557 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

Kilkia123 wrote...

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.

This

The themes of overcoming all odds, sacrifice, and the conflict between the created and the creators all work in harmony here.

And by even standing on the Citadel in conversation with the Star Child is already an accomplishment of great magnitude.

[Kabraxal]

DAO is pretty much the way I think most people believed the ending would be handled, excpet with a few more varioations on the endings such as the Reaper's truly winning, no need for a ritual, and varying levels of loss in comparison to DAO.

What ME3 gave us was, as it stands right now, an ending badly rushed with an antagonist thrown in at the last step and suddenly Shepard going stupid to accept what this glowing brat is saying.  I'm sorry, that isn't good writing no matter how many of you wish to defend it.  There was no build to the starchild, there was no logic to why Shepard would suddenly bow to its bull, and it completely altered the thematic style of the trilogy that had been built to that point.  

The only way this ending can truly be salvaged to where it isn't a disappointment is either with another EC that vastly improves the epilogues to give better closure for all characters/decisions or to eventually reveal that not everything is what it seemed to begin with.  Though really, any truly good designer should have known that if you build a game based on choice you damn well better offer actual choice in the end... ranging from consequences of complete loss, sorrow, darkness all the way to slightly bittersweet leaning more towards a victory well earned (newsflash, we still lose people even if we get a damned clean victory with Shepard surviving... that doesn't change the losses that have occured from ME1 onward).  But instead, some designer got it into their head that they had to pound sacrifice and grim bull to be a good ending... that doesn't work in a game where not only are you offering choice, but IT DOESN"T MATCH THE PRIOR THEMATIC SETUP OF THE SERIES.

So yeah... DAO's ending is vastly superior to the moment of stupidity that is ME3's ending.  

[Essalor]

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.

i don't think the key to override Saren was really necessary, could've just jammed the whole thing and be done with it.
Of course Destroy is what Anderson wanted and Control is TIM. It's not subtle and they even show you small videos in the very end so that even a child can get it. Never mind that during the game you can never side with TIM and always object to control mere minutes before the final phase with the Child. So out of three endings, one is okay (Destroy), andother is **** (synthesis) and third is pulled out retconned so that even if by story Shepard is against Cerberus we can still "side" with them only in a good way.

And once again, the choices are given and explained in the last 5 minutes!! That's not woven into the game.

[Iakus]

Kilkia123 wrote...

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.

Too dark.  Too bleak.  Bioware writers have been playing too many Witcher games and reading too much George R R Martin.  All choices go beyond sacrifice and into war crime territory.  Shepard beomes a messianic war criminal.  How messed up is that? 

And forced sacrifice isn't sacrifice, it's railroading. 

[Iakus]

Kabraxal wrote...

DAO is pretty much the way I think most people believed the ending would be handled, excpet with a few more varioations on the endings such as the Reaper's truly winning, no need for a ritual, and varying levels of loss in comparison to DAO.

What ME3 gave us was, as it stands right now, an ending badly rushed with an antagonist thrown in at the last step and suddenly Shepard going stupid to accept what this glowing brat is saying.  I'm sorry, that isn't good writing no matter how many of you wish to defend it.  There was no build to the starchild, there was no logic to why Shepard would suddenly bow to its bull, and it completely altered the thematic style of the trilogy that had been built to that point.  

The only way this ending can truly be salvaged to where it isn't a disappointment is either with another EC that vastly improves the epilogues to give better closure for all characters/decisions or to eventually reveal that not everything is what it seemed to begin with.  Though really, any truly good designer should have known that if you build a game based on choice you damn well better offer actual choice in the end... ranging from consequences of complete loss, sorrow, darkness all the way to slightly bittersweet leaning more towards a victory well earned (newsflash, we still lose people even if we get a damned clean victory with Shepard surviving... that doesn't change the losses that have occured from ME1 onward).  But instead, some designer got it into their head that they had to pound sacrifice and grim bull to be a good ending... that doesn't work in a game where not only are you offering choice, but IT DOESN"T MATCH THE PRIOR THEMATIC SETUP OF THE SERIES.

