557 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

Essalor wrote...

WRONG

While its not the MAIN theme of ME1 and ME2 (all three games have different main themes), its a very strong secondary theme.

Lets see.....

Cerebrus turns against the Alliance.
The Krogan against the salarians.
Rogue VI on Luna against the alliance.
The Geth against the quarians (but for good reason, but that point is irrelvant, only the fact that they did rebel)
The Thorian against Exogeni
The Rachni against Binary Helix AND Cerebrus
Miranda against her father, you know the dueteragonist of ME2.
Jack against the scientists that brutalized her and Cerberus
The infected VI against everybody (ME2 N7 mission)
Krogan tank breed against the Blue Suns and Jedore.
The Yahg against the Broker he replaced
The Overlord AI turning aginst everyone putting the galaxy at risk.
The Racni and Zhatil against the Protheans and Zha
EDI against Cerebrus

And the Catalyst against his creators, and Leviathan against the Reapers.

Its a pretty strong secondary theme throughout the trilogy and I haven't gone through indirect examples such as the Purgatory prison.

I assume those are the examples of a creators vs created? Oh my...
Some of those are true, obviously like Quarian vs Geth only that falls under organic life vs synthetic life, just as VIs and AIs.
Others are just wrong. I'm sorry but Alliance didn't create Cerberus, it's not a rogue alliance military. Nor is Thorian, Rachni and many others.
Moreover all those conflicts are resolved. Miranda, Jack and Krogan and Cerberus and AI and else, we solve them in-game, with proper structure and coherence. There's no need for a last second rehash of the same theme which is suddenly central and so important that needs an introduction of the new character in the last 5 minutes of the game.

No, Cerebrus is a rogue black ops faction of the Alliance...see ME1 again.

And no, the companies were experimenting with Rachni and thorians to make the obediant servants or super soliders, it backfired. And for Thorian, I am talking about Nodacrux, not Feros (thats an indirect example).

Yes, we solved those problems, except the Reapers, until the end...maybebecause whaddya know...the story revolves around this...unlike scattershot DAO.

[txgoldrush]

Essalor wrote...

ME1 was about defining humanity's place in the galaxy.
ME2 was about earning the trust and loyalty of people who may have difficulties because of their own agendas.
ME3 is about victory through sacrifice.

Better, but still doesn't mean that the end of the whole trilogy must fit the theme of the last game. After all most times you can save everyone. Even Mordin, Legion and others. Certainly all the main protagonists of ME3 are all easy to save.

And still doesn't mean that we should sacrifice the integrity of the lore and narrative for that to happen. Logically the ending is still bollocks compared to DA:O.

You can save Mordin only at very specific circumstances, but you sacrifice Eve and the future of th eKrogan.

Legion will aways die as will Thane.

And as I said, not only does ME3's ending fit the game's theme, it fits the trilogy's theme of the conflict between the created and the creators.

Oh and using Star Wars IV-VI as an example....redemption is not the main theme of that trilogy, but it certainly was the main theme of ROTJ and it ends on it.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 09 août 2012 - 04:10 .

[blueumi]

txgoldrush wrote...

blueumi wrote...


next to both makos after you are hit by the beam the bodies of Kaidan and ashley from mass effect 1 are piled up hundreds of them

also once you enter the beam no making it up





Kaidan had blue onix armer ashleys pink and white phoenix armor

NOT MADE UP

Never seen it.....and its a freak glitch as in the original endings they did show Ashley or Kaiden dead after the beam hit you if you ems is low.

what is wrong with you its always there walk left or right the moment you get hit with the beam they are there

they were made and put there that's not a glitch how stupid are you

they are in 3d inside the citadel you walk right past them that is not a glitch that was done by bioware

[txgoldrush]

blueumi wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

blueumi wrote...


next to both makos after you are hit by the beam the bodies of Kaidan and ashley from mass effect 1 are piled up hundreds of them

also once you enter the beam no making it up





Kaidan had blue onix armer ashleys pink and white phoenix armor

NOT MADE UP

Never seen it.....and its a freak glitch as in the original endings they did show Ashley or Kaiden dead after the beam hit you if you ems is low.

what is wrong with you its always there walk left or right the moment you get hit with the beam they are there

they were made and put there that's not a glitch how stupid are you

they are in 3d inside the citadel you walk right past them that is not a glitch that was done by bioware

Never saw it once of the 10 times I did the endgame, nevermind the fact that all the corpses inside the Citadel are different.

