825 réponses à ce sujet

[robertthebard]

AlanC9 wrote...

But as you said yourself, the criterion is "it appears at the moment all hope is lost ." Well, that's where LOTR starts. Gandalf's quite clear about this at the Council of Elrond; without the ring there is no hope of victory.

So the key part of your definition is "and all the characters can expect to die very quickly "?

You know, it gets tiring to read all the stretching that gets done sometimes to defame ME, but allow me to lay out some very important facts for you about LotR's that didn't appear in the movie, enough, apparently.

How far back in the known lore of Middle Earth, hmm, ME, does the Ring go?  What does Elrond say?  3,000 years?  When Isildur cut the ring from Sauron's finger, and was corrupted by it.  The ring that then betrayed him to his death by "falling off" while he was attempting to use it to hide from orcs.  You see, in the movie, there is a scene where Isildur is standing where he can throw the ring in, and end it all, but chooses to keep it, because the ring doesn't want to be destroyed.  It wants to return to Sauron, because it is part of him.

The Ring that was then found by Deagol, who was subsequently murdered by Smeagol(Gollum) for  his "Precious", funny that, since Isildur's journal also refers to the Ring the same way, "It is Precious to me".

The Ring that Sauron devised to control the 3 rings he gave to the elves, 7 to the dwarves, and 9 to men, who became the Nazgul, controlled by the ring that you claim is a DEM.  It is well established in the lore of Middle Earth, as is the passage from the hand of Sauron to Frodo, so where exactly do you get DEM from that?  Apparently some reading is in order, because as good a job as Peter Jackson did putting the movies together, some people still don't get it.  The only reason Sauron still exists is because the Ring still exists.  Destroying the Ring destroys Sauron, and breaks his hold on the evils of Middle Earth.  Thousands of years of history, and a clear path from one hand to the next does not a DEM make.

Sorry for the derail, back to our regularly scheduled ME bashing.

[txgoldrush]

Silly fans can't even realize that it is Shepard thats the Deus, not the Catalyst.

[cgtrfghj7]

Objectively speaking, ME3 is a pretty decent, if not great game, if you take it as a stand alone game.
But considering that it's a flagship series for one of the biggest developers in the industry and the quality of the two games that preceded this one, ME3 is one big pile of sh*t.

[Kamfrenchie]

AlanC9 wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...
no the ring ain't a DEM. It's not contrieved and doesnt appear out of owhere, in the last minute, unlike the reaper off crucible,

The Crucible appears a couple hours into ME3. Appearing at the 70% mark is not "the last minute." 

By that i meant that it appears at the moment all hope is lost and all the characters can expect to die very quickly since they have no plan at all and nothing was prepared for the coming of the reapers.

OK. So "last minute" in the sense of the last chance, not in the sense of the story being almost over. But if that's the case then Tolkien's One Ring is a DEM too, since there's no realistic plan to defeat Sauron other than using the Ring.

no, because the ring solution wasn't discovered when minas tirith was under attack. it has been known since the first movie (havn't read the books). Hell Isildur had a shot at killing sauron for good but he fell to the influence of the ring

But as you said yourself, the criterion is "it appears at the moment all hope is lost ." Well, that's where LOTR starts. Gandalf's quite clear about this at the Council of Elrond; without the ring there is no hope of victory.

So the key part of your definition is "and all the characters can expect to die very quickly "?

There is not just one criterion

a DEM is contrived and appear out of nowhere, the ring isn't, and it makes sense the destruction of the ring would kill sauron. It is explaind aswell, wile the crucible is contrived and has no explanation as to how it works.
The crucible is also meant to kill the reapers or change the universe. The ring "only" kills Sauron and his nazguls, it doesn't make all the orcs disappear afaik (well the quake in the end doesn't kill al of them and is a bit too much)
(btw isn't thre another antagonist after that in the books ?)

See, if one always knew the weakness of the ennemy but didn't use it before the **** hits the fan, it's no DEM.

If something appears out of the nowhere without foreshadowing when the shiit has hit the fan, it can be a DEM.

