288 réponses à ce sujet

[CHALET]

They don't deserve what should have been included at launch.

Do I appreciate them adding it on? Sure, but I don't pretend it's anything more than a glorified PR stunt and what should have been there in the first place.

[SpamBot2000]

Looks like some commentators decided to go with this narrative: "Bioware fans demanded a fix and received it. Here's our reporter explaining what this means for the State of the Industry." Journalism's need for easy-to-follow story arcs.

[Geneaux486]

So you just write out something and don't check it for internal consistency? Forgive me, but that really doesn't fill me with confidence that you're producing a cogent, reasoned argument with conclusions logically derived from presented facts.

At first it came off as circular logic, then as I thought more about it I realized it wasn't.  So I left the previous misconception therein so nobody else would make the same mistake.  Obviously that didn't do you much good, but I'd do the same again.

No. As I said before, in this case, you're begging the question. You're saying "A was impossible because A was not possible.". "for them" is irrelevant. The Reapers were involved in the situation regardless, because they were the ones doing it. It's still an assertion that is proved by itself, which is why it's completely and utterly useless as an argument.

It's like saying "Eating bacon fat for every meal will give you a heart attack."
Why?
"Because you'll get a heart attack if you eat bacon fat for every meal."

That is not a proof.

   
For ****'s sake.  Synthesis was impossible for the Reapers because they tried it and failed, meaning they could not do it.  It was made possible by the Crucible, which could do it.  That's not circular, it's not complicated, it's the way the lore is set up.  What are you even arguing at this point, and what relevance does it have to the point I've been making? 

To bring this discussion back on topic, this kind of "explanation" or "rationale" is why the Extended Cut doesn't really deserve any credit in terms of its content. BioWare deserves credit for trying, but that's it. The ending is still illogical and not supported by the facts presented in-game.

The ending is completely logical unless you choose to believe the Catalyst is lying, which there is no proof of.  Hopefully we'll learn more in the next DLC, and it seems like we will.  As for the ending not being supported by in-game facts, that's completely backwards from what the case is.  The ending largely fills in gaps in knowlege that we simply didn't have, and what little information about the Reapers and the Crucible we did have previously do, in fact, support the revalations in the ending. 

[otis0310]

The whole ending should not have been there in the first place, what you can never do is tell him one simple fact, "This reaper thing of yours is a solution to a problem that exists only in your own mind.  You are an arrogant child, simply because you perceive there is a problem does not mean there is one.  You are murdering billions of innocent people to solve a problem that does not exist, the only real problem here you snot nosed brat is that you are too arrogant to accept that to begin with."

That is what my Shepherd would have said, and any decent writer would have known the audience would applaud him for it.  Instead we are told to accept the star kids explanations at face value and never question his self righteous logic.
Then Bioware actually slams down the audience for thinking this is ridiculous, of course we should just accept this without question, we are just over privelleged whiny brats.

So they backpedal and try to dig there way out of this mess by having the brat simply try to justify his position more by trying to explain it as if we were 4 years old.  We understood the first time. All the EC did was change "illogical nonsense" to "illogical nonsense explained to you in a patronizing manner",  this is even worse than it was before.

So no, Bioware deserves no credit at all for not even fixing up a poroblem that should have glaring them in the face when they wrote it and never been in the game in the first place as a result.

Modifié par otis0310, 03 juillet 2012 - 09:55 .

[AmstradHero]

Geneaux486 wrote...

So you just write out something and don't check it for internal consistency? Forgive me, but that really doesn't fill me with confidence that you're producing a cogent, reasoned argument with conclusions logically derived from presented facts.

At first it came off as circular logic, then as I thought more about it I realized it wasn't.  So I left the previous misconception therein so nobody else would make the same mistake.  Obviously that didn't do you much good, but I'd do the same again.

No, because I don't believe in posting thoughts process. I believe in posting arguments and conclusions that be be logical drawn from facts.

Geneaux486 wrote...

No. As I said before, in this case, you're begging the question. You're saying "A was impossible because A was not possible.". "for them" is irrelevant. The Reapers were involved in the situation regardless, because they were the ones doing it. It's still an assertion that is proved by itself, which is why it's completely and utterly useless as an argument.

It's like saying "Eating bacon fat for every meal will give you a heart attack."
Why?
"Because you'll get a heart attack if you eat bacon fat for every meal."

That is not a proof.