[blueumi]

no one in mass effect 3 wears armor like Kaidan or ahsley did they are all in gray armor

it's Kaidan and ashley with no eyes and no hair like the people on the collector base

people had to put that in the game thats not a glitch

[Essalor]

you only read parts that you want: as I said you can fit thematically all you want. Give me logic and good writing first. Nobody the whole lore and universe f*cked up because it might fit thematically better.

once again: genocide themes

Geth vs Quarians
Krogan vs Salarians
AI, VI vs all organics
Rachni (which we can eradicate.. twice)
Thorian (which we always kill and he might be the only one although spores are apparently spread)
Cerberus vs (all alien races)

Not a strong theme enough? They never even speak about creators vs created in all of ME. They do say organics vs synthetics and genocide a lot though. It'd be easier to spring that trap than to get some murky backdoor reasoning dictate the very in-your-face ending.

[blueumi]

no they are not but you never even looked left or right not very observent are you

it's kaidan and ashley over and over and over inside they are all the same my god

you make this up as you go look around and really look at the bodies next time they are there fact

[txgoldrush]

blueumi wrote...

no they are not but you never even looked left or right not very observent are you

it's kaidan and ashley over and over and over inside they are all the same my god

you make this up as you go look around and really look at the bodies next time they are there fact

I have seen the shots however, I have also seen the ones where they were used in ME2.

However, if its there, its Bioware cutting corners, not having a plot hole. Bioware cuts a lot of corners in their past games as well, nothing new.

[txgoldrush]

Essalor wrote...

you only read parts that you want: as I said you can fit thematically all you want. Give me logic and good writing first. Nobody the whole lore and universe f*cked up because it might fit thematically better.

once again: genocide themes

Geth vs Quarians
Krogan vs Salarians
AI, VI vs all organics
Rachni (which we can eradicate.. twice)
Thorian (which we always kill and he might be the only one although spores are apparently spread)
Cerberus vs (all alien races)

Not a strong theme enough? They never even speak about creators vs created in all of ME. They do say organics vs synthetics and genocide a lot though. It'd be easier to spring that trap than to get some murky backdoor reasoning dictate the very in-your-face ending.

Because its subtle, there definitely is creator vs creatd conflict that has a huge influence, it was subtle but clear. Genocide can occur as a CONSQUENCE of created turning against the creator, on both sides. Or a situation turning against its creator, killing him or her.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 09 août 2012 - 04:27 .

[Tritium315]

txgoldrush wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

The theme of ME is about overcoming impossible odds, not sacrifice. Simply because a few characters die does not make sacrifice the central theme of a story.

Also, the theme of Torment had nothing to do with TNO's inevitable damnation. The theme there was about change and not being defined by your past (what can change the nature of a man?). TNO going to the lower planes regardless is supposed to show he finally accepted that he must pay for what he did because, wait for it, he changed.

Once again, notice how I am dividing the themes of the game itself and the themes of the whole trilogy.

Here are the themes of the games and the series.

ME1 was about defining humanity's place in the galaxy.
ME2 was about earning the trust and loyalty of people who may have difficulties because of their own agendas.
ME3 is about victory through sacrifice.

Each game has a different main theme.

But the strongest overall theme throughout the trilogy is how those that create are ignorant of those they created. At many issues throughout the whole story are caused because the creators did not respect the created, either the values of their lives or their capabilities.

Nevermind the EC basically defining the main antagonist as a rogue AI that turned against its creators, causing the Reapers cycle. Than the theme about overcoming all odds comes in in the grand sequence (not what its presented, but the order of events chronologically).

Nevermind once again, what are the odds of an organic being changing the mind of a powerful AI after billions of years.

