889 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

DrGunjah wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
You means EMP weapons don't exsist? It a pretty easy concept to how a weapon can effect all tech.

the issue is, that it doesn't affect "all tech".
So it's obviously not an EMP because it only affects the reapers, edi and the geth (high ems). 

You never asked you self why the normandy is doing on a planet?

[Ticonderoga117]

Seival wrote...
I'm saying that brilliant turn of events make a story really interesting. And you can't make good philosophical points, if you told reader everything from the very beginning.

In other words... Wanna read a really good story? Be ready for surprises and don't hurry with conclusions. Good stories need some time to be processed.

Apocalypse now says otherwise.

[adneate]

Man how starved for genuine content and how ignorant of actual philosophy do you have to be to see depth in Mass Effect 3's ending? It's like listening to a bunch of people talk about how profound the sounds echoing in an empty hallway are, never knowing it was just their own voices. The kind of garbage in this game's ending is literally the easiest thing to do, throw out some pointless imagery and a few contradictory statements about the nature of the universe delivered by some God surrogate and bam morons will spend days preaching about how profound and revolutionary it was.

When in fact it means nothing and all the attributes are just projected on it, it has as much to do with classic sci-fi as it does with the German Reformation. In other words it's just CRAAAAAAP. Like a Terrance Malick movie.

[Ticonderoga117]

dreman9999 wrote...

DrGunjah wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
You means EMP weapons don't exsist? It a pretty easy concept to how a weapon can effect all tech.

the issue is, that it doesn't affect "all tech".
So it's obviously not an EMP because it only affects the reapers, edi and the geth (high ems). 

You never asked you self why the normandy is doing on a planet?

That is a VERY good question... because said planet does not exist.
So, why is the Normandy on the planet, and how did the wave of energy travelling at the speed of light overtake a ship traveling FASTER than light?

[dreman9999]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Thereaper in me was persented as a egnigma. We know what they are doing, just not why. Any lable you think the reapers are under wasplaced by you not the game or story.

All we know is that we don't agree with their actions. We never know their intent. Itwas never saidthe reaper are good or evil in the series ever. And in the end they are neather. Itthe orignal dark endergy plot they were plan tobe neather as well.

Ok, for the people with long term memory issues let's review what the Reapers have done before ME3 came out:

-Caused the rachni to attack, resulting in untold deaths from that. (Actual casualties from the fighting and then the fallout from uplifting the Krogan needed to fight the rachni.)
-Have turned uncountable numbers of sentient beings into techno-zombies by impaling them on spikes.
-Have turned uncountable numbers of sentient beings into goo to make more of themselves.
-Brainwashed uncountable numbers of sentient beings to do thier will through indoctrination.
-Killed hundreds, if not thousands, during the battle of the Citadel.

Evil with a capital E. You don't look at this list and go "Oh, those silly Reapers! They're just doing thier own thing."

1. That was the leviathens.
2-4.Means toan end to it goal.


I agree that they are all immoral act but that does not say the intent of the reapers. Nothing say they areevil . Just that they are doing immoral acts for some reason.

Say a person is evil is immorl meas I cansay Shepard is evil becasue he destroyed a colony in arriaval.

[dreman9999]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

DrGunjah wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
You means EMP weapons don't exsist? It a pretty easy concept to how a weapon can effect all tech.

the issue is, that it doesn't affect "all tech".
So it's obviously not an EMP because it only affects the reapers, edi and the geth (high ems). 

You never asked you self why the normandy is doing on a planet?

That is a VERY good question... because said planet does not exist.
So, why is the Normandy on the planet, and how did the wave of energy travelling at the speed of light overtake a ship traveling FASTER than light?

Said wave are amplified by a device made to make things go fast then the speed of light. And the crucible-citadel combo effects the entire galexy.

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Seival wrote...

The brilliant turn of the events bothers you? You like standard boring stories with ending you knew from the beginning?

...That looks unnatural.

Are you seriously suggesting that it's good simply because it's different for the sake of being different? Originality (not that there's all that much here anyway) without quality is still rubbish. Originality and quality is best but I'll take unoriginal and good before original and nonsense.

