236 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...
3d, you basicly saying you want the plot ot only go one way in a game that is stated you have multiple ways to do it. That does not make it whishy washy...That mean theyyou way is not the only way to do things.

And you issue is that you don't want to conflict with your moral to get to the goal. Yes, the goal is the goal....But that was always the case with the series...You don't think ,as the story goes on, getting to that goal would get harder?
And the goal is about stopping them. It was never stated that you had to destroy them. Say that you not happy till you do, with out comprimises, means you only want to see the story resoleved in only one way.

Again this is a black hole discussion.  You continually mischaracterize what I say and imply I'm saying the opposite.  No, I wanted actions to determine consequences and choices to matter, to impact the direction.

EMS funnels it all into one direction so that makes all choices meaningless.  I wanted vastly different natural occurrences from the choices and actions that were done previously in the game.  Instead we don't have various ways to achieve the goal, we have various ways to get to the same exact things that will end the game.  We have different choices that add up to the same EMS that will get us to the same choices that get us to the same endings.  This is not variety.  That makes all previous choices and actions wishy washy.  It means nothing you did mattered.  It's like saying you are given the choice to kill a child or save a child and both of the choices will allow you to win a new car.  Neither choice then has meaning.  You can be as nasty as you want to be or be decent and still get the same thing.  That doesn't mean that a straight up renegade should always get a bad ending or a paragon get the best, but there should be decisions that matter.  A renegade might do something more quickly at a time when that would be the right thing to do whereas a paragon might ask too many questions and that might be a mistake at some point.

We've had this stupid discussion before where you think it's all about morality and you start in on saying the game is always about moral choices-you're wrong.  I've said this.  It's about using your brains.  It's about doing something that achieves a really good outcome vs. doing something that could be far worse and not knowing whether you are doing that.  Morality may be a part of it, because there are some things that if you do them you have just de-valued the meaning of life altogether.  But morality isn't even the biggest or only thing.  It's knowing exactly what the hell any of these choices actually do.  What would the Shepard AI be?  No one agrees.  I don't agree with you, so how could Shepard know this would be a definitely good thing?  S/he wouldn't.  Synthesis-how and what exactly does it do and what does that mean for everyone?  Where does this tech come from and where does all understanding of organics come from for synthetics?  What the hell is it?  No one here really agrees on that, so how could Shepard know this would be a definitely good thing?  S/he wouldn't.  Destroy-just what exactly does it destroy and who gets hurt, who lives, what happens to Shepard, what does the kid mean exactly with everything he says?  No one really knows so how could Shepard know this would be a definitely good thing?  S/he wouldn't.  No rational person faced with this unbelievable pile of garbage would say, "that sounds good" because you have no idea what really will happen or what version of heaven or hell you have just sent the galaxy into.

And the fact it is based on the most contradictory, illogical heap of dreck the galaxy has ever seen, programmed by beings that should have all tech taken away from them, is what adds insult to injury.  We are somehow expected to believe that Shepard would ever get beyond that "I control the reapers.  They are my solution" garbage and jump into a beam thereby dispersing his/her essence to people, plants, and fish everywhere.  This Shepard is Idiot Shepard.  So the ending has finally found some canon names for Shepard.  Idiot, Torso, and Suicidal.

[Xilizhra]

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I'd give up the speeches, the slide shows, everything new about the
ending (save the Normandy taking off again) for a scene of Shepard
standing up again after the Crucible fired.

I refuse to support Destroy-exclusive content for the sake of marginalizing the other endings further.

Not I never said what color beam the Crucible fires.  I believe Shepard should have been able to survive any high EMS ending.  If it sounds like I support Destroy survival exclusively, it's only because atm it's the only one that even dangles that hope before us.

In that case... well, I've come to accept Shepard's death, but that doesn't quite mean that I like it, so in that sense, yes, I could support this.

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...
tHANK YOU...Proof James has development.

Hey, I may not like aspects of ME3, the ending in particular.  But I will give credit where it's due

[Blueprotoss]

Paulomedi wrote...

OP, It saddens me that most people can't see what you posted. That's the reasons why ME was great.

ME3 just...was not.

I'm still surprised that some people resort to logic fallacies when other people don't agree with them.

[Blueprotoss]

Podge 90 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Podge 90 wrote...

You believe Vega saying he's been approached for N7 is on the same level as the journey you go through with Garrus. That's fine. Your mind-numbingly low expectations of this series have been met.

I can't imagine being so easily pleased, personally.

As I said before, just because the character is astablish doesnot mean they have to be on the ship. James has growth as a character. It may not be as much as Garrus and Tali, but that does not mean he can't be part of the squad. You keep missing that. Also, it 's not like he is taking Garrus's and Tali's spot ether.