   
For ****'s sake.  Synthesis was impossible for the Reapers because they tried it and failed, meaning they could not do it.  It was made possible by the Crucible, which could do it.  That's not circular, it's not complicated, it's the way the lore is set up.  What are you even arguing at this point, and what relevance does it have to the point I've been making? 

I see you've forgotten the original point. The Catalyst states that synthesis is a new possibility. It then goes on to state that the possibility has been tried before and failed. These two statements are inconsistent. The introduction ot Shepard does not make it a new possibility, it is simply the same possibility as before, just with different input. Again, this is also a gross failing in terms of explanation from the writers, who simply just expect players to take the action and outcome as granted because the Catalyst says so. It demands complete and total compliance from the player without providing any rationale to do so.

Geneaux486 wrote...

To bring this discussion back on topic, this kind of "explanation" or "rationale" is why the Extended Cut doesn't really deserve any credit in terms of its content. BioWare deserves credit for trying, but that's it. The ending is still illogical and not supported by the facts presented in-game.

The ending is completely logical unless you choose to believe the Catalyst is lying, which there is no proof of.  Hopefully we'll learn more in the next DLC, and it seems like we will.  As for the ending not being supported by in-game facts, that's completely backwards from what the case is.  The ending largely fills in gaps in knowlege that we simply didn't have, and what little information about the Reapers and the Crucible we did have previously do, in fact, support the revalations in the ending. 

Again, incorrect. The Catalyst clearly and explicitly states that the Crucible is nothing more than a power source. Go watch or play it again if you don't believe me. Yet you previously disputed this and claimed that the options the Catalyst provides are provided by the Crucible. Thus by your own argument, the Catalyst is lying.

You state here that ending is logical unless you choose to believe the Catalyst is lying, but you've proven from your own words that you think it is. Thus you have provided proof that the Catalyst is lying according to your own definitions. As such, any of your argument that follows, which is predicated on the Catalyst not lying, is invalid.

Thank you for proving my argument with your own statements.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 05 juillet 2012 - 10:17 .

[Trebor1969]

The Angry One wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Nope.
I don't feel I was listened to, I don't feel my concerns were addressed. I feel directly insulted.

Can't please everyone? A minor alteration to rejection, and they would've pleased me and a lot of others, while pleasing the rest with their endings. This notion is false, and BioWare deserve no credit.

Not gonna happen, unless you want to change the entire story. Having a different ending for refusal makes for HORRIBLE STORYTELLING. It deviates from the crux of ME3: the Crucible is the ONLY WAY TO STOP THE REAPERS. The evidence is there in the game.

+1

ME3 deviates from the theme of the series. You just want to deny me my ending because you feel it threatens yours.
In the end, that shows how weak your ending is.

[Gorkan86]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Festilence wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Nope.
I don't feel I was listened to, I don't feel my concerns were addressed. I feel directly insulted.

Can't please everyone? A minor alteration to rejection, and they would've pleased me and a lot of others, while pleasing the rest with their endings. This notion is false, and BioWare deserve no credit.

What would that alteration to Rejection be?

Being able to beat the Reapers with super-high EMS, if I assume correctly. 

Which is far more narratively coherent than any of the three options presented. 

That's mean more multiplayer involved. No thanks!

[Geneaux486]

No, because I don't believe in posting thoughts process. I believe in posting arguments and conclusions that be be logical drawn from facts.

Which is what I've done.  Your point?

 The Catalyst states that synthesis is a new possibility. It then goes on to state that the possibility has been tried before and failed. These two statements are inconsistent.

How are they inconsistent?  Synthesis is a new possibility because it can now be achieved, whereas before, it could not be achieved, so it was not an option, not a possibility, just an idea that was tried and deemed impossible.  The statements are consistent.

 Again, this is also a gross failing in terms of explanation from the writers, who simply just expect players to take the action and outcome as granted because the Catalyst says so. It demands complete and total compliance from the player without providing any rationale to do so.

It requires a leap of faith that the game doesn't force you to take.  You've got three other choices, two of them stop the Reapers as completely as Synthesis.  The writers failed nothing here, the Catalyst explains what Synthesis is, and why it's a good solution.  If the player were shown more evidence of this being the case, then it not only wouldn't be a leap of faith, but it would also become the only correct choice, defeating the purpose of having choices in the end in the first place.

Again, incorrect. The Catalyst clearly and explicitly states that the Crucible is nothing more than a power source. Go watch or play it again if you don't believe me. Yet you previously disputed this and claimed that the options the Catalyst provides are provided by the Crucible. Thus by your own argument, the Catalyst is lying.