I'm saying that brilliant turn of events make a story really interesting. And you can't make good philosophical points, if you told reader everything from the very beginning.

In other words... Wanna read a really good story? Be ready for surprises and don't hurry with conclusions. Good stories need some time to be processed.

Only for authors who cannot concisely convey what they wish to say.

[dreman9999]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Seival wrote...
I'm saying that brilliant turn of events make a story really interesting. And you can't make good philosophical points, if you told reader everything from the very beginning.

In other words... Wanna read a really good story? Be ready for surprises and don't hurry with conclusions. Good stories need some time to be processed.

Apocalypse now says otherwise.

It did not tell you everything form the start. A better example would be dune.Also, one way exsisting does not detour another way.

[Ticonderoga117]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. That was the leviathens.
2-4.Means toan end to it goal.

I agree that they are all immoral act but that does not say the intent of the reapers. Nothing say they areevil . Just that they are doing immoral acts for some reason.

Say a person is evil is immorl meas I cansay Shepard is evil becasue he destroyed a colony in arriaval.

1. Says who?
2. So the guy who kills 20 people is an ok guy because we don't know why he's doing the killing?

What kind of backwards logic is that?

[Seival]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Seival wrote...
I'm saying that brilliant turn of events make a story really interesting. And you can't make good philosophical points, if you told reader everything from the very beginning.

In other words... Wanna read a really good story? Be ready for surprises and don't hurry with conclusions. Good stories need some time to be processed.

Apocalypse now says otherwise.

That story doesn't tell you everything from the beginning.

[Chaotic-Fusion]

Seival wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Seival wrote...

The brilliant turn of the events bothers you? You like standard boring stories with ending you knew from the beginning?

...That looks unnatural.

Are you seriously suggesting that it's good simply because it's different for the sake of being different? Originality (not that there's all that much here anyway) without quality is still rubbish. Originality and quality is best but I'll take unoriginal and good before original and nonsense.

I'm saying that brilliant turn of events make a story really interesting. And you can't make good philosophical points, if you told reader everything from the very beginning.

In other words... Wanna read a really good story? Be ready for surprises and don't hurry with conclusions. Good stories need some time to be processed.

What about stories that begin in medias res? Or modernist techniques which employ a nonlinear structure, where you might start at the conclusion? Are those not "good stories"? Really the old "twist ending" is one of the cheapest moves in literature.

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Seival wrote...
I'm saying that brilliant turn of events make a story really interesting. And you can't make good philosophical points, if you told reader everything from the very beginning.

In other words... Wanna read a really good story? Be ready for surprises and don't hurry with conclusions. Good stories need some time to be processed.

Apocalypse now says otherwise.

That story doesn't tell you everything from the beginning.

You mean it has a narrative where event's unfold.

[Ticonderoga117]

dreman9999 wrote...
Said wave are amplified by a device made to make things go fast then the speed of light. And the crucible-citadel combo effects the entire galexy.

If said wave was going FTL, we wouldn't have seen it when it affected Earth. It's going the speed of light if not slower. When it emits from the relays, same thing. It only goes really fast when trasnmitted from relay to relay.

Since the Normandy wasn't there yet, how did it catch them? Also, where the hell is that planet?! There are no other planets within the Sol system like that.

[Ticonderoga117]

Seival wrote...
That story doesn't tell you everything from the beginning.

But you know the end.

Your mission is to proceed up the Nung River in a Navy patrol boat. Pick
up Colonel Kurtz's path at Nu Mung Ba, follow it and learn what you can
along the way. When you find the Colonel, infiltrate his team by
whatever means available and terminate the Colonel's command.


Terminate the Colonel?


He's out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond
the pale of any acceptable human conduct. And he is still in the field
commanding troops.


Terminate with extreme prejudice.

You know how the movie will end, yet it has TONS of everything you mentioned, WITHOUT going into "Let's throw an unnatural curveball because we can."

ME3 could've done the same thing, LIKE EVERY OTHER good story. But no, it throws things in without a care for the plot JUST to make a message.