So yeah... DAO's ending is vastly superior to the moment of stupidity that is ME3's ending.  

Everything you said.  But the bolded part especially.

This whole "sacrifice" theme completely overrode player choice.  That's...not a good thing,.

[Applepie_Svk]

txgoldrush wrote...

This

The themes of overcoming all odds, sacrifice, and the conflict between the created and the creators all work in harmony here.

And by even standing on the Citadel in conversation with the Star Child is already an accomplishment of great magnitude.

/facepalm Starchild invite you and if you refuse than your accomplishment is going to burn like whole cycle...

[txgoldrush]

Essalor wrote...

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.

i don't think the key to override Saren was really necessary, could've just jammed the whole thing and be done with it.
Of course Destroy is what Anderson wanted and Control is TIM. It's not subtle and they even show you small videos in the very end so that even a child can get it. Never mind that during the game you can never side with TIM and always object to control mere minutes before the final phase with the Child. So out of three endings, one is okay (Destroy), andother is **** (synthesis) and third is pulled out retconned so that even if by story Shepard is against Cerberus we can still "side" with them only in a good way.

And once again, the choices are given and explained in the last 5 minutes!! That's not woven into the game.

You did not pay attention to the conflict between Shepard and TIM. It was never about whether control was good or bad, but two other things....a) his methods of forcible sacrificing others without regard is atrocious and he is indoctrinated and is a tool for the Reapers. Nevermind Shepard can actually ask Hackett..."What if TIM is right and we can control the Reapers?"

Please, you are grasping straws, just admit the fact that Vigils data file a DEM. Oh and using your logic.....Saren doesn't need the Conduit, you could have not got exposed as a traitor, snuck in geth to the citadel, betray the council with his allies, unleash the geth in a surpise attack, and take the Citadel.

[txgoldrush]

iakus wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

DAO is pretty much the way I think most people believed the ending would be handled, excpet with a few more varioations on the endings such as the Reaper's truly winning, no need for a ritual, and varying levels of loss in comparison to DAO.

What ME3 gave us was, as it stands right now, an ending badly rushed with an antagonist thrown in at the last step and suddenly Shepard going stupid to accept what this glowing brat is saying.  I'm sorry, that isn't good writing no matter how many of you wish to defend it.  There was no build to the starchild, there was no logic to why Shepard would suddenly bow to its bull, and it completely altered the thematic style of the trilogy that had been built to that point.  

The only way this ending can truly be salvaged to where it isn't a disappointment is either with another EC that vastly improves the epilogues to give better closure for all characters/decisions or to eventually reveal that not everything is what it seemed to begin with.  Though really, any truly good designer should have known that if you build a game based on choice you damn well better offer actual choice in the end... ranging from consequences of complete loss, sorrow, darkness all the way to slightly bittersweet leaning more towards a victory well earned (newsflash, we still lose people even if we get a damned clean victory with Shepard surviving... that doesn't change the losses that have occured from ME1 onward).  But instead, some designer got it into their head that they had to pound sacrifice and grim bull to be a good ending... that doesn't work in a game where not only are you offering choice, but IT DOESN"T MATCH THE PRIOR THEMATIC SETUP OF THE SERIES.

So yeah... DAO's ending is vastly superior to the moment of stupidity that is ME3's ending.  

Everything you said.  But the bolded part especially.

This whole "sacrifice" theme completely overrode player choice.  That's...not a good thing,.

Just because you have player choice doesn't mean its better written.

Though really, any truly good designer should have known that if you build a game based on choice you damn well better offer actual choice in the end... ranging from consequences of complete loss, sorrow, darkness all the way to slightly bittersweet leaning more towards a victory well earned (newsflash, we still lose people even if we get a damned clean victory with Shepard surviving..

Guess what? Thats what the EC does.

