712 réponses à ce sujet

[Alamar2078]

While I 100% understand wanting something better than the current refusal ending I'm kind of OK with it and I basically think a brute-force conventional ending [at this point] wouldn't make as much sense.

From the Codex you would think that if you could engage 5 or 6 Dreadnaughts against a Reaper Capital ship you'd expect at least a narrow victory. If you play MP and do the galaxy at war stuff it leads you to believe that just before you go into the ending that you are retaking some ground from the Reapers if you max out.

In game though [SP] the entire Quarian Fleet can't even take out a single ground-bound destroyer without exploiting its weak spot multiple times.

If there wasn't so much inconsistency between what we're told and what we see I think everyone would be better off.

***************************************************************************************

[Baronesa]

Alamar2078 wrote...

While I 100% understand wanting something better than the current refusal ending I'm kind of OK with it and I basically think a brute-force conventional ending [at this point] wouldn't make as much sense.

From the Codex you would think that if you could engage 5 or 6 Dreadnaughts against a Reaper Capital ship you'd expect at least a narrow victory. If you play MP and do the galaxy at war stuff it leads you to believe that just before you go into the ending that you are retaking some ground from the Reapers if you max out.

In game though [SP] the entire Quarian Fleet can't even take out a single ground-bound destroyer without exploiting its weak spot multiple times.

If there wasn't so much inconsistency between what we're told and what we see I think everyone would be better off.

***************************************************************************************

Remember what happens with a 20 Kg ferroslug... the impact of 2 or 3 Hiroshimsas back on earth? Not a sane strategy if you want to repopulate a planet.. it was obvious that they were NOT using the strongest weapons... I mean just one shot like that and bye bye Shepard who was standing there a few meters away.

Modifié par Baronesa, 18 juillet 2012 - 04:44 .

[3DandBeyond]

Alamar2078 wrote...

While I 100% understand wanting something better than the current refusal ending I'm kind of OK with it and I basically think a brute-force conventional ending [at this point] wouldn't make as much sense.

From the Codex you would think that if you could engage 5 or 6 Dreadnaughts against a Reaper Capital ship you'd expect at least a narrow victory. If you play MP and do the galaxy at war stuff it leads you to believe that just before you go into the ending that you are retaking some ground from the Reapers if you max out.

In game though [SP] the entire Quarian Fleet can't even take out a single ground-bound destroyer without exploiting its weak spot multiple times.

If there wasn't so much inconsistency between what we're told and what we see I think everyone would be better off.

***************************************************************************************

This is the big problem.  You are specifically given hope in 2 games in the way they end and in that they too are set up as impossible.  And within all 3 games you are given hope in that you can destroy some reapers and you are told things and read things that say they are not invincible gods.  Their one main weakness is that they think they are invincible gods.  A mouse can fell an elephant.  And many Davids have beaten Goliaths that were blind to David's real strength. 

Through ME1, 2, and 3 we were told the real strength is in unity-this is core.  But that means nothing.  All that unity did is get people together to make an unknown thing of unknown origin that does something unknown.  And then we reach the epic end fight (not explosions and a boss fight) and there is no fight.  It's pseudo intellectual debate time in slow motion.  It is totally anti-climactic, depressing, demoralizing, and fatalistic.  An attempt to fight would instead have been uplifting (we will try though we may fail) and would affirm just how far people had come (we now stand together) from where they were. They might lose, but you never ever tell your troops that especially when retreat and failure is not an option.

[LinksOcarina]

3DandBeyond wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...


I'm sick of being nice to you people to be frank, because in the end, your countless complaining is falling on deaf ears and you are either too stubborn, or foolish to realize it.

And don't talk to me like you know what mediocre or lazy is, although I forget everyone on here is  an expert at creative writing, dialouge, scene creation and script writing. Espeically considering Mass Effect 1 had the same issues as 3 in terms of its narrative, a deus ex machina plot point, a Macguffin item to find, and so forth. but no one gave a care back then it seemed. 

And yeah, they do exist in the other Mass Effect games. The Conduit, for example, is a pure McGuffin, because it is what you are chasing throughout the game. You are trying to stop Saren from getting there first. The Cypher was a Deus Ex Machina so you can understand how the Conduit works. Oh, and lets not forget the Prothean Beacons, which started this all. 

Or game 2, where the mcguffin was all about team building for a suicide mission, and gaining the loyalty of your squadmates. True, its not an actual item, but its a side-mission story in the grand scheme of things that did little to push a plot forward in any real, meaningful way. THAT is bad storytelling since it sort of ignores the principal plot, with the exception of the bookends which, to be honest, were really good. Then all of a sudden you have a choice to stop fighting and take the collector based, while you are in a suicide mission to destroy the entire base from the horrors you saw. Thats not game breaking at all. 

Oh, and the fact that Shepard dies and is revived is not a Deus Ex Machnina in any way? 

