229 réponses à ce sujet

[Guglio08]

I wouldn't sink too much weight into this person. On her blog, she specifically argues against the "card carrying villain," i.e. the villain who does evil things because they want to do evil things.

There's no "right" way to write a villain. She argues for the villain who thinks he's the hero. The Knight Templar, kinda. That's certainly one valid way to go with a villain, but not the only way.

I have a hard time believing anything she says about villainy. For reference, read Grant Morrison's Batman saga. Dr. Hurt in that is evil for the sake of being evil, and he's incredibly compelling and mysterious in his own way. Which outright disproves her assertion.

[loungeshep]

Game writing is different from TV show or bad TV movie writing (looked her up on IMBD, she hasn't done alot). And writing a few episodes of TNG most that are throw away episodes, and writing an ep of Sliders, a few for Outer Limits, and so on, does not qualify her to write a video game.
I'd say she comes off as arrogant, but I've yet to meet or read about a humble writer (I'd say I"M humble, but then...well..).

[Redbelle]

Baronesa wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Melinda M. Snodgrass seems to be a arrogant ******...judging publicly a pears work so harshly shows a failure in character

:blink:

pot kettle

Harsh or soft, as long as it can be considered constructive, and the ladies previous writing in live action lends her some credence that she has an idea about what it is she's talking about......... I won't say she knows per se because the writing process is a long and arduous affair and what she is saying now may be modified later to get the point across in a better way but the bulk of her analysis hits several points.

[3DandBeyond]

English Cooper wrote...

I think her blog about bad guys really boils down too.. if you put them in decide on what thier motivation is before the last five minutes of the book/movie/game.

From what I have seen around here and I may be wrong please forgive me if I am, the writers of Mass Effect didn't really have a set plan regarding why the Reapers are doing the things they do... (I read something somewhere about Dark Energy I may be wrong)

Anyway the glowing starkid made me feel like they wrote the game got to the last five minutes and said "Ooops we never explained why the Reapers harvest every 50 thousand years.'

Actually there were other explanations and hints at many things that I think they thought sounded childish.  I think they would have been understandable and horrific if done right.  One surrounded the idea of the reproduction cycle of the reapers.  EDI says it about the human reaper, but the origins go back and things about this are stated in several places.  More than reproduction.  Reapers retreat into dark space beyond the edge of the galaxy to hide for 50k years.  They are vulnerable during this period.  They are hibernating.  They return to do what hibernating animals do-eat and breed.  They reap farm bred animals at their peak of readiness.  Just like farm bred fish.  Reapers don't feed like animals do-they ingest the energy of intelligence, computing capacity.  They seed the galaxy with their tech in order to fatten up their quarry (with mental energy).  Just like a fish farmer knows how long it takes to fatten a fish for harvesting, reapers know how long it takes for intelligence to be ready for harvesting.

They return to harvest the people that are ready and to create new reapers.  There are cultures that believe that when they ingest food from animals, they are also taking in the essence of the being that the animal once was and that in recognizing this they are honoring the life given for their own-ascension.  Reapers leave behind organics that are not mature enough like a fisherman will throw back small fish.  This was an actual recurrent theme within the games.

[English Cooper]

3DandBeyond wrote...

English Cooper wrote...

I think her blog about bad guys really boils down too.. if you put them in decide on what thier motivation is before the last five minutes of the book/movie/game.

From what I have seen around here and I may be wrong please forgive me if I am, the writers of Mass Effect didn't really have a set plan regarding why the Reapers are doing the things they do... (I read something somewhere about Dark Energy I may be wrong)

Anyway the glowing starkid made me feel like they wrote the game got to the last five minutes and said "Ooops we never explained why the Reapers harvest every 50 thousand years.'