[Tritium315]

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

Except it's still an option the bad guy presents to you, and by choosing it you end up killing all your synthetic friends simply because. Esentially it's the bad guy saying "Well if you really don't like my solution then you can still go with this, but you have to kill your synthetic friends since, in the end, I'm still right."

Modifié par Tritium315, 09 août 2012 - 05:43 .

[txgoldrush]

Tritium315 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

Except it's still an option the bad guy presents to you, and by choosing it you end up killing all your synthetic friends simply because. Esentially it's the bad guy saying "Well if you really don't like my solution then you can still go with this, but you have to kill your synthetic friends since, in the end, I'm still right."

Or maybe because thats just how it is, the side effect of using the crucible.....nevermind that at low EMS, its not just synthetics that die, but almost everyone at the lowest, and medium....those that rely on tech to enhance themselves like Shepard will die and the galaxy is damaged.

[Iakus]

txgoldrush wrote...

Just because you have player choice doesn't mean its better written.

Though really, any truly good designer should have known that if you build a game based on choice you damn well better offer actual choice in the end... ranging from consequences of complete loss, sorrow, darkness all the way to slightly bittersweet leaning more towards a victory well earned (newsflash, we still lose people even if we get a damned clean victory with Shepard surviving..

Guess what? Thats what the EC does.

As you like to say, "wrong"

It doesn't.  It gives you the same three chocies, plus a fourth "Rocks fall" option.

I don't think I have to go through the details of what RGB does to the galaxy, that's been done to death on other threads.  All are morally repugnant, even if Bioware tried to dress them up as something better with their "everything is A-OK" ending slides.

Not to mention Shepard is forced to commit suicide in all of them because..."art".  Seriously, jump into the green space magic?  Grab the electrodes?  Walk into the explosion while shooting a pipe?  Really?  Whoever decided Shepard must die should be embarassed.  Whoever thought these were good ways to kill Shepard off should be downright ashamed.

[Essalor]

txgoldrush wrote...

iakus wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

DAO is pretty much the way I think most people believed the ending would be handled, excpet with a few more varioations on the endings such as the Reaper's truly winning, no need for a ritual, and varying levels of loss in comparison to DAO.

What ME3 gave us was, as it stands right now, an ending badly rushed with an antagonist thrown in at the last step and suddenly Shepard going stupid to accept what this glowing brat is saying.  I'm sorry, that isn't good writing no matter how many of you wish to defend it.  There was no build to the starchild, there was no logic to why Shepard would suddenly bow to its bull, and it completely altered the thematic style of the trilogy that had been built to that point.  

The only way this ending can truly be salvaged to where it isn't a disappointment is either with another EC that vastly improves the epilogues to give better closure for all characters/decisions or to eventually reveal that not everything is what it seemed to begin with.  Though really, any truly good designer should have known that if you build a game based on choice you damn well better offer actual choice in the end... ranging from consequences of complete loss, sorrow, darkness all the way to slightly bittersweet leaning more towards a victory well earned (newsflash, we still lose people even if we get a damned clean victory with Shepard surviving... that doesn't change the losses that have occured from ME1 onward).  But instead, some designer got it into their head that they had to pound sacrifice and grim bull to be a good ending... that doesn't work in a game where not only are you offering choice, but IT DOESN"T MATCH THE PRIOR THEMATIC SETUP OF THE SERIES.

So yeah... DAO's ending is vastly superior to the moment of stupidity that is ME3's ending.  

Everything you said.  But the bolded part especially.

This whole "sacrifice" theme completely overrode player choice.  That's...not a good thing,.

Just because you have player choice doesn't mean its better written.

Though really, any truly good designer should have known that if you build a game based on choice you damn well better offer actual choice in the end... ranging from consequences of complete loss, sorrow, darkness all the way to slightly bittersweet leaning more towards a victory well earned (newsflash, we still lose people even if we get a damned clean victory with Shepard surviving..

Guess what? Thats what the EC does.