But the thing is you are happy to drop those previous characters in favour of a character that doesn't receive a fraction of the development.  Like I said, you are frighteningly easily pleased.  It's a shame that the Mass Effect series lowered it's own bar so much to cater for you.

To be fair most of the established characters from ME1 and ME2 that were in ME3 weren't dropped unless if they died without a reference.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 11 octobre 2012 - 04:13 .

[Podge 90]

Vega is more conspicuous than Zaeed, Samara, Jacob, Thane and Jack. They were dropped.

[3DandBeyond]

iakus wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

I agree with this.  I will say it again that I came to like Vega, but his story also needs retconning-because it kind of contradicts the reason why TIM was using Shepard in the first place-the Alliance wasn't taking the Collector threat all that seriously.  But James makes it appear that they were.  And Shepard just doesn't question this, ever.

It was like you were assembling this team, only to have them end up as phone a friend goodbyes at the end.  The Kasumi mission in ME3 was laughable.  And I really do like Miranda, but it was like she kept popping up to tell Shepard, she didn't need Shep's help.  Um ok.  And you have about 5 minutes with Jack and all of them, if that.  It seems like you have more dialogue with Kelly than most of them.  Though there are good moments.

But I find it particularly sad that they kept uh teasing people as they did.  You have an LI in ME1, that doesn't carry over to ME2 (or sort of does with Liara).  To feed your fish, you have to cheat on your LI.  Then an LI that you may get in ME2, is not there for much of ME3.  Wow, but as Bioware's marketing guy said, it's all out war.  Who cares or would remember what happened 8 years ago.  It's like you won't care if you romanced someone, because it's war.

One small correction: Post Horizon, the Alliance did start taking the Collector threat seriously.  If you talk to Anderson afterwards and mention seeing teh VS he says that Ash/Kaidan confirmed Shepard's claims of teh Collectors, but couldn't prove a Reaper connection.  Also, if you do Arrival prior to the Suicide Mission, Hackett tells Shepard that the Alliance has been quietly evacuating smaller colonies and reinforcing the larger ones.

James' story makes sense in this context, since his disasterous mission occurred just before Shepard's suicide mission, which rendered the intel James gained useless.

Oh, and Kelly will still feed your fish on the friendship path too.  You can still take her to dinner as a collegue.  you just...play chess instead of take a shower

Kelly not Sam.  Kelly in ME2 will only feed your fish if you take her to dinner and the implication is that it was more than just friendly.  She's the only one Shepard hugs in ME3 upon seeing again.

The problem with James was it was another partial retcon of all the stuff that was the basis for ME2.  The rest of ME2 gets ignored but will likely get some further retconning in Omega DLC.  I just see the creation of the James character as another way to sell bridge content-books, comics, movies, and to ignore the fact that the Alliance was the stupidest group of people in the galaxy.  It's kind of a way to make Earth matter a bit more.  In that way it made the game's vision smaller.  The galaxy no, human colonies no, Earth no, London. 

I basically don't have a problem with James at all, but I have a problem with them just ignoring the other characters that mattered.  They did that from ME1 to 2 as well and it's never set right with me.

[Iakus]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Kelly not Sam.  Kelly in ME2 will only feed your fish if you take her to dinner and the implication is that it was more than just friendly.  She's the only one Shepard hugs in ME3 upon seeing again.

ME2 kept track of whether you were on a friendship or romance path with Kelly (based on whether you chose the "I'd catch you" or "I'd embrace you" dialogue option when you speak with her)  Thus having dinner with her could be as colleagues or as "something more"  I used the chess and shower thing as an illustration of the difference.  You could just be friends with her and play chess.  Or there's the shower...

I've met Kelly in ME3 after having the "friendly dinner" and while Kelly is certainly glad to see Shepard, there wasn't any hint of romance.  No flirt options, no "walk off ,fade to black, wink-wink nudge-nudge"  And I still got my fish back.

[Redbelle]

Podge 90 wrote...

Vega is more conspicuous than Zaeed, Samara, Jacob, Thane and Jack. They were dropped.

If only Vega had been given more scenes like his boxing spar session, or ramming things because it seems like a good idea. Once we got past his sparring session with Shep the only inkling of his career soldier character coming through came from when he introduced Shep to the soldiers at the bar.

I'd like to say that being talked into the N7 program was a highlight, but frankly, it wasn't. Shep's dead <cough, DESTROY, cough> and we'll never see what James Vega could have become.

And don't get me started on what how romancing him could have turned out with FemShep. It could have been the most awkward game of one upmanship between 2 career soldiers ever witnessed.

