237 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

Outsider edge wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

And that's why Patrick Weekes wasn't allowed to contribute to the ending. He considered the players.

Albeit if rumors are too be believed Walters and Hudson were solely responsible for the endings having had Weekes or any of the other writers involved isn't a guarentee that the endings would have improved. The endings are just at the end of a certified mess of a main plot. All the writers should have had their input on that and it turned out the way it's presented in the main game. With eleborate plotdevices like the Crucible popping up out of nowhere, Cerberus on steroids, logic fallacies, previous games having almost no meaning, pivotal characters dissapearing etc etc.

The sheer adoration for the other writers displayed by so many i simply don't get. All of them should have seen ME3's main plot play out from the get go and apparently none raised their hands signalling that there might be some problems with it.

Seriously, this post sums up the ignorance of the fanbase.

The Crucible did not pop out of nowhere, no more so than the Conduit, that other MacGuffin in ME1 everyone loves. Nevermind that the Crucible fit the narrative. How? Because it was established in ME1 that hope for the future did come from a past cycle. Nevermind in LotSB, Liara committs herself to using Broker resources to fight the Reapers and that the Broker had more info from the Protheans that they have not used. All in the narrative.

Cerberus on steroids...wow...did you not play ME1. It was established in ME1 that Cerberus had a super solider program AND were experimenting with Reaper tech and husks. You obviously did not pay attention. ME1 foreshadowed what Cerberus would become in ME3. Sanctuary looks very familiar to their actions in the ME1 mission "Colony of the Dead".

Logical fallacies.....you know stories are allowed to have them. Sometimes the story happens because a proatgonist or antagonist has flawed logic. Its not bad writing, its typical storytelling. And yet, if you want to talk logical flaws in the actual storyline, ME1 had the most.

Previous games have no meaning...wow are you stupid or ignorant. The consquences of the Rannoch, Tuchanka, and Citadel Coup storylines are based off the choices of the past games.

Pivotal characters disappearing.....ummm, what? No they don't.

[txgoldrush]

Sauruz wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

The complete contrary is the case. You're never going to be the hero of Mass Effect 3. Unless you just don't think about the implications and ramifications of your ending choice.
You either leave the game as a nihilist or as a failed hero.

The very notion that ME3 is "nihilistic" is completely idiotic and wrong.

You have to disregard morals to win. If you refuse to do so, you lose.
Furthermore, I have already seen many on these forums who have started to think nihilism is a good thing because of the endings. To say the endings are not nihlistic is just nonsensical. That may have not been the intention of the devs, but that's what they are.

And yet you partner with Cerberus to win in ME2, it doesn't just come out of the ending, you have to make hard choices to save the galaxy and humanity throughout the saga.

But yet its not nihilistic, it just more realistic. If its nihilistic, nothing would matter, you'd lose regardless.

[Dean_the_Young]

Eryri wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If you want to keep making stuff up until the ending is 
horrible, nobody can stop you.

Are you denying that for 99% of the game - the process by which the Reaper's created their minions was more than mildly unpleasant? Impaling them on spikes, stitching them together with other species etc etc?

The means by which the Reapers make their minions isn't the means, or even the ends, by which Synthesis occurs, so the question is irrelevant.

Synthesis isn't impaling people alive, and it isn't turning people into husks. This is the completely voluntary analogies and equivalences which people are making in lieu of anything in the game.

My point, was that if Bioware intended us to view the fate of the husks positively, post-Synthesis (which I'm not convinced they do, but that's a another can of worms) then they failed to adequately demonstrate it.

Husks aren't the equivalence. People with cybernetics: Shepard, Tali, even Garrus, are.

The husks were depicted as mindless animals though most of the game. Our only clue that they may ever be anything more than that, is the one husk in the synthesis epilogue, looking around with... bemusement? It's rather hard to tell on the face of a husk.

Can you really blame people for finding such a dramatic, 11th hour shift in tone hard to accept?

Since it isn't a tone shift... I can certainly blame people for making up false analogies and facts to head-canon justify their dislike of the endings.

In any event, as you may have guessed from my signature, I rather suspect that this debate is academic. The reason Synthesis seems so out of place, is because that's precisely the impression Bioware conciously intended to create.