So by this logic you agree that the Original ending was so bad it had to be retconned to boot. You should be the one admitting that even with EC the endings have a logical and lore dissonance. 

I don't really remember Vigil that vividly now, and unfortunately due to the lame endings I have no wish to replay the story. That's why the endings irk so much. They don't just ruin one game. Even if DA2 had a lame ending it doesn't really relate to DA:O that much to be a game changer. In ME3 they end and therefore decide the whole franchise.

The player choice now is atrociously written. Introducing a new character in the end is not a good writing, retconning the whole franchise is not good writing, making three choices which come out of the blue is not good writing, crushing solid lore with magic is not good writing. 

[txgoldrush]

Essalor wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

iakus wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

DAO is pretty much the way I think most people believed the ending would be handled, excpet with a few more varioations on the endings such as the Reaper's truly winning, no need for a ritual, and varying levels of loss in comparison to DAO.

What ME3 gave us was, as it stands right now, an ending badly rushed with an antagonist thrown in at the last step and suddenly Shepard going stupid to accept what this glowing brat is saying.  I'm sorry, that isn't good writing no matter how many of you wish to defend it.  There was no build to the starchild, there was no logic to why Shepard would suddenly bow to its bull, and it completely altered the thematic style of the trilogy that had been built to that point.  

The only way this ending can truly be salvaged to where it isn't a disappointment is either with another EC that vastly improves the epilogues to give better closure for all characters/decisions or to eventually reveal that not everything is what it seemed to begin with.  Though really, any truly good designer should have known that if you build a game based on choice you damn well better offer actual choice in the end... ranging from consequences of complete loss, sorrow, darkness all the way to slightly bittersweet leaning more towards a victory well earned (newsflash, we still lose people even if we get a damned clean victory with Shepard surviving... that doesn't change the losses that have occured from ME1 onward).  But instead, some designer got it into their head that they had to pound sacrifice and grim bull to be a good ending... that doesn't work in a game where not only are you offering choice, but IT DOESN"T MATCH THE PRIOR THEMATIC SETUP OF THE SERIES.

So yeah... DAO's ending is vastly superior to the moment of stupidity that is ME3's ending.  

Everything you said.  But the bolded part especially.

This whole "sacrifice" theme completely overrode player choice.  That's...not a good thing,.

Just because you have player choice doesn't mean its better written.

Though really, any truly good designer should have known that if you build a game based on choice you damn well better offer actual choice in the end... ranging from consequences of complete loss, sorrow, darkness all the way to slightly bittersweet leaning more towards a victory well earned (newsflash, we still lose people even if we get a damned clean victory with Shepard surviving..

Guess what? Thats what the EC does.

So by this logic you agree that the Original ending was so bad it had to be retconned to boot. You should be the one admitting that even with EC the endings have a logical and lore dissonance. 

I don't really remember Vigil that vividly now, and unfortunately due to the lame endings I have no wish to replay the story. That's why the endings irk so much. They don't just ruin one game. Even if DA2 had a lame ending it doesn't really relate to DA:O that much to be a game changer. In ME3 they end and therefore decide the whole franchise.

The player choice now is atrociously written. Introducing a new character in the end is not a good writing, retconning the whole franchise is not good writing, making three choices which come out of the blue is not good writing, crushing solid lore with magic is not good writing. 

Wow....

1. Plenty of works have introduced a new character at the end of the story, if it was bad writing, no one would do it.

2. And how is the franchise "retconned"...nothing is retconned, unlike Leliana, Wynne, and Morrigan's deaths in Dragon Age. Also DA2's ending definitely fit the game and was far from lame....hell it starts at the end.

3. The original endings did not have lore dissonance, they were just underdeveloped and far too ambigious. But it isn't the only game that got its ending fixed this year...so did The Witcher 2. But the EC sure as hell does strengthen and easily connect better to the themes of the franchise.

4. And once again, the Destroy and Control options were talked about throughout the game, they just don;t show up out of the blue in the ending. And while synthesis does come as a suprise in ME3....Saren was a proponent for synthesis in ME1.