Are you high? The theme of all three games is defeating impossible odds. Every single mission has Shepard going up against insurmountable odds and winning. The first two games end with Shep going on a suicide mission (literally in the second one) against a seamingly unbeatable foe and triumphing. The majority of the third game has Shep attempting to accomplish the monumental task of getting groups that hate eachother (Krogans and Turians, Geth and Quarians, etc.) to work together despite their centuries of prejudice.

Only in the last bit of the last game is the theme so jarringly shifted to what you seem to perceive as the "central theme of the whole trilogy." Your list of examples are asspulls that could be applied to any story ever written. Colonists vs British, slaves vs plantation owners, South vs North, protesters vs the establishment, domestic terrorists vs the government. I guess the central theme of America is the creators vs the created too, huh?

Modifié par Tritium315, 09 août 2012 - 04:30 .

[txgoldrush]

Tritium315 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

The theme of ME is about overcoming impossible odds, not sacrifice. Simply because a few characters die does not make sacrifice the central theme of a story.

Also, the theme of Torment had nothing to do with TNO's inevitable damnation. The theme there was about change and not being defined by your past (what can change the nature of a man?). TNO going to the lower planes regardless is supposed to show he finally accepted that he must pay for what he did because, wait for it, he changed.

Once again, notice how I am dividing the themes of the game itself and the themes of the whole trilogy.

Here are the themes of the games and the series.

ME1 was about defining humanity's place in the galaxy.
ME2 was about earning the trust and loyalty of people who may have difficulties because of their own agendas.
ME3 is about victory through sacrifice.

Each game has a different main theme.

But the strongest overall theme throughout the trilogy is how those that create are ignorant of those they created. At many issues throughout the whole story are caused because the creators did not respect the created, either the values of their lives or their capabilities.

Nevermind the EC basically defining the main antagonist as a rogue AI that turned against its creators, causing the Reapers cycle. Than the theme about overcoming all odds comes in in the grand sequence (not what its presented, but the order of events chronologically).

Nevermind once again, what are the odds of an organic being changing the mind of a powerful AI after billions of years.

Are you high? The theme of all three games is defeating impossible odds. Every single mission has Shepard going up against insurmountable odds and winning. The first two games end with Shep going on a suicide mission (literally in the second one) against a seamingly unbeatable foe and triumphing. The majority of the third game has Shep attempting to accomplish the monumental task of getting groups that hate eachother (Krogans and Turians, Geth and Quarians, etc.) to work together despite their centuries of prejudice.

Only in the last bit of the last game is the theme so jarringly shifted to what you seem to perceive as the "central theme of the whole trilogy." Your list of examples are asspulls that could be applied to any story ever written. Colonists vs British, slaves vs plantation owners, South vs North, protesters vs the establishment, domestic terrorists vs the government. I guess the central theme of America is the creators vs the created too, huh?

Did you miss the part where Shepard's actions basically changed the mind of the Catalyst, a billion year old AI stuck with his cycle? Or the fact that Shepard ends the cycle? How is that not beating impossible odds?

And really, beating impossible odds was only really introduced in ME2, not ME1...in ME1, they don;t know the odds.

[spirosz]

txgoldrush wrote...


Did you miss the part where Shepard's actions basically changed the mind of the Catalyst, a billion year old AI stuck with his cycle? Or the fact that Shepard ends the cycle? How is that not beating impossible odds?

And really, beating impossible odds was only really introduced in ME2, not ME1...in ME1, they don;t know the odds.

I guess we didn't play the same game, as I proved synthetics could be at peace with organics - Geth/Quarian and yet, that action didn't matter, now did it? 

Oh wait, that's not enough evidence, right? 

<_<

Modifié par spirosz, 09 août 2012 - 04:36 .

[Essalor]

txgoldrush wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

The theme of ME is about overcoming impossible odds, not sacrifice. Simply because a few characters die does not make sacrifice the central theme of a story.

Also, the theme of Torment had nothing to do with TNO's inevitable damnation. The theme there was about change and not being defined by your past (what can change the nature of a man?). TNO going to the lower planes regardless is supposed to show he finally accepted that he must pay for what he did because, wait for it, he changed.

Once again, notice how I am dividing the themes of the game itself and the themes of the whole trilogy.

