384 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

wantedman dan wrote...

Yate wrote...

I really don't see why people hate on Destroy. Yeah, the geth are gone, but we all knew there'd be sacrifices. If we won the war conventionally but lost the geth, would people still complain? I don't think so, so it must be something about Catalyst. It's like people still see the Reapers as 'winning'. But they only really win if Synthesis is picked, otherwise they're brainwashed or dead. Shepard won, Catalyst lost, no question about that. It's just that Catalyst accepted it's defeat and tried to help Shepard at the end, which isn't bad writing at all, even if it is a little unsatisfying for a video game.

You don't understand the difference between choosing to sacrifice your own life and sacrificing the life of another?

. I understand it. And I'd sacrifice the life of another every time. Especially if I think it's for a greater cause.  The geth are an unfortunate side effect, but their fate is really irrelevant to me

[wantedman dan]

Steelcan wrote...

I understand it.

Apparently not.

[Jadebaby]

Steelcan wrote...

Yate wrote...

I really don't see why people hate on Destroy. Yeah, the geth are gone, but we all knew there'd be sacrifices. If we won the war conventionally but lost the geth, would people still complain? I don't think so, so it must be something about Catalyst. It's like people still see the Reapers as 'winning'. But they only really win if Synthesis is picked, otherwise they're brainwashed or dead. Shepard won, Catalyst lost, no question about that. It's just that Catalyst accepted it's defeat and tried to help Shepard at the end, which isn't bad writing at all, even if it is a little unsatisfying for a video game.

^. I agree wholeheartedly 

No.

[Steelcan]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Yate wrote...

I really don't see why people hate on Destroy. Yeah, the geth are gone, but we all knew there'd be sacrifices. If we won the war conventionally but lost the geth, would people still complain? I don't think so, so it must be something about Catalyst. It's like people still see the Reapers as 'winning'. But they only really win if Synthesis is picked, otherwise they're brainwashed or dead. Shepard won, Catalyst lost, no question about that. It's just that Catalyst accepted it's defeat and tried to help Shepard at the end, which isn't bad writing at all, even if it is a little unsatisfying for a video game.

^. I agree wholeheartedly 

No.

. No I don't agree?

[Steelcan]

wantedman dan wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

I understand it.

Apparently not.

. Do explain

[Isichar]

My problem with the Geth dying in destroy is how meaningless it is. It pretty much only exists to weigh the option down so it does not seem better then the other options.

Did you take the time to unite the Geth and the Qurians? TOO BAD. They effectively made 1/3 of the game meaningless by doing so. I think if your going to kill off a character/race that the audience spent so long working with have the decency to do it onscreen and make it meaningful. Instead we get an off screen death that is meaningless to the player.

Look at Thanes death, imagine if you saw him in the hospital early on in the game and then you just got an email later on in the game saying "Thane died." and that was it, all you got. I honestly dont think Bioware has ever made a more meaningless and empty death. Unless we are counting the Baldurs Gate books... *shudders*

[Steelcan]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

I'd sacrifice the life of another every time.

Heh, how's about we make Steelcan the poster-boy for Destroy? Take a bow Steelcan, take a bow.

. Personal choice.  I'm self serving and I admit it.  I have other reasons for picking destroy besides self preservation.  It's not even my most important reason for picking destroy.  I'm just admitting that if it came down to it, I'd save my own skin

[Steelcan]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
I'd sacrifice the life of another every time.

Heh, how's about we make Steelcan the poster-boy for Destroy? Take a bow Steelcan, take a bow.

. Personal choice.  I'm self serving and I admit it.  I have other reasons for picking destroy besides self preservation.  It's not even my most important reason for picking destroy.  I'm just admitting that if it came down to it, I'd save my own skin

Disgracefully honest, thank you.

.   At least I'm honest about it!

[Steelcan]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
I'd sacrifice the life of another every time.

Heh, how's about we make Steelcan the poster-boy for Destroy? Take a bow Steelcan, take a bow.

. Personal choice.  I'm self serving and I admit it.  I have other reasons for picking destroy besides self preservation.  It's not even my most important reason for picking destroy.  I'm just admitting that if it came down to it, I'd save my own skin

Disgracefully honest, thank you.

.   At least I'm honest about it!

It's a virtue dude and is more than can be said for some.

. Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. So I'll say you aren't and take it as a complement.

[Raizo]

Why bother even buying the game at all, I would have been better off just building my own imaginary storyline for ME3, I could have saved myself the €180.00 ( €90.00 for each CE game for the PS3 and 360 ). Gamplay maybe very important ( all games need good gameplay ) but the real reason why invested so much time and money in this franchise was the Universe, the characters in it and the storyline and ME3 failed to deliver on every single concievable level, there is no point in buying any ME game if you're only interested in shooting stuff since there are better shooters out there, the ME games have to deliver in this area period, there is no room for **** ups or half assed work. If I knew I would have been forced to use my imagination for soo much I wouldn't have bothered in the first place.