The impression Bioware intended to create was an air of ambiguity, not utter horror and mass huskification. If the wanted to equate Synthesis to husks, they would have compared it to husks rather than letting Shepard stand as the partially synthetic example figure.

[DirtySHISN0]

Hadeedak wrote...

But the best thing you can say for the endings is that all three (four now) have merit, advantages, and disadvantages.

Refuse has no advantages that aren't totally irrelevant.

[M Hedonist]

txgoldrush wrote...

Previous games have no meaning...wow are you stupid or ignorant. The consquences of the Rannoch, Tuchanka, and Citadel Coup storylines are based off the choices of the past games.

You're a troll, aren't you?

Modifié par Sauruz, 30 décembre 2012 - 08:27 .

[txgoldrush]

Sauruz wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sauruz wrote...
The complete contrary is the case. You're never going to be the hero of Mass Effect 3. Unless you just don't think about the implications and ramifications of your ending choice.
You either leave the game as a nihilist or as a failed hero.

If by nihilist, you mean that there's no moral order to the universe, and there are only actions and consequences.... then sure, nihilism is true in the ME universe. How does knowing this make Shep a non-hero?

Well, if your defintion of a hero is a nihilist, I guess you must've been happy with the endings.
I mean, apart from all the other things that were wrong with them.

I'm still not sure what you mean by "nihilist" or why you think being one is incompatible with being a hero.

I think you're putting too much thought into that - and this is starting to go somewhere very ME-unrelated.
I didn't want to say being a nihilist makes you a non-hero. The fact that you chose one of the three Crucible endings is what makes you a non-hero.

And yet its the same character that let 300,000 Batarians die in ME2 Arrival.

Its called sacrifice, Shepard has to make some.

Sacrificing oneself is noble. Sacrificing others is disgusting.

Sacrificing others is also necessary.....every time a commander orders his men to battle, he is sacrifcing others for the mission.

[garrusfan1]

Control is renegade and makes you a villian hands down in my opinion. Not sure about synthesis as horrible as it is I think if Shepard chose that he was high. Refuse is the dumb choice and destroy is the paragon choice. Got to say weekes is wrong in this

[LucasShark]

txgoldrush wrote...

Outsider edge wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

And that's why Patrick Weekes wasn't allowed to contribute to the ending. He considered the players.

Albeit if rumors are too be believed Walters and Hudson were solely responsible for the endings having had Weekes or any of the other writers involved isn't a guarentee that the endings would have improved. The endings are just at the end of a certified mess of a main plot. All the writers should have had their input on that and it turned out the way it's presented in the main game. With eleborate plotdevices like the Crucible popping up out of nowhere, Cerberus on steroids, logic fallacies, previous games having almost no meaning, pivotal characters dissapearing etc etc.

The sheer adoration for the other writers displayed by so many i simply don't get. All of them should have seen ME3's main plot play out from the get go and apparently none raised their hands signalling that there might be some problems with it.

Seriously, this post sums up the ignorance of the fanbase.

The Crucible did not pop out of nowhere, no more so than the Conduit, that other MacGuffin in ME1 everyone loves. Nevermind that the Crucible fit the narrative. How? Because it was established in ME1 that hope for the future did come from a past cycle. Nevermind in LotSB, Liara committs herself to using Broker resources to fight the Reapers and that the Broker had more info from the Protheans that they have not used. All in the narrative.

Cerberus on steroids...wow...did you not play ME1. It was established in ME1 that Cerberus had a super solider program AND were experimenting with Reaper tech and husks. You obviously did not pay attention. ME1 foreshadowed what Cerberus would become in ME3. Sanctuary looks very familiar to their actions in the ME1 mission "Colony of the Dead".

Logical fallacies.....you know stories are allowed to have them. Sometimes the story happens because a proatgonist or antagonist has flawed logic. Its not bad writing, its typical storytelling. And yet, if you want to talk logical flaws in the actual storyline, ME1 had the most.

Previous games have no meaning...wow are you stupid or ignorant. The consquences of the Rannoch, Tuchanka, and Citadel Coup storylines are based off the choices of the past games.

Pivotal characters disappearing.....ummm, what? No they don't.