So don't tell me they don't exist in the other games. That is where you are wrong, and no, this is not debatable either. So I will continue to tell people to shut up over it, because all of us made our bed five years ago and ignored the issues because we liked the games, maybe because we won in the end and didn't die either. Who knows.

So again, if you don't like the endings, make your own. No one is stopping you from doing that, and no one will care other than yourself, which is what is most important in the end, isen't it? 

You have no idea what a MacGuffin is.  The conduit is not one-especially not at the point where it is fully understood and explained.  It's a mass relay.  Just exactly what is the crucible?

Team building is in no way a MacGuffin of any type.  You need a group of people to help you fight and you can't do that alone.  You build a team.  You are offered the choice to save the base sure, but so what?  You are told that all Collectors will be destroyed.  You have the choice there to do that and save the tech or to complete your mission and destroy the base.  It's not the collectors or harbinger offering that, it is your current "ally" and "boss" who is giving you that choice.  If Harby popped up and said you had 2 choices that's something different and just as stupid as the ME3 ending choices.

ME1 has no Deus ex Machina.  DeMs provide the solution.  Saren must activate the signal which the protheans had shut off-Shepard is racing to beat Saren.  In fact this very point bears out one of the idiot points in the ME3 ending.  The kid is there on the citadel and it's a part of him-why doesn't he activate the signal in ME1.

No Shepard being revived is not a Deus ex Machina-god from the machine.  However implausible it is better minds than mine have explained how it could happen.  It may be space magic but it has some explanation to it.  The 3 choices are never explained as far as how they can do what they do-they are total space magic and meant to replace the most significant part of the plot of any story.  That is where the protagonist achieves his goal and where everything you have worked for gets resolved in some satisfying way.  At the end of ME3 you end up solving the kid' problem and not your hero's.

I'm not the one stating that MacGuffins and DeMs are lazy writing-that is the characterization of book publishers-they reject stories because of them because they consider them to be lazy devices.  And I agree.

If you have to write that a hero is gathering weapons and others are learning new tech, amassing knowledge to confront a foe, that takes far more work then if you create a device that will be used to fight for you.  Further when you write about an actual fight especially against huge overpowered foes, you have to setup a lot of different settings, fights, and character involvement.  If you replace all that with one being with the solution, you don't have to work as hard and write all that other stuff.  If these items (MacGuffin and DeM) further are just magical things that no one understands or as in the case of the star kid, have never been hinted at before in 3 stories that's a DeM that is just nonsense.  That is lazy writing.  It's also lazy writing if the content is wholly gleaned from other sources and is not original.  The ME3 ending is a compilation of endings from other movies, games, and tv shows.  Deus ex (2000 videogame), the Matrix (revolutions), Babylon 5 (chaos and order).  Sorry, it is lazy.

If our complaining is falling on deaf ears then how come you "heard" it?  You could ignore it and take your own advice but have chosen to be confrontative.  How does any of this hurt you?  You chose to come here and to read it and then to be nasty.  You had another choice a better one.

First off, a McGuffin is a goal, plot device or a motivating factor for a protagonist to pursue. How in the hell is the Conduit not a McGuffin. It's explaination is irrelevent to its purpose, and while many McGuffins never have a reason behind it, it is not a major characteristic of a McGuffin in its hard definition. So,  the Conduit is still the  plot device and a goal for Shepard to pursue in game one, almost relentlessly, without knowing what the hell it did until you got there.

And yes, the Crucible is a McGuffin, but that is also irrelevent to this entire pointless argument. 

Second, I said above the team building is not a traditional McGuffin, but it is the primary goal of the game. It becomes the driving force and the main plot, moreso than the reapers. It still fits the trope because it is a unrelenting goal you pursue, the team members you recruit replace the conduit basically. The Deus Ex Machnina is the idea to suddenly save the base from destruction, which gives an option to solve a problem out of nowhere (for some people.) 

Speaking of which, I said the Cipher was a Deus Ex Machnina, because its a plot element that comes out of nowhere to give you not only context to the Conduit, but it is only gained by Shiala on feros and is used to explain what you saw. That is not a plot element pulled out of nowhere so that Shepard can actually use it to find the Conduit, which was basically impossible to find without. It is also a plot element that is only given to you in one mission, and never really seen again until Mass Effect 3, when you find Javik.

And Shepard dying is Deus Ex Machina. Of course you can rationalize any explaination for it. Space Magic or not, everything can have a degree of logic to it if you work for it. I know people who have done that with the Catalyst, and everyone typically responds with "well, you had to go through all this effort, isen't that a bad plot point?" Simply put, Having shepard die and revive solves a lot of issues; it makes the character a fresh start for newcomers to the game, it allows you to join up with Cerberus more willingly, and it provides context to some aspects of the games ending in Mass Effect 3, since you being part synthetic comes up several times in the conversation. So dying and being ressurected, thats an unsolvable problem in my book, even if you can explain it. 

