325 réponses à ce sujet

[Outsider edge]

txgoldrush wrote...

Outsider edge wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Outsider edge wrote...

Just stop trying too have a logical discussion with Texasgold. This is a person that sees the Mass Effect franchise as a multimedia franchise. So for him it's perfectly fine if the main story has gaping holes in it's plot aslong as Bioware releases some 3th grade comic months after it's release that offers some explanations.

It's utter nonsense ofcourse but in Texas's fantasy land it's perfectly acceptable. Like talking too a brick wall.

How about the idiotic bashers stop ignoring clear facts..oh wait they are too stupid to actually listen to the dialogue.

And like I said earlier in this thread....yes there are comics explaining Liara's Crucible quest HOWEVER if you paid attention to the story and her dialogue on Mars, she EXPL:AINS how she worked with Hackett,  I even posting her dialogue earlier this thread. The dialogue bookends the Lair of the Shadow Broker where she vowed to use her resources to find a way to stop the Reapers....well, she did, so contrived...lol

Hell, she contradicts the stupid criticism that the Alliance did nothing even after knowing about the Reaper threat.

Don't know why i bother but alas. Let's look at the Lair of the Shadowbroker DLC which you point at so often. In that DLC it's made clear the old shadowbroker knew what was up since the events of ME1 and was frantically trying too find a way out. Now this shadowbroker had been in power for decades as being put forward in the narrative and he didn't find jack ****. Now in comes Liara the new shadowbroker! In the 6+ months Shepard is in prison she goes on the hunt for clues. She fights of Cerberus. She loses the shadowbroker ship and relocates the whole shadowbroker network. She helps Hackett locate the archives. She helps uncover the archives. She finds the decryption key too the prothean data. She decodes the prothean data and uncovers the blueprints too the Crucible. All this in 6+ months just so the blueprints are ready with a big ribbon around them for when Shepard arrives so he/she can bring them too the Citadel while the old much more experienced shadowbroker couldn't find anything at all.

That my friend is what we call subpar writing. You can't defend this contrived writing especially when looking at the narrative as a whole. And the whole of ME3's main plot is littered with such conveniences resulting ofcourse in the appearance of the Catalyst who's sole existence torpedoes everything that happened in ME1 and ME2.

So, the old Shadow Broker is a Prothean researcher with tenacity? Please.

The old Broker gave up and flipped sides. He gave up. Liara didn't. He had a character flaw and fell because of it. He couldn't find anything because he didn't try.

And yet you hold up once again ME1 and ME2, which definitely had contrivances and convienance, bad ones in fact. Don;t tell me as good a steh Vigil scene was, wasn't contrived. Or the Lazarus Project or that unnamed mission the squad of ME2 goes on to clear the ship for Joker. Far more contrived than a Prothean researcher finding a "prothean" weapon, in a Prothean ruin.

Ahh here comes the headcannon again. You have no proof whatsoever the old shadowbroker gave up. He knew since ME1 that his life was at stake so no he wouldn't just give up. You also say he changed sides which would mean he knew who the Collectors really were and who they were working for. You have no proof of that just once again that mighty imagination of yours. The Crucible and how it's presented aswell as Liara's actions in the timeframe of barely 6 months is contrived storytelling.

Does ME1 and ME have bits of contrived storytelling? Absolutely! But none of that exposition is as jarring (or important too the narrative) as what is presented in ME3. Both of those games also had an advantage. They were the first and second installment of a trilogy so any loose ends could still have been tied up. The fact that in hindsight the writers simply didn't bother and therefor shot holes in those narratives is of less importance.

Modifié par Outsider edge, 02 janvier 2013 - 11:43 .

[txgoldrush]

Fixers0 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
And yet its all explained in the narrative of ME3.....

On Mars

Shepard: We known about the Archives for decades, why now?

Liara: Process of elimination mixed in with a little desperation. When you destroyed the Alpha Relay, you bought us some time, but then you were under investigation. I knew I had to do something. Hackett knew it too, he contacted me asking me for a way to use my resources as the Shadow Broker to stop the Reapers. My search led me here. Hackett got me access to the archives and kept me updated on your status.

Its all in the narrative...you ar eignoring this to make false criticisms.

The bolded part is the Retcon, no such thing as "Archives" existed before, It was an "obeservation and biosciences station" containing an "small data cache". either you never played the first Mass Effect or you memory is less then satisfactory. 

and yet lore from the Cerberus Daily News said they expanded the site.....its there.

And in one of the pads on the Mars mission....

Research Notes: J. Tasmen

The last location seems to have run dry, but judging from the communications system layout and the backup power supplies equipped by the first Prothean research base we discovered, we think a secondary base may be located deeper underground. We're going to need permission from the Powers That Be to excavate further, but considering the recent renewal in enthusiasm for the work we're doing here, I don't think clearance will be an issue..

Its not a retcon, its that they had incomplete info and an incomplete picture of the facility.

And I would see why humans would consider it an archive, because the data found only advanced them a couple hundred years.

[TheProtheans]

txgoldrush wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
And yet its all explained in the narrative of ME3.....

On Mars

Shepard: We known about the Archives for decades, why now?

Liara: Process of elimination mixed in with a little desperation. When you destroyed the Alpha Relay, you bought us some time, but then you were under investigation. I knew I had to do something. Hackett knew it too, he contacted me asking me for a way to use my resources as the Shadow Broker to stop the Reapers. My search led me here. Hackett got me access to the archives and kept me updated on your status.

Its all in the narrative...you ar eignoring this to make false criticisms.