Had the crucible been something reasonnable, like a device made with the plans for harbinger that would dstroy their shield, or maybe I dunno, be a virus or would mess with their brain or sensors or guns and whatnot, it wouldnt be a DEM, because it would mak perfect sense and tie with ME2 (we get the plans in the end)

Modifié par Kamfrenchie, 15 juillet 2012 - 12:06 .

[NedPepper]

The Crucible is introduced at the beginning of ME3. It's the only thing that can destroy Reapers. How is it not like the damn one ring. Either it is a DEM or it's not. And I agree that the Crucible isn't the DEM of Mass Effect 3. Shepard is. And that was there from game 1 the first time he activated the beacon.

[Painaid]

Sadly, I agree. And the fact that I love BioWare makes this even harder. I hope that they make another Mass Effect game to redeem themselves because Mass Effect 3 was a belly flop. I've played it only once and I just can't bear to look at it again. I was seriously depressed for WEEKS because of how bad the game was. I want them to make it right. Not through some stupid EC scenes that don't change anything, but through a better game that we Mass Effect fans have come to expect.

The Mass Effect storyline is still salvageable aside from the great damage ME3 has done to it. BioWare just needs to put in even more work now to redeem it to it's former status as quite possibly the greatest space opera ever created. Before ME3, I would have said Mass Effect was better than Star Wars (imho). I WANT BioWare to return Mass Effect back to that pedastal. I absolutley love this universe. I CARE about its characers and its stories. And ME 3 just didn't give it the justice it deserves.

Mass Effect 3 was a bad game. BioWare made many, many mistakes and they failed to deliver on many counts. But there is still a future and that is what I'm looking forward to now. I understand Shepard's story is over, but there is much more to Mass Effect than Shepard. (Despite the fact that I think Shepard deserves better than what he got in ME3.)

Modifié par Painaid, 15 juillet 2012 - 05:36 .

[Painaid]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...
no the ring ain't a DEM. It's not contrieved and doesnt appear out of owhere, in the last minute, unlike the reaper off crucible,

The Crucible appears a couple hours into ME3. Appearing at the 70% mark is not "the last minute." 

By that i meant that it appears at the moment all hope is lost and all the characters can expect to die very quickly since they have no plan at all and nothing was prepared for the coming of the reapers.

OK. So "last minute" in the sense of the last chance, not in the sense of the story being almost over. But if that's the case then Tolkien's One Ring is a DEM too, since there's no realistic plan to defeat Sauron other than using the Ring.

no, because the ring solution wasn't discovered when minas tirith was under attack. it has been known since the first movie (havn't read the books). Hell Isildur had a shot at killing sauron for good but he fell to the influence of the ring

But as you said yourself, the criterion is "it appears at the moment all hope is lost ." Well, that's where LOTR starts. Gandalf's quite clear about this at the Council of Elrond; without the ring there is no hope of victory.

So the key part of your definition is "and all the characters can expect to die very quickly "?

There is not just one criterion

a DEM is contrived and appear out of nowhere, the ring isn't, and it makes sense the destruction of the ring would kill sauron. It is explaind aswell, wile the crucible is contrived and has no explanation as to how it works.
The crucible is also meant to kill the reapers or change the universe. The ring "only" kills Sauron and his nazguls, it doesn't make all the orcs disappear afaik (well the quake in the end doesn't kill al of them and is a bit too much)
(btw isn't thre another antagonist after that in the books ?)

See, if one always knew the weakness of the ennemy but didn't use it before the **** hits the fan, it's no DEM.

If something appears out of the nowhere without foreshadowing when the shiit has hit the fan, it can be a DEM.