And no, McGuffins and deus ex Machinas don't have to be magical things either. Star Wars had the lovely Deus Ex Machina of a 2 meter wide hole that heads to the reactor of the Death star as your way in solving a problem. They never explain why a proton torpedos destroy it, they never explain why its in a long trench occupied with gun towers, or how they even got those plans. Some of that is irrelvent obviously, but destroying a huge space station, youd think they would make sure that was well guarded or, you know, SHUT TIGHT. You also had R2-D2 as your McGuffin since he carried the data. 

As for other endings, so?  Everything rips off each other in some form in that now anyway, why is this surprising? 

So yes, the ending of Mass Effect 3 is a Deus Ex Machnina. The Conduit is a Mcguffin But elements of Mass Effect 1 and 2 are as well. Thats MY POINT to this whole thing. I should ignore it, should just leave you all wallowing in hate and discontent, but honestly, It would be a disservice if I didn't point out the obvious at the very least. 

[The Twilight God]

Skirata129 wrote...

Linked below is a poll asking the fanbase whether they would appreciate the possibility of conventional victory through the refuse option, should EMS be high enough. Please vote, as this would truly solve one of the most pressing complaints of BSN, and Mass Effect fans everywhere.

Poll

The Reaper fleet in earth orbit outnumbered the combined allied fleet.

And that is just the reapers at Earth. Conventional victory is 99.999999999999% improbable. Even if they won conventionally at Earth they would have to continue on and beat all the other reapers spread all over the enitre galaxy. I only say improbable vs impossible because there is a 0.00000000000001% chance the reapers will just roll over and let us win. You saw the fleet that went into that battle. And you saw what came out (at least in Destroy). They were in no position to fight even a small reaper force.

It's one thing to request a change and/or additions to the last hours of the game, but a conventional victory contradicts ME1, 2 and the Crucible (i.e. the entire subplot of ME3). You'd be requesting ME 3.5. 

Modifié par The Twilight God, 18 juillet 2012 - 05:00 .

[LinksOcarina]

Baronesa wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

I question this because it is impossible due to what we know in-game, including informaton in the codexes. For example, by the logic of that it would take 4 dreadnaughts to kill one reaper (even with thanix cannons), the treaty of Farixen limits the number of dreadnaughts per race. So even with all of them in one place, they can't stand to kill every reaper in the galaxy, and can't even build enough dreadnaughts to  counter them.

and that is just one example. 

Actually, read the codex agin on that part.

It considers the use of Thannix separated from Dreadnaughts, and that is because 1 simple thing. Only the newer BROADSIDE Dreadnaughts that don't have a main gun are equipped with Thannix cannons. The only Drednaught with broadside and a MAIN gun is the Kwunu.

That means, 4 normal dreadnaughts with kinetic guns (Remember the 20 Kg ferroslug the drill sargent was talking about in ME2?) would take down a Reaper capital ship.

That is not considering the Thannix that bypass shields, and a broadside Dreadnaught basically has a WALL of thannix pointing on the same direction (Think about old naval battles)

Now, if these Broadside batteries are the same kind of Thannix weapons used on Cruisers, Frigates and fighters, evena  swarm of fighters, a small Frigate pack or a couple of Cruisers can take down the Reapers, specially since for Reaper capital ships to keep their barriers up they become less maneurable than a Dreadnaught! (Battle of Palaven)

I know the thanix guns were seperate, and since they say in the codex all it does, and I quote, is  "Weapons designed to maximize heat damge, such as the Thanix series, show better results against the Reapers than pure kinetic impacts." 

Since we have no real data on how much damage other than being more effective, that really can mean anything.

One more point. Not every ship, cruiser, frigate, carriers, and so forth will have thanix guns either, and remember that they need to survive the onslaught of reaper fire to even get close enough to be effective with broadside guns. They even say in the codex it is possible for a cruiser or a group of fighters to get close and take down a reaper destroyer, but they need to get close first. A group of twenty cruisers can maybe take down 8-9 reapers at best by this logic, because eventually the cruisers would get hit by reapers, especially a group of reapers in formation, which is also a note in the codex of ther vunerabilities. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 18 juillet 2012 - 05:00 .

[LinksOcarina]

3DandBeyond wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Not at all. I am trying to find out why conventional victory is possible, when all the evidence to the contrary points against it.  

What do you mean by reaper vulnerabilities? The information in the codex?  

I question this because it is impossible due to what we know in-game, including informaton in the codexes. For example, by the logic of that it would take 4 dreadnaughts to kill one reaper (even with thanix cannons), the treaty of Farixen limits the number of dreadnaughts per race. So even with all of them in one place, they can't stand to kill every reaper in the galaxy, and can't even build enough dreadnaughts to  counter them.

and that is just one example. 

You are questioning this because you were told it was impossible.  Reapers do have vulnerabilities. 

Oh nice...oh well i'll play ball. I know I read the codexes, ive seen them destoryed. Of course they have vulnerabilites. That doesn't translate to victory though.