 
Again, "The Crucible changed me, created new possibilities."  Power source or not, the fact of the matter is that it was its own device, its own weapon before it was adapated to use the Citadel, and whatever effects it has after being plugged into the Citadel are the result of the Crucible being designed to make them happen, therefore yes, the options are provided by the Crucible, as without the Crucible, the options would not be there.  The Catalyst is not only honest about this, but also quite clear.  He tells you that the Crucible is what changed him, the Crucible is what created new possibilities, and that the Catalyst cannot make them happen.  That's as clear as clear gets.

You state here that ending is logical unless you choose to believe the Catalyst is lying, but you've proven from your own words that you think it is. Thus you have provided proof that the Catalyst is lying according to your own definitions. As such, any of your argument that follows, which is predicated on the Catalyst not lying, is invalid.

The ending is logical unless you choose to believe the Catalyst is lying.  In fact, if we're factoring in what happens after you activate the Crucible, then we know for a fact that the Catalyst was on the up-and-up, so really, the ending only comes off as illogical if you choose to believe the Catalyst is lying and turn off the game before finishing it. 

Modifié par Geneaux486, 05 juillet 2012 - 04:19 .

[AmstradHero]

You're willfully choosing to misinterpret the meaning of words in order to make the ending fit your argument and ideas. Either you don't understand the semantics of the words being used, or the writers didn't. While the ending doesn't fill me with a whole lot of confidence in the ability of the writers, they at least have a proven track record that I can use to judge their level of understanding.

Either way there is no logical way to argue any point with you, because you are not arguing with logic based arguments.

In order to avoid this degenerating further and taking this thread even more off topic, I will simply bid you a good day.

[macrocarl]

Ice Eyes wrote...

Bioware deserves credit. I hope ME3 makes GOTY.

Me too! Pip pip!

[Geneaux486]

AmstradHero wrote...

You're willfully choosing to misinterpret the meaning of words in order to make the ending fit your argument and ideas. Either you don't understand the semantics of the words being used, or the writers didn't. While the ending doesn't fill me with a whole lot of confidence in the ability of the writers, they at least have a proven track record that I can use to judge their level of understanding.

Either way there is no logical way to argue any point with you, because you are not arguing with logic based arguments.

In order to avoid this degenerating further and taking this thread even more off topic, I will simply bid you a good day.

Wow.  So you're trying to transcend the argument by claiming you're leaving so the thread doesn't degenerate more, while still working in several parting shots.  What's worse, none of those shots are accurate.  Literally none of what you said just now is true, except maybe the part about you leaving, and that's only if you don't come back.  My arguments are not only backed by logic, but by in-game evidence.  I've more than proven this multiple times in this thread.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 05 juillet 2012 - 10:06 .

[AmstradHero]

Geneaux486 wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

You're willfully choosing to misinterpret the meaning of words in order to make the ending fit your argument and ideas. Either you don't understand the semantics of the words being used, or the writers didn't. While the ending doesn't fill me with a whole lot of confidence in the ability of the writers, they at least have a proven track record that I can use to judge their level of understanding.

Either way there is no logical way to argue any point with you, because you are not arguing with logic based arguments.

In order to avoid this degenerating further and taking this thread even more off topic, I will simply bid you a good day.

Wow.  So you're trying to transcend the argument by claiming you're leaving so the thread doesn't degenerate more, while still working in several parting shots.  What's worse, none of those shots are accurate.  Literally none of what you said just now is true, except maybe the part about you leaving, and that's only if you don't come back.  My arguments are not only backed by logic, but by in-game evidence.  I've more than proven this multiple times in this thread.

Thank you for demonstrating the issue perfectly.

Literally none of what I said was true? You're saying that the ending does fill me with confidence about BioWare's writing? You're telling me BioWare don't have have a proven track record?

Semantics are important.

[Krunjar]

Well it certainly helped my faith in bioware. I am still not completely mollified but I am nowhere near washing my hands of them as I was before the EC was announced. Honesty I do agree .. bioware has my kudos if no one else's

[Bourne Endeavor]

Bit of a delay but here we go!

[quote]Geneaux486 wrote...