Here are the themes of the games and the series.

ME1 was about defining humanity's place in the galaxy.
ME2 was about earning the trust and loyalty of people who may have difficulties because of their own agendas.
ME3 is about victory through sacrifice.

Each game has a different main theme.

But the strongest overall theme throughout the trilogy is how those that create are ignorant of those they created. At many issues throughout the whole story are caused because the creators did not respect the created, either the values of their lives or their capabilities.

Nevermind the EC basically defining the main antagonist as a rogue AI that turned against its creators, causing the Reapers cycle. Than the theme about overcoming all odds comes in in the grand sequence (not what its presented, but the order of events chronologically).

Nevermind once again, what are the odds of an organic being changing the mind of a powerful AI after billions of years.

Are you high? The theme of all three games is defeating impossible odds. Every single mission has Shepard going up against insurmountable odds and winning. The first two games end with Shep going on a suicide mission (literally in the second one) against a seamingly unbeatable foe and triumphing. The majority of the third game has Shep attempting to accomplish the monumental task of getting groups that hate eachother (Krogans and Turians, Geth and Quarians, etc.) to work together despite their centuries of prejudice.

Only in the last bit of the last game is the theme so jarringly shifted to what you seem to perceive as the "central theme of the whole trilogy." Your list of examples are asspulls that could be applied to any story ever written. Colonists vs British, slaves vs plantation owners, South vs North, protesters vs the establishment, domestic terrorists vs the government. I guess the central theme of America is the creators vs the created too, huh?

Did you miss the part where Shepard's actions basically changed the mind of the Catalyst, a billion year old AI stuck with his cycle? Or the fact that Shepard ends the cycle? How is that not beating impossible odds?

And really, beating impossible odds was only really introduced in ME2, not ME1...in ME1, they don;t know the odds.

It's not beating impossible odds because nothing changes. You only break the cycle if you accept the Child's logic.

Killing the AI and winning afterwards would be against impossible odds and guess what.. in this case we don't break the cycle. Anyone could've broken the cycle, as long as they had the Crucible. Shepard is still forced into three illogical choices.

[txgoldrush]

spirosz wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


Did you miss the part where Shepard's actions basically changed the mind of the Catalyst, a billion year old AI stuck with his cycle? Or the fact that Shepard ends the cycle? How is that not beating impossible odds?

And really, beating impossible odds was only really introduced in ME2, not ME1...in ME1, they don;t know the odds.

I guess we didn't play the same game, as I proved synthetics could be at peace with organics - Geth/Quarian and yet, that action didn't matter, now did it? 

Did you prove it long term?

Oh wait Ashley and Javik question and doubt the peace will last. So there are doubters, you proved nothing.

[spirosz]

txgoldrush wrote...

spirosz wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


Did you miss the part where Shepard's actions basically changed the mind of the Catalyst, a billion year old AI stuck with his cycle? Or the fact that Shepard ends the cycle? How is that not beating impossible odds?

And really, beating impossible odds was only really introduced in ME2, not ME1...in ME1, they don;t know the odds.

I guess we didn't play the same game, as I proved synthetics could be at peace with organics - Geth/Quarian and yet, that action didn't matter, now did it? 

Did you prove it long term?

Oh wait Ashley and Javik question and doubt the peace will last. So there are doubters, you proved nothing.

Because doubt proves a lot? 

[txgoldrush]

Essalor wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

The theme of ME is about overcoming impossible odds, not sacrifice. Simply because a few characters die does not make sacrifice the central theme of a story.

Also, the theme of Torment had nothing to do with TNO's inevitable damnation. The theme there was about change and not being defined by your past (what can change the nature of a man?). TNO going to the lower planes regardless is supposed to show he finally accepted that he must pay for what he did because, wait for it, he changed.

Once again, notice how I am dividing the themes of the game itself and the themes of the whole trilogy.

Here are the themes of the games and the series.

ME1 was about defining humanity's place in the galaxy.
ME2 was about earning the trust and loyalty of people who may have difficulties because of their own agendas.
ME3 is about victory through sacrifice.

Each game has a different main theme.