[crimzontearz]

I always admitted I picked Destroy solely to save Shepard

And I would sacrifice earth, the quarians, half the normandy's crew and even garrus to have a reunion scene....

But Bioware seems to think I should just imagine it

[Capt. Pancake]

Isichar wrote...

N7 Shadow Liara wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Apocaleepse360 wrote...

Ithurael wrote...

Reth Shepherd wrote...

I still think Koobismo of Marauder Shields fame put it best.

When I started penning down the rough scenario for "Marauder Shields", I took the analytical approach, disseminating the story, themes and the bouquet of emotions seen in the first 2.9 games of the Mass Effect trilogy... And I believe I identified the word defining its guiding emotion. Hope. Hope for rescuing the galaxy, hope for stopping Saren, hope for humanity to show their true worth and join the other Council species... Hope that the desperate search for the Conduit will produce a miracleous way of stopping the Reapers... Hope that Shepard will friggin' come back from the rubble, with epic fanfares going on in the background.

The second game opens with Shepard declared as a "bloody icon", a symbol giving hope for humanity, its unity, its future... If we lose Shepard, humanity might well follow. Why do you think the narrative makes such a big deal out of this? Because Shepard is such a good shot, or such a powerful biotic? No. Because it implies that what the Normandy did in the first Mass Effect had consequences - and placed it in a unique position of being the nexus of galactic unity. One needed so badly in such desperate times. The Illusive Man clearly understands this, whatever we think about his shady plans or dangerous philosophy. He rebuilds the Normandy, investing significant resources, but he makes sure that the ship looks similar, he makes sure that the name stays the same. Because he understands he isn't just rebuilding a ship. Whatever his ulterior motives are... at that time he is reigniting the Beacon of Hope.

End of Mass Effect 2. Commander Shepard strouts through the Normandy. The ship is heavily damaged after the assault on the Collector Base... but she'll live. She'll fight. She died once before, as did Shepard, but the music announces that this is far from over. The crew members check their weapons, manly looks are exchanged (with Jack delivering the manliest, which I absolutely loved) and... Shepard stops at the viewport, starring down the stars, mirroring the ending scene from "Empire Strikes Back"... The narrative tells you, with the use of this simple, yet awesome scene, that with the help of your loyal crew, you can overcome any obstacles. You can fight and win. Because no matter the odds, there is always hope.

Mass Effect 3. Despite some logical and narrative flaws present in the story from the very beginning (the Crucible plot appearing from nowhere, Cerberus suddenly becoming a Bond-like villain organization), the game follows the emotional guidance of its predecessors to the letter (allow me to emphasize the fact that the "governing emotion" is *not* the same as a "theme"). The situation may be dire, the death of millions may haunt you 'til the day you die... But there *is* hope. *You* are the hope. And you achieve miracles. Turians and krogan working together. The geth and quarian fleets united. The galaxy gathering under a single banner... You see in their eyes the same fear that would take the heart of you. And you know a day may come when the courage of men fails, when we all forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship... But it was not that day! An hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the age of freedom comes crashing down... But it was not that day! That day... You fought. And the Free People of the Galaxy stood there with you... Holding the line.

The ending of Mass Effect 3. Everything changes. The narrative drops its core for no significant storytelling reason other than "we wanted to write it this way". Shepard's fight-until-the-end attitude, the only element of his (or hers) character identical for all players, gets broken off-screen. Nearly all major themes of the series are suddenly dropped and replaced by a twisted version of ME1's "organics vs. synthetics", no longer valid in this universe due to the events and ideas shared with the players in ME2 and ME3 - the concept evolved during the series, changed, progressed and, at the crucial moment, was slammed back to its original, embryo state. The game unexpectedly shifts from space opera science-fiction to space fantasy. And finally... The emotional guidance of the series suddenly vaporates and is surplanted with a substitute, a piece that doesn't fit the puzzle. Hope dies.

One could argue that the solutions presented by the StarChild grant you some kind of hope... And one would be wrong. The very philosophical themes of the ending indicate that nothing matters, neither in the past (all choices become invalidated), nor the future (everything can be invalidated once again, by another godlike creature with an even stupider plan - these are the new rules of the narrative). Your hopes, presented to you over the course of the narrative, were false - this is why it stings so much to return to the previous games, this is why replayability gets murdered by this finale. Let me emphasize this... The crucial emotion of Mass Effect was HOPE. Believing in a positive outcome fueled by your efforts and sacrifices, which is invalidated retroactively. You can hide away the "it's about the journey" asspull - how can you take the same journey again, how can you hope again, if you know that it's just a lie?