That makes it possible no matter that it may be unlikely.  The fact isn't that it's impossible.  The fact is no one wanted to even show people trying to launch any real fight exploiting any vulnerabilities.  Instead, they are shown shooting guns at reapers.  Yeah, how many times do you do that before you realize it isn't working.  You give out cains even just to Hammer team-where the hell was a cain on the run up to the conduit?  And that was a great scene.

I donno. i'm sure they had knowledge of it but limited resources. After all, most of the supply lines going into the final mission were meager at best.

Everyone running directly down the middle right at a reaper.  That's a great use of military strategy.  Harbinger ignored the Normandy--why not fly Shepard and Anderson or whoever to the other side of the conduit from where Harbinger is and drop them off so if Harbinger started shooting he'd have to shoot the conduit?  Talk about stupid.  And it really was working running right at it wasn't it?  2 teammates nearly were killed, others lay dead and dying (but of course the Normandy only picks up the teammates) and they continue running right at it.  Hi, Harbinger.  Where's the strategy in this?

Actually, I saw them pick up a few more stragglers who walked in on that scene. But honestly, who knows is all I can say. After all, people wanted to know why characters survived, now they know, but now they think the scene still doesn't make sense because Harbinger doesn't shoot a laser in your face. Which is true, but hell, maybe logically it doesn't work, but poetically it does, especially if its the last time you see your love interest. 

[Alamar2078]

FYI: While I don't support a conventional victory at this point I would have liked the game to have been redesigned so a different [I.E. no cruicible & catalyst] unconventional victory would have been possible.

Instead of finding the Cruicible in plans maybe we could take a harder look at what information we do have and then find a way to create a situation to take advantage of the unconventional information.

For example lets say we find details about the Mass Relay operation from Illos or some other beacon or similar. Hopefully this combined with the Reaper IFF [and/or the Collector Base] should allow people to reprogram some or all of the individual Mass Relays.

I would imagine having control of the individual Mass Relays could have huge tactical advantages.

If you have the Collector Base maybe you can find out about the Catalyst. If it exerts control via signals then one would think if you can either jam the signal or take it over then that gives you other avenues to exploit.

Perhaps each different way you can use relays, Collector Base, Illos information, etc. would give you different paths to victory that you could explore. Hopefully each of these endings would be nearly as distinct as what we see now.

[cuzsal]

flanny wrote...

I agree with you but bioware don't care about their fans anymore, they only care about their 'art'.

bioware will never make an ending better than their 'art'. at this point all you can do is headcanon

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Nero Narmeril wrote...

I found at least four quotes from game saying the Reapers cannot be defeat conventionaly (Hackett, EDI, Garrus, Liara), so how do you imagine this?

^This.

That is why I voted no.

[Cyruge]

 Oh my god, really? We already got the extended cut, the whole ending controversy is over. Deal with it.

[AresKeith]

Cyruge wrote...

 Oh my god, really? We already got the extended cut, the whole ending controversy is over. Deal with it.

the Extended cut didn't solve anything but give closure, I don't give a damn about closure if the endings are still complete crap and a rip-off of both Deus Ex games and that middle finger that is the Refuse Option

[robertthebard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

ZLurps wrote...


After two missiles hit Shepard says, "Hit it with everything you got". Then it goes down. Also, it needed very special kind of hero and team to make it possible.

Overall, London is key point of ME3. Alliance is concentrating everything they can to London. Results, 2 Reaper destroyers are eliminated while Alliance take really awful losses. In the final run only Shepard and Anderson makes ti to the beam for all the forces that makes that run.

It's just that taking down one single Reaper takes enermous amounts of resources and unless you have air superioty, you are going to take awful losses. At the same time Reapers keep getting stronger by indotrinating your population.

I really don't see conventional victory here.

Not true. Listen to it again.  The two missiles hit and a teammate yells "it's going down" and then Shepard says to perhaps the Normandy to hit it with everything.  Reapers are more vulnerable planetside.  They lower their mass and that reduces the effectiveness of their shields.

You don't see conventional victory because you were told it's impossible repeatedly-that is not what great military minds would do even if they knew it to be impossible where there is no such option as retreat.  But, you were continually told it was impossible.  It's only impossible because even though reapers do have vulnerabilities, no one is allowed to explore them and make a real go of it.  Conventional victory is also only shown as running up and shooting at reapers.

Eezo when subjected to electricity creates a mass effect field that can raise or lower the mass of an object within that field.  Reapers with lower mass are weaker-the whole thing about what happens planetside.  Lower their mass or raise yours.  Reapers use kinetic barriers-they are not resistant to temperature, toxins, and radiation.

Reapers use Quantum Entanglement-something EDI might know a bit about.  This may also be how indoctrination is used to control people. 

The rachni might know something helpful about the reapers, but no one ever asks.  They are tech marvels and were alive when the protheans were.  They also have genetic memory and might "know" what happened back then that might have had some success.

