473 réponses à ce sujet

[Veneke]

Erield wrote...

Veneke wrote...

There are 15 pages on this topic that I'm not going to read. Given that I do think the Catalyst is telling the truth I'd feel like I just copped out if I didn't reply to OP. So, yeah...

Ultimately, it doesn't matter that he lies or gets particular facts wrong, nor does it matter that he shouldn't be trusted at all. ...the endings fall apart under their own weight if we believe that the Mass Relays destroy the galaxy or if the Catalyst is lying on the major decisions.

When you get down to it, it's part of your suspension of disbelief. You have to believe that you're being given an honest choice, even though there's no reason to think that.

Which pretty much sums up the reasons why it's bad writing...right?

Yep.

Was that even something up for debate? Seriously, who could defend the quality of writing at the end of ME 3? It's mind-numbingly awful in every single way imaginable.

[dorktainian]

in answer to the original question. Circular reasoning logic which is in itself self defeating.
Create Synthetics, destroy/harvest/reap/organics, to save them from being destroyed by synthetics?

Oh but you destroy the relays as well?

Oh and Hacketts 'no conventional way' rubbish is ticking me off as well.

[Erield]

Veneke wrote...

Erield wrote...

Which pretty much sums up the reasons why it's bad writing...right?

Yep.

Was that even something up for debate? Seriously, who could defend the quality of writing at the end of ME 3? It's mind-numbingly awful in every single way imaginable.

Erm, not that I'm aware of, no, it wasn't up for debate.  I just felt the need to re-iterate that, for anyone who had missed the memo. 

[Geneaux486]

Veneke wrote...
Yep.

Was that even something up for debate? Seriously, who could defend the quality of writing at the end of ME 3? It's mind-numbingly awful in every single way imaginable.

The writing behind the ending is good, it's the execution that could stand to be improved.

in answer to the original question. Circular reasoning logic which is in itself self defeating.
Create Synthetics, destroy/harvest/reap/organics, to save them from being destroyed by synthetics?

Not what happened.  The Reapers are techo-organic, and they believe it necesarry to intervene and convert advanced civilizations into more Reapers before they advance their own technology beyond their own control and destroy not only themselves but cause collateral damage to more primitive species.  They bring each race to what they see as the pinnacle of life, while leaving room for the more primitive species to grow and advance on their own, in a repeating pattern.  The Catalyst's logic is not circular.  It's still wrong, of course, because the atrocities the Reapers committed in pursuit of this twisted solution were not necesarry at all, as the Crucible, which organics created themselves, provided a better way that didn't sacrifice innocent lives or individuality or any of that other stuff that makes organics what they are.

Oh and Hacketts 'no conventional way' rubbish is ticking me off as well.

Turians had the most advanced military in the galaxy, and they got demolished by the sheer force of the Reapers.  Asari had time to prepare, and they got demolished as well.  What Hackett said about the Reapers was true, the power of a single Reaper makes it incredibly difficult to kill when attacked by a fleet, and the fact that hundreds of its buddies are there at the same time makes it damn near impossible.  Fact that most of the galaxy didn't get its **** together to start preparing until after the Reapers had begun their attack pretty much diminished any lingering hope of a conventional victory.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 06 juin 2012 - 03:16 .

[Taboo]

The ending execution is the worst I've ever seen. That can come from bad writing Geneux, which is something I wish people would understand. Bad writing almost always leads to bad execution. Good writing rarely leads to poor execution. Leaving out key details is poor writing. Walters and Hudson confirmed this in the Final Hours app. Everything you see was intentional.

It's not Lynch. It's not Tarkovsky. It isn't Bresson.

The scene on the jungle planet is a complete and utter failure.

[The Night Mammoth]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Veneke wrote...
Yep.

Was that even something up for debate? Seriously, who could defend the quality of writing at the end of ME 3? It's mind-numbingly awful in every single way imaginable.

The writing behind the ending is good, it's the execution that could stand to be improved.

Nope, it's dreadful in every concievable way, there is not a single redeeming factor. 

[Geneaux486]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The ending execution is the worst I've ever seen. That can come from bad writing Geneux, which is something I wish people would understand. Bad writing almost always leads to bad execution. Good writing rarely leads to poor execution. Leaving out key details is poor writing. Walters and Hudson confirmed this in the Final Hours app. Everything you see was intentional.

It's not Lynch. It's not Tarkovsky. It isn't Bresson.

The scene on the jungle planet is a complete and utter failure.

Aware that bad execution can be the result of bad writing, not arguing that such a thing is impossible, but I fully believe the concepts behind the ending are quite sound.  The presentation, however, is too abrupt, too brief, and leaves us with too many unanswered questions, but were they to answer those questions in the EC, I believe the ending could be great.

Nope, it's dreadful in every concievable way, there is not a single redeeming factor.

Untrue. 