Instead, you are left with a scene of a godlike creature shifting the universe and life to its bidding... And you are assisting with it. You are not choosing, not really (unless you accept the Refusal ending, which is yet another emotional play to make you think of Synthesis as the right choice, no matter how wrong it really is) - you are selecting one of the options the StarChild is okay with. And each of the endings, from the mildly horrible Destroy, through pretty horrible Control, to the absolutely horrible Synthesis means one and the same thing... Your world ends, the current rules of reality governing Mass Effect are killed off and you are the executioner holding the bloody axe. Some may consider that a shyamalanalanyan tweeeaast. I consider it a false narrative. A bad one.

+9000

+9001.

+9002

+9003

+9004

+9005

[Raging_Pulse]

Isichar wrote...

My problem with the Geth dying in destroy is how meaningless it is. It pretty much only exists to weigh the option down so it does not seem better then the other options.

Did you take the time to unite the Geth and the Qurians? TOO BAD. They effectively made 1/3 of the game meaningless by doing so. I think if your going to kill off a character/race that the audience spent so long working with have the decency to do it onscreen and make it meaningful. Instead we get an off screen death that is meaningless to the player.

Bolded for the truth.

[Yate]

wantedman dan wrote...

Yate wrote...

I really don't see why people hate on Destroy. Yeah, the geth are gone, but we all knew there'd be sacrifices. If we won the war conventionally but lost the geth, would people still complain? I don't think so, so it must be something about Catalyst. It's like people still see the Reapers as 'winning'. But they only really win if Synthesis is picked, otherwise they're brainwashed or dead. Shepard won, Catalyst lost, no question about that. It's just that Catalyst accepted it's defeat and tried to help Shepard at the end, which isn't bad writing at all, even if it is a little unsatisfying for a video game.

You don't understand the difference between choosing to sacrifice your own life and sacrificing the life of another?

Remember Shepard doesn't know he's going to survive Destroy.

[Yate]

Also, it's stated in game the geth aren't past the point of repair.

[PinkysPain]

If the geth sacrificed themselves to save us from the reapers somehow and the macalyst didn't exist, then no ... we wouldn't have been complaining.

There is nothing wrong with heroic self-sacrifice, but instead Shepard and the entire universe were made the **** of the macalyst ... the geth got turned into the price of a conditional surrender, a surrender with favourable outcome perhaps but a surrender nonetheless.

We didn't win in the end, Mac won.

Modifié par PinkysPain, 23 octobre 2012 - 05:09 .

[Yate]

PinkysPain wrote...

If the geth sacrificed themselves to save us from the reapers somehow and the macalyst didn't exist, then no ... we wouldn't have been complaining.

There is nothing wrong with heroic self-sacrifice, but instead Shepard and the entire universe were made the **** of the macalyst ... the geth got turned into the price of a conditional surrender, a surrender with favourable outcome perhaps but a surrender nonetheless.

We didn't win in the end, Mac won.

You're deluded if you think the game's end was Shepard surrendering. Shepard kicked the Reapers asses, made his way to their brain, and reshaped the galaxy the way he wanted.

[Iakus]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Yate wrote...

I really don't see why people hate on Destroy. Yeah, the geth are gone, but we all knew there'd be sacrifices. If we won the war conventionally but lost the geth, would people still complain? I don't think so, so it must be something about Catalyst. It's like people still see the Reapers as 'winning'. But they only really win if Synthesis is picked, otherwise they're brainwashed or dead. Shepard won, Catalyst lost, no question about that. It's just that Catalyst accepted it's defeat and tried to help Shepard at the end, which isn't bad writing at all, even if it is a little unsatisfying for a video game.

^. I agree wholeheartedly 

No.

Indeed.

THere's a world of difference between losing allies in battle, and deliberately exterminating them i "friendly fire"

[Yate]

magnetite wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

No offense, but I wouldn't go around saying this. What if Indoctrination Theory turns out to be false?

According to everything I found, it's not. 

That's the thing though. Some people have to rely on Bioware to tell them how the story plays out, instead of thinking for themselves. To them, if Bioware said it's false, then everyone just believes whatever Bioware says. Instead of coming up with their own explanations and theories. That's the point of having an open ended ending. They wanted a story that people could talk about after all.

When I say this game doesn't have spoon fed explanations, it's a game that makes you think. Not to have the developers do all the thinking for you. 

Or to have them explain every single detail. Even with the EC released, some people just don't understand certain points of the game even after they made a more detailed scene to explain it for them. 

You get it. IT is still dumb though.