I don't see conventional victory because, if Sovereign had spent less time possessing Saren's Husk, and more time blasting ships, Sovereign along with the geth could have cleared all the ships attacking.  Instead, Sovereign becomes suddenly obssessed with personally kicking Shepard's ass, and winds up losing.  This is just one Reaper, with geth support.

So, 4 dreadnaughts can take out one Reaper ship, cool.  How many of them make it to Reaper #2?  What are the other 3 or 400, probably a low estimate, doing?  Watching?  Are they blasting away at the dreadnaughts, or support ships?  How many ships are going to be lost taking out just 400 Reapers?  How many ships do you think we have, an infinite supply?  We have a finite number of ships, and while the Reapers are also finite, they are better armed, since a single shot from a beam can do massive damage, or even destroy several smaller, frigate/fighter class ships at once.

If we had been preparing since Sovereign, instead of political leaders burying the truth, we could have rescinded the treaty, and started building more, but even then, with only a couple of years between, how many would we have completed?  We could have worked on improving our system wide defences, in all of Council space, and this is what we should have spent ME 2 doing, instead of being DeM'd into working for Cerberus for a game.  Why DeM'd?  Because we're dead, and presto, Project Lazarus saves the day.  No stretch of the imagination needed there, right?  Everybody has the tech to do that, don't they?  That's why nobody ever permanently dies, right?  Wait, nope, it's a one off thing isn't it?

Even if we could hope to win a conventional war, how long do you think it's going to take?  A year, so that you can go kick it on the beach with Garrus?  No, it's going to take longer than that.  As powerful as the Reapers are, Liara estimates that it would take at least a century to wipe out the current cycle.  We might be able to win in that long, or maybe twice that long, but either way, no happy ending, other than a cutscene that shows the final Reaper being taken out by the rag tag fleet that's bound to be the only thing left, and a devastated galaxy in desperate need of both repopulating and rebuilding.  Good thing the Krogan and the Asari live for a thousand years, eh?  Liara is subject to be the only ME 3 crewmember left alive at the end of it all.

[3DandBeyond]

LinksOcarina wrote...


First off, a McGuffin is a goal, plot device or a motivating factor for a protagonist to pursue. How in the hell is the Conduit not a McGuffin. It's explaination is irrelevent to its purpose, and while many McGuffins never have a reason behind it, it is not a major characteristic of a McGuffin in its hard definition. So,  the Conduit is still the  plot device and a goal for Shepard to pursue in game one, almost relentlessly, without knowing what the hell it did until you got there.

And yes, the Crucible is a McGuffin, but that is also irrelevent to this entire pointless argument. 

Second, I said above the team building is not a traditional McGuffin, but it is the primary goal of the game. It becomes the driving force and the main plot, moreso than the reapers. It still fits the trope because it is a unrelenting goal you pursue, the team members you recruit replace the conduit basically. The Deus Ex Machnina is the idea to suddenly save the base from destruction, which gives an option to solve a problem out of nowhere (for some people.) 

Speaking of which, I said the Cipher was a Deus Ex Machnina, because its a plot element that comes out of nowhere to give you not only context to the Conduit, but it is only gained by Shiala on feros and is used to explain what you saw. That is not a plot element pulled out of nowhere so that Shepard can actually use it to find the Conduit, which was basically impossible to find without. It is also a plot element that is only given to you in one mission, and never really seen again until Mass Effect 3, when you find Javik.

And Shepard dying is Deus Ex Machina. Of course you can rationalize any explaination for it. Space Magic or not, everything can have a degree of logic to it if you work for it. I know people who have done that with the Catalyst, and everyone typically responds with "well, you had to go through all this effort, isen't that a bad plot point?" Simply put, Having shepard die and revive solves a lot of issues; it makes the character a fresh start for newcomers to the game, it allows you to join up with Cerberus more willingly, and it provides context to some aspects of the games ending in Mass Effect 3, since you being part synthetic comes up several times in the conversation. So dying and being ressurected, thats an unsolvable problem in my book, even if you can explain it. 

And no, McGuffins and deus ex Machinas don't have to be magical things either. Star Wars had the lovely Deus Ex Machina of a 2 meter wide hole that heads to the reactor of the Death star as your way in solving a problem. They never explain why a proton torpedos destroy it, they never explain why its in a long trench occupied with gun towers, or how they even got those plans. Some of that is irrelvent obviously, but destroying a huge space station, youd think they would make sure that was well guarded or, you know, SHUT TIGHT. You also had R2-D2 as your McGuffin since he carried the data. 

As for other endings, so?  Everything rips off each other in some form in that now anyway, why is this surprising? 

So yes, the ending of Mass Effect 3 is a Deus Ex Machnina. The Conduit is a Mcguffin But elements of Mass Effect 1 and 2 are as well. Thats MY POINT to this whole thing. I should ignore it, should just leave you all wallowing in hate and discontent, but honestly, It would be a disservice if I didn't point out the obvious at the very least. 