[KaeserZen]

dreman9999 wrote...
There generally 4 themes in ME as a series.

The morality of freedom vs control
The morality of advancement.
The morality of ends vs means.
the issue of organic vs synthetic.

Originally, there wasn't, and this is what I was trying to portray. (Please excuse me, I've got light fever, so sometimes I am not very clear, though I think I am ).

The central theme of ME1 is in my opinion is close to what you described as freedom vs control, but I would word it as self-determination vs. fate (predetermination). Organics vs synthetics is just a symbolic derivative of this core theme, as we generally imply organics to be able to show free-will to some extent, while synthetics do what they are programmed to.

It is not before you meet Legion in ME2 that this theme got expanded as a key theme in the series. In fact, instead of robotic super-aliens like the Reapers with Geth as pawns, BioWare could certainly have used a flesh and blood race of massive aliens that are very technologically advanced and with the exact same agenda as the Reapers to the same effect in portraying the "predetermination" side of things.
(By the way, I am sure that all of us thought that Reapers were some kind of flesh and blood aliens prior to the reveal of Sovereign).

Ends vs means is an sandbox theme in the series, in the sense that it is up to the players to decide between Paragon and Renegade. It is an underlying theme, second to the main theme.

And the problem with ME2 is that it added both new themes and placed these and existing ones at the same level than the main theme.

They had a clear dynamic (self vs pre determination) and clear representatives of this conflict (you vs the Reapers). They strayed away too much from that, and opened new plots that they felt had to be resolved. They turned Shepard into the Galaxy's First Defense Line into the Galaxy's Handyman, fixing the issues of everyone and every species, which was not necessary from a narrative point of view.
It's okay if the Genophage is not resolved to fight the Reapers, as long as the players can feel one way or another about it. It could have been a great side questline which completion (or not) could have had impact on the outcome of the Galactic War should the player choose to. But it wasn't necessary to include it as a key focus point in the main storyline.

It is okay to open new themes, but not to enlarge side plots based on these themes to the point they shadow the main plot.

And doing so, as with Miranda's father, Thane's son, the Quarians vs the goody Geth, etc, they diverted ressources to flesh out the main plot. And because this main plot was 1) left open in ME1 for vastly different writing possibilities and 2) barely discussed in ME2 (the only relevant direct thing with the Reapers was the end and the Arrival DLC) and 3) not the core of ME3's storyline (it became an underlying context element to solve all the other plots, that now needed to be solved because they were opened), they had to close it really fast in the last mission with an easy explanation.

Even Casey Hudson said that in november, the end really was nowhere as even thought when they had their brainstorming sessions.

[sg1fan75]

Good job OP.

[sdinc009]

Blueprotoss wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...

But that's the dumbest part of the DLC's explanation. The Leviathans observe a problem which is that their thrall races build sythetics which eventually rebel against them and their solution to this problem is to do the exact same thing!? And then, SURPRISE, the Intelligence does just that. Why didn't they just tell the thrall races to stop building AI's? Stick to VI's, much more reliable.

If thats the case then what do you think about the Qaurians and the Geth?

sdinc009 wrote...

So, this just in, apparently Director Frank Oz didn't have a problem changing the ending of "Little Shop of Horrors" from the original:

http://movies.yahoo....-234230378.html

Seems, originally Seymour and Audrey both get eaten and Audrey II grows to Godzilla size and begins destroying New York. Test audiences didn't like this dark ending because they came to care for the main characters and so it was changed to the "happy" ending that everyone now knows. So apparently the existing presidence is that if the audience doeesn't like it, give the audience what they want.

Thats a strawman just like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle with Sherlock Holmes.  You seem to forget that Little Shop originally started as a Broadway show before it was a Hollywood movie.  Its okay that Creators stick to their guns even when thats what most of them do.

The Quarians and the Geth conflict goes against the presumed assumption of the Leviathan and the Catalyst logic because since the Geth did not wish the destruction of their creators. They wanted nothing but peace and to coexist with the Quarians. It was the Quarians that created the problem and by the end of the series that conflict has been resolved in some form thus proving that in this cycle the assertion of both the Leviathan and the Catalyst is total false.
Oh, and the second, part, that's not a Strawman argument. A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. All I did was provide an example of a artistic medium that has changed the ending from the original version due to an audiences negative reaction. This simply establishes a counterpoint to Bioware's statement that it doesn't want to create a presidence by changing the ending. This example and that of Sir Arthor Conan Doyle are totally valid examples to exastblish an argument to Bioware's statement. And I didn't forget that it was originally a play since I cited the original ending.