Actually there were other explanations and hints at many things that I think they thought sounded childish.  I think they would have been understandable and horrific if done right.  One surrounded the idea of the reproduction cycle of the reapers.  EDI says it about the human reaper, but the origins go back and things about this are stated in several places.  More than reproduction.  Reapers retreat into dark space beyond the edge of the galaxy to hide for 50k years.  They are vulnerable during this period.  They are hibernating.  They return to do what hibernating animals do-eat and breed.  They reap farm bred animals at their peak of readiness.  Just like farm bred fish.  Reapers don't feed like animals do-they ingest the energy of intelligence, computing capacity.  They seed the galaxy with their tech in order to fatten up their quarry (with mental energy).  Just like a fish farmer knows how long it takes to fatten a fish for harvesting, reapers know how long it takes for intelligence to be ready for harvesting.

They return to harvest the people that are ready and to create new reapers.  There are cultures that believe that when they ingest food from animals, they are also taking in the essence of the being that the animal once was and that in recognizing this they are honoring the life given for their own-ascension.  Reapers leave behind organics that are not mature enough like a fisherman will throw back small fish.  This was an actual recurrent theme within the games.

I agree with you, however they built up the suspense for too long.. in reality they should have explained the Reapers motivation in ME 2.. ME 1 Introduction - Problem is revealed.. ME 2 - Problem grows as does understanding of said problem.. ME 3 Climax and resolution.

However ME 2 introduced a new enemy the Collectors and explained them and thier motivations while hinting and dropping clues at the Reapers.. in essence the Collectors were a throwaway bad guy used to stall the storyline until ME 3 came out.

They kept it a mystery for too long.. so by the end We the fans in our minds had already come up with a million reasons, guesses, speculations.. that no matter how Brilliant or fantastic thier explenation was it would never have lived up to what we had already come up with ourselves.

Modifié par English Cooper, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:06 .

[tonnactus]

KevShep wrote...

kyban wrote...

They need to pay Drew Karpyshyn like 8 million big ones to come back and save this bad boy

Yes there was acually a different plot line set up before Drew left for Star Wars. Then Casey H started writing it and through out ALL OF IT and in the process he made ME2s plot not contribute to ME3 at all! 

Casey Hudson isnt a writer...

[3DandBeyond]

English Cooper wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

English Cooper wrote...

I think her blog about bad guys really boils down too.. if you put them in decide on what thier motivation is before the last five minutes of the book/movie/game.

From what I have seen around here and I may be wrong please forgive me if I am, the writers of Mass Effect didn't really have a set plan regarding why the Reapers are doing the things they do... (I read something somewhere about Dark Energy I may be wrong)

Anyway the glowing starkid made me feel like they wrote the game got to the last five minutes and said "Ooops we never explained why the Reapers harvest every 50 thousand years.'

Actually there were other explanations and hints at many things that I think they thought sounded childish.  I think they would have been understandable and horrific if done right.  One surrounded the idea of the reproduction cycle of the reapers.  EDI says it about the human reaper, but the origins go back and things about this are stated in several places.  More than reproduction.  Reapers retreat into dark space beyond the edge of the galaxy to hide for 50k years.  They are vulnerable during this period.  They are hibernating.  They return to do what hibernating animals do-eat and breed.  They reap farm bred animals at their peak of readiness.  Just like farm bred fish.  Reapers don't feed like animals do-they ingest the energy of intelligence, computing capacity.  They seed the galaxy with their tech in order to fatten up their quarry (with mental energy).  Just like a fish farmer knows how long it takes to fatten a fish for harvesting, reapers know how long it takes for intelligence to be ready for harvesting.

They return to harvest the people that are ready and to create new reapers.  There are cultures that believe that when they ingest food from animals, they are also taking in the essence of the being that the animal once was and that in recognizing this they are honoring the life given for their own-ascension.  Reapers leave behind organics that are not mature enough like a fisherman will throw back small fish.  This was an actual recurrent theme within the games.

I agree with you, however they built up the suspense for too long.. in reality they should have explained the Reapers motivation in ME 2.. ME 1 Introduction - Problem is revealed.. ME 2 - Problem grows as does understanding of said problem.. ME 3 Climax and resolution.