Modifié par Geneaux486, 06 juin 2012 - 03:19 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Nope, it's dreadful in every concievable way, there is not a single redeeming factor.

Untrue. 

There's not a single redeeming factor about it. Barely anything makes sense, it's incredibly disconnected, and most of the individual factors are just plain stupid. 

Subjective, of course. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 06 juin 2012 - 03:26 .

[The Angry One]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Nope, it's dreadful in every concievable way, there is not a single redeeming factor.

Untrue. 

There's not a single redeeming factor about it. Barely anything makes sense, it's incredibly disconnected, and most of the individual factors are just plain stupid. 

Subjective, of course. 

No, objective. Anybody with any unbiased knowledge of literature will tell you that the ending is badly written and badly put together.
If it weren't for misguided loyalty to BioWare, if this were, say an indie game, Mac Walter's Adventures of Blast Hardcheese or something, NOBODY would be defending this ending. I guarantee it.

[frylock23]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The ending execution is the worst I've ever seen. That can come from bad writing Geneux, which is something I wish people would understand. Bad writing almost always leads to bad execution. Good writing rarely leads to poor execution. Leaving out key details is poor writing. Walters and Hudson confirmed this in the Final Hours app. Everything you see was intentional.

It's not Lynch. It's not Tarkovsky. It isn't Bresson.

The scene on the jungle planet is a complete and utter failure.

Aware that bad execution can be the result of bad writing, not arguing that such a thing is impossible, but I fully believe the concepts behind the ending are quite sound.  The presentation, however, is too abrupt, too brief, and leaves us with too many unanswered questions, but were they to answer those questions in the EC, I believe the ending could be great.

Nope, it's dreadful in every concievable way, there is not a single redeeming factor.

Untrue. 

The concepts behind the endings might be sound for another game or story; however, they do not fit with the story and themes of the ME games up to that point not well enough to justify their intrusion. And while you can say that there is the thread of organic v. synthetic going on, everything in the games has been about learning to co-exist despite differences. The lesson of the ending seems to be that there is no co-existence despite everything you've learned to the contrary, and you are asked to go on 14 lines of extremely brief and vague dialogue!

It's poor writing and poorly implemented.

If Mac Walters wanted to do this game, he should have saved it for the next IP because it might been brilliant there.

[Geneaux486]

The Angry One wrote...
No, objective. Anybody with any unbiased knowledge of literature will tell you that the ending is badly written and badly put together.
If it weren't for misguided loyalty to BioWare, if this were, say an indie game, Mac Walter's Adventures of Blast Hardcheese or something, NOBODY would be defending this ending. I guarantee it.

It's subjective no matter how many times you say otherwise.  Just because it's a conclusion you arrived at doesn't make it the objective truth.  An unbiased knowlege of literature can lead to either conclusion regarding the endings.  Badly put together, maybe, but as well written as the rest of the series.  Again, subjective.  You argue that my motivation is misguided loyalty, I say that if that's true then your motivation is misguided anger and misconception.  You are no closer to an objective truth than I am, or anyone else is.

The concepts behind the endings might be sound for another game or story; however, they do not fit with the story and themes of the ME games up to that point not well enough to justify their intrusion. And while you can say that there is the thread of organic v. synthetic going on, everything in the games has been about learning to co-exist despite differences. The lesson of the ending seems to be that there is no co-existence despite everything you've learned to the contrary, and you are asked to go on 14 lines of extremely brief and vague dialogue!

Not going to argue about the vague/brief dialogue, because we agree on that.  However, the theme in the games of co-existing is precisely why the Catalyst is proven wrong in the end, why the Crucible was able to reach its completion, why it was able to be placed on the Citadel, why the Catalst had no choice but to acknowlege that organics had found a better way that didn't involve muder.  That said, the story isn't even about co-existence if Shepard chooses divisive paths (from a bigotted attitude to the destruction of the Geth), and the ending is no different.  The lessons your Shepard learns are dependant on the choices you make, and the choices you make lead to the final lesson and the final choice, whether it's one of destruction or peace.  Each choice thematically follows at least one moral path you can take your character down, and in that sense, the endings do work with the rest of the series.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 06 juin 2012 - 04:03 .

[ArchDuck]

So correct me if I am wrong but 16 pages and not one solid defense of the Catalyst (except the obvious bad writing defense: "The writers intended us to trust the catalyst even though they provide no reason to.")

[George-Kinsill]

ArchDuck wrote...

So correct me if I am wrong but 16 pages and not one solid defense of the Catalyst (except the obvious bad writing defense: "The writers intended us to trust the catalyst even though they provide no reason to.")

Looks like that or poor execution. Essentially we are asked to speculate that the Catalyst is good. The problem is, you can't force people to speculate a certain way, especialy when what evidence there is points otherwise and you don't feel to combfortable giving a genocididal computer program the benefi of the doubt.