But the strongest overall theme throughout the trilogy is how those that create are ignorant of those they created. At many issues throughout the whole story are caused because the creators did not respect the created, either the values of their lives or their capabilities.

Nevermind the EC basically defining the main antagonist as a rogue AI that turned against its creators, causing the Reapers cycle. Than the theme about overcoming all odds comes in in the grand sequence (not what its presented, but the order of events chronologically).

Nevermind once again, what are the odds of an organic being changing the mind of a powerful AI after billions of years.

Are you high? The theme of all three games is defeating impossible odds. Every single mission has Shepard going up against insurmountable odds and winning. The first two games end with Shep going on a suicide mission (literally in the second one) against a seamingly unbeatable foe and triumphing. The majority of the third game has Shep attempting to accomplish the monumental task of getting groups that hate eachother (Krogans and Turians, Geth and Quarians, etc.) to work together despite their centuries of prejudice.

Only in the last bit of the last game is the theme so jarringly shifted to what you seem to perceive as the "central theme of the whole trilogy." Your list of examples are asspulls that could be applied to any story ever written. Colonists vs British, slaves vs plantation owners, South vs North, protesters vs the establishment, domestic terrorists vs the government. I guess the central theme of America is the creators vs the created too, huh?

Did you miss the part where Shepard's actions basically changed the mind of the Catalyst, a billion year old AI stuck with his cycle? Or the fact that Shepard ends the cycle? How is that not beating impossible odds?

And really, beating impossible odds was only really introduced in ME2, not ME1...in ME1, they don;t know the odds.

It's not beating impossible odds because nothing changes. You only break the cycle if you accept the Child's logic.

Killing the AI and winning afterwards would be against impossible odds and guess what.. in this case we don't break the cycle. Anyone could've broken the cycle, as long as they had the Crucible. Shepard is still forced into three illogical choices.

By your logic, Sovereign would win because the Protheans didn't help sabotage the Citadel. Shepard didn't win all by himself in ME1 either. Nevermind the clear DEM in ME1 named Vigil, whoops.

Nevermind the the Destroy option is REJECTING the child's logic. Did you hear the part where the Catalyst says the chaos will come back?

And oh wait, weren;t two of them explained through out the game? How are they illogical? They aren't, they were fleshed out and woven inm th estory.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 09 août 2012 - 04:44 .

[spirosz]

txgoldrush wrote...



Nevermind the the Destroy option is REJECTING the child's logic. Did you hear the part where the Catalyst says the chaos will come back?

I doubt that, so Catalyst proves nothing. 

[txgoldrush]

spirosz wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...



Nevermind the the Destroy option is REJECTING the child's logic. Did you hear the part where the Catalyst says the chaos will come back?

I doubt that, so Catalyst proves nothing. 

Fact, according to the Catalyst's logic, the reapers are there to prevent synthetics from wiping out organics, destroy removes the Reapers, Catalyst states that the chaos will come back, problem he was created for to prevent. You destroy the Reapers, which means you are rejecting his logic.

Simple.

[Essalor]

txgoldrush wrote...

Essalor wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

The theme of ME is about overcoming impossible odds, not sacrifice. Simply because a few characters die does not make sacrifice the central theme of a story.

Also, the theme of Torment had nothing to do with TNO's inevitable damnation. The theme there was about change and not being defined by your past (what can change the nature of a man?). TNO going to the lower planes regardless is supposed to show he finally accepted that he must pay for what he did because, wait for it, he changed.

Once again, notice how I am dividing the themes of the game itself and the themes of the whole trilogy.

Here are the themes of the games and the series.

ME1 was about defining humanity's place in the galaxy.
ME2 was about earning the trust and loyalty of people who may have difficulties because of their own agendas.
ME3 is about victory through sacrifice.

Each game has a different main theme.

But the strongest overall theme throughout the trilogy is how those that create are ignorant of those they created. At many issues throughout the whole story are caused because the creators did not respect the created, either the values of their lives or their capabilities.

Nevermind the EC basically defining the main antagonist as a rogue AI that turned against its creators, causing the Reapers cycle. Than the theme about overcoming all odds comes in in the grand sequence (not what its presented, but the order of events chronologically).