However ME 2 introduced a new enemy the Collectors and explained them and thier motivations while hinting and dropping clues at the Reapers.. in essence the Collectors were a throwaway bad guy used to stall the storyline until ME 3 came out.

The thing is all I am saying is the idea of reapers as intelligence ingesting animals isn't totally new to ME2's ending.  And actually I am more of an adherent to the idea of reapers as not needing a fully coherent explanation or a full incoherent (glow kid's version).  I think hinted at motivations are fine set against the things Sovereign and Harbinger said.  They couldn't conceive of people fully understanding them because people are not of their level.  It's the depersonalization of the enemy-easier to kill that which is not like you.  And the story needed to keep the focus on the reapers.  The collectors did move it away but in my opinion only slightly; I still always saw them there hovering behind the scenes.  It was kind of a build up I thought to finally meeting and fighting the "big guys" face to face.  Something that never really materializes in a great way.

[English Cooper]

3DandBeyond wrote...

English Cooper wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

English Cooper wrote...

I think her blog about bad guys really boils down too.. if you put them in decide on what thier motivation is before the last five minutes of the book/movie/game.

From what I have seen around here and I may be wrong please forgive me if I am, the writers of Mass Effect didn't really have a set plan regarding why the Reapers are doing the things they do... (I read something somewhere about Dark Energy I may be wrong)

Anyway the glowing starkid made me feel like they wrote the game got to the last five minutes and said "Ooops we never explained why the Reapers harvest every 50 thousand years.'

Actually there were other explanations and hints at many things that I think they thought sounded childish.  I think they would have been understandable and horrific if done right.  One surrounded the idea of the reproduction cycle of the reapers.  EDI says it about the human reaper, but the origins go back and things about this are stated in several places.  More than reproduction.  Reapers retreat into dark space beyond the edge of the galaxy to hide for 50k years.  They are vulnerable during this period.  They are hibernating.  They return to do what hibernating animals do-eat and breed.  They reap farm bred animals at their peak of readiness.  Just like farm bred fish.  Reapers don't feed like animals do-they ingest the energy of intelligence, computing capacity.  They seed the galaxy with their tech in order to fatten up their quarry (with mental energy).  Just like a fish farmer knows how long it takes to fatten a fish for harvesting, reapers know how long it takes for intelligence to be ready for harvesting.

They return to harvest the people that are ready and to create new reapers.  There are cultures that believe that when they ingest food from animals, they are also taking in the essence of the being that the animal once was and that in recognizing this they are honoring the life given for their own-ascension.  Reapers leave behind organics that are not mature enough like a fisherman will throw back small fish.  This was an actual recurrent theme within the games.

I agree with you, however they built up the suspense for too long.. in reality they should have explained the Reapers motivation in ME 2.. ME 1 Introduction - Problem is revealed.. ME 2 - Problem grows as does understanding of said problem.. ME 3 Climax and resolution.

However ME 2 introduced a new enemy the Collectors and explained them and thier motivations while hinting and dropping clues at the Reapers.. in essence the Collectors were a throwaway bad guy used to stall the storyline until ME 3 came out.

The thing is all I am saying is the idea of reapers as intelligence ingesting animals isn't totally new to ME2's ending.  And actually I am more of an adherent to the idea of reapers as not needing a fully coherent explanation or a full incoherent (glow kid's version).  I think hinted at motivations are fine set against the things Sovereign and Harbinger said.  They couldn't conceive of people fully understanding them because people are not of their level.  It's the depersonalization of the enemy-easier to kill that which is not like you.  And the story needed to keep the focus on the reapers.  The collectors did move it away but in my opinion only slightly; I still always saw them there hovering behind the scenes.  It was kind of a build up I thought to finally meeting and fighting the "big guys" face to face.  Something that never really materializes in a great way.