So, you are happy with rip offs?  Good for you-that's lazy writing.  And not everything does it to this extent.

I never said they had to be magical items-I said they are in ME3.  The crucible, citadel, star kid all have no rational reasonable explanation that can adequately and coherently explain how the choices exactly do what they do.  That is magic to the extreme.

MacGuffins generally have no or little explanation as to why they are sought.  In ME1, Shepard knows that Saren wants to get to the conduit (Shepard is pursuing Saren but then wants to beat him to the conduit before he gets to it)-that is reason enough to search for it.  Shepard also knows it can be used to get onto the closed Citadel and Shepard must get to the citadel before Saren to try and defeat Saren and keep him from his goal.  But that it is provided with a rational and reasonable complete explanation as to what it is, means it is not a MacGuffin-if it is it is a very minor one.  If I know my enemy is trying hard to find something but I don't know where my enemy currently is, I want to get the jump on him and try and get to where he is going first.  I know he will end up there eventually and I can fight him there, if nothing else.

On the other hand millions of people work to put together the Crucible though absolutely nothing is known about it ever.  Shepard never fully knows who came up with it originally.  Shepard never fully knows anything about it and how it works and is just supposed to trust it.  Major Mystery Magical MacGuffin.  In a story that always took great pains to try and explain things before.

A goal is not a MacGuffin when it actually involves explanation as to its desirability especially to the extent that team-building in ME2 does.  It's not chasing after some thing that will solve everything because Shepard's team isn't going to do that.  They are there to help.  That's like trying to say trying to earn money to buy guns makes guns or the money a MacGuffin.  Even if the team is any kind of MacGuffin they are understood.  The crucible never is-I don't care if it's a ham sandwich in name and not a MacGuffin, it never has any credible explanation as to its existence or why hooking it up with the citadel would make magic happen.  That is fantasy at the end.

Ok at this point I can see why the endings make sense to you because your arguments make no sense.

A problem that can be solved and explained, can be solved and so is not unsolvable.

We're wallowing in hate?  We've expressed dissatisfaction with a game and the company that produced it and the things shown in it.  You have then attacked people personally because you feel the need to defend nonsense and unoriginal content in a game.  Great.  I have said the overuse of magical items at the end of ME3 is a real problem in a game that never deviated too far from reality-they always provided some explanation.  Yes, they used some magic within but never to the gamebreaking extent as in these endings.  You don't have to read my explanations, but don't call me or anyone else hateful when it is you who has been doing the hating.

People matter far more than some adherence to some game.

[FoggyFishburne]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Sorry, I can't support anything that recognizes the starkid as "real".

Best post yet

[AresKeith]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Sorry, I can't support anything that recognizes the starkid as "real".

[3DandBeyond]

FoggyFishburne wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Sorry, I can't support anything that recognizes the starkid as "real".

Best post yet

+10

[Baronesa]

3DandBeyond wrote...

FoggyFishburne wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Sorry, I can't support anything that recognizes the starkid as "real".

Best post yet

+10

*waves hand* There is no starkid... move along

[LinksOcarina]

3DandBeyond wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...


First off, a McGuffin is a goal, plot device or a motivating factor for a protagonist to pursue. How in the hell is the Conduit not a McGuffin. It's explaination is irrelevent to its purpose, and while many McGuffins never have a reason behind it, it is not a major characteristic of a McGuffin in its hard definition. So,  the Conduit is still the  plot device and a goal for Shepard to pursue in game one, almost relentlessly, without knowing what the hell it did until you got there.

And yes, the Crucible is a McGuffin, but that is also irrelevent to this entire pointless argument. 

Second, I said above the team building is not a traditional McGuffin, but it is the primary goal of the game. It becomes the driving force and the main plot, moreso than the reapers. It still fits the trope because it is a unrelenting goal you pursue, the team members you recruit replace the conduit basically. The Deus Ex Machnina is the idea to suddenly save the base from destruction, which gives an option to solve a problem out of nowhere (for some people.) 

Speaking of which, I said the Cipher was a Deus Ex Machnina, because its a plot element that comes out of nowhere to give you not only context to the Conduit, but it is only gained by Shiala on feros and is used to explain what you saw. That is not a plot element pulled out of nowhere so that Shepard can actually use it to find the Conduit, which was basically impossible to find without. It is also a plot element that is only given to you in one mission, and never really seen again until Mass Effect 3, when you find Javik.

And Shepard dying is Deus Ex Machina. Of course you can rationalize any explaination for it. Space Magic or not, everything can have a degree of logic to it if you work for it. I know people who have done that with the Catalyst, and everyone typically responds with "well, you had to go through all this effort, isen't that a bad plot point?" Simply put, Having shepard die and revive solves a lot of issues; it makes the character a fresh start for newcomers to the game, it allows you to join up with Cerberus more willingly, and it provides context to some aspects of the games ending in Mass Effect 3, since you being part synthetic comes up several times in the conversation. So dying and being ressurected, thats an unsolvable problem in my book, even if you can explain it. 

