the gall to tell me to buy their DLC. 

I loath what they have done to Mass Effect. Headcanon is the only way. 

[The Angry One]

Seival wrote...

Ok, this might be because of english is not my main language, and I might misunderstand your phrase. So, let me explain and then correct me if needed:

The entire ME3 is full of clues that Control is not possible... So, the possibility of Control was established as invalid... Till the very end, when Catalist tells you that Control is actually valid option. And your first reaction was: O_o... Typical reaction if you are trying to understand something complicated only by listening and watching... As I said - ME Trilogy scenario is much more complicated than you are currently thinking.

...So, was it my bad english or I've understood your phrase right?

Now understand what I'm saying.

That is bad writing.

The writing was great, but too short and very complicated. That's why so many players didn't understand anything immediately. And that's why BioWare is making EC.

It wasn't complicated at all! In fact, it was overly simplistic.
A proper narrative establishes the required themes and elements during the entirety of the game. Not right at the end, and it doesn't rely on a deus ex machina. Deus ex machinas are bad!

Modifié par The Angry One, 31 mai 2012 - 10:10 .

[killage_wizard]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Derp. You use billion year old technology to control other billion year old technology. If they were gods wtf is the point in even trying to fight back?

The crucible doing ANYTHING to the reapers is a MASSIVE undertaking, whether it be controlling them or destroying them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I've seen you post on other threads that you would have preferred the war to be won via conventional strategy...Isn't this logic a bit hypocritical? Clearly the narrative states that winning the war conventionally isn't even possible.

Shepard spends 5 minutes arguing with TIM just prior to meeting the kid that you can't bet humanity on controlling the reapers, and that  no one is ready for that kind of responsibility.  What from the previous narrative leads you to believe that Shepard would do a complete 360 after meeting a hologram for the first time?

Modifié par killage_wizard, 31 mai 2012 - 10:11 .

[The Angry One]

MegaSovereign wrote...

It's really funny how far you're taking this. At first you said that Control wasn't foreshadowed at all in the narrative. I presented you instances and you're now saying "well....it wasn't presented in the right way."

Because it wasn't foreshadowed in the right way, it breaks the narrative? Are..Are you serious?

Listen, the game is SUPPOSE to make you question the choice. Even the Catalyst says "or do you think you can control us?" One of the main drawbacks of Control was the uncertainty of the forseeable consequences. Plot holes are narrative breaking, personal insecurities towards certain themes are not.

I have said it wasn't properly foreshadowed. I have stated this all along. The Catalyst's question is out of the blue and means nothing.

Derp. You use billion year old technology to control other billion year old technology. If they were gods wtf is the point in even trying to fight back?

In terms of thought, they are supposed to be far beyond us.
Neither the game or you has explained why a human can control these incomprehensible beings. Not just one of them, but ALL OF THEM.

The crucible doing ANYTHING to the reapers is a MASSIVE undertaking, whether it be controlling them or destroying them.

Do you think I'm justifying the Crucible's space magic or something?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I've seen you post on other threads that you would have preferred the war to be won via conventional strategy...Isn't this logic a bit hypocritical? Clearly the narrative states that winning the war conventionally isn't even possible.

No it isn't, my arguments are that the narrative demonstrates the exact opposite.
While it has characters like Hackett continually whine that conventional victory is impossible, we have numerous plot events and codex entries that say otherwise.
Proper application of tactics, the battles at Palaven, the fact that the Reapers cannot overrun Hanar defences, and so on.

[Seival]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Seival wrote...

The writing was great, but too short and very complicated. That's why so many players didn't understand anything immediately. And that's why BioWare is making EC.

The writing was shocking, the entire end segment is attrocious in pretty much every way. 

Being injured and moving slowly alone serves no purpose, the situation on the Citadel is nonsensical and overly complicated, it again serves no purpose. 

The Catalyst being the child of Shepard's dreams, speaking with an air of omniscience, is overly pretentious. Its very existence throughs established plot points into ambiguity.

The problem it proposes is completely stupid, it comes out of nowhere and whoever wrote it should be ashamed. 

Control, even though I advocate it as the best choice, is hilarious in that you've literally spent the last game under the assumption that it is wrong. 

Destroy advocates the death of an entire species as a viable solution to a problem, borderline genocide, the writer's forced despicable costs on it to make the others seem nicer.