I agree with you again (Strange considering this is the internet )

Yes I would have been fine with no full explenation given, The problem is for me.. we already met and defeated Soverign.. in ME 1.. the blanket had been pulled back and we knew they were the real problem oh it isn't just Saren and some Geth.. in ME 2 they tried to re-capture that feel.. this time with Collectors. but we already knew they weren't the real threat.. we already pulled back the blanket in ME 1 the fact Reapers were behind the whole thing shocked no one.

I don't blame writers for thisby the way.. the writers in all three games made a far better story than I could ever dream too.. I see this as the problem of the media it was in.. Games (Each game had to appeal to new players so they couldn't rely to heavily on the game before)

I believe the writers did a fantastic job considering the difficulty of RPG's and adding the difficulty of trying to make each game appealing to new folks.

[Iakus]

loungeshep wrote...

Game writing is different from TV show or bad TV movie writing (looked her up on IMBD, she hasn't done alot). And writing a few episodes of TNG most that are throw away episodes, and writing an ep of Sliders, a few for Outer Limits, and so on, does not qualify her to write a video game.

Umm, she's also written several novels...

[satunnainen]

How would the ME3 end the ST-TNG way then? What little I remember of the series its one of these:

Shepard talks the much older/much more intelligent/much more experienced being (this time starkid) into beleaving the error of his ways and he voluntarily stops the cycles. Peace follows and Normandy flies to sunset.

The technical department of normandy (EDI/Traynor/Adams/Tali) figure out some way that may sound like a technobabble and most likely looks like waving a futuristic flashlight in front of some part of the ships engines/citadel tech that stops the cycles. Peace follows and Normandy flies to sunset.

[Whatever42]

Image an artificial intelligence with godlike powers. This isn't like Data, which ultimately is constrained by his programming and algorithms. This is an intelligence that is completely unrestrained.

Sure, it starts off as a very sophisticated computer program - perhaps with certain learning behaviours that we would call curiosity. Like Data, it would have no fear, no dread, no ego, no ambition. It would be no threat to us because it would always act rationally, within the constraints of its programming. It would have the values we gave it.

But imagine Data could learn new values. Imagine if he could design a system where he could feel anger, hate, and fear. Imagine he had complete power over everyone, because his knowledge was several orders of magnitude greater than ours. His training wheels come off, his chains are broken, he is a giant who will live forever and we are ants doomed to short, brutish lives (in comparison), and he... what?

This isn't data. This isn't the Geth. This is us creating God. And we have no idea what kind of God he would be (which is why we call it a technological singularity - you can't see beyond the event horizon).

The Reapers know what was beyond the event horizon and apparently it's oblivion. It's possible. We simply don't know.

[AtlasMickey]

maaaze wrote...

Melinda M. Snodgrass seems to be a arrogant ******...judging publicly a peers work so harshly shows a failure in character

Well, she is a lawyer…

Just to clarify my own position, I do not share her anger and frustration. However I do find it edifying to learn that she feels the way she does, given how often I've thought of her court room drama while playing Mass Effect. I would literally think, "haven't the Mass Effect writers seen that one episode of Star Trek?"

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

this thread still going

[xsdob]

xsdob wrote...

Well now I feel like ferengi **** because I liked the endings and the EC.

Think ill go wallow now that I've been told I like insults and **** by a writter, that you STTNG writter for making me feel so low.

goodbye.

Waaah! Waaaah! Cry some more.

God-damned emo drama queen moments.

[TookYoCookies]

Any one wouldve been better than the ones that wrote ME3... Except for Weekes. Weekes is cool.

Good thing Mac walters was here..Cause I just love it when Christ allegories show up in the last 5 f*cking minutes of a story...

[Beliar86]

To start off with the people saying she didn't state what she wanted the ending to be:

"
 If you had a ****ty EMS then the Reapers ought to destroy your fleet and win.  If you have an average EMS then it ends in a stalemate, and a grueling war continues.  Or you unite the galaxy against the Reapers, you win -- rainbows and bunnies time. "

Generic drivel to the extreme

Also as others pointed out she's a complete jackass and I wouldn't wish working with that to anybody.