[CronoDragoon]

LucasShark wrote...
It really didn't need any of the "pinnacle of evolution" (a non-starter by the way) nonsense

That's existed since Sovereign. The idea of Synthesis - not necessarily the form it takes in the ending - as a pinnacle of evolution was first championed by Saren. And Harbinger makes sure to let you know the Reapers are all for it in case you missed it.

none of the forced organics versus synthetics after specifically humanizing the primary synthetic race.

It's not forced. If you agree with the Catalyst, there's an option for that in Synthesis, and you can interpet Destroy this way, too, if you want AIs destroyed. You also have options if you disagree with him.

If you mean that the theme was forced at the last minute, that is simply untrue. It has been a theme since the beginning of ME1; the writers most certainly believe this.

If you believe that it was redundant after the conclusion of the Rannoch arc, then that is a valid interpretation, but the counter would be that Shepard is only equipped and qualified to act on the grander synthetic/organic problem once he has dealt with the geth/quarian one. I personally felt it to be redundant, but there's multiple ways of seeing it.

 

None of this pseudo-science after a relatively grounded universe

LOL. Come on, man. Mass Effect is not relatively grounded. Positing imaginary substances and creating your own definitions of dark energy? A universe is only as grounded as it's most outrageous story elements.

While I agree that it was not necessary to have the Catalyst plot twist at the end, I find your arguments questionable.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 11 octobre 2012 - 08:15 .

[CronoDragoon]

Paulomedi wrote...

People who liked the endings should read, study, and watch more good quality media for enlightenment.

Writers 101 is a good place to start.

In fact I will help...read Olaf Stapledon, Clive Baker, Asimov, Carl Sagan and Arthur C. Clarke - good science fiction  authors. Return here wiser and keep defending the endings, if you dare.

If you like the Reapers, read Lovecraft. Return here wiser and defend their ill-conceived background, if you dare.

I can go on and on....

That goes for the entirety of the Mass Effect plot. Do we really want to compare ME to pantheon science fiction writers?

[JamesFaith]

Paulomedi wrote...

People who liked the endings should read, study, and watch more good quality media for enlightenment.

Writers 101 is a good place to start.

In fact I will help...read Olaf Stapledon, Clive Baker, Asimov, Carl Sagan and Arthur C. Clarke - good science fiction  authors. Return here wiser and keep defending the endings, if you dare.

If you like the Reapers, read Lovecraft. Return here wiser and defend their ill-conceived background, if you dare.

I can go on and on....

Already read all of them (except Olaf Stapledon) plus Robert Silverberg, R. A. Henlein, Frederick Pohl, Frank Herbert, Stanislaw Lem, William Gibson (just bought Spook country), Dan Simmons and many, many others because I'm reading four, five books every month last twenty years.

Still like ending and dare to defend ME3.  

[AlanC9]

KaeserZen wrote...
Organics vs synthetics is just a symbolic derivative of this core theme, as we generally imply organics to be able to show free-will to some extent, while synthetics do what they are programmed to.

Except when they don't. The geth sure didn't do what the quarians designed them to do. Although I guess this doesn't actually prove that the geth have free will; just that the quarians didn't realize what they were doing.

(By the way, I am sure that all of us thought that Reapers were some kind of flesh and blood aliens prior to the reveal of Sovereign).

Nope. I thought they were machines from the get-go. That's what Shepard saw in the vision.

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 octobre 2012 - 09:00 .

[JamesFaith]

Paulomedi wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Paulomedi wrote...

People who liked the endings should read, study, and watch more good quality media for enlightenment.

Writers 101 is a good place to start.

In fact I will help...read Olaf Stapledon, Clive Baker, Asimov, Carl Sagan and Arthur C. Clarke - good science fiction  authors. Return here wiser and keep defending the endings, if you dare.

If you like the Reapers, read Lovecraft. Return here wiser and defend their ill-conceived background, if you dare.

I can go on and on....

Already read all of them (except Olaf Stapledon) plus Robert Silverberg, R. A. Henlein, Frederick Pohl, Frank Herbert, Stanislaw Lem, William Gibson (just bought Spook country), Dan Simmons and many, many others because I'm reading four, five books every month last twenty years.

Still like ending and dare to defend ME3.  

Then you are a fool and Wrex should eat you!

Joking aside, explain to me why do you like the endings, because I can't find a single reason to even symphatize with it.

Sorry, but no. I explained it few times during last six months and everytime I was mocked, flamed and one or two times directly insulted. I'm really not interested in it again.

[BearlyHere]

3DandBeyond wrote...