The bolded part is the Retcon, no such thing as "Archives" existed before, It was an "obeservation and biosciences station" containing an "small data cache". either you never played the first Mass Effect or you memory is less then satisfactory. 

and yet lore from the Cerberus Daily News said they expanded the site.....its there.

And in one of the pads on the Mars mission....

Research Notes: J. Tasmen

The last location seems to have run dry, but judging from the communications system layout and the backup power supplies equipped by the first Prothean research base we discovered, we think a secondary base may be located deeper underground. We're going to need permission from the Powers That Be to excavate further, but considering the recent renewal in enthusiasm for the work we're doing here, I don't think clearance will be an issue..

Its not a retcon, its that they had incomplete info and an incomplete picture of the facility.

And I would see why humans would consider it an archive, because the data found only advanced them a couple hundred years.

Strange that Mass effect 3 is the first time "Archives" is even used to describe it.
It's a retcon through and through.

Modifié par TheProtheans, 02 janvier 2013 - 11:45 .

[Fixers0]

txgoldrush wrote...
and yet lore from the Cerberus Daily News said they expanded the site.....its there.

Irellevant as the content of the message does not match with the narrative of mass Effect 3, and it's seconadry narrative material which shouldn't be needed.

txgoldrush wrote...
Its not a retcon, its that they had incomplete info and an incomplete picture of the facility.

Wrong, as Mass effect 3 clearly shows us that the only prothean artifact that remains is a gigantic glowing tube, there is no mention of prothean ruins and it contradicts the established facts of a small data cache.

txgoldrush wrote...
And I would see why humans would consider it an archive, because the data found only advanced them a couple hundred years.

Conjecture

[txgoldrush]

Outsider edge wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Outsider edge wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Outsider edge wrote...

Just stop trying too have a logical discussion with Texasgold. This is a person that sees the Mass Effect franchise as a multimedia franchise. So for him it's perfectly fine if the main story has gaping holes in it's plot aslong as Bioware releases some 3th grade comic months after it's release that offers some explanations.

It's utter nonsense ofcourse but in Texas's fantasy land it's perfectly acceptable. Like talking too a brick wall.

How about the idiotic bashers stop ignoring clear facts..oh wait they are too stupid to actually listen to the dialogue.

And like I said earlier in this thread....yes there are comics explaining Liara's Crucible quest HOWEVER if you paid attention to the story and her dialogue on Mars, she EXPL:AINS how she worked with Hackett,  I even posting her dialogue earlier this thread. The dialogue bookends the Lair of the Shadow Broker where she vowed to use her resources to find a way to stop the Reapers....well, she did, so contrived...lol

Hell, she contradicts the stupid criticism that the Alliance did nothing even after knowing about the Reaper threat.

Don't know why i bother but alas. Let's look at the Lair of the Shadowbroker DLC which you point at so often. In that DLC it's made clear the old shadowbroker knew what was up since the events of ME1 and was frantically trying too find a way out. Now this shadowbroker had been in power for decades as being put forward in the narrative and he didn't find jack ****. Now in comes Liara the new shadowbroker! In the 6+ months Shepard is in prison she goes on the hunt for clues. She fights of Cerberus. She loses the shadowbroker ship and relocates the whole shadowbroker network. She helps Hackett locate the archives. She helps uncover the archives. She finds the decryption key too the prothean data. She decodes the prothean data and uncovers the blueprints too the Crucible. All this in 6+ months just so the blueprints are ready with a big ribbon around them for when Shepard arrives so he/she can bring them too the Citadel while the old much more experienced shadowbroker couldn't find anything at all.

That my friend is what we call subpar writing. You can't defend this contrived writing especially when looking at the narrative as a whole. And the whole of ME3's main plot is littered with such conveniences resulting ofcourse in the appearance of the Catalyst who's sole existence torpedoes everything that happened in ME1 and ME2.

So, the old Shadow Broker is a Prothean researcher with tenacity? Please.

The old Broker gave up and flipped sides. He gave up. Liara didn't. He had a character flaw and fell because of it. He couldn't find anything because he didn't try.

And yet you hold up once again ME1 and ME2, which definitely had contrivances and convienance, bad ones in fact. Don;t tell me as good a steh Vigil scene was, wasn't contrived. Or the Lazarus Project or that unnamed mission the squad of ME2 goes on to clear the ship for Joker. Far more contrived than a Prothean researcher finding a "prothean" weapon, in a Prothean ruin.

Ahh here comes the headcannon again. You have no proof whatsoever the old shadowbroker gave up. He knew since ME1 that his life was at stake so no he wouldn't just give up. You also say he changed sides which would mean he knew who the Collectors really were and who they were working for. You have no proof of that just once again that mighty imagination of yours. The Crucible and how it's presented aswell as Liara's actions in the timeframe of barely 6 months is contrived storytelling.

Does ME1 and ME have bits of contrived storytelling? Absolutely! But none of that exposition is as jarring (or important too the narrative) as what is presented in ME3. The main story of ME3 runs off the track 1 hour into the game and never recovers.

So then, why did he try and give Shepards body to the Collectors?....nevermind that Liara says that he dealt with the Collectors selfishly to try and save himself. He did find the true nature of the Collectors...its all in the narrative. And its on the wiki as well which means its in the narrative, not speculation.

And so its contrived because it takes only 6 months ....please. Thats more than enough time in a universe with mass relays. The leap of faith would be contrived if they didn't explore and talk about it, but they do. The uncertainty was part of the plot.