Had the crucible been something reasonnable, like a device made with the plans for harbinger that would dstroy their shield, or maybe I dunno, be a virus or would mess with their brain or sensors or guns and whatnot, it wouldnt be a DEM, because it would mak perfect sense and tie with ME2 (we get the plans in the end)

Exactly. The One Ring is well-established by Tolkien in the books. It is far from a DEM. Hell, the damn thing is in the title of the books themselves. It explains the diminhsing power of the Elves...of Galadriel and Elrond. Things that simply cannot be undone. The one Ring can defeat Sauron, but it does not defeat his Orcs as you mentioned. In fact, in the books, it makes specific mention of this, though the movies sort of over-romanticize it. And yes, Saruman is still a villain even after Sauron is defeated.

[Kamfrenchie]

nedpepper wrote...

The Crucible is introduced at the beginning of ME3. It's the only thing that can destroy Reapers. How is it not like the damn one ring. Either it is a DEM or it's not. And I agree that the Crucible isn't the DEM of Mass Effect 3. Shepard is. And that was there from game 1 the first time he activated the beacon.

now you aren't even tryin to see my point.

Don't you see the huge diffeences between the crucible and the ring ? honestly ? If not, I don't think we can have a debate here.

And no shepard ain't DEM either, otherwise he wouldn't need the crucible, nor that huge fleet, etc.

The crucible is contrived, its backstory is hardly believable, and th way it works isn' even explained. I'm sorry but when you intoduce a device ouut of nowhere that completely defeat the nnemy and don't have any explanation, it's DEM or close enough that it's stil bad writing and doesn't matter.

Any kid or bad writer ca introduc somethng like the crucible out of nowhere when they write themself into a corner.

The ring is hardly the same thing.

see painad post aswell

Modifié par Kamfrenchie, 15 juillet 2012 - 01:03 .

[Mixxer5]

I completely agree with OP. Not much to talk about- wasted money when compared with any previous ME...

[Kamfrenchie]

Painaid wrote...

Sadly, I agree. And the fact that I love BioWare makes this even harder. I hope that they make another Mass Effect game to redeem themselves because Mass Effect 3 was a belly flop. I've played it only once and I just can't bear to look at it again. I was seriously depressed for WEEKS because of how bad the game was. I want them to make it right. Not through some stupid EC scenes that don't change anything, but through a better game that we Mass Effect fans have come to expect.

The Mass Effect storyline is still salvageable aside from the great damage ME3 has done to it. BioWare just needs to put in even more work now to redeem it to it's former status as quite possibly the greatest space opera ever created. Before ME3, I would have said Mass Effect was better than Star Wars (imho). I WANT BioWare to return Mass Effect back to that pedastal. I absolutley love this universe. I CARE about its characers and its stories. And ME 3 just didn't give it the justice it deserves.

Mass Effect 3 was a bad game. BioWare made many, many mistakes and they failed to deliver on many counts. But there is still a future and that is what I'm looking forward to now. I understand Shepard's story is over, but there is much more to Mass Effect than Shepard. (Despite the fact that I think Shepard deserves better than what he got in ME3.)

yeah, I honestly love the mass effect universe, and before ME3 I was hoping for another mmass effect which wouldallow the player to be a member of another race and go into a smaller scale story, but maybe with political intrigues an whatnot. But the crucible an the kid just really damaged the whole univrse for me.

What I fear is that if they've done it once with the nonsensical stuff, they might do it again. And well, I dont have that
much hope anymore, unless they remove casey and mac from thir poition and put somebody else in place.
I dont want to give anoter chance at ME to be a wel done story onl to face another sstupid thing like the crucible.

Honesly, I would retcon ME3, by having it just be what it is in the very end : a story for kids whzn it's bedtime.
Then just modify a few things. The crucible destroyed reaper shields and allowed the allied victory.
TIM didn't turn againnst shepard, but made messed up stuff to help the fight ( like trying to blow up a mass relay over an alien homeworld to destroy a big reaper fleet.) then he could make a good antagonist for ME4 because the reaper threat would be no more.

Done

[Stalker]

I wouldn't call it exactly 'bad', but it also doesn't deserve anything better than 8/10.

Never thought I would say that about a Mass Effect game...

[slimshedim]

BiO_MaN wrote...

I would just like to point out auto-dialogue isn't necessarily a bad thing, I know some people who liked the change, saying that it made conversations much more smoother and realistic. I don't agree with them, but just saying, that that one is subjective.