That is bad storytelling.

Modifié par Ticonderoga117, 04 novembre 2012 - 07:51 .

[Reorte]

Seival wrote...

I'm saying that brilliant turn of events make a story really interesting. And you can't make good philosophical points, if you told reader everything from the very beginning.

In other words... Wanna read a really good story? Be ready for surprises and don't hurry with conclusions. Good stories need some time to be processed.

Sure, but being an unexpected turn of events certainly doesn't make it brilliant and without expert hands it's very easy for the turn to be one for the worse.

[DrGunjah]

dreman9999 wrote...
You never ask your self why the normandy is on a planet in the end of the game?   Anwser..It's tech was effected.

All tech was effected.

the normandy crash landing scene happens in all endings, so green and blue are EMPs too?

[dreman9999]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1. That was the leviathens.
2-4.Means toan end to it goal.

I agree that they are all immoral act but that does not say the intent of the reapers. Nothing say they areevil . Just that they are doing immoral acts for some reason.

Say a person is evil is immorl meas I cansay Shepard is evil becasue he destroyed a colony in arriaval.

1. Says who?
2. So the guy who kills 20 people is an ok guy because we don't know why he's doing the killing?

What kind of backwards logic is that?

1. Play the leviathen dlc.
2. That is possible.How do we know those 20 arn't  terroist planning to kill millions?

That's not back wards logic. That the concept that morality is relative. Idelopgies of morality lable good cause death of millions of people.

the spanis inquisistion called themselve "good". The crusaders calledthem selves good. So have many terrorist.
And ruelygood people have done immoral acts in the name of good. Was what happen in arriaval moral?

The issue here is that it's relative. ME never stated the the reapers areinheritly evil or good. It left it in you hands.

[dreamgazer]

adneate wrote...

In other words it's just CRAAAAAAP. Like a Terrance Malick movie.

Completely killed whatever point you were trying to make with that statement.

And very few people are claiming it's "revelatory" or tremendously deep---only that it's more interesting and philosophically provocative than the ravings suggest. I'm plenty nourished in that regard, and I appreciate some of what the ending accomplishes in terms of making the audience confront their perception of the choices. I don't know if that makes me a pro-ender or not, since I have my issues with the execution, nor do I care.

Of course, that's coming from someone who stays the course and rejects the other options based on in-universe precedents and the cautionary tales of classic science-fiction. Yep, Seival: classic sci-fi leads me in the opposite direction.

[Reorte]

dreman9999 wrote...

]What defines a person actions is intent. The action maybe immoral but the person still can be good. You example is like saying Shepard is evil for blowing up a colony in arrival

It a question of means vs end. If the end is just, does that mean the means to get to that end is moral? Should it alway be moral? And what happens if it can't be moral?

It can be moral if the ends justify the means. There's no evidence presented that the actions of the Reapers do that, unlike destroying the colony in Arrival where it's pretty clear that it's doomed regardles and so is everyone else - i.e. there's no alternative. In my example the guy killing people doesn't even bother arguing his case, looking for alternatives (e.g. finding more farmland) or even bother telling people why he's killing them. Just like the Reapers.

[dreman9999]

DrGunjah wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
You never ask your self why the normandy is on a planet in the end of the game?   Anwser..It's tech was effected.

All tech was effected.

the normandy crash landing scene happens in all endings, so green and blue are EMPs too?

Well that means they all are still effect tech in some way.

[StarcloudSWG]

 I have read several hundred sci-fi novels. From Alfred Bester to Isaac Azimov to Heinlein to Marion Zimmer Bradley to Gene Wolfe to James Alan Gardner to Jack Vance, just to name a fraction of the writers I've read.

And the ending to Mass Effect 3 is one of the worst I've seen. Not because of the themes, no, the themes were quite understandable and very clear. No, what made it a terrible ending is how completely OUT OF PLACE it is, narratively and emotionally.

It's like replacing the last ten minutes of any action movie ever with the last ten minutes of 2001: A Space Oddessey.