[Outsider edge]

txgoldrush wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
And yet its all explained in the narrative of ME3.....

On Mars

Shepard: We known about the Archives for decades, why now?

Liara: Process of elimination mixed in with a little desperation. When you destroyed the Alpha Relay, you bought us some time, but then you were under investigation. I knew I had to do something. Hackett knew it too, he contacted me asking me for a way to use my resources as the Shadow Broker to stop the Reapers. My search led me here. Hackett got me access to the archives and kept me updated on your status.

Its all in the narrative...you ar eignoring this to make false criticisms.

The bolded part is the Retcon, no such thing as "Archives" existed before, It was an "obeservation and biosciences station" containing an "small data cache". either you never played the first Mass Effect or you memory is less then satisfactory. 

and yet lore from the Cerberus Daily News said they expanded the site.....its there.

And in one of the pads on the Mars mission....

Research Notes: J. Tasmen

The last location seems to have run dry, but judging from the communications system layout and the backup power supplies equipped by the first Prothean research base we discovered, we think a secondary base may be located deeper underground. We're going to need permission from the Powers That Be to excavate further, but considering the recent renewal in enthusiasm for the work we're doing here, I don't think clearance will be an issue..

Its not a retcon, its that they had incomplete info and an incomplete picture of the facility.

And I would see why humans would consider it an archive, because the data found only advanced them a couple hundred years.

But Texas this is important information relating directly too the focuspoint of ME3's narrative. This should have been in the damn games! Not in comics or novels or Cerberus news updates that flash on the starterscreen. That's great for extended universe stuff but not for essential points relating too the main story.

[Outsider edge]

txgoldrush wrote...

Outsider edge wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Outsider edge wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Outsider edge wrote...

Just stop trying too have a logical discussion with Texasgold. This is a person that sees the Mass Effect franchise as a multimedia franchise. So for him it's perfectly fine if the main story has gaping holes in it's plot aslong as Bioware releases some 3th grade comic months after it's release that offers some explanations.

It's utter nonsense ofcourse but in Texas's fantasy land it's perfectly acceptable. Like talking too a brick wall.

How about the idiotic bashers stop ignoring clear facts..oh wait they are too stupid to actually listen to the dialogue.

And like I said earlier in this thread....yes there are comics explaining Liara's Crucible quest HOWEVER if you paid attention to the story and her dialogue on Mars, she EXPL:AINS how she worked with Hackett,  I even posting her dialogue earlier this thread. The dialogue bookends the Lair of the Shadow Broker where she vowed to use her resources to find a way to stop the Reapers....well, she did, so contrived...lol

Hell, she contradicts the stupid criticism that the Alliance did nothing even after knowing about the Reaper threat.

Don't know why i bother but alas. Let's look at the Lair of the Shadowbroker DLC which you point at so often. In that DLC it's made clear the old shadowbroker knew what was up since the events of ME1 and was frantically trying too find a way out. Now this shadowbroker had been in power for decades as being put forward in the narrative and he didn't find jack ****. Now in comes Liara the new shadowbroker! In the 6+ months Shepard is in prison she goes on the hunt for clues. She fights of Cerberus. She loses the shadowbroker ship and relocates the whole shadowbroker network. She helps Hackett locate the archives. She helps uncover the archives. She finds the decryption key too the prothean data. She decodes the prothean data and uncovers the blueprints too the Crucible. All this in 6+ months just so the blueprints are ready with a big ribbon around them for when Shepard arrives so he/she can bring them too the Citadel while the old much more experienced shadowbroker couldn't find anything at all.

That my friend is what we call subpar writing. You can't defend this contrived writing especially when looking at the narrative as a whole. And the whole of ME3's main plot is littered with such conveniences resulting ofcourse in the appearance of the Catalyst who's sole existence torpedoes everything that happened in ME1 and ME2.

So, the old Shadow Broker is a Prothean researcher with tenacity? Please.

The old Broker gave up and flipped sides. He gave up. Liara didn't. He had a character flaw and fell because of it. He couldn't find anything because he didn't try.

And yet you hold up once again ME1 and ME2, which definitely had contrivances and convienance, bad ones in fact. Don;t tell me as good a steh Vigil scene was, wasn't contrived. Or the Lazarus Project or that unnamed mission the squad of ME2 goes on to clear the ship for Joker. Far more contrived than a Prothean researcher finding a "prothean" weapon, in a Prothean ruin.

Ahh here comes the headcannon again. You have no proof whatsoever the old shadowbroker gave up. He knew since ME1 that his life was at stake so no he wouldn't just give up. You also say he changed sides which would mean he knew who the Collectors really were and who they were working for. You have no proof of that just once again that mighty imagination of yours. The Crucible and how it's presented aswell as Liara's actions in the timeframe of barely 6 months is contrived storytelling.

Does ME1 and ME have bits of contrived storytelling? Absolutely! But none of that exposition is as jarring (or important too the narrative) as what is presented in ME3. The main story of ME3 runs off the track 1 hour into the game and never recovers.

So then, why did he try and give Shepards body to the Collectors?....nevermind that Liara says that he dealt with the Collectors selfishly to try and save himself. He did find the true nature of the Collectors...its all in the narrative. And its on the wiki as well which means its in the narrative, not speculation.

And so its contrived because it takes only 6 months ....please. Thats more than enough time in a universe with mass relays. The leap of faith would be contrived if they didn't explore and talk about it, but they do. The uncertainty was part of the plot.

Alright i'm out! Since you are now resorting too Wikipedia too defend your ramblings on the narrative i'll consider that a white flag.