Again, the Thanix Cannon exists before the final push to retake Earth, and its use is widespread.  The entire game consists of major military forces trying to repel the Reapers conventionally, but to no avail.  If it didn't work then, it wouldn't suddenly work now.  Perhaps you overestimate the capabilities of the Thanix Cannon.  Also, when the Reapers attacked Earth, the Alliance military had defenses put into place in preparation, and the Reapers just went right through like it was nothing.  Same with Palaven and Thessia.  The Reapers were not employing sneak attacks, just brute force.[/quote]

Thanix Cannons are in development for eleven months and would require subsequent time to be properly situated into current ships. It is logical to presume the Citadel Fleet was prioritized before homeworld Planets like Palaven. With only an eighteen month interim between development completion and ME3. We can concludethe only fleet with Thanix Cannons equipped in near every ship would be the Citadel armada. The statement "Thanix Cannons have become wide spread" is not inaccurate if only a handful of ships in say, Palaven have them.

I stated the Reapers relied upon an ambush, which is theoretically correct. Homeworlds had no idea of their arrival, thus were wholly unprepared. It is a near certainty even the strength of the Reapers that their fleet suffered severe damage before even taking to the sky. If they had limited use of the Thanix Cannon it woul significantly weaken their ability to react.

Furthermore, we have this codex entry.

"The Reapers, aware of their enemy's reputation, brought overwhelming force to Palaven and did not hesitate to bombard cities that resisted -- and all of them resisted. The dust and smoke from pulverized cities is now a breathing hazard across much of the planet. Water and power supplies have all but vanished. Still, the fight here has cost the Reapers dearly."

For a supposedly near invincible force. The Reapers took a hell of a beating at Pavalen. If the Turians could mount such an offense to actually "cost the Reapers dearly." Why is the combined fleet of every species amongst the galaxy, in addition to the entire Citdeal armada not capable of giving them a run for their money?

[quote]The Occuli are no less significant than an individual fighter, which is what they are meant to engage.  Furthermore, one Reaper goes down amidst hundreds, and the fleet takes heavy losses just doing that much.[/quote]

Except they are only outclassed by Fighters and Frigates. The Normandy makes short work of them with only the Javelin Disruptor Torpedoes. In fact, they are blown away in a single shot. Therefore, they would pose little more than a distraction to the fleet.

[quote]Earth ground forces had multiple Cains and they were still losing.[/quote]

You did not refute the argument. We have no idea of Cain supplies, not to mention they had indoctrinated Reaper forces and Husks to contend with. What we do know is a Cain blew away a Destroyer. This means the Fleet would not have nearly as much difficulty with them.

[quote]Considering they were able to maintain a strong presence in every major system at the end while still consolidating their power to Earth suggests otherwise.  There seem to be a few hundred capital ships on each homeworld you visit in ME3.[/quote]

This is irrelevant considering once again, they only create one capital Reaper ship per cycle. Any loss would deplete their numbers. In per iterations they had they advantage of stealth. This has since been taken and as evident by the Pavalen codex entry, they are suffering significant loss in just handling the Turians. It is insinuated the bulk of their force is actually comprised of Destroyers, a much weaker enemy.


[quote]Sovereign said a lot of things. Unfortunately most of it turned out to be nonsense. Why should I believe that one particular line when the remainder was either subverted, handwaved, blatantly ignored or retconned? As for Legion, he does not specifically rule out that possibility. In fact, what he does offer is limited.[/quote]

Legion, having touched Sovereign's mind, confirmed what Sovereign said about independence.  It's been established to be true.  Furthermore, the only thing Sovereign said that wasn't really true was "We have no beginning". 

Incorrect. The vast majority of Sovereign's dialogue is rendered misleading at best and completely inaccurate otherwise. He insinuates the Reapers are machines, has utter contempt for organics, going so far to claim they are a, "A genetic mutation; an accident." He then goes on to say the Reapers are beyond comprehension, when it actuality their goals are quite understandable, albeit illogical.

If Sovereign can behave as though it has no concern or perhaps connection to the Catalyst, the Reaper overlord. How do we know what Legion learned is only a portion of their psyche? Again, Legion presumed to know all of the Geth hectic thought process, yet was proven wrong. He could be making a similar error based of inaccurate data.

[quote]They were discovered in Mars during our cycle. What of the ones precede? You do realize how contrived the narrative sounds were it to suggest the Reapers continuously missed this vital weakness cycle after cycle. yes? Evermore so when no one knew of their arrival until it was too late. Further damning is how it utilizes the Mass Relays, the Reaper's own technology. No matter how you slice it, the Crucible is a massive Deus ex Machina that literally came from no where only for the plot to then demand we focus on it.[/quote]

Once again, conventional warfare had to be doing something because Palaven was severely hurting the Reapers. We have no way to be certain what the entire Citadel fleet (largest force in the galaxy) combined with the remnants of every other homeworld could accomplish.