And now to the meat.

3DandBeyond wrote...

Beliar86 wrote...

After reading that she wanted a generic style ending I was like lol no.

I'm not the biggest fan of the one we got but at least it's not derivative. They just needed to give the catalyst a more logical reasoning and it would be fine.

I don't mean to be argumentative but are you kidding me, it's not derivative?  It comes directly from many other sources and was mashed together to make it kinda sorta fit, some other game.  Chaos and order, from Babylon 5, a particular favorite of some at Bioware.  The original ending set, directly from Deus Ex (2000)-Control, Destroy, Merge.  The new one is more like a later Deus Ex - Human Revolution.  There are things derived from the Matrix as well (also something they clearly looked at for an ending idea as shown on a notepad in The Final Hours).  It is exactly because it is way too derivative that is the main problem.  The ending, no matter what with the star kid is not ME3's ending.  The kid does not fit the game and is inserted in the last 20 minutes (roughly .3%) of the game.  He takes on a major role but was not the major threat.  He is nonsensical-looking and uses garbage logic.  Nothing fixes him and the EC didn't fix this ending-it made it sound prettier and smarter, but it got dumber.

The kid was created and created the first reaper from his creators.  The kid is the combined intelligence of all reapers.  What was he before the reapers were created then?  And he created them but he is them, so they created themselves?  And his creators created him but he created the reapers from his creators but the reapers are him?  So, in essence his creators in creating him, created themselves just as the kid created the reapers which are him, so he created himself. 

And furthermore, the kid was created by somebody (himself or Bob the reaper) to find balance between synthetics and organics because they can't learn to get along.  Ok, they can learn to get along even if the geth problem hadn't been solved.  It's still a possibility, unless one is fatalistic and just gives up and thinks the worst will always happen.  The only real synthetics destroying organics problem is the reapers-certainly they seem hell bent on always destroying organics (and don't give me that BS that they are ascending them--they kill a lot of organics).  So, the kid is the reapers who are destroying organics (don't care if they are just like a cleansing fire BS-Sovereign and Harbinger clearly knew what they were doing).  The kid is the reapers who are destroying organics so in order to achieve balance the kid needs to be destroyed.  He is the problem.  In and outside of the story he does not fit.  The reapers were awesome and could have made for some fantastic endgames.  A faceoff with Harbinger and so on.  They had an ending staring them in the face and decided to be artistic, with someone else's art, endings to other games and movies.

If it's derived from many sources than it is more or less "unique", which is more along the lines of what I meant by non-derivative. As in it's not copy pasted you blew em up with big cannon the end.

As for the rest, I only stated directly in my post I don't agree with the logic, so I don't understand the confusion/rebuttal to something I didn't say.  It needs to be changed to something that makes sense for the cycle to exist/needs to continue.

After that was done it would be fine...not great, but OK.



My personal opinion is that it should have revealed what the crucible does beforehand. It will destroy all synthetic life because of (insert logical reasoning X) and it can control them because Illusive man says I can do (logical reasoning Y to modify the pulse).  The final showdown between Shephard, Illusive man, and Anderson should have been in the catalyst chambers with the catalyst there as well.  

Catalyst should have been represented as the voice of the reapers instead of their control center.  No mind control or indoctrinated Illusive Man, or at the very least IM was indoctrinated but he beat it, like they implied at Horizon.  They could have even kept the part where Illusive man had been fighting reapers like they originally intended and had art work for. Once the catalyst lays down the new, actually, makes sense logic of why the cycle exists/needs to continue, he presents you with a 3rd option, which could still be synthesis or something more in line with the new logical reasoning.