Thanks for playing though!

[txgoldrush]

Fixers0 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
and yet lore from the Cerberus Daily News said they expanded the site.....its there.

Irellevant as the content of the message does not match with the narrative of mass Effect 3, and it's seconadry narrative material which shouldn't be needed.

txgoldrush wrote...
Its not a retcon, its that they had incomplete info and an incomplete picture of the facility.

Wrong, as Mass effect 3 clearly shows us that the only prothean artifact that remains is a gigantic glowing tube, there is no mention of prothean ruins and it contradicts the established facts of a small data cache.

txgoldrush wrote...
And I would see why humans would consider it an archive, because the data found only advanced them a couple hundred years.

Conjecture

Secondary narrative is canon...get over it.

Wrong again, the Mars description mentions Prothean Ruins at the southern pole.

[txgoldrush]

Outsider edge wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Outsider edge wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Outsider edge wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Outsider edge wrote...

Just stop trying too have a logical discussion with Texasgold. This is a person that sees the Mass Effect franchise as a multimedia franchise. So for him it's perfectly fine if the main story has gaping holes in it's plot aslong as Bioware releases some 3th grade comic months after it's release that offers some explanations.

It's utter nonsense ofcourse but in Texas's fantasy land it's perfectly acceptable. Like talking too a brick wall.

How about the idiotic bashers stop ignoring clear facts..oh wait they are too stupid to actually listen to the dialogue.

And like I said earlier in this thread....yes there are comics explaining Liara's Crucible quest HOWEVER if you paid attention to the story and her dialogue on Mars, she EXPL:AINS how she worked with Hackett,  I even posting her dialogue earlier this thread. The dialogue bookends the Lair of the Shadow Broker where she vowed to use her resources to find a way to stop the Reapers....well, she did, so contrived...lol

Hell, she contradicts the stupid criticism that the Alliance did nothing even after knowing about the Reaper threat.

Don't know why i bother but alas. Let's look at the Lair of the Shadowbroker DLC which you point at so often. In that DLC it's made clear the old shadowbroker knew what was up since the events of ME1 and was frantically trying too find a way out. Now this shadowbroker had been in power for decades as being put forward in the narrative and he didn't find jack ****. Now in comes Liara the new shadowbroker! In the 6+ months Shepard is in prison she goes on the hunt for clues. She fights of Cerberus. She loses the shadowbroker ship and relocates the whole shadowbroker network. She helps Hackett locate the archives. She helps uncover the archives. She finds the decryption key too the prothean data. She decodes the prothean data and uncovers the blueprints too the Crucible. All this in 6+ months just so the blueprints are ready with a big ribbon around them for when Shepard arrives so he/she can bring them too the Citadel while the old much more experienced shadowbroker couldn't find anything at all.

That my friend is what we call subpar writing. You can't defend this contrived writing especially when looking at the narrative as a whole. And the whole of ME3's main plot is littered with such conveniences resulting ofcourse in the appearance of the Catalyst who's sole existence torpedoes everything that happened in ME1 and ME2.

So, the old Shadow Broker is a Prothean researcher with tenacity? Please.

The old Broker gave up and flipped sides. He gave up. Liara didn't. He had a character flaw and fell because of it. He couldn't find anything because he didn't try.

And yet you hold up once again ME1 and ME2, which definitely had contrivances and convienance, bad ones in fact. Don;t tell me as good a steh Vigil scene was, wasn't contrived. Or the Lazarus Project or that unnamed mission the squad of ME2 goes on to clear the ship for Joker. Far more contrived than a Prothean researcher finding a "prothean" weapon, in a Prothean ruin.

Ahh here comes the headcannon again. You have no proof whatsoever the old shadowbroker gave up. He knew since ME1 that his life was at stake so no he wouldn't just give up. You also say he changed sides which would mean he knew who the Collectors really were and who they were working for. You have no proof of that just once again that mighty imagination of yours. The Crucible and how it's presented aswell as Liara's actions in the timeframe of barely 6 months is contrived storytelling.

Does ME1 and ME have bits of contrived storytelling? Absolutely! But none of that exposition is as jarring (or important too the narrative) as what is presented in ME3. The main story of ME3 runs off the track 1 hour into the game and never recovers.

So then, why did he try and give Shepards body to the Collectors?....nevermind that Liara says that he dealt with the Collectors selfishly to try and save himself. He did find the true nature of the Collectors...its all in the narrative. And its on the wiki as well which means its in the narrative, not speculation.

And so its contrived because it takes only 6 months ....please. Thats more than enough time in a universe with mass relays. The leap of faith would be contrived if they didn't explore and talk about it, but they do. The uncertainty was part of the plot.

Alright i'm out! Since you are now resorting too Wikipedia too defend your ramblings on the narrative i'll consider that a white flag.

Thanks for playing though!

Or you refuse to admit that its in the narrative. Did you not even listen to Liara in the DLC?

You are just another poster who ignores the narrative.



At 1:35.....your argument is proven wrong...its all in the narrative.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 02 janvier 2013 - 12:00 .

[Fixers0]

txgoldrush wrote...
Secondary narrative is canon...get over it.

Canon is irellevant, writing matters.

txgoldrush wrote...
Wrong again, the Mars description mentions Prothean Ruins at the southern pole.

So what? "A small data cache" and "observation and biosciences station" don't turn into Information archives just because. it's a retcon, get over it.