5. Sorry but Prothean VI's don't make "solid lore", their knowledge is limited. Hell Vendetta was wrong about the Catalyst. And as for space magic, whats "The Lazarus Project", explain that to me. Thats not only space magic, thats opening ME2 with a Deus Ex Machina.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 09 août 2012 - 06:04 .

[Kabraxal]

txgoldrush wrote...

Essalor wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

iakus wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

DAO is pretty much the way I think most people believed the ending would be handled, excpet with a few more varioations on the endings such as the Reaper's truly winning, no need for a ritual, and varying levels of loss in comparison to DAO.

What ME3 gave us was, as it stands right now, an ending badly rushed with an antagonist thrown in at the last step and suddenly Shepard going stupid to accept what this glowing brat is saying.  I'm sorry, that isn't good writing no matter how many of you wish to defend it.  There was no build to the starchild, there was no logic to why Shepard would suddenly bow to its bull, and it completely altered the thematic style of the trilogy that had been built to that point.  

The only way this ending can truly be salvaged to where it isn't a disappointment is either with another EC that vastly improves the epilogues to give better closure for all characters/decisions or to eventually reveal that not everything is what it seemed to begin with.  Though really, any truly good designer should have known that if you build a game based on choice you damn well better offer actual choice in the end... ranging from consequences of complete loss, sorrow, darkness all the way to slightly bittersweet leaning more towards a victory well earned (newsflash, we still lose people even if we get a damned clean victory with Shepard surviving... that doesn't change the losses that have occured from ME1 onward).  But instead, some designer got it into their head that they had to pound sacrifice and grim bull to be a good ending... that doesn't work in a game where not only are you offering choice, but IT DOESN"T MATCH THE PRIOR THEMATIC SETUP OF THE SERIES.

So yeah... DAO's ending is vastly superior to the moment of stupidity that is ME3's ending.  

Everything you said.  But the bolded part especially.

This whole "sacrifice" theme completely overrode player choice.  That's...not a good thing,.

Just because you have player choice doesn't mean its better written.

Though really, any truly good designer should have known that if you build a game based on choice you damn well better offer actual choice in the end... ranging from consequences of complete loss, sorrow, darkness all the way to slightly bittersweet leaning more towards a victory well earned (newsflash, we still lose people even if we get a damned clean victory with Shepard surviving..

Guess what? Thats what the EC does.

So by this logic you agree that the Original ending was so bad it had to be retconned to boot. You should be the one admitting that even with EC the endings have a logical and lore dissonance. 

I don't really remember Vigil that vividly now, and unfortunately due to the lame endings I have no wish to replay the story. That's why the endings irk so much. They don't just ruin one game. Even if DA2 had a lame ending it doesn't really relate to DA:O that much to be a game changer. In ME3 they end and therefore decide the whole franchise.

The player choice now is atrociously written. Introducing a new character in the end is not a good writing, retconning the whole franchise is not good writing, making three choices which come out of the blue is not good writing, crushing solid lore with magic is not good writing. 

Wow....

1. Plenty of works have introduced a new character at the end of the story, if it was bad writing, no one would do it.

2. And how is the franchise "retconned"...nothing is retconned, unlike Leliana, Wynne, and Morrigan's deaths in Dragon Age. Also DA2's ending definitely fit the game and was far from lame....hell it starts at the end.

3. The original endings did not have lore dissonance, they were just underdeveloped and far too ambigious. But it isn't the only game that got its ending fixed this year...so did The Witcher 2. But the EC sure as hell does strengthen and easily connect better to the themes of the franchise.

4. And once again, the Destroy and Control options were talked about throughout the game, they just don;t show up out of the blue in the ending. And while synthesis does come as a suprise in ME3....Saren was a proponent for synthesis in ME1.