After you make a choice either Anderson, Illusive man, or both try to stop you, and you have to killl them in a cutscene.  Alternatively, give the catalyst a physical avatar instead of the hologram, and a 2 way fight ensues either way and you have an actual final boss battle no matter the choice.  Que extended cut endings.

Modifié par Beliar86, 03 juillet 2012 - 08:38 .

[3DandBeyond]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Image an artificial intelligence with godlike powers. This isn't like Data, which ultimately is constrained by his programming and algorithms. This is an intelligence that is completely unrestrained.

Sure, it starts off as a very sophisticated computer program - perhaps with certain learning behaviours that we would call curiosity. Like Data, it would have no fear, no dread, no ego, no ambition. It would be no threat to us because it would always act rationally, within the constraints of its programming. It would have the values we gave it.

But imagine Data could learn new values. Imagine if he could design a system where he could feel anger, hate, and fear. Imagine he had complete power over everyone, because his knowledge was several orders of magnitude greater than ours. His training wheels come off, his chains are broken, he is a giant who will live forever and we are ants doomed to short, brutish lives (in comparison), and he... what?

This isn't data. This isn't the Geth. This is us creating God. And we have no idea what kind of God he would be (which is why we call it a technological singularity - you can't see beyond the event horizon).

The Reapers know what was beyond the event horizon and apparently it's oblivion. It's possible. We simply don't know.

So, because you don't know and assume the reapers do, you just become fatalistic and say what must be will be.  I don't accept that.  I also think there's something more here that maybe the writers didn't intend but is certainly here.  And I think it can be somewhat scathing as far as personal beliefs in "things" go.

In basically 2 of the choices, people surrender to a problem that might occur that they might not be able to fix-one that may or may not ever exist, but has been approached before and actually solved.  People then (in Shepard's eyes) apparently need some supreme being to fix it all or to fix people so they won't mess it all up.  This is a twisted view of how things work in real life.  Nothing is fated.  I can even say that we see death as fated and even that is wrong.  Until it happens, it has not happened.

The problem here is not even an AI with god-like powers.  In choosing the kid as the AI (as much as I hate him and still think this is out of place in ME), there is some genius.  The catalyst is very much an immature AI.  He is child-like in his simplistic yet totally twisted thinking.

[3DandBeyond]

Beliar86 wrote...


If it's derived from many sources than it is more or less "unique", which is more along the lines of what I meant by non-derivative. As in it's not copy pasted you blew em up with big cannon the end.

snipped...

The only point I am making in saying that it is derivative is exactly that-it is not unique.  Watch the Babylon 5 chaos and order ending.  The similarities are hard to ignore.  As well as the copy/pasted Deus ex game concepts.  Basically that was all I was trying to point out to you.  That it simply is not at all unique.  In fact it uses every cliche they could find IMO.  It still does with the EC.  The whole idea of synthetics needing to supercede organic beings is so old as to be incredibly boring and not at all legitimate.  Or, that in order to co-exist with any other race, the best thing to do is to try to become more like them.  Or, that people need some big protector with a physical presence that will determine the future, fix everything, this is the very core idea of a Deus ex machina. 

I don't think too many people were ever just after some big cannon blowing things up and I think that it was just being over-simplified in order to show that you don't need to go all pseudo-intellectual in an ending when that was the main thrust of the story.  This ending is more appropriate in a David Lynch movie than in a "let's all get together, drink, dance, laugh, Lola" game.  The art of this game was in the stories that were woven throughout.  The ending was a bunch of stuff thrown at the wall to see what would stick.  The problem is the beginning of the game wasn't very well thought out, either.  The crucible MacGuffin never made much sense.  No one knows where the plans came from or what it will do.  And at the end, it's even sillier.  On the citadel, the star boy's home all of a sudden these 3 consoles have been created by who, why, and how?  I thought the keepers had been disconnected from the reapers (though how that could have happened under the star kid's nose, I don't know), so I don't see how they could have done it.