[Outsider edge]

[.[/quote]

So then, why did he try and give Shepards body to the Collectors?....nevermind that Liara says that he dealt with the Collectors selfishly to try and save himself. He did find the true nature of the Collectors...its all in the narrative. And its on the wiki as well which means its in the narrative, not speculation.

And so its contrived because it takes only 6 months ....please. Thats more than enough time in a universe with mass relays. The leap of faith would be contrived if they didn't explore and talk about it, but they do. The uncertainty was part of the plot.[/quote]

Alright i'm out! Since you are now resorting too Wikipedia too defend your ramblings on the narrative i'll consider that a white flag.

Thanks for playing though![/quote]

Or you refuse to admit that its in the narrative. Did you not even listen to Liara in the DLC?

You are just another poster who ignores the narrative.



At 1:35.....your argument is proven wrong...its all in the narrative.[/quote]

See! That's better providing some tangible evidence instead of your own extended headcannon all the time.

So it seems the old shadowbroker knew about the collectors and their relation too the reapers. Still it provides no evidence that he "gave up" and "turned sides" which you claim. It looked more like he was playing all angles frantically too find an escape for himself.

Also as the narrative u posted says the old shadowbroker knew there was more prothean knowledge out there. After what was it 2-3 years since ME1 he couldn't find any solid evidence yet Liara manages too do just that in 6 months? While doing all the other stuff i posted above and you don't find that contrived and poor storytelling?

*edit* squashing the quotepyramid!

Modifié par Outsider edge, 02 janvier 2013 - 12:26 .

[Daniel_N7]

I know this is a recurring issue but it's also an inevitable one. The Crucible is very much the main narrative problem with Mass Effect 3.

If BioWare had a clear outline of where the story was going, from the start, it's certain that references to the Crucible would arise in the first game - or at least in the second. The most obvious moment would be an obscure reference made by Vigil to some sort of super-weapon that was being attempted by the Protheans against the Reapers, whose plans were hidden in some dark corner of the galaxy. Finding these plans would then be one of the threads to be resolved - or at least initiated - in Mass Effect 2, opening the ground to the events in Mass Effect 3.

The greatest contradiction in style, within the narrative logic of the trilogy, is that you have a second chapter entirely dedicated to the notion of beating and surviving impossible odds, only to be denied of that in the final game in the name of this "super-narrative" which is imposed to you "from the outside", and is represented by the Crucible.

[Maxster_]

Lookout1390 wrote...

Guys

Listen

Okay if

Guys shut up, listen

Okay check this

GUYS

What if we launch a ground-attack on mile-high super-intelligent and powerful synthetic killing machines

You meant we should go full retard?

[Maxster_]

Outsider edge wrote...

Just stop trying too have a logical discussion with Texasgold. This is a person that sees the Mass Effect franchise as a multimedia franchise. So for him it's perfectly fine if the main story has gaping holes in it's plot aslong as Bioware releases some 3th grade comic months after it's release that offers some explanations.

It's utter nonsense ofcourse but in Texas's fantasy land it's perfectly acceptable. Like talking too a brick wall.

And then you proceed to have a logical discussion with txgoldrush 
I know, i know, it is tempting to mock his "logic". 

Modifié par Maxster_, 02 janvier 2013 - 06:38 .

[Lazengan]

shhhh artistic integrity

[AlanC9]

Daniel_N7 wrote...

I know this is a recurring issue but it's also an inevitable one. The Crucible is very much the main narrative problem with Mass Effect 3.

If BioWare had a clear outline of where the story was going, from the start, it's certain that references to the Crucible would arise in the first game - or at least in the second. The most obvious moment would be an obscure reference made by Vigil to some sort of super-weapon that was being attempted by the Protheans against the Reapers, whose plans were hidden in some dark corner of the galaxy. Finding these plans would then be one of the threads to be resolved - or at least initiated - in Mass Effect 2, opening the ground to the events in Mass Effect 3.

Doesn't this mean that it's a narrative problem with the entire trilogy, rather than ME3 in particular?

[3DandBeyond]

Ownedbacon wrote...

Everything about the Crucible is ridiculously contrived. The timing, the placement, its design, construction, and how it surpasses the technology of the Catalyst since synthesis was attempted and failed. How could such a device be designed and built the way it was under the circumstances?

Why didn't we get a weapon developed after intel gathered from the Collector's base and the Human-Reaper or something developing from ME2? It would have made much more sense and not render ME2 completely pointless.

I agree with you and there are other real problems with the crucible. 

The core of the problems with ME3 is that BW tried too hard to make everything fit for people who had played 1 and 2 and especially for people who had not.  They should always have created decision choices for the game for everyone so that if you started a vanilla new game with no load from ME2, you could still make relevant decisions-it should have been in every game.  And it's more of an issue now that they have decided to do that for the Wii U and have released PS3 versions of all the games.  They had to have known that you can't make a game with carry over choices that can work for those who don't carry over any choices at all, and that still works for those who loaded ME2 saves.

The Collector Base choice was the biggest one in ME2 and it should have mattered.  Instead it's laughable and contrived.  Still, if you saved it and gave it to TIM, then Cerberus should have been more powerful.  If you didn't, then Cerberus should be chasing Shepard and not the other way around.  But, it comes down to a heart or a brain and ME3 ends up lacking both in many ways.  There could also have been a third outcome where in ME3 it could have been shown that Shepard saved the base, but not for TIM-for the Alliance, maybe.