And no, McGuffins and deus ex Machinas don't have to be magical things either. Star Wars had the lovely Deus Ex Machina of a 2 meter wide hole that heads to the reactor of the Death star as your way in solving a problem. They never explain why a proton torpedos destroy it, they never explain why its in a long trench occupied with gun towers, or how they even got those plans. Some of that is irrelvent obviously, but destroying a huge space station, youd think they would make sure that was well guarded or, you know, SHUT TIGHT. You also had R2-D2 as your McGuffin since he carried the data. 

As for other endings, so?  Everything rips off each other in some form in that now anyway, why is this surprising? 

So yes, the ending of Mass Effect 3 is a Deus Ex Machnina. The Conduit is a Mcguffin But elements of Mass Effect 1 and 2 are as well. Thats MY POINT to this whole thing. I should ignore it, should just leave you all wallowing in hate and discontent, but honestly, It would be a disservice if I didn't point out the obvious at the very least. 

So, you are happy with rip offs?  Good for you-that's lazy writing.  And not everything does it to this extent.

I never said they had to be magical items-I said they are in ME3.  The crucible, citadel, star kid all have no rational reasonable explanation that can adequately and coherently explain how the choices exactly do what they do.  That is magic to the extreme.

MacGuffins generally have no or little explanation as to why they are sought.  In ME1, Shepard knows that Saren wants to get to the conduit (Shepard is pursuing Saren but then wants to beat him to the conduit before he gets to it)-that is reason enough to search for it.  Shepard also knows it can be used to get onto the closed Citadel and Shepard must get to the citadel before Saren to try and defeat Saren and keep him from his goal.  But that it is provided with a rational and reasonable complete explanation as to what it is, means it is not a MacGuffin-if it is it is a very minor one.  If I know my enemy is trying hard to find something but I don't know where my enemy currently is, I want to get the jump on him and try and get to where he is going first.  I know he will end up there eventually and I can fight him there, if nothing else.

On the other hand millions of people work to put together the Crucible though absolutely nothing is known about it ever.  Shepard never fully knows who came up with it originally.  Shepard never fully knows anything about it and how it works and is just supposed to trust it.  Major Mystery Magical MacGuffin.  In a story that always took great pains to try and explain things before.

A goal is not a MacGuffin when it actually involves explanation as to its desirability especially to the extent that team-building in ME2 does.  I's not chasing after some thing that will solve everything because Shepard's team isn't going to do that.  They are tthere to help.  That's like trying to say trying to earn money to buy guns makes guns or the money a MacGuffin.  Even if the team is any kind of MacGuffin they are understood. The crucible never is-I don't care if it's a ham sandwich in name and not a MacGuffin, it never has any credible explanation as to its existence or why hooking it up with the citadel would make magic happen.  That is fantasy at the end.

Ok at this point I can see why the endings make sense to you because your arguments make no sense.

A problem that can be solved and explained, can be solved and so is not unsolvable.

We're wallowing in hate?  We've expressed dissatisfaction with a game and the company that produced it and the things shown in it.  You have then attacked people personally because you feel the need to defend nonsense and unoriginal content in a game.  Great.  I have said the overuse of magical items at the end of ME3 is a real problem in a game that never deviated too far from reality-they always provided some explanation.  Yes, they used some magic within but never to the gamebreaking extent as in these endings.  You don't have to read my explanations, but don't call me or anyone else hateful when it is you who has been doing the hating.

People matter far more than some adherence to some game

I only attack people because of their stupidity and because those people need to learn something. I never said you were wrong about the crucible, I said you were wrong about Mass Effect. That herin, is a problem that you can't seem to realize that fact and keep bringing up the Crucible, when its irrelevent to the discussion you are trying to have, save to use as a example of "too much" mcguffin, "too much" deus ex machina, or whatever. 

Thats funny.

And I call you hateful because you will never be satisfied. Yeah, I may be doing the hating, but at least I know why I am hating. there is a difference. And since you keep missing the point completely, I honestly have no real reason to continue talking. I would normally be the bigger man here and just leave it be, but honestly you can shove off, as this take on  literary terms, an analysis that is not accurate mind you, pisses me off more than the people who ignore aspects from previous games as literary tropes we see in Mass Effect 3. 

By the way, everything bolded made me chuckle a bit at how you try to twist stuff into an argument. Very clever. But i'm done, I just don't have time to debate with walls. 

ETA: 

this is why I said before why don't you make your own fan ending. Nothing is stopping you from fixing the mistakes, and the fact that you are allowed to do such a thing should be a blessing from the company anyway, a goodwill gesture as it were. So why are you wasting time arguing with me, and others on this board when you can be hard at work doing what you see fit?

I bet people would like your ending too.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 18 juillet 2012 - 05:38 .