FYI, "Deus ex Machina is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object." - Wikipedia.

Unsolvable problem = Reapers
Abruptly solves problem = Crucible
Contrived and unexpected intervention = All three endings
With a new event (Endings), character (the Catalyst), ability (Tricolor lasers) or object. (Crucible)

Yeah...

[quote]The reward comes from a higher EMS yeilding more choices.  As for their effects, something galaxy-shaking would be required to avert a force like the Reapers, who've essentially been controlling galactic developement for eons.[/quote]

No, your "reward" is the previous three endings, as Refusal is not calculated by your EMS. The only difference is a slight scene depicting whether or not Destroy causes the Crucible to misfire, thus incinerating everyone or just synthetics.

[quote]Illusion of choice has occurred frequently before. Your decision regarding the Council, the Rachnii, the Collector Base, particularly everything to do with Cerberus. Better even, ME3's auto-dialogue is a prime example, or the dream sequences. Yeah, this would hardly have been the first instance of it.[/quote]

Incorrect.  What I refer to by the illusion of choice is that there is one right answer and various wrong answers.  Ironically, the choices you've cited here don't even fit those criteria, all choices in these cases lead to the same or a similar end, there's no clear correct choice, with morality being the only thing that assigns value to one over another.  The ending is no different, we're given multiple ways to end the Reaper threat.  All work, all have some negative outcome in addition to the positives, there is no right choice.

My point remains they have no bearing on the ending whatsoever, beyond your EMS score. Some go so far as to be completely handwaved, in fact most of the aforementioned fall into this category. For instance, the Collector Base does nothing except determine if you can choose Control or Destroy should your EMS be too lower, otherwise it is entirely useless.

With regards to the endings. We are presented with three options but no explanation on what precisely they entail due to us lacking a reason to trust the Catalyst. If efficient exposition was provided or the Catalyst was not portrayed as an inherently untrustworthy, then Control and Synthesis would not be "wrong" regardless of a conventional victory. That said, if you trust the Catalyst then neither is wrong irregardless of proper exposition. They simply because the solution without loss option.

[quote]... not a good example of that "strong narrative." TIM went from intelligent (relatively speaking) and manipulative to utterly incompetent. How Cerberus was even capable of pulling off what it does makes little sense. Every single instance in the entire series showed this would "bite him in the ass," including the umpteenth number of failed Cerberus experiments but I digress. [/quote]

The Illusive Man was arrogant.  It really wasn't anything more than "I'm special so I can do it."  We saw traces of this personality trait of his at the end of ME2, when he wanted the Collector Base spared.  The Reapers were largely an unknown, their methods mysterious.  TIM simply thought that by gaining understanding of them control could be obtained as well. 

Arrogant, yes. He was not however incompetent. Not only has every attempt to study or infuse Reaper technology been problematic, TIM has personal experience in both his past (comics) and the actual games (ME2). No, the Reapers were well known to TIM as the comics depict, never mind Arrival DLC. There is nothing to suggest he would take such a risk, if anything the comics refute this characterization entirely.

[quote]I was pointing out a similarity in the concept, not in aesthetics.  Legion disperesed what made him unique and gave it to his brethren, fellow synthetics.  Shepard essentially did the same, only to organics.[/quote]

You are characterizing an individual of one species assisting his species, as though it harbors similarities to one species determining the fate of every other species in the galaxy excluding one. Those are vastly different on numerous levels. Geth are a synthetic race that share one mind, thus Legion was aware all Geth desired this upload. The galaxy knew nothing of Synthesis or the potential ramifications it might cause.

[quote]Again, we're given a taste of the concept with Legion's final choice.  The explanation for synthesis is no more magical than the explanation for how Cerberus brought Shepard back to life, or anything about the Reapers.[/quote]

The Reapers differ because they have an origin and are simply an unknown. There is nothing to explain how Synthesis is able to restructure organics with glowing circuit boards. Do not get me started on Shepard's resurrection. That is one of the most contrived portions of the series and purely a plot device with no meaning. I have long torn it to shreds about how ridiculous the concept was.

[quote]All of the retcons would be required.  And how were the Relays retconned?  Are you referring to the incident in Arrival?  The situation that was completely different and involved smashing a more powerful variant of the typical Relay open with an asteroid?  Something isn't a retcon if it deals with information we previously did not have, and in the case of the Relay destruction, we had only one instance to go on, and it was atypical for multiple reasons.[/quote]

Originally in Mass Effect a relay could withstand a supernova, the most destructive blast in existence, and is merely pushed off course. Arrival retconned this depicting an asteroid causing one to explode. Mass Effect 3 changed them once again, albeit that was subsequently retconned by the Extended Cut.