The crucible.  It comes down to thinking that the whole galaxy has gone stupid and will just chase after some big unknown project while their homes are burning.  No one questions it.  The plans very existence is or should be suspect and those thought to have created them, didn't.  So, who did?  The reapers seeded the galaxy with tech.  The kid knows of the crucible.  He won't say who created the plans-stupid reason why he won't say.

So who created them?  Whoever did had to know about the kid and the reapers-since the kid can be changed by the crucible.  It affects the kid and the reapers.  So, the question of who made it comes down to who knew about the kid and the reapers.  Leviathan does, but did not make it.  Shepard is the first to get to where the kid is, but Shepard did not make it.  The reapers know about the kid and themselves of course and there is no one else who knew about them.  If the reapers made the plans, they did so with the kid's permission.  Either that or the kid made the plans.  The reapers and the kid are the only ones who could have come up with the plans. 

So, in effect the whole galaxy is making a big device that seems most likely to have been created by the beings they are attempting to destroy.  Makes sense to me.  Of course, there's no conclusive evidence that the kid did create the plans, but there is a better than 50-50 chance that he did.  Absent the evidence of anyone else that knew about the kid and the reapers, Shepard would have to conclude that the kid or the reapers most likely created the plans.

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

Daniel_N7 wrote...

I know this is a recurring issue but it's also an inevitable one. The Crucible is very much the main narrative problem with Mass Effect 3.

If BioWare had a clear outline of where the story was going, from the start, it's certain that references to the Crucible would arise in the first game - or at least in the second. The most obvious moment would be an obscure reference made by Vigil to some sort of super-weapon that was being attempted by the Protheans against the Reapers, whose plans were hidden in some dark corner of the galaxy. Finding these plans would then be one of the threads to be resolved - or at least initiated - in Mass Effect 2, opening the ground to the events in Mass Effect 3.

Doesn't this mean that it's a narrative problem with the entire trilogy, rather than ME3 in particular?

No, ME3 is the last game/story in the series.  It isn't ME1 or 2's responsibility to make the events of ME3 fit.  It is ME3's responsibility to use what exists within ME1 and 2 to create a fully fleshed out story with an end that includes answering dangling questions from the whole series.  ME3 has the responsibility of making the stories of ME1 and 2 fit, not the other way around.  It's like creating DLC or books or movies for the game in order to provide backstory for the endings.  Oh wait, no one would ever do that would they?

ME3 just plain forgot a lot of what happened in ME1 and 2 or things were just neutered to not matter, such as the Collector Base.

And people love to say the codex doesn't mean anything, but will use minor codex entries as if they foreshadow events in ME3, all while ignoring the major stories of the 3 games or while ignoring other relevant codex entries and dialogue in the game. 

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 02 janvier 2013 - 07:44 .

[Ownedbacon]

AlanC9 wrote...

Daniel_N7 wrote...

I know this is a recurring issue but it's also an inevitable one. The Crucible is very much the main narrative problem with Mass Effect 3.

If BioWare had a clear outline of where the story was going, from the start, it's certain that references to the Crucible would arise in the first game - or at least in the second. The most obvious moment would be an obscure reference made by Vigil to some sort of super-weapon that was being attempted by the Protheans against the Reapers, whose plans were hidden in some dark corner of the galaxy. Finding these plans would then be one of the threads to be resolved - or at least initiated - in Mass Effect 2, opening the ground to the events in Mass Effect 3.

Doesn't this mean that it's a narrative problem with the entire trilogy, rather than ME3 in particular?

Well if ME3 took a different approach to defeating the Reapers their wouldn't be any problems with the overall story. The Prothean's saving throw was to sabotage the Keepers and this is all the writers had intended back in ME1. The Crucible wasn't added until very late in the ME2 DLC cycle. ME3 should as any other sequel develop off of what is established and what fits within the narrative so far not to alter things established in order to make a new concept work.

For example, George Lucas surrounded by other talented individuals created one of the greatest movie series in the original Star Wars trilogy (Ewoks aside).Then Lucas years later took on creating a prequel trilogy without the other talented individuals. Surrounded by "yes men" he developed some terrible movies making changes to pre-established lore. Rather than make the prequels follow what was established in the originals he went back and altered the originals. You can't blame ROTJ for inconsistent storytelling for Leia remembering her mother alive and being sad when Lucas years later decided to have her mother die giving birth.

Modifié par Ownedbacon, 02 janvier 2013 - 07:59 .

[Daniel_N7]

AlanC9 wrote...

Daniel_N7 wrote...

I know this is a recurring issue but it's also an inevitable one. The Crucible is very much the main narrative problem with Mass Effect 3.

If BioWare had a clear outline of where the story was going, from the start, it's certain that references to the Crucible would arise in the first game - or at least in the second. The most obvious moment would be an obscure reference made by Vigil to some sort of super-weapon that was being attempted by the Protheans against the Reapers, whose plans were hidden in some dark corner of the galaxy. Finding these plans would then be one of the threads to be resolved - or at least initiated - in Mass Effect 2, opening the ground to the events in Mass Effect 3.

Doesn't this mean that it's a narrative problem with the entire trilogy, rather than ME3 in particular?

No, the Crucible introduces the problem in the storyline. The natural progression of the story - if you ignore the implausible "surprise attack" of the Reapers - would be to join forces with the other species in the galaxy in order to build a massive force capable of fighting the Reapers. Isn't that what Anderson tells you to do as you're leaving Earth?

Of course, once the Crucible enters the narrative, the game needs to establish the fact that "you can't defeat the Reapers conventionally", something the game tells you - should I say "force-feeds you" - over and over. This is not something "you know" from the previous games. This is something the game "needs you to believe" in order to the Crucible make sense.