I don't feel well thinking about synthesis, like control, it jumps from the long grass like a velociraptor. Nothing about it makes any sense at all. 

Shepard unavoidable death is overly pretentious. 

The extreme lack of any consequence is horrendous. 

There are no epilogues, and the Normandy scene is just.......... words cannot describe just how bad that entire idea is. 

Then we have stargazer, more pretentiousness with bullsh*t dialogue. 

After the worst finale to any fiction I have ever seen, they have the gall to tell me to buy their DLC. 

I loath what they have done to Mass Effect. Headcanon is the only way. 

I'm sure that EC will fix all misunderstandings. And BioWare already said that EC will add epilogue with detailed descriptions of consequences... Right now my biggest concern is what are they going to do with Normandy crash scene... This is the only thing in the ending that is completely out of line.
 
Short version of great writing is not a "bad writing". It's actually good when some story leaves a lot of space for your own imagination.

Modifié par Seival, 31 mai 2012 - 10:24 .

[killage_wizard]

The Angry One wrote...

No it isn't, my arguments are that the narrative demonstrates the exact opposite.
While it has characters like Hackett continually whine that conventional victory is impossible, we have numerous plot events and codex entries that say otherwise.
Proper application of tactics, the battles at Palaven, the fact that the Reapers cannot overrun Hanar defences, and so on.

I would add that Javik stated the Protheans basically lost the war because of their lack of diversity (the races of their cycle were conquered, not working together), and the fact that there is now a diverse alliance of different species may give this cycles races a chance to beat the Reapers.

[Lord Goose]

Neither the game or you has explained why a human can control these incomprehensible beings. Not just one of them, but ALL OF THEM.

Actually, they don't have to be extremely smart. At least, they doesn't have to be much smarter than humans. Given how relatively easily everybody can turn hands on them, its certain what they're not imcomprehensible super-geniuses.

All their power steams from being giant indestructible warships with abilities to influence organic minds. And what's why Crucible is for - to counter their powers with space magic.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 31 mai 2012 - 10:25 .

[killage_wizard]

Lord Goose wrote...

Neither the game or you has explained why a human can control these incomprehensible beings. Not just one of them, but ALL OF THEM.

Actually, they don't have to be extremely smart. At least, they doesn't have to be much smarter than humans. Given how relatively easily everybody can turn hands on them, its certain what they're not imcomprehensible super-geniuses.

All their power steams from being giant indestructible warships with abilities to influence organic minds. And what's why Crucible is for - to counter their powers with space magic.

Legion literally said the Reapers thoughts are incomprehensible even to the Geth.

[The Angry One]

Lord Goose wrote...

Actually, they don't have to be extremely smart. At least, they doesn't have to be much smarter than humans. Given how relatively easily everybody can turn hands on them, its certain what they're not imcomprehensible super-geniuses.

All their power steams from being giant indestructible warships with abilities to influence organic minds. And what's why Crucible is for - to counter their powers with space magic.

Regardless of how plot stupid the Reapers are and how many idiot balls they've carried (like the whole London conduit stupidity) the fact remains that the narrative established that Reapers have minds structured in a way that are extremely difficult to understand even for Geth with Reaper code upgrades.

This is fact within the plot. They established it. They didn't have to, but they did. It's there. It's the elephant in the room regarding control. Having established this they need to work with or handwave this away somehow to establish that Shepard can control these beings. They categorically failed to.

[Lord Goose]

the fact remains that the narrative established that Reapers have minds structured in a way that are extremely difficult to understand even for Geth with Reaper code upgrades.

Yes, and?

Come to think of it, Shepard doesn't have to defeat all the Reapers combined in mind to mind battle. Just as he doesn't have to personally shoot all the Reapers to defeat them. He has the Crucible which could allow him to control the Reapers via Space magic.

[The Angry One]

Lord Goose wrote...

Yes, and?

And how is a human going to impose their will onto thousands of these Reaper minds again without it backfiring horribly?

Come to think of it, Shepard doesn't have to defeat all the Reapers combined in mind to mind battle. Just as he doesn't have to personally shoot all the Reapers to defeat them. He has the Crucible which could allow him to control the Reapers via Space magic.

And that's a crap outcome.

Mass Effect deserves better than space magic. Do you think this ending would've flown in ME1? Hell no.