No, it does not work that way. There is nothing in the narrative that claims the Crucible beam would do any different than what happened in Arrival. All we know for fact is a relay explosion since ME2 causes an explosion the equivalency to a supernova. It does not matter what triggered said explosion because that is the result regardless. Example

A+B=4

What A and B are in the equation above are irrelevant provided they equate to four. It could be 3+1, 2+2, 4+0 but they will always equal 4 and in this scenario four leads to supernova. If this has been altered then it is the narrative's responsibility to explain how and why. Evidently, BioWare agreed because they retconned the relays... again.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 07 juillet 2012 - 09:41 .

[RenegonSQ]

Destroy was a perfect ending for me, so the EC was just extra to me. I could've done without it.

[KiwiQuiche]

The Angry One wrote...

Nope.
I don't feel I was listened to, I don't feel my concerns were addressed. I feel directly insulted.

Can't please everyone? A minor alteration to rejection, and they would've pleased me and a lot of others, while pleasing the rest with their endings. This notion is false, and BioWare deserve no credit.

BOOM

[shodiswe]

The Angry One wrote...

Nope.
I don't feel I was listened to, I don't feel my concerns were addressed. I feel directly insulted.

Can't please everyone? A minor alteration to rejection, and they would've pleased me and a lot of others, while pleasing the rest with their endings. This notion is false, and BioWare deserve no credit.

Maybe a few more pictures of dead people and dead planets before going to the next cycle? Maybea husk mindlessly banging it's head against a wall? Because that's all that will ever be left after a rejection, then they decompose before the next cycle finds them... Not sure how that would change anything though. Probbably better to not show the full extent of Shepards crime and incompetence, and why that shepard should never have been made a spectre.

[M0keys]

saracen16 wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Nope.
I don't feel I was listened to, I don't feel my concerns were addressed. I feel directly insulted.

Can't please everyone? A minor alteration to rejection, and they would've pleased me and a lot of others, while pleasing the rest with their endings. This notion is false, and BioWare deserve no credit.

Not gonna happen, unless you want to change the entire story. Having a different ending for refusal makes for HORRIBLE STORYTELLING. It deviates from the crux of ME3: the Crucible is the ONLY WAY TO STOP THE REAPERS. The evidence is there in the game.

You talk about horrible storytelling then cite a massive Deus Ex Machine as the only way to conclude a storyline as a good thing?  Go learn what actual good storytelling is and then come back.

I'm a writer.

here's grub..

"So am I. It is fundamentally a Deus Ex Machina because it comes out of the sky right at the end with no prior introduction to solve a problem that can not be solved by any character in the story. (Phew.)

The first (sorta kinda) one is that the Reapers can not be defeated conventionally, and, well, I will admit that's not quite a Deus Ex Machina issue because it's been a problem since forever. The Crucible is the MacGuffin that motivates you along that line. It's also a failed MacGuffin because it doesn't lead you to The Real Solution. Turns out that the MacGuffin *sigh* isn't a MacGuffin after all. It's a Plot Device Gun. Okay, guys. You get one free pass.

But the actual problem is that Shepard loses consciousness at the controls, unable to save everyone. This is the big problem that will doom the Galaxy. And then suddenly, thanks to variables outside anyone's control, especially the Protagonist's, Shepard is miraculously saved by an elevator to Heaven that takes him to (the Reaper) God who rejuvenates him and tells him to pick which magical Reaper solution will save the day.

This is horrifically bad writing because it renders us, and Shepard, basically useless in agency and development, and cuts right into the narrative to force a conclusion upon a story they don't know how to end naturally. Basically, ' we got nothing, so here's us, the writers, coming down from Heaven to tell you how the story's gonna end whether you like it or not, with no logical series of events and/or character motives to get you there. Cheers.'

It's a truly epic mess, and whoever helmed the writing on this one needs to head back and study the Masters of writing again. Read some Aristotle, some Campbell, some Syd Field. They have many good things to say, and I highly recommend checking them out before sitting down and putting your pen to the paper for a series millions would build shrines for."

Modifié par M0keys, 07 juillet 2012 - 09:37 .

[FlamingBoy]

The Angry One wrote...

Nope.
I don't feel I was listened to, I don't feel my concerns were addressed. I feel directly insulted.