Well, there is also the idea of poor execution by gene, but in any case, under the best case scenario the Catalyst is no lying and BioWare simply messed up royally. 

[The Angry One]

Geneaux486 wrote...

It's subjective no matter how many times you say otherwise.  Just because it's a conclusion you arrived at doesn't make it the objective truth.  An unbiased knowlege of literature can lead to either conclusion regarding the endings.  Badly put together, maybe, but as well written as the rest of the series.  Again, subjective.  You argue that my motivation is misguided loyalty, I say that if that's true then your motivation is misguided anger and misconception.  You are no closer to an objective truth than I am, or anyone else is.

Except I am. The ending violates the fundamental principles of good storytelling, including having people act wildly out of character, having disconnected, nonsensical events and introducing the overarching antagonist in the last 10 minutes.

I'm sorry but you just don't do that. Particularily the last example. That kind of writing gets you laughed off of fanfiction.net.

Modifié par The Angry One, 06 juin 2012 - 04:26 .

[Geneaux486]

The Angry One wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

It's subjective no matter how many times you say otherwise.  Just because it's a conclusion you arrived at doesn't make it the objective truth.  An unbiased knowlege of literature can lead to either conclusion regarding the endings.  Badly put together, maybe, but as well written as the rest of the series.  Again, subjective.  You argue that my motivation is misguided loyalty, I say that if that's true then your motivation is misguided anger and misconception.  You are no closer to an objective truth than I am, or anyone else is.

Except I am. The ending violates the fundamental principles of good storytelling, including having people act wildly out of character, having disconnected, nonsensical events and introducing the overarching antagonist in the last 10 minutes.

I'm sorry but you just don't do that. Particularily the last example. That kind of writing gets you laughed off of fanfiction.net.

No, you're not.  People acting out of character is still debateable and based on assumptions, not stated facts.  We don't know where Joker is, or why he's doing what he's doing, for instance.  but it could just as easily be explained while keeping him in character (one of many reasons why a simple extended cut can save the endings).  Events being nonsensical is, again, your opinion, and it's one I happen to disagree with.  The primary antagonists of Mass Effect 3 are the Reapers, the Catalyst is simply a condensed version of the threat already present and serves as an expositional device.  Again, your opinion on the endings, while just as valid as mine or anyone else's, is still just that, an opinion, not objective truth.

[MegaSovereign]

Opsrbest wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Eh Catalyst is a cool guy kills organics and doesn't afraid of integrity.

On a serious note, my "theory" is that the Crucible modifies the catalyst AI's core programming and forces it to present the Crucible's capabilities to Shepard in a truthful manner.

The truth indicated or presented by the Catalyst isn't a morality issue. It is a function over requirement issue. In order for the Catalyst to impose a sense of order the question that is imposed must be definable by cause and effect. So it is plausible that a truth analogy may indeed be the case for what the Crusible represents, as the Catalyst states similar, it would come down to the reaction that it would cause to the function served by the Reapers. The easiest example would be a fail safe device with an automatic adjustable response control. If the function alters or can be altered then the necessary alterations would be in parallel to the adjusted function. Or what we see with the Catalyst statement that the Crusible has changed its possibilities.

so plus 1 point.

What he said.

[MegaSovereign]

Vigilant111 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

No replies on my theory?

Alright. ;(

Dismissed, a million things could have happened, I have already accepted your view that Crucible joining the Citadel presents two more options other than destroy, but your theory is too far

You can't dismiss headcanons...

I didn't say that's what actually happened. Just what my opinion is on it.

[Abreu Road]

The idea and theme behind the ending was good. The execution is one of the worst in videogame history. You can't deny that. It's a poor job. The writing is also very, very poor. The entire Priority Earth was terrible not only in story and writing, but also in game design.


And my thoughts about the OP and the question:

The Catalyst tells the truth. He is not lying. Proof of this is Bioware overprotecting the ending and their artistic vision and calling us retarded for not understand their awesome and brave atempt to make something different in this medium. Hudson wanted that. He wanted us to believe that, well, maybe the Reapers are kind of good guys in a certain way and that they are not evil.

Thing is, the Reapers were always presented in the series as the Ultimate Evil. In a galaxy of no black and white, but shades of gray everywhere that Bioware intended since the beginning of the Mass Effect series, the Reapers are the most next thing to ultimate evil in the lore. Hudson just forgot about that.

They did not planned for the Catalyst to lie. Shepard just lives in high EMS destroy because EMS should have "a great impact" in the game.

BUT I think that Bioware could go this way and actually retcon the Catalyst to made it a liar, or at least, the retarded genocidal AI that he actually is. Retcon and this are some of the very few things that they can do to save the ending.