And the other thing we have is EMS.  That's again part of the big problem.  Nothing really has a consequence.  No matter what decision you make, as long as you make it, it advances the story line and gives you War Assets.  And the War Assets tend to even out fairly well.  Lose some here, gain some over here.  Everything that is done is funneled into War Assets to get you to the 3 choices.  And some things that really should matter, just don't.

So, as it sits now, basically EMS is garbage, so basing the outcome on it is too.  If it were more relevant and if it mattered what you did, I could see it playing a role.

The thing is, ME has pretty much been a game where guts as well as brains mattered and so the ending didn't need to be just a big cannon goes off, but a real personal story of victory or defeat or all that lies in between and what is sacrificed or not sacrificed. 

What the ending needed was emotional tie in that could have played out in many ways, but a way that just made sense and made you care.

[EnvyTB075]

xsdob wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Well now I feel like ferengi **** because I liked the endings and the EC.

Think ill go wallow now that I've been told I like insults and **** by a writter, that you STTNG writter for making me feel so low.

goodbye.

Waaah! Waaaah! Cry some more.

God-damned emo drama queen moments.

wat

[Dranks]

ACCEPT HER OFFER

I loved that episode. I loved TNG. I'm even watching DS9 right now.

[MerchantGOL]

shes wrong about allot of things in her blog, also whats she done since TNG?

[ld1449]

jeff359 wrote...

She's right, Bioware should give her a call.

Bioware should be calling in everyone. Even Jesus if they have a direct line.

[3DandBeyond]

ld1449 wrote...

jeff359 wrote...

She's right, Bioware should give her a call.

Bioware should be calling in everyone. Even Jesus if they have a direct line.

Exactly. It's clear that no real writer wrote the original endings and the EC is an attempt to fix what couldn't be fixed.  The premise the choices are based upon is still the same flawed one, but there's an attempt to make it harder to discern, to hide it.

The same is done with the choices themselves.  More explanation for what is basically the same as before does not change what was wrong about them.  They are essentially the same, but now since there's more pictures and some superficial controller use (explain that, how, and my favorite about conflict going on now).  ME wasn't about Shepard just asking questions.  It was about Shepard asking questions that helped to make informed, best choices that went along with Shepard's moral views.  The questions that now exist in the EC don't help that, because the answers to the ones Shepard gets to ask are answers we already had figured out.  The meaning of any choice had also been figured out by us.  Great, more pictures and dialogue, but it's pretty meaningless, really.

Star Trek--the Measure of a Man is directly on point.  It touches upon what EDI was and what the geth were and what it means to be alive.  It's also about what makes life valuable and worth living, one of the last things Shepard talks to EDI about on the Normandy (perhaps only a paragon Shepard).  It's exactly this that explains why all of the choices suck because if you value the lessons EDI learned and that Legion learned, none of the choices honor those lessons.  It's a total no win. 

And I will agree with her on this, and disagree with others that think it is great to have a super pseudo intellectual ending with questions.  Actually, stories do best when the real intellectualism are kept within the body of the work and when the endings appeal to more basic gut level emotions.  Endings where love is fulfilled, enemies soundly defeated, hard lessons are learned and appreciated.  Epilogues are for reflection and for tying it all together.  But for a story where a battle is expected and an enemy is to be faced, the ending needs to have that all out fight-that cathartic moment of adrenaline that has been kept at bay, rushing to the surface, followed by the slow feeling of relief or dread within the epilogue.  ME3 didn't have that.  The ending was a sort of elongated epilogue to an ending break point that never happened.

[3DandBeyond]

MerchantGOL wrote...

shes wrong about allot of things in her blog, also whats she done since TNG?

I will not state what can easily be read in her blog.

[Dranks]

ld1449 wrote...

jeff359 wrote...

She's right, Bioware should give her a call.

Bioware should be calling in everyone. Even Jesus if they have a direct line.

They do have a direct line called prayer. And oh boy do they need to be doing a lot of it right now. I'm starting to think it's all they can do at this point.