This is where the game starts to feel contrived - right from the beginning. And this is why a "successful refusal ending" - although probably the most rewarding - seems so unlikely to come from BioWare. Because the successful refusal would render the entire ME3 plot useless. After all, why would you bother to go such lengths building a misterious super weapon if you could just fight the Reapers by your own means.

I would also like to remind you all that the "conventional battle" scenario could still have been done with a bittersweet feeling and tough choices. Even with an ultimate sacrifice choice. You are fighting the Reapers after all, the greatest menace the galaxy has ever seen. No one was expecting the Star Wars coronation ending.

ME3 also creates a disruption in the trilogy's storyline, if you see it as a continuous story. The second game may not have moved the main story forward in a particularly relevant way, but you came out with a powerful team. But in the third game, that team is hardly relevant, most of its characters becoming mere "cameos". What was the point of Mass Effect 2, then?

Mass Effect 3 is clearly the most contrived game of the series, remembering us all that BioWare was more troubled with managing the branching complexity of its storyline instead of being driven by an inspired vision of how the epic saga should come to an end. It doesn't mean it's a bad game. It's a good game. Just not a great one, and certainly not the absolute masterpiece we all dreamed of.

Peace.

[Edited for formatting reasons.]

Modifié par Daniel_N7, 02 janvier 2013 - 08:19 .

[txgoldrush]

[quote]Outsider edge wrote...

[.[/quote]

So then, why did he try and give Shepards body to the Collectors?....nevermind that Liara says that he dealt with the Collectors selfishly to try and save himself. He did find the true nature of the Collectors...its all in the narrative. And its on the wiki as well which means its in the narrative, not speculation.

And so its contrived because it takes only 6 months ....please. Thats more than enough time in a universe with mass relays. The leap of faith would be contrived if they didn't explore and talk about it, but they do. The uncertainty was part of the plot.[/quote]

Alright i'm out! Since you are now resorting too Wikipedia too defend your ramblings on the narrative i'll consider that a white flag.

Thanks for playing though![/quote]

Or you refuse to admit that its in the narrative. Did you not even listen to Liara in the DLC?

You are just another poster who ignores the narrative.



At 1:35.....your argument is proven wrong...its all in the narrative.[/quote]

See! That's better providing some tangible evidence instead of your own extended headcannon all the time.

So it seems the old shadowbroker knew about the collectors and their relation too the reapers. Still it provides no evidence that he "gave up" and "turned sides" which you claim. It looked more like he was playing all angles frantically too find an escape for himself.

Also as the narrative u posted says the old shadowbroker knew there was more prothean knowledge out there. After what was it 2-3 years since ME1 he couldn't find any solid evidence yet Liara manages too do just that in 6 months? While doing all the other stuff i posted above and you don't find that contrived and poor storytelling?

*edit* squashing the quotepyramid![/quote]

Yeah, there is evidence.....did you not read Redemption or listened to Liara on Illium. The Broker tried to give Shepard's body to the Collectors. If thats not turncoat, what is?

[txgoldrush]

Ownedbacon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Daniel_N7 wrote...

I know this is a recurring issue but it's also an inevitable one. The Crucible is very much the main narrative problem with Mass Effect 3.

If BioWare had a clear outline of where the story was going, from the start, it's certain that references to the Crucible would arise in the first game - or at least in the second. The most obvious moment would be an obscure reference made by Vigil to some sort of super-weapon that was being attempted by the Protheans against the Reapers, whose plans were hidden in some dark corner of the galaxy. Finding these plans would then be one of the threads to be resolved - or at least initiated - in Mass Effect 2, opening the ground to the events in Mass Effect 3.

Doesn't this mean that it's a narrative problem with the entire trilogy, rather than ME3 in particular?

Well if ME3 took a different approach to defeating the Reapers their wouldn't be any problems with the overall story. The Prothean's saving throw was to sabotage the Keepers and this is all the writers had intended back in ME1. The Crucible wasn't added until very late in the ME2 DLC cycle. ME3 should as any other sequel develop off of what is established and what fits within the narrative so far not to alter things established in order to make a new concept work.

For example, George Lucas surrounded by other talented individuals created one of the greatest movie series in the original Star Wars trilogy (Ewoks aside).Then Lucas years later took on creating a prequel trilogy without the other talented individuals. Surrounded by "yes men" he developed some terrible movies making changes to pre-established lore. Rather than make the prequels follow what was established in the originals he went back and altered the originals. You can't blame ROTJ for inconsistent storytelling for Leia remembering her mother alive and being sad when Lucas years later decided to have her mother die giving birth.

The original Star Wars trilogy made the same sin as what you blame ME3 for doing, altering the narrative.

Remember the time when Obi Wan said that Vader betrayed and murdered Luke's father. Because at first, there were NO plans to make Vader Luke's father. It was added during Empire Strikes Back. This lead to some ridiculous dialogue in Return of the Jedi as they laughable try to get around the alteration of the plot where basically Obi Wan had to explain the "lie" to Luke.

And the fact is, the Star Wars saga wasn't planned until in the middle of TESB so it too has the same "problems" the ME series has. Nevermind off screen events between the movies as well, which Mass Effect also does.

The Crucible misses being contrived...why?

1) Because it did fit a theme of the past cycle assisting the future cycle, which ME1 brought.
2) Because its found by the correct character whose quest was set up in the last game.
3) Its found early in ME3 and fleshed out
4) The origins are meaningless because of the scope of the timeframe renders it not important.
5) There is a significant time gap which allows for the finding to happen
6) And it uses the elements of existing lore in its function.