[httinks2006]

Geneaux486 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

It's subjective no matter how many times you say otherwise.  Just because it's a conclusion you arrived at doesn't make it the objective truth.  An unbiased knowlege of literature can lead to either conclusion regarding the endings.  Badly put together, maybe, but as well written as the rest of the series.  Again, subjective.  You argue that my motivation is misguided loyalty, I say that if that's true then your motivation is misguided anger and misconception.  You are no closer to an objective truth than I am, or anyone else is.

Except I am. The ending violates the fundamental principles of good storytelling, including having people act wildly out of character, having disconnected, nonsensical events and introducing the overarching antagonist in the last 10 minutes.

I'm sorry but you just don't do that. Particularily the last example. That kind of writing gets you laughed off of fanfiction.net.

No, you're not.  People acting out of character is still debateable and based on assumptions, not stated facts.  We don't know where Joker is, or why he's doing what he's doing, for instance.  but it could just as easily be explained while keeping him in character (one of many reasons why a simple extended cut can save the endings).  Events being nonsensical is, again, your opinion, and it's one I happen to disagree with.  The primary antagonists of Mass Effect 3 are the Reapers, the Catalyst is simply a condensed version of the threat already present and serves as an expositional device.  Again, your opinion on the endings, while just as valid as mine or anyone else's, is still just that, an opinion, not objective truth.

Actually you're wrong Shepard is not debateable in acting out of character through three games up until the last 10 minutes it spins out of character of the Avatar we've all played throughout the series , whether you play as a Paragon or Renegade.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Indeed my Paragon should find the choices presented as morally questionable and at least argue the point, not just accept everything that was presented to her.
And my Renegade just doesn't like putting up with the bullsh*t of the people or machines that tried to kill her and her friends not 5 minutes ago. Both their willingness to play along was shocking.

[frylock23]

Abreu Road wrote...

The idea and theme behind the ending was good. The execution is one of the worst in videogame history. You can't deny that. It's a poor job. The writing is also very, very poor. The entire Priority Earth was terrible not only in story and writing, but also in game design.


And my thoughts about the OP and the question:

The Catalyst tells the truth. He is not lying. Proof of this is Bioware overprotecting the ending and their artistic vision and calling us retarded for not understand their awesome and brave atempt to make something different in this medium. Hudson wanted that. He wanted us to believe that, well, maybe the Reapers are kind of good guys in a certain way and that they are not evil.

Thing is, the Reapers were always presented in the series as the Ultimate Evil. In a galaxy of no black and white, but shades of gray everywhere that Bioware intended since the beginning of the Mass Effect series, the Reapers are the most next thing to ultimate evil in the lore. Hudson just forgot about that.

Again, this comes back to bad storytelling. The idea of presenting the warm and fuzzy side of the Reapers in an effort to make them complicated had no place in the last 5 minutes of the game. If this is where BioWare wanted to take the game, they should have been going there from early on and not veering off the road in the last 5 minutes. "Overprotecting" their vision by not allowing the players to disagree or find fault with the Catalyst is not proof of its infallibility or veracity; it's just poor writing and execution.

If the only reason you agree in any way with the Catalyst is because you are essentially forced to because of how the game plays out, it isn't because the Catalyst is "truthful"; it's only because you have no option and no freedom to reach your own natural and logical conclusions.

[Jenonax]

Abreu Road wrote...


The Catalyst tells the truth. He is not lying. Proof of this is Bioware overprotecting the ending and their artistic vision and calling us retarded for not understand their awesome and brave atempt to make something different in this medium. Hudson wanted that. He wanted us to believe that, well, maybe the Reapers are kind of good guys in a certain way and that they are not evil.

That reasoning pisses me off so badly, because its true. 

We have no choice but to believe the stupid Starkid because Walters didn't bother to explain why we should.  He's like a hitman driving up in his car shooting your loved one dead through the window and driving off whilst laughing his arse off.  We can't ask why, or punch him in the face we're just left in a state of shock slowing watching our loved one bleed to death.

The Reapers are not good, Walters!  They have never been trying to save us and ascend us or whatever!  Otherwise, why the hell are they blowing us up instead of harvesting us?  And what about all those species not compatible for harvesting?  Why do they deserve to die?

Goddamn stupid ending, ruining everything ....

[Joe Del Toro]

Jenonax wrote...
Goddamn stupid ending, ruining everything ....

There, there. There's still chocolate, right?

[Taboo]

He presents a logical fallacy. He is not lying. He is irrelevant.

A is possible/probable therefore A is absolute

This is a fallacy. SORRY DAISY BELL.

[Jenonax]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

Jenonax wrote...
Goddamn stupid ending, ruining everything ....

There, there. There's still chocolate, right?

Is there, Joe, is there?

Its organic right?  Does that mean chocolate is now half organic?  Is my Milky Bar now half toaster?  What about Wine gums?  Are there still sweets?!  What am I supposed to munch on?

Dear God, I need a lie down.