It was like you were assembling this team, only to have them end up as phone a friend goodbyes at the end.  The Kasumi mission in ME3 was laughable.  And I really do like Miranda, but it was like she kept popping up to tell Shepard, she didn't need Shep's help.  Um ok.  And you have about 5 minutes with Jack and all of them, if that.  It seems like you have more dialogue with Kelly than most of them.  Though there are good moments.

But I find it particularly sad that they kept uh teasing people as they did.  You have an LI in ME1, that doesn't carry over to ME2 (or sort of does with Liara).  To feed your fish, you have to cheat on your LI.  Then an LI that you may get in ME2, is not there for much of ME3.  Wow, but as Bioware's marketing guy said, it's all out war.  Who cares or would remember what happened 8 years ago.  It's like you won't care if you romanced someone, because it's war.

One thing that really bothers me is that players seem to be encouraged to have Shep cheat on the LI from 1. I suppose if it's Ash or Kaiden you could consider that meeting on Horizon a break-up, but what about Liara? Between that and the woman and her Asari mistress talking about sending her husband a "Dear John" letter makes me wonder where this cynical attitude towards love and relationships comes from. This is especially true considering how the writers seem to be influenced so much by The Princess Bride, yet they miss the point of the book/movie.

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

LucasShark wrote...
It really didn't need any of the "pinnacle of evolution" (a non-starter by the way) nonsense

That's existed since Sovereign. The idea of Synthesis - not necessarily the form it takes in the ending - as a pinnacle of evolution was first championed by Saren. And Harbinger makes sure to let you know the Reapers are all for it in case you missed it.


 snipped

Yes it was there.  The problem was Sovereign saw the reapers as the pinnacle of evolution.  Synthesis was there but it seemed they saw themselves as examples of it.

[coldwetn0se]

BearlyHere wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

It was like you were assembling this team, only to have them end up as phone a friend goodbyes at the end.  The Kasumi mission in ME3 was laughable.  And I really do like Miranda, but it was like she kept popping up to tell Shepard, she didn't need Shep's help.  Um ok.  And you have about 5 minutes with Jack and all of them, if that.  It seems like you have more dialogue with Kelly than most of them.  Though there are good moments.

But I find it particularly sad that they kept uh teasing people as they did.  You have an LI in ME1, that doesn't carry over to ME2 (or sort of does with Liara).  To feed your fish, you have to cheat on your LI.  Then an LI that you may get in ME2, is not there for much of ME3.  Wow, but as Bioware's marketing guy said, it's all out war.  Who cares or would remember what happened 8 years ago.  It's like you won't care if you romanced someone, because it's war.

One thing that really bothers me is that players seem to be encouraged to have Shep cheat on the LI from 1. I suppose if it's Ash or Kaiden you could consider that meeting on Horizon a break-up, but what about Liara? Between that and the woman and her Asari mistress talking about sending her husband a "Dear John" letter makes me wonder where this cynical attitude towards love and relationships comes from. This is especially true considering how the writers seem to be influenced so much by The Princess Bride, yet they miss the point of the book/movie.

Off-topic to the OP, but your post caught my attention.  I don't think you are exactly wrong in feeling this; it is a bit interesting.  Out of 10 Sheps, I only had three that ever romanced anyone in ME1; one for each of the three LI's.  As much as I loved the ME1 squaddies (including all three LI's), I was much more taken with the LI's in ME2.  So in my case, the majority of my romances were ONLY in ME2.  In fact, the only "cheater" I had was my Kaidan+Shep, who moved on to Thane in ME2, but that also worked for how I RPed her.

[Redbelle]

Paulomedi wrote...

People who liked the endings should read, study, and watch more good quality media for enlightenment.

Writers 101 is a good place to start.

In fact I will help...read Olaf Stapledon, Clive Baker, Asimov, Carl Sagan and Arthur C. Clarke - good science fiction  authors. Return here wiser and keep defending the endings, if you dare.

If you like the Reapers, read Lovecraft. Return here wiser and defend their ill-conceived background, if you dare.

I can go on and on....

Another good read, if a little left field due to being self published, is a book called Einsteins Beetle. It could have used a bit of editing, but it is advertised as a book for the layman, by a layman, about how to understand Newtons laws of physics, Einsteins grasp of relativity, and how the human understanding of science has evolved. A nd better yet. You'll stand a better chance of understanding it all.

[PinkysPain]

Xilizhra wrote...
Not I never said what color beam the Crucible fires.  I believe Shepard should have been able to survive any high EMS ending.

Shepard survival in control would basically mean "hey could yall shoot the citadel for me and then take a stroll into the sun".

I'd settle for that, but I don't think Mac would ...

Modifié par PinkysPain, 11 octobre 2012 - 11:41 .