Nevermind once again, what are the odds of an organic being changing the mind of a powerful AI after billions of years.

Are you high? The theme of all three games is defeating impossible odds. Every single mission has Shepard going up against insurmountable odds and winning. The first two games end with Shep going on a suicide mission (literally in the second one) against a seamingly unbeatable foe and triumphing. The majority of the third game has Shep attempting to accomplish the monumental task of getting groups that hate eachother (Krogans and Turians, Geth and Quarians, etc.) to work together despite their centuries of prejudice.

Only in the last bit of the last game is the theme so jarringly shifted to what you seem to perceive as the "central theme of the whole trilogy." Your list of examples are asspulls that could be applied to any story ever written. Colonists vs British, slaves vs plantation owners, South vs North, protesters vs the establishment, domestic terrorists vs the government. I guess the central theme of America is the creators vs the created too, huh?

Did you miss the part where Shepard's actions basically changed the mind of the Catalyst, a billion year old AI stuck with his cycle? Or the fact that Shepard ends the cycle? How is that not beating impossible odds?

And really, beating impossible odds was only really introduced in ME2, not ME1...in ME1, they don;t know the odds.

It's not beating impossible odds because nothing changes. You only break the cycle if you accept the Child's logic.

Killing the AI and winning afterwards would be against impossible odds and guess what.. in this case we don't break the cycle. Anyone could've broken the cycle, as long as they had the Crucible. Shepard is still forced into three illogical choices.

By your logic, Sovereign would win because the Protheans didn't help sabotage the Citadel. Shepard didn't win all by himself in ME1 either. Nevermind the clear DEM in ME1 named Vigil, whoops.

Nevermind the the Destroy option is REJECTING the child's logic. Did you hear the part where the Catalyst says the chaos will come back?

And oh wait, weren;t two of them explained through out the game? How are they illogical? They aren't, they were fleshed out and woven inm th estory.

Of course they weren't explained until the very end. If they were nobody would hate the starkid so much. he explains all the endings, he tells you that the chaos will return and if you say that he's full of sh!t then you die.  Nothing is wovin in the story in ME1 and ME2 and the 99% of ME3 that would lead to the logical ending.

Vigil was not DEM, he didn't solve anything, he was just an old VI, that killed most remaining prothans, told us more backstory and then died. Starchild "changes the matrix of every being..." oh I can't even quote this crap.

[Essalor]

txgoldrush wrote...

spirosz wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...



Nevermind the the Destroy option is REJECTING the child's logic. Did you hear the part where the Catalyst says the chaos will come back?

I doubt that, so Catalyst proves nothing. 

Fact, according to the Catalyst's logic, the reapers are there to prevent synthetics from wiping out organics, destroy removes the Reapers, Catalyst states that the chaos will come back, problem he was created for to prevent. You destroy the Reapers, which means you are rejecting his logic.

Simple.

But you still have to endure it and his presence and all the lack of logic it implies backwards in the story. 

[Tritium315]

txgoldrush wrote...



Did you miss the part where Shepard's actions basically changed the mind of the Catalyst, a billion year old AI stuck with his cycle? Or the fact that Shepard ends the cycle? How is that not beating impossible odds?

And really, beating impossible odds was only really introduced in ME2, not ME1...in ME1, they don;t know the odds.

Except you don't change his mind? If anything he forces you to choose one of his three solutions and die (as evidenced by him saying **** you and killing everyone when you tell him where he can shove it).

Also, in ME1 you know exactly what the odds are; the rest of the galaxy might not believe you, but Shep, and the player, very quickly learns how stacked **** is against us.

[Cacharadon]

Atakuma wrote...

Flog61 wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

The ending of DAO did not reflect any of your choices.

Funny because i swear that i summoned a horde of werewolves and mages in the final battle which some people may not have seen.

The biggest decisions in the game amount to nothing more than a model swap at the end. 

And in the celebration afterwards your chats with companions change.

Only superficially. It's still exactly the same scene just with some character variation.

You decide what you want to do with your Boon

Which has no affect on anything.