Can't please everyone? A minor alteration to rejection, and they would've pleased me and a lot of others, while pleasing the rest with their endings. This notion is false, and BioWare deserve no credit.

i agree with you for the most part

bioware deserves credit for extending an ending but thats not what I wanted,

anyway mass effect 3 was a disaster that i honestly don't know how they were going to fix

[FlamingBoy]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

So many literary "experts" in here...

just like bioware

"watches the ending"

oh wait!

[Candidate 88766]

I can't imagine there are many companies that would not only admit to messing up their ending, but also at least attempt to improve it for free. So I think they deserve credit for that.

However, they did completely mess up the endings to the trilogy by presenting a set of choices that are not changed in any way by previous choices (except for control, which vaguely changes based on morality) and feel entirely separate to the trilogy's themes. So I think they also deserve criticism for messing up in the first place.

[przemichal]

M0keys wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Nope.
I don't feel I was listened to, I don't feel my concerns were addressed. I feel directly insulted.

Can't please everyone? A minor alteration to rejection, and they would've pleased me and a lot of others, while pleasing the rest with their endings. This notion is false, and BioWare deserve no credit.

Not gonna happen, unless you want to change the entire story. Having a different ending for refusal makes for HORRIBLE STORYTELLING. It deviates from the crux of ME3: the Crucible is the ONLY WAY TO STOP THE REAPERS. The evidence is there in the game.

You talk about horrible storytelling then cite a massive Deus Ex Machine as the only way to conclude a storyline as a good thing?  Go learn what actual good storytelling is and then come back.

I'm a writer.

here's grub..

"So am I. It is fundamentally a Deus Ex Machina because it comes out of the sky right at the end with no prior introduction to solve a problem that can not be solved by any character in the story. (Phew.)

The first (sorta kinda) one is that the Reapers can not be defeated conventionally, and, well, I will admit that's not quite a Deus Ex Machina issue because it's been a problem since forever. The Crucible is the MacGuffin that motivates you along that line. It's also a failed MacGuffin because it doesn't lead you to The Real Solution. Turns out that the MacGuffin *sigh* isn't a MacGuffin after all. It's a Plot Device Gun. Okay, guys. You get one free pass.

But the actual problem is that Shepard loses consciousness at the controls, unable to save everyone. This is the big problem that will doom the Galaxy. And then suddenly, thanks to variables outside anyone's control, especially the Protagonist's, Shepard is miraculously saved by an elevator to Heaven that takes him to (the Reaper) God who rejuvenates him and tells him to pick which magical Reaper solution will save the day.

This is horrifically bad writing because it renders us, and Shepard, basically useless in agency and development, and cuts right into the narrative to force a conclusion upon a story they don't know how to end naturally. Basically, ' we got nothing, so here's us, the writers, coming down from Heaven to tell you how the story's gonna end whether you like it or not, with no logical series of events and/or character motives to get you there. Cheers.'

It's a truly epic mess, and whoever helmed the writing on this one needs to head back and study the Masters of writing again. Read some Aristotle, some Campbell, some Syd Field. They have many good things to say, and I highly recommend checking them out before sitting down and putting your pen to the paper for a series millions would build shrines for."

The Crucible is not DEM. It is MacGuffin. (And being one excludes being DEM at the same time: MacGuffin is foreshadowed and explained, DEM is not, it is never ever mentioned.) The Crucible was foreshadowed in ME2's "Lair of the Shadow Broker" and the whole ME3. The Mars Archives were foreshadowed in ME1 and ME2. Prothean interest in humans was foreshadowed in ME1. So: ME1 and ME2 are in fact paving a way for the Crucible. There is also some negative foreshadowing: we know that the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally and that there IS going to be some kind of Plot Device to solve this problem.
Moreover, the Crucible - as a MacGuffin - is executed quite fine. We know WHAT it is (an energy source). We know why it is there and who created it's plans (it was improved by many races in many cycles, a great solution itself, and the game is expanding it by adding this Liara's time capsule's subplot and all). Also, it's use would not be possible if not for the events of ME1 (we still have the Citadel... well, for most of the game, but still). In writing, says me, a good proof that a MacGuffin is fine is that you can't really come up with any better one without changing the very principles of your story, and in ME, I think, it would not be easy. (For so many reasons that it would not be easy to even start to elaborate on them also.)
How was the Catalyst foreshadowed? In ME1 there is a lot of talk about how sealed and mysterious is in fact the Citadel and how nobody was ever able to reach it's "inaccessible core". In ME3, the Catalyst is what you are looking for and is, in fact, central to the plot. What is it? What does it do? Who created it? How is it related to the Reapers? Aren't those the questions lingering your heads when you first hear about it?