Game being short, I'd disagree with as well. ME1 took me about 25-30 hours to complete (completionist on normal), ME2 - 25 hours (Insanity, Completionist), ME3 - 30 hours on Insanity, Completionist). The only one I'm not sure about is the ME1 one, but even it if were longer, it'd be because of fake exploration (don't get me wrong, I liked the Mako and going on planets, but there isn't exactly a lot of variety, and most of the side-quests and planets are copy-pasta).

You're absolutely right. ME3 is the biggest failure and disappointment in the history of video games.

[Jamie9]

slimshedim wrote...
You're absolutely right. ME3 is the biggest failure and disappointment in the history of video games.

Duke Nukem: Forever.

[Pantanplan]

txgoldrush wrote...

Silly fans can't even realize that it is Shepard thats the Deus, not the Catalyst.

Deus ex machina : a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that
appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a
contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty.

How the hell is Shepard a deus ex machina, and the Catalyst not? Let's see:

1) Shepard has been present since the beginning of the series, since he\\she is the protagonist. Therefore he\\she is not "introduced suddenly and unexpectedly".

2) He\\she provides solutions to seemingly impossible situations, but always within the context of the story, and the solution always arises naturaly from already established plot points (the cure, for example. Maelon worked on it in ME2. The Shroud was used to repair Tuchanka's atmosphere. Cure+Shroud= Cure for all Krogan. The means to spread the cure have already been established in the plot)

3) Therefore, he does not "provide a
contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty".

Now, the Catalyst:

1) "Appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly", as his existence was barely foreshadowed, and he appears in the last 10 minutes if the game.

2) He "provides a
contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty", where the apparently insoluble difficulty is the Reaper War, and the contrived solution are the Crucible's functions. Yes, the Crucible was introduced in the beginning of the game, but its "solutions" are never explained, and the player learns about them in the end of the game.

Long response, but I'm sick of people denying that the Catalyst is a DEM. He fits the very definition.The Crucible itself isn't, but its functions are. The Crucible could be described more as an asspull.

Modifié par Pantanplan, 15 juillet 2012 - 01:36 .

[MetioricTest]

A "bad game" wouldn't have had the immense outcry over it's terrible ending.

Big Rigs Over The Road Racing is a bad game. Mass Effect 3 is a classic.

[inversevideo]

txgoldrush wrote...

Silly fans can't even realize that it is Shepard thats the Deus, not the Catalyst.

I see what you did there. 

[robertthebard]

Pantanplan wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Silly fans can't even realize that it is Shepard thats the Deus, not the Catalyst.

Deus ex machina : a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that
appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a
contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty.

How the hell is Shepard a deus ex machina, and the Catalyst not? Let's see:

1) Shepard has been present since the beginning of the series, since heshe is the protagonist. Therefore heshe is not "introduced suddenly and unexpectedly".

2) Heshe provides solutions to seemingly impossible situations, but always within the context of the story, and the solution always arises naturaly from already established plot points (the cure, for example. Maelon worked on it in ME2. The Shroud was used to repair Tuchanka's atmosphere. Cure+Shroud= Cure for all Krogan. The means to spread the cure have already been established in the plot)

3) Therefore, he does not "provide a
contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty".

Now, the Catalyst:

1) "Appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly", as his existence was barely foreshadowed, and he appears in the last 10 minutes if the game.

2) He "provides a
contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty", where the apparently insoluble difficulty is the Reaper War, and the contrived solution are the Crucible's functions. Yes, the Crucible was introduced in the beginning of the game, but its "solutions" are never explained, and the player learns about them in the end of the game.

Long response, but I'm sick of people denying that the Catalyst is a DEM. He fits the very definition.The Crucible itself isn't, but its functions are. The Crucible could be described more as an asspull.