Conduit V crucible:

Origin:
Conduit - at first mysterious, but explained without a doubt
Crucible - unknown, and never explained

Actual device:
Conduit - an unlocking and replication of already existing in universe technology
Crucible - magical problem-solving device

Arrival in the story:
Conduit - arises naturally into the narrative
Crucible - Is discovered conveniently enough at the precise moment we need it, in a location which was previously stated to be depleated of useful information, and then is treated as the only option despite being ill-defined

Actual functionality:
Conduit - possible given in-universe lore
Crucible - presents things which are utterly impossible, by in=-universe lore, and real-world physics

Treatment in the narrative:
Conduit - treated as an unknown, which it is
Crucible - treated as the only hope of the cycle, despite not knowing what it does, how it does it, how it is deployed, or what a final component actually is!

One of these things is not like the other!

[DirtySHISN0]

@txgoldrush

The difference is whether you have spent lives or wasted them.

Personally all endings make me feel like i have wasted them.

Modifié par DirtySHISN0, 30 décembre 2012 - 08:15 .

[AlanC9]

Sauruz wrote...

You have to disregard morals to win. If you refuse to do so, you lose.

Only a specific kind of morals. Not believing in the same moral code you have doesn't make someone a nihilist. 

Furthermore, I have already seen many on these forums who have started to think nihilism is a good thing because of the endings. To say the endings are not nihlistic is just nonsensical. That may have not been the intention of the devs, but that's what they are.

Could you point me to a case or two? I've never seen anything of the sort.

[txgoldrush]

Sauruz wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Previous games have no meaning...wow are you stupid or ignorant. The consquences of the Rannoch, Tuchanka, and Citadel Coup storylines are based off the choices of the past games.

You're a troll, aren't you?

You're an idiot are you?

Let me enlighten you.

Does Wrex and Wreav lead the Krogan the same? Is the future of the Krogan the same? Is Eve's life, a stablizing influence, a guarnatee either way? Please. The final outcome of that storyline is largely dependant on your choices throughout the saga, and the choice to sabotage the cure has different consquences based off of past choices.

And don't get me started on Rannochm where past choices has an impact on whether there is peace or genocide.

You sir, are factually WRONG.

[The Night Mammoth]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sauruz wrote...
Furthermore, I have already seen many on these forums who have started to think nihilism is a good thing because of the endings. To say the endings are not nihlistic is just nonsensical. That may have not been the intention of the devs, but that's what they are.

Could you point me to a case or two? I've never seen anything of the sort.

Seival is the first person who springs to mind. 

Anyone who supported those threads he made using another science-fiction author's work as proof of some argument. 

[The Night Mammoth]

txgoldrush wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Previous games have no meaning...wow are you stupid or ignorant. The consquences of the Rannoch, Tuchanka, and Citadel Coup storylines are based off the choices of the past games.

You're a troll, aren't you?

You're an idiot are you?

Let me enlighten you.

Does Wrex and Wreav lead the Krogan the same? Is the future of the Krogan the same? Is Eve's life, a stablizing influence, a guarnatee either way? Please. The final outcome of that storyline is largely dependant on your choices throughout the saga, and the choice to sabotage the cure has different consquences based off of past choices.

He didn't highlight Tuchanka. This above paragraph is irrelevant. 

And don't get me started on Rannochm where past choices has an impact on whether there is peace or genocide.

You sir, are factually WRONG.

Conveniently dodging the point. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 30 décembre 2012 - 08:20 .

[AlanC9]

txgoldrush wrote...

Sacrificing others is also necessary.....every time a commander orders his men to battle, he is sacrifcing others for the mission.

It's amusing to imagine a Kantian general.

[Eryri]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The impression Bioware intended to create was an air of ambiguity, not utter horror and mass huskification. If the wanted to equate Synthesis to husks, they would have compared it to husks rather than letting Shepard stand as the partially synthetic example figure.

I think we're discussing different things. My original post was responding to the topic of what happens to pre-existing husks, post synthesis. Is their specific situation improved?

Modifié par Eryri, 30 décembre 2012 - 08:24 .

[AlanC9]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

@txgoldrush

The difference is whether you have spent lives or wasted them.

Personally all endings make me feel like i have wasted them.

You picked Refuse, huh? Well, then you're right.