5. Sorry but Prothean VI's don't make "solid lore", their knowledge is limited. Hell Vendetta was wrong about the Catalyst. And as for space magic, whats "The Lazarus Project", explain that to me. Thats not only space magic, thats opening ME2 with a Deus Ex Machina.

Uh... actually those same stories are slammed for it just as much as ME3 has been.  It i s just plain bad writing.  It doesn't work as a RULE.

Please, explain how control and synthetic are different from one another in any really meaningful fashion?  Reapers remain alive, the same races remain alive... the only difference is some space magic that makes no sense at all and the writers only want you to think it is profound in concept when it simply isn't.  It's magic from nowhere with no explanation.

Destroy and refuse... the only other viable alternatives, end up in genocide regardess, with only the reapers dying now instead of later.  Oooo... so different.

Thematically, all of them are smothered in grim dark "THERE MUST BE SACRFICE! "  For crying out loud.. you can get the exact same endings for the most part while killing everyone in 2 and completely screwing up 3.  The only difference, it's somehow even darker.  

ME3's ending is the perfect example of what NOT to do with a video game ending based on offering choice and MARKETING that as a HUGE ASPECT of the franchise.  But then, reading some comments from people saying they didn't want to lock out players from content based on previous choices.. we really shouldn't be surprised we got such a badly written joke of an ending.  Have to appeal to the casuals you know, how dare Bioware actually craft a trilogy where the 3rd game would require 10+ runs to see every major bit of content.  That was what it should have been.. instead we got "another perfect entry for first timers".  The end of a trilogy... being a great entry piont.. that really should have warned us how bad that ending would be.  

[Tritium315]

txgoldrush wrote...

Or maybe because thats just how it is, the side effect of using the crucible.....nevermind that at low EMS, its not just synthetics that die, but almost everyone at the lowest, and medium....those that rely on tech to enhance themselves like Shepard will die and the galaxy is damaged.

Which makes no sense other than to be forced drama. How does the crucible differentiate between synthetics, those that rely on tech to enhance themselves, regular computers, ****ing toasters, etc.? Plot computing?

txgoldrush wrote...

1. Plenty of works have introduced a new character at the end of the story, if it was bad writing, no one would do it.

 

Name one good one.

[ticklefist]

Jesus Christ. Is there a particularly good reason some of you have wasted the better part of a day trying to get a reasonable discussion out of someone using that antagonistic banner in their sig?

[Essalor]

Lazarus project is 2 years of work to revive one man. You don't need to know the specifics, it's pretty much can be thought as advanced experimental medicine and implants. Ray of green light altering every species in the galaxy is pure (censored).

You can see it's bad when in EC the two questions which doesn't answer are "Who are you?" and "How does Synthesis work?" (paraphrasing) He answers: We really have not enough time, I'll just give you a short version.

Plenty of works reveal the character in the end, usually in crime novels, who might have been there before but not in the spotlight. Introducing new characters is... uncommon to say the least especially with the only indication coming a few hours of game before overshadowed vastly by catalyst reveal from VI. It's like foreshadow a few pages before in a book or 10 minutes before the end in the movie.

Endings are retconned completely. ME gates don't explode, Normandy doesn't really crash, etc. etc. The whole ideas of a new beginning are scrapped (Normandy leaves planet, Races are not stuck on Earth in harmony) because lore holes were just too big.

I'm totally fine with Destroy and Control ending in theory but not with the way they were presented. Control should've always been the renegade TIM version if Shepard could side with Cerberus which he can't, and Destroy works fine only one breath scene is too little for High EMS (and why does it even depend on EMS?). Do we need Starchild to give us these options, and in parallel reduce Reapers to slaves and break the lore, when we had a scene with TIM and Anderson just before? They were right there!

Solid lore is Mass Effect field, eezo and further derivations. Read my post about genre. ME3 does a genre flip in the last 5 minutes, that's just disgustingly sloppy.

[Tritium315]

ticklefist wrote...

Jesus Christ. Is there a particularly good reason some of you have wasted the better part of a day trying to get a reasonable discussion out of someone using that antagonistic banner in their sig?