All well and good, if Liara didn't tell the Council, at the beginning of the game, that all the Protheans were missing to complete the weapon was the Catalyst, and nobody knows what it is.  Of course, since we know that Crucible has to be joined with the Citadel to work anyway, even w/out SC, the Protheans were doomed, since the Citadel fell first, unless the information we gleaned from Vigil, in ME 1, is invalid?  So you spend the entire game garnering resources to build and defend Crucible, and trying to figure out what the Catalyst is, but it's a DEM because you don't figure it out until the end of the game?  I'm sorry, but by that very definition, and the way it's explained in your post, that is exactly what the Conduit is.  After all, you spend all of ME 1 trying to figure it out, and you don't until the end of the game.  Not liking a plot device =/= DEM.

[inversevideo]

MetioricTest wrote...

A "bad game" wouldn't have had the immense outcry over it's terrible ending.

Big Rigs Over The Road Racing is a bad game. Mass Effect 3 is a classic.

I respectfully disagree. The first two games, in the series, were superior to the third installment.

The ending, of the 3rd game, seems like a repudiation, of what came before, in the previous two games.

Leaving the ending, of ME3, aside, ME3, as a standalone product, seems to have more in common, in terms of play and feel, to something like 'Resistance:Fall Of Man' , than it does with either ME or ME2.

[Kanon777]

inversevideo wrote...


I respectfully disagree. The first two games, in the series, were superior to the third installment.

The ending, of the 3rd game, seems like a repudiation, of what came before, in the previous two games.

None of those things make ME3 a objectively "bad" game

[Richter09_3D]

Kanon777 wrote...

inversevideo wrote...


I respectfully disagree. The first two games, in the series, were superior to the third installment.

The ending, of the 3rd game, seems like a repudiation, of what came before, in the previous two games.

None of those things make ME3 a objectively "bad" game

It's not bad, just inferior to ME2 and not what it could have been

[inversevideo]

Kanon777 wrote...

inversevideo wrote...


I respectfully disagree. The first two games, in the series, were superior to the third installment.

The ending, of the 3rd game, seems like a repudiation, of what came before, in the previous two games.

None of those things make ME3 a objectively "bad" game

As a standalone product, leaving aside the ending, it is an 'ok' game.

However, when evaluated as the third and final installment, of a series, ME3 feels 'weak' and substandard, particularly when compared to the first two installments.  Since the ending, of ME3, for me, impacts/spoils what came before, I view it as 'bad'. Hopefully, that puts my thoughts into better context.

I don't have a way to salvage the good bits, of ME3, from the bad. It's sort of like dropping bread, covered in mayo, into the dirt. The mayo is good, the bread is tasty, the clumps of dirt, not so much. You have no way to correct what is, take it as it is, right? And you find what you have to be, on the whole, despite the nice bits, to be unpalatable.

[KnifeForkAndSpoon]

inversevideo wrote...

Kanon777 wrote...

inversevideo wrote...


I respectfully disagree. The first two games, in the series, were superior to the third installment.

The ending, of the 3rd game, seems like a repudiation, of what came before, in the previous two games.

None of those things make ME3 a objectively "bad" game

As a standalone product, leaving aside the ending, it is an 'ok' game.

However, when evaluated as the third and final installment, of a series, ME3 feels 'weak' and substandard, particularly when compared to the first two installments. 

I was going to say pretty much this but I see that would be redundant since you've already said it.

[MetioricTest]

inversevideo wrote...

MetioricTest wrote...

A "bad game" wouldn't have had the immense outcry over it's terrible ending.

Big Rigs Over The Road Racing is a bad game. Mass Effect 3 is a classic.

I respectfully disagree. The first two games, in the series, were superior to the third installment.

The ending, of the 3rd game, seems like a repudiation, of what came before, in the previous two games.

Leaving the ending, of ME3, aside, ME3, as a standalone product, seems to have more in common, in terms of play and feel, to something like 'Resistance:Fall Of Man' , than it does with either ME or ME2.

I don't get where you're coming from. ME3 and ME2 play so similarly. If ME3 is in common with anything then so is ME2.

[Melancholic]

I really like it.

I must have extremely poor taste.