[AlanC9]

Eryri wrote...
I think we're arguing about different things. My original post was responding to the topic of what happens to pre-existing husks, post synthesis. Is their specific situation improved?

Have to ask one. My impression of the cutscene is that they're better off, though.

[DirtySHISN0]

AlanC9 wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

@txgoldrush

The difference is whether you have spent lives or wasted them.

Personally all endings make me feel like i have wasted them.

You picked Refuse, huh? Well, then you're right.

No and i'm insulted that you think that.

I stop playing after cronos station. 

Modifié par DirtySHISN0, 30 décembre 2012 - 08:26 .

[M Hedonist]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Previous games have no meaning...wow are you stupid or ignorant. The consquences of the Rannoch, Tuchanka, and Citadel Coup storylines are based off the choices of the past games.

You're a troll, aren't you?

You're an idiot are you?

Let me enlighten you.

Does Wrex and Wreav lead the Krogan the same? Is the future of the Krogan the same? Is Eve's life, a stablizing influence, a guarnatee either way? Please. The final outcome of that storyline is largely dependant on your choices throughout the saga, and the choice to sabotage the cure has different consquences based off of past choices.

He didn't highlight Tuchanka. This above paragraph is irrelevant. 

And don't get me started on Rannochm where past choices has an impact on whether there is peace or genocide.

You sir, are factually WRONG.

Conveniently dodging the point. 

Actually, I didn't even want to highlight Rannoch, either. I was thinking of Rachni for some reason.
I'm really just astonished at the Citadel coup thing, so every part of that post was irrelevant.

Modifié par Sauruz, 30 décembre 2012 - 08:27 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Eryri wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The impression Bioware intended to create was an air of ambiguity, not utter horror and mass huskification. If the wanted to equate Synthesis to husks, they would have compared it to husks rather than letting Shepard stand as the partially synthetic example figure.

I think we're discussing different things. My original post was responding to the topic of what happens to pre-existing husks, post synthesis. Is their specific situation improved?

Who knows... but the point that the ambiguous standard of a synthesis of organic and synthetic being Shepard, not Reaper cruelty, remains.

Mordin actually has a good piece in ME2 of how the Reaper usage of organic and machine in their creations, such as the Collectors, isn't an actual balance. The insinuations of Synthesis is that it will be a balance of both, not an overpowering of one over the other.

[AlanC9]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

No and i'm insulted that you think that.

I stop playing after cronos station. 

Heh. That means you don't ever finish, so your Shepards are like Schroedinger's cat; their fates are undetermined, so we can't say if their lives were wasted or not.

[DirtySHISN0]

AlanC9 wrote...

Heh. That means you don't ever finish, so your Shepards are like Schroedinger's cat; their fates are undetermined, so we can't say if their lives were wasted or not.

I was talking about lives spent/wasted by shepard, but suppose it doesn't matter if we include shepard in that number.

I know of all the endings, an undetermined fate is better than a wasted one.

It pains me to play piority earth.

[txgoldrush]

LucasShark wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Outsider edge wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

And that's why Patrick Weekes wasn't allowed to contribute to the ending. He considered the players.

Albeit if rumors are too be believed Walters and Hudson were solely responsible for the endings having had Weekes or any of the other writers involved isn't a guarentee that the endings would have improved. The endings are just at the end of a certified mess of a main plot. All the writers should have had their input on that and it turned out the way it's presented in the main game. With eleborate plotdevices like the Crucible popping up out of nowhere, Cerberus on steroids, logic fallacies, previous games having almost no meaning, pivotal characters dissapearing etc etc.

The sheer adoration for the other writers displayed by so many i simply don't get. All of them should have seen ME3's main plot play out from the get go and apparently none raised their hands signalling that there might be some problems with it.

Seriously, this post sums up the ignorance of the fanbase.

The Crucible did not pop out of nowhere, no more so than the Conduit, that other MacGuffin in ME1 everyone loves. Nevermind that the Crucible fit the narrative. How? Because it was established in ME1 that hope for the future did come from a past cycle. Nevermind in LotSB, Liara committs herself to using Broker resources to fight the Reapers and that the Broker had more info from the Protheans that they have not used. All in the narrative.