You choose what to do after.

Another choice that has no effect on anything.

The written epilogue slides reveal enough to leave you satisfied but still hungry for more.

What more could you want?

I want th consequences of my choices to have a meaningdful effect on the game and not be confined to a slideshow at the end.

I havent read too far into this topic other than the first couple of pages, but I'd like to point out just how incredibly stupid and hypocritical this comment was. No I'm not going to bother explaining since a drunken monkey could see the idiocy leeking from the post. I am also certain that this comment was ment to provoke rather than contribute to the topic. Sorry if I was too harsh but it had to be said.

[txgoldrush]

Tritium315 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...



Did you miss the part where Shepard's actions basically changed the mind of the Catalyst, a billion year old AI stuck with his cycle? Or the fact that Shepard ends the cycle? How is that not beating impossible odds?

And really, beating impossible odds was only really introduced in ME2, not ME1...in ME1, they don;t know the odds.

Except you don't change his mind? If anything he forces you to choose one of his three solutions and die (as evidenced by him saying **** you and killing everyone when you tell him where he can shove it).

Also, in ME1 you know exactly what the odds are; the rest of the galaxy might not believe you, but Shep, and the player, very quickly learns how stacked **** is against us.

Please....destroy is basically telling the Catalyst that we will take our chances...and in fact in some cases Shepard may even say that "we'll take our chances".

Destroy is removing of him from the equation so the galaxy can live in freedom, at a cost. Destroy goes against his prime directive.

Nvermind the FACT that the Catalyst defines synthesis as his IDEAL SOLUTION. Destory and Control are NOT his ideal solutions.

[txgoldrush]

Essalor wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Essalor wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

The theme of ME is about overcoming impossible odds, not sacrifice. Simply because a few characters die does not make sacrifice the central theme of a story.

Also, the theme of Torment had nothing to do with TNO's inevitable damnation. The theme there was about change and not being defined by your past (what can change the nature of a man?). TNO going to the lower planes regardless is supposed to show he finally accepted that he must pay for what he did because, wait for it, he changed.

Once again, notice how I am dividing the themes of the game itself and the themes of the whole trilogy.

Here are the themes of the games and the series.

ME1 was about defining humanity's place in the galaxy.
ME2 was about earning the trust and loyalty of people who may have difficulties because of their own agendas.
ME3 is about victory through sacrifice.

Each game has a different main theme.

But the strongest overall theme throughout the trilogy is how those that create are ignorant of those they created. At many issues throughout the whole story are caused because the creators did not respect the created, either the values of their lives or their capabilities.

Nevermind the EC basically defining the main antagonist as a rogue AI that turned against its creators, causing the Reapers cycle. Than the theme about overcoming all odds comes in in the grand sequence (not what its presented, but the order of events chronologically).

Nevermind once again, what are the odds of an organic being changing the mind of a powerful AI after billions of years.

Are you high? The theme of all three games is defeating impossible odds. Every single mission has Shepard going up against insurmountable odds and winning. The first two games end with Shep going on a suicide mission (literally in the second one) against a seamingly unbeatable foe and triumphing. The majority of the third game has Shep attempting to accomplish the monumental task of getting groups that hate eachother (Krogans and Turians, Geth and Quarians, etc.) to work together despite their centuries of prejudice.

Only in the last bit of the last game is the theme so jarringly shifted to what you seem to perceive as the "central theme of the whole trilogy." Your list of examples are asspulls that could be applied to any story ever written. Colonists vs British, slaves vs plantation owners, South vs North, protesters vs the establishment, domestic terrorists vs the government. I guess the central theme of America is the creators vs the created too, huh?

Did you miss the part where Shepard's actions basically changed the mind of the Catalyst, a billion year old AI stuck with his cycle? Or the fact that Shepard ends the cycle? How is that not beating impossible odds?

And really, beating impossible odds was only really introduced in ME2, not ME1...in ME1, they don;t know the odds.

It's not beating impossible odds because nothing changes. You only break the cycle if you accept the Child's logic.

Killing the AI and winning afterwards would be against impossible odds and guess what.. in this case we don't break the cycle. Anyone could've broken the cycle, as long as they had the Crucible. Shepard is still forced into three illogical choices.