Completely.
Utterly.
Out of place.

Nothing in the last two and nine tenths games prepared us to engage in a dialog about transhumanism and the inevitability of extinction with an AI that was programmed to believe in faulty premises. It was, in short, complete crap in the context of the Mass Effect series.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 04 novembre 2012 - 07:55 .

[Seival]

Redbelle wrote...

Seival wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Seival wrote...

The brilliant turn of the events bothers you? You like standard boring stories with ending you knew from the beginning?

...That looks unnatural.

Are you seriously suggesting that it's good simply because it's different for the sake of being different? Originality (not that there's all that much here anyway) without quality is still rubbish. Originality and quality is best but I'll take unoriginal and good before original and nonsense.

I'm saying that brilliant turn of events make a story really interesting. And you can't make good philosophical points, if you told reader everything from the very beginning.

In other words... Wanna read a really good story? Be ready for surprises and don't hurry with conclusions. Good stories need some time to be processed.

Only for authors who cannot concisely convey what they wish to say.

You think Harry Harrison is "an author who cannot concisely convey what he wishes to say"? That's more than just silly. Deathworld, for example, is very short story (you wouldn't need more than 6 hours to read it I think). But it has several brilliant turn of events. Each works just perfectly.

Please, read the Deathworld. Do yourself a big favour

Modifié par Seival, 04 novembre 2012 - 08:03 .

[fiendishchicken]

Not another pro ending thread *sigh*

I'm just gonna say it. The endings suck. They suck bad. Even after the EC they still suck. And BW knows it. Some would have wanted to change it if they had the chance.

I still advocate a new ending, but I'm not going to actively fight anymore. I want more closure dlc (post war), Priority Earth, ME2 characters, a good Cerberus dlc (where you can actually look at them in a less"Oh Cerberderp is evil!" light), Collector/Harbinger dlc, and a revamped beginning. Because that was just as bad as the ending.

I'm no sci-fi writer, or even much of fan as to have read many books. 

I am a military officer in the National Guard, with a strong albeit unorthodox sense of right/wrong and good/bad, and I know plenty about writing a good story. Thematically, the story may be "sci-fi", but that doesn't make it good.

Modifié par fiendishchicken, 04 novembre 2012 - 08:02 .

[dreman9999]

Reorte wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

]What defines a person actions is intent. The action maybe immoral but the person still can be good. You example is like saying Shepard is evil for blowing up a colony in arrival

It a question of means vs end. If the end is just, does that mean the means to get to that end is moral? Should it alway be moral? And what happens if it can't be moral?

It can be moral if the ends justify the means. There's no evidence presented that the actions of the Reapers do that, unlike destroying the colony in Arrival where it's pretty clear that it's doomed regardles and so is everyone else - i.e. there's no alternative. In my example the guy killing people doesn't even bother arguing his case, looking for alternatives (e.g. finding more farmland) or even bother telling people why he's killing them. Just like the Reapers.

That does not make the action moral.That just means the only way to do what's need to be do for the greater good is through an immoral way.

The reaper case is complicated by the fact they are just doing what they are programed to do. The destruction is a means to that end. The are just foced to blindly follow there programing.

[dreman9999]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

 I have read several hundred sci-fi novels. From Alfred Bester to Isaac Azimov to Heinlein to Marion Zimmer Bradley to Gene Wolfe to James Alan Gardner to Jack Vance, just to name a fraction of the writers I've read.

And the ending to Mass Effect 3 is one of the worst I've seen. Not because of the themes, no, the themes were quite understandable and very clear. No, what made it a terrible ending is how completely OUT OF PLACE it is, narratively and emotionally.

It's like replacing the last ten minutes of any action movie ever with the last ten minutes of 2001: A Space Oddessey.

Completely.
Utterly.
Out of place.

Nothing in the last two and nine tenths games prepared us to engage in a dialog about transhumanism and the inevitability of extinction with an AI that was programmed to believe in faulty premises. It was, in short, complete crap in the context of the Mass Effect series.

It's not like ME never askedthequestion in the end of ME3 BEFORE.