What I said will now let me make my point: the ending does not render us (and Shepard) "useless". It renders us, our efforts, crucial, and THAT IS EXACTLY WHY Shepard is "uplifted" by the Catalyst. There is a reason. If it's not really the clearest one, that's because the writers wanted to leave something mysterious about the way the Reapers' think. They "uplift" you exactly because of what you have done in the entire trilogy. Because your efforts, which they thought to be pointless, finally turned out to be able to "change the variables". This is the moment you (beat and tired) smile and think: "Ye, you f*ckers, I was right ALL ALONG!"
Now. You refer to "some Aristotle, some Campbell, some Syd Field". Yeah, good point, just try to use Aristotle's advices in contemporary writing. You'd be non existent. Anyway, the fact that you mention three of them in one sentence means you should read them again yourself.

And one last point here: how can we recongnize a good story, says Aristotle? Because we somehow know from the beginning how the conflict may evolve and then be resolved. The story is good when we can PREDICT how it will end, because that is the sign that it is coherent.
Now, tell me that after playing ME1 you didn't know we will just have to use some Big Alien Device of Doom... and I may render you stupid.

Still, no offense. It's just that you are wrong, it happens sometimes; ME is the best trilogy ever writen in video games history :f

Modifié par przemichal, 07 juillet 2012 - 12:24 .

[Fuzzfro]

They would have pleased a lot more people if they gave a modified refuse ending.

refuse 1 - with less than 3100 EMS

You receive the normal ending where although this cycle fails the next one lives on.

Refuse 2 - With more than 3100 EMS

You receive a new version of the ending where this cycle manages to fight and win normally
but even with victory there is tremendous loses where almost all the military force is wiped out
but they pull through despite the loses. But there would have to be a big emphasis on the cost of this to balance out the endings.

Shepard could even survive with reunion with LI.

[M0keys]

przemichal wrote...

M0keys wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Nope.
I don't feel I was listened to, I don't feel my concerns were addressed. I feel directly insulted.

Can't please everyone? A minor alteration to rejection, and they would've pleased me and a lot of others, while pleasing the rest with their endings. This notion is false, and BioWare deserve no credit.

Not gonna happen, unless you want to change the entire story. Having a different ending for refusal makes for HORRIBLE STORYTELLING. It deviates from the crux of ME3: the Crucible is the ONLY WAY TO STOP THE REAPERS. The evidence is there in the game.

You talk about horrible storytelling then cite a massive Deus Ex Machine as the only way to conclude a storyline as a good thing?  Go learn what actual good storytelling is and then come back.

I'm a writer.

here's grub..

"So am I. It is fundamentally a Deus Ex Machina because it comes out of the sky right at the end with no prior introduction to solve a problem that can not be solved by any character in the story. (Phew.)

The first (sorta kinda) one is that the Reapers can not be defeated conventionally, and, well, I will admit that's not quite a Deus Ex Machina issue because it's been a problem since forever. The Crucible is the MacGuffin that motivates you along that line. It's also a failed MacGuffin because it doesn't lead you to The Real Solution. Turns out that the MacGuffin *sigh* isn't a MacGuffin after all. It's a Plot Device Gun. Okay, guys. You get one free pass.

But the actual problem is that Shepard loses consciousness at the controls, unable to save everyone. This is the big problem that will doom the Galaxy. And then suddenly, thanks to variables outside anyone's control, especially the Protagonist's, Shepard is miraculously saved by an elevator to Heaven that takes him to (the Reaper) God who rejuvenates him and tells him to pick which magical Reaper solution will save the day.

This is horrifically bad writing because it renders us, and Shepard, basically useless in agency and development, and cuts right into the narrative to force a conclusion upon a story they don't know how to end naturally. Basically, ' we got nothing, so here's us, the writers, coming down from Heaven to tell you how the story's gonna end whether you like it or not, with no logical series of events and/or character motives to get you there. Cheers.'

It's a truly epic mess, and whoever helmed the writing on this one needs to head back and study the Masters of writing again. Read some Aristotle, some Campbell, some Syd Field. They have many good things to say, and I highly recommend checking them out before sitting down and putting your pen to the paper for a series millions would build shrines for."

The Crucible is not DEM.

he never said it was

he said the starchild was the deus ex because it saved shepard (totally out of left field as new "divine" character) from certain doom right at the end and came out of the sky to do it

classic deus ex machina