By your logic, Sovereign would win because the Protheans didn't help sabotage the Citadel. Shepard didn't win all by himself in ME1 either. Nevermind the clear DEM in ME1 named Vigil, whoops.

Nevermind the the Destroy option is REJECTING the child's logic. Did you hear the part where the Catalyst says the chaos will come back?

And oh wait, weren;t two of them explained through out the game? How are they illogical? They aren't, they were fleshed out and woven inm th estory.

Of course they weren't explained until the very end. If they were nobody would hate the starkid so much. he explains all the endings, he tells you that the chaos will return and if you say that he's full of sh!t then you die.  Nothing is wovin in the story in ME1 and ME2 and the 99% of ME3 that would lead to the logical ending.

Vigil was not DEM, he didn't solve anything, he was just an old VI, that killed most remaining prothans, told us more backstory and then died. Starchild "changes the matrix of every being..." oh I can't even quote this crap.

Whoops, ya missed something. Vigil gives you a data file to override the Citadel controls to stop Sovereign. Without Vigil's intervention, Sovereign takes the station and activates the relay. Nevermind the second DEM, the Fifth Fleet and Joker, which the game somehow doesn't explain how he got there (and people were whining about how he strands Shep in the original ME3 ending). DEM by plot hole, great writing of ME1...lol.

No, Destroy and Control were explained as goals from the Alliance and TIM respectively....I wonder why Shep thinks of Anderson and TIM when the Catalyst explains the choices the Crucible gives. Its woven in the plot....you seem to miss alot of things.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 09 août 2012 - 05:10 .

[Kilkia123]

As mentioned before, a, if not the, major theme of the Mass Effect series is doing what is deemed impossible by others. In ME1, Shepard stops Saren and instigates the destruction of Sovereign, thereby saving the Citadel in spite of his or her enemies. In ME2, we have the suicide mission, which sees the destruction of a human-like Reaper and the destruction/capture of the Collector base. In ME3, Shepard does the impossible by forming bonds between unlikely allies, taking on the Reaper fleet, and breaking the cycle which had since been nigh-impossible to halt.

However, for those of you who believe that the ending in ME3 does not fit in with the trilogy: it does indeed agree with a very strong secondary theme of sacrifice in addition to the primary theme. In ME1, we have the incident on Virmire in addition to the possible deaths of many characters including Wrex and Kirrahe, who were willing to sacrifice themselves in the name of what they considered to be the greater good. In ME2, every single person on the Normandy can lose his or her life barring Joker. The main theme of the trilogy has never been about surviving against impossible odds but rather just doing the impossible and saving the populace of the known universe. This is evident in the suicide mission in ME2, during which Shepard may very well lose his or her life (even though this is not canon for an import into ME3). In ME3, the theme of sacrifice plays an even larger role than before. Many characters are killed in circumstances that are or are not preventable. Events transpire that culminate in an ending in which Shepard chooses to sacrifice his or her life in order to defeat the Reapers, whether or not he or she decides to activate the Crucible.

By choosing the synthesis or control options, Shepard, while sacrificing his or her physical life, is indeed doing the impossible by finally causing an end to a once-endless cycle. By choosing the destroy option, Shepard decides to bring an end to the Reaper threat even though he or she knows full well that doing so may cause his or her own death. By choosing the reject option, Shepard continues to sacrifice but is eventually defeated. However, in this case, the cycle is still brought to an end by a later generation of beings, and thus, the impossible is once again done.

The introduction of the Star Child near the end of the entire trilogy is understandable in my opinion. I've always thought that the AI just assumed a form familiar to Shepard: that of the child who is seemingly killed early on in the game. To me, the Star Child is a representation of all the lives lost throughout the entire struggle to overcome the Reaper threat, a representation of the sacrifice of those close to Shepard so that he or she could do the impossible. And by even standing on the Citadel in conversation with the Star Child is already an accomplishment of great magnitude.

The ending to ME3, in my opinion, felt like it fit in perfectly with the darker tone of the game and did not abandon the themes found throughout the trilogy.