Well I'm bored as **** at work, I dunno about the rest of these guys.

[Essalor]

ticklefist wrote...

Jesus Christ. Is there a particularly good reason some of you have wasted the better part of a day trying to get a reasonable discussion out of someone using that antagonistic banner in their sig?

I find it amusing to test my powers of reasoning against the wall. Like in tennis
Or maybe I'm a compulsive masochist.... need to see a doctor!!!! DOCTOR!!!

[Essalor]

Plus I'm the OP. I have to defend my point. B-)

[Kabraxal]

ticklefist wrote...

Jesus Christ. Is there a particularly good reason some of you have wasted the better part of a day trying to get a reasonable discussion out of someone using that antagonistic banner in their sig?

Boredom... disbelief... just wanting to point out obvious flaws in what has been said... take your pic

Probably get frustrated after a few more posts and let them wallow in what they'd probably beileve is a victory but eh... sometimes you just goot give it a good go you know?

[1Nosphorus1]

ticklefist wrote...

Jesus Christ. Is there a particularly good reason some of you have wasted the better part of a day trying to get a reasonable discussion out of someone using that antagonistic banner in their sig?

Not only that, but I think he's played a different version of Mass Effect 3 to everyone else.

Only he truly understands what Bioware has made, whatever the hell it was it sure wasn't artistic in any way or form.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Atakuma wrote...

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

DAO is objectively the most diverse in choice and consequence of any of the Bioware games. It can't even come close to TW2's shown consequences, but it's the most you'll get out of a BW game.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Yeah, you get a slideshow and some text. How is that any different?

Haters gonna hate.

[Kyle Dei]

The best of example I can think of at this time, that did the whole 'plot twist at the end' was The Dark Knight Rises. For those of you who haven't seen it, turn away NOW, but I recommend it.

Spoilers!!!!
Throughout the whole film people keep going on and on about a Child who escaped a Hellish Prison, and if you didn't know the batman stories before seeing the film, you'd assume it was Bane. My partner did. It was only at the end that they pulled a 'Ta-Da!!!' it wasn't Bane, but Talia. Somebody already in the film but under an alias. - THAT is foreshadowing. It is even mentioned in Batman Begins by Ras himself "I had a wife and child" - Foreshadowing all the way BACK to Batman Begins.
Spoilers END!


This whole foreshadowing in the last 20 minutes? Bwahahahah! Yeah, right. That really makes sense for foreshadowing in a trilogy stretching over 90 hrs in total.
Vigil isn't a DEM, he's a means to finding out more about the Prothean extinction, how it happened, what the Citadel really is(Giant Mass Relay), what the conduit is(Mini Mass Relay). The conduit was mentioned throughout the whole game, so it's not pulled out of anywhere. As for the data it gives you to lock out Sovereign, what on Earth makes you think it's a DEM? This is a VI that had been alongside the same people to build a Mini Mass Relay and tinker with the signal the Keepers receive. Some piece of data to lock the relay controls isn't going to be much more of a stretch. Especially considering how advanced the Protheans had become before extinction. They clearly knew the Citadel could lock the Mass Relays, so it's even less of a stretch to assume those that remained behind worked on it for our cycle.

Slightly off topic:
For the last time, Lord of the Rings is NOT a trilogy. It is ONE Novel written across 6 books normally published in Three Volumes. It is one big story, not three seperate stories written to make a Trilogy.

Now the fun bit: Could you Imagine that as Frodo was about to throw the ring into Mount Doom, Tom Bombadil showed up and said
"Wait now, I give you three choices! 1. If you destroy the ring, Sam and the Elves will die, because I said so.
2. If you control the ring, you can control Mordor itself and stop the war!(But not really, we all know why)
3. If you synthesise with the Dark Lord himself, all the Races shall be changed into half orcsie human elfie things!"

Yeah... no. You don't pull a 180 on a story in the last 10 minutes and call it artistic.