[xsdob]

I find it funny that people demanded to be able to refuse the catalyst even if it meant total defeat before, quite a few people actually. And now when that ending is delivered people now demand they get a total victory from refusing the catalyst. I think if biwoare did this than fans would complain more that the other options are stupid and now should be removed from the game.

In essence, it's the give a mouse a cookie scenario being played out over the span of months and on a large scale.

Would it make the endings better? probably. Would it be ridiculous, abso-****ing-litly it would, and it would lead to more problems than most people in the fanbase tend to know or think about for future games.

Just think about it this way, if you use your powers to alter the game without it being on biowares terms or will, you open the possibility for this to be abused by people who do not care about the game but merely care about an agenda, be it political, religious, or simply to gain media notoriety and a misguided attempt to protect children.

Modifié par xsdob, 18 juillet 2012 - 05:44 .

[Skirata129]

xsdob wrote...

Just think about it this way, if you use your powers to alter the game without it being on biowares terms or will, you open the possibility for this to be abused by people who do not care about the game but merely care about an agenda, be it political, religious, or simply to gain media notoriety and a misguided attempt to protect children.

The difference being that were the one's who bought the game. If the church of scientology happened to constitute 90 something% of a future gaming company's customer base, it would also be in their interest to listen to them. Money talks.

[LinksOcarina]

Skirata129 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Just think about it this way, if you use your powers to alter the game without it being on biowares terms or will, you open the possibility for this to be abused by people who do not care about the game but merely care about an agenda, be it political, religious, or simply to gain media notoriety and a misguided attempt to protect children.

The difference being that were the one's who bought the game. If the church of scientology happened to constitute 90 something% of a future gaming company's customer base, it would also be in their interest to listen to them. Money talks.

Actually, no difference still. You bought the product, they listened and changed it once. If you are still not satisfied don't buy more products. 

Simple as that. This is how capitalism works. 

[robertthebard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

MacGuffins generally have no or little explanation as to why they are sought.  In ME1, Shepard knows that Saren wants to get to the conduit (Shepard is pursuing Saren but then wants to beat him to the conduit before he gets to it)-that is reason enough to search for it.  Shepard also knows it can be used to get onto the closed Citadel and Shepard must get to the citadel before Saren to try and defeat Saren and keep him from his goal.  But that it is provided with a rational and reasonable complete explanation as to what it is, means it is not a MacGuffin-if it is it is a very minor one.  If I know my enemy is trying hard to find something but I don't know where my enemy currently is, I want to get the jump on him and try and get to where he is going first.  I know he will end up there eventually and I can fight him there, if nothing else.

OK, I totally missed this before, but no.  We don't know what the Conduit does until Vigil tells us, just before we use it to go the Citadel.  Which means that we find out about it right before the end game, in fact, it's the (heh) Catalyst that launches us into the end game.  We knew it existed, just like we knew that the Crucible could be built, but we didn't know what it did, just as we didn't know what the Crucible did, nor what the Catalyst was.  Not liking what the Catalyst is is understandable, trying to alter facts presented in the game to support whether something is or isn't a specific trope is just petty.  Somebody else pointed out the mac guffin thing to me in another thread, because as far as I was concerned at that point in time, the Conduit was every bit as much a DeM as the Catalyst.  Why do you suppose it's game over if you don't make it to the relay in time?  Because if you don't make it to the relay in time, you can't open the arms on the Citadel in time, and if you can't do that, Sovereign opens the relays, and the Reaper invasion starts a bit late, but when the arms open, there's a fleet of Reapers just waiting to come out.

[AresKeith]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Skirata129 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Just think about it this way, if you use your powers to alter the game without it being on biowares terms or will, you open the possibility for this to be abused by people who do not care about the game but merely care about an agenda, be it political, religious, or simply to gain media notoriety and a misguided attempt to protect children.

The difference being that were the one's who bought the game. If the church of scientology happened to constitute 90 something% of a future gaming company's customer base, it would also be in their interest to listen to them. Money talks.

Actually, no difference still. You bought the product, they listened and changed it once. If you are still not satisfied don't buy more products. 

Simple as that. This is how capitalism works. 

they didn't change sh** all they did was add cutscenes that should have been in the game in the first place, EA/Bioware ignored their original fans just to gain new CoD fans

[LinksOcarina]

AresKeith wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Skirata129 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Just think about it this way, if you use your powers to alter the game without it being on biowares terms or will, you open the possibility for this to be abused by people who do not care about the game but merely care about an agenda, be it political, religious, or simply to gain media notoriety and a misguided attempt to protect children.

The difference being that were the one's who bought the game. If the church of scientology happened to constitute 90 something% of a future gaming company's customer base, it would also be in their interest to listen to them. Money talks.

Actually, no difference still. You bought the product, they listened and changed it once. If you are still not satisfied don't buy more products. 

Simple as that. This is how capitalism works. 

they didn't change sh** all they did was add cutscenes that should have been in the game in the first place, EA/Bioware ignored their original fans just to gain new CoD fans

to you, maybe.