Cerberus on steroids...wow...did you not play ME1. It was established in ME1 that Cerberus had a super solider program AND were experimenting with Reaper tech and husks. You obviously did not pay attention. ME1 foreshadowed what Cerberus would become in ME3. Sanctuary looks very familiar to their actions in the ME1 mission "Colony of the Dead".

Logical fallacies.....you know stories are allowed to have them. Sometimes the story happens because a proatgonist or antagonist has flawed logic. Its not bad writing, its typical storytelling. And yet, if you want to talk logical flaws in the actual storyline, ME1 had the most.

Previous games have no meaning...wow are you stupid or ignorant. The consquences of the Rannoch, Tuchanka, and Citadel Coup storylines are based off the choices of the past games.

Pivotal characters disappearing.....ummm, what? No they don't.

Conduit V crucible:

Origin:
Conduit - at first mysterious, but explained without a doubt
Crucible - unknown, and never explained

Actual device:
Conduit - an unlocking and replication of already existing in universe technology
Crucible - magical problem-solving device

Arrival in the story:
Conduit - arises naturally into the narrative
Crucible - Is discovered conveniently enough at the precise moment we need it, in a location which was previously stated to be depleated of useful information, and then is treated as the only option despite being ill-defined

Actual functionality:
Conduit - possible given in-universe lore
Crucible - presents things which are utterly impossible, by in=-universe lore, and real-world physics

Treatment in the narrative:
Conduit - treated as an unknown, which it is
Crucible - treated as the only hope of the cycle, despite not knowing what it does, how it does it, how it is deployed, or what a final component actually is!

One of these things is not like the other!

If the Conduit arises logically from the narrative, why does Saren even need it? He doesn't. The role of the Conduit is not logical for the bad guy when he has other methods he could have used and used without exposing himself. The conduit was a poor attempt by Drew K to be clever.

As for the origins, it doesn't matter how the Crucible got started, only that it did. It doesn't matter if cat people or a rabbit type race made it, its not important. Whats important is that somebody tried to make a device, failed, and past on the idea to the next cycle, which fits thematically of what ME1 established, past cycles helping future cycles. The refusal ending confirms this.

As for actual functionality, lets see, the Crucible turns the Reapers own tech, the relay system against them. This is definitely plausable in the in game universe.

As for introduction in the narrative....if you weren't ignorant you would know that the people on Mars never had access to the lower archives because they didn't have the encyrption key. Liara finds it on Kahje, and accesses the Prothean ruins on Mars. Its all in the lore. The Crucible comes out of the plot not of contrivance but because of the actions of the deuteragonist of the series. She did say in LotSB that she will use her resources to find a way to stop the Reapers and that the Broker had more Prothean data not yet used. And if you want to write off out of game lore, than you will have to call ME2's opening the most contrived moment of the series.

A hint, Liara fills in the missing gaps between ME1 and ME2, and ME2 and ME3.

[The Night Mammoth]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

@txgoldrush

The difference is whether you have spent lives or wasted them.

Personally all endings make me feel like i have wasted them.

You picked Refuse, huh? Well, then you're right.

No and i'm insulted that you think that.

I stop playing after cronos station. 

Ermahgerd, so do I. 

[txgoldrush]

Sauruz wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Previous games have no meaning...wow are you stupid or ignorant. The consquences of the Rannoch, Tuchanka, and Citadel Coup storylines are based off the choices of the past games.

You're a troll, aren't you?

You're an idiot are you?

Let me enlighten you.

Does Wrex and Wreav lead the Krogan the same? Is the future of the Krogan the same? Is Eve's life, a stablizing influence, a guarnatee either way? Please. The final outcome of that storyline is largely dependant on your choices throughout the saga, and the choice to sabotage the cure has different consquences based off of past choices.

He didn't highlight Tuchanka. This above paragraph is irrelevant. 

And don't get me started on Rannochm where past choices has an impact on whether there is peace or genocide.

You sir, are factually WRONG.

Conveniently dodging the point. 

Actually, I didn't even want to highlight Rannoch, either. I was thinking of Rachni for some reason.
I'm really just astonished at the Citadel coup thing, so every part of that post was irrelevant.

The actions of the past games determine whether the salarian councilor lives or dies, and as a result most likely whether Ashley or Kaiden lives or dies.