The ONLY parts, the ONLY parts I consider contrived in ME3

1) The movement of the Citadel to Earth, hopefully the next DLC will explain this.
2) The scope of synthesis, to where, even with dark energy amplification the Citadel provides, how would just one body affect the entire galaxy.

[txgoldrush]

Daniel_N7 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Daniel_N7 wrote...

I know this is a recurring issue but it's also an inevitable one. The Crucible is very much the main narrative problem with Mass Effect 3.

If BioWare had a clear outline of where the story was going, from the start, it's certain that references to the Crucible would arise in the first game - or at least in the second. The most obvious moment would be an obscure reference made by Vigil to some sort of super-weapon that was being attempted by the Protheans against the Reapers, whose plans were hidden in some dark corner of the galaxy. Finding these plans would then be one of the threads to be resolved - or at least initiated - in Mass Effect 2, opening the ground to the events in Mass Effect 3.

Doesn't this mean that it's a narrative problem with the entire trilogy, rather than ME3 in particular?

No, the Crucible introduces the problem in the storyline. The natural progression of the story - if you ignore the implausible "surprise attack" of the Reapers - would be to join forces with the other species in the galaxy in order to build a massive force capable of fighting the Reapers. Isn't that what Anderson tells you to do as you're leaving Earth?

Of course, once the Crucible enters the narrative, the game needs to establish the fact that "you can't defeat the Reapers conventionally", something the game tells you - should I say "force-feeds you" - over and over. This is not something "you know" from the previous games. This is something the game "needs you to believe" in order to the Crucible make sense.

This is where the game starts to feel contrived - right from the beginning. And this is why a "successful refusal ending" - although probably the most rewarding - seems so unlikely to come from BioWare. Because the successful refusal would render the entire ME3 plot useless. After all, why would you bother to go such lengths building a misterious super weapon if you could just fight the Reapers by your own means.

I would also like to remind you all that the "conventional battle" scenario could still have been done with a bittersweet feeling and tough choices. Even with an ultimate sacrifice choice. You are fighting the Reapers after all, the greatest menace the galaxy has ever seen. No one was expecting the Star Wars coronation ending.

ME3 also creates a disruption in the trilogy's storyline, if you see it as a continuous story. The second game may not have moved the main story forward in a particularly relevant way, but you came out with a powerful team. But in the third game, that team is hardly relevant, most of its characters becoming mere "cameos". What was the point of Mass Effect 2, then?

Mass Effect 3 is clearly the most contrived game of the series, remembering us all that BioWare was more troubled with managing the branching complexity of its storyline instead of being driven by an inspired vision of how the epic saga should come to an end. It doesn't mean it's a bad game. It's a good game. Just not a great one, and certainly not the absolute masterpiece we all dreamed of.

Peace.

[Edited for formatting reasons.]

Wrong....Mass Effect 1 is.....

Tali is convienantly entered to solve the problem of finding evidence against Saren, while the council sees one line of dialogue as evidence against him. Instead of the player having to actually investigate and to find the evidence himself, and fully more fleshed out evidence, he succeeds on a coincidence where the right character was there at the right time and hell, she wasn't even foreshaodwed in her entrance like Garrus and Wrex were.

Feros and the Cipher, comes completely out of nowhere....you are sent there because of geth activity, well, other places have geth activity, what makes Feros so important. Then the Cipher is introduced out of thin air by Shiala, without any references to it before or any clues before this...and becomes a Deus Ex Machina (because your problem of understanding the visions has just been solved from out of nowhere) and a Diabolus Ex Machina (Cause Saren got it as well) at the same time. Talk about contrived. Hell, its funny, the intro comics to ME2 skips over Feros.

Oh god, the Citadel lockdown and the Council's repeeated ignorance. Why was this part even necessary, especially in a race against time with a stealth ship. This was forced into the game to create a conflict and a problem which the story naturally did not need. Then Udina joins in the stupidity. Sorry, but this whole section was unnecessary, why couldn't Shepard just go to Ilos after Liara contrively figured out the vision that it wa son Ilos.

Ilos, wow.........Vigil is a pure definition of a Deus Ex Machina. He comes out of nowhere, pulls Shepard over, tidys the plot, and gives Shepard a device that helps defeat Sovereign. Because without this file, you lose. But here, I do say that it was a GOOD use of Deus Ex Machina. However, how does without explaination IN THE NARRATIVE, Joker go from Ilos to rallying the fleet to the Citadel with out orders from Shepard? This leads to the classic "the calvary arrives" Deus Ex Machina...and a silly plot hole that could have been easily stuffed with one line of dialogue. And then Sovereign's death is never explained in ME1, he just loses his shield because you defeat a boss, giving no expalnation on how he falls. He just does, go with it.

ME1 runs on contrivance...it is very guilty of being contrived in many key cases.

And don't get me started on the intro to ME2.

[Outsider edge]

[quote]txgoldrush wrote...

[quote]Outsider edge wrote...

[.[/quote]

So then, why did he try and give Shepards body to the Collectors?....nevermind that Liara says that he dealt with the Collectors selfishly to try and save himself. He did find the true nature of the Collectors...its all in the narrative. And its on the wiki as well which means its in the narrative, not speculation.

And so its contrived because it takes only 6 months ....please. Thats more than enough time in a universe with mass relays. The leap of faith would be contrived if they didn't explore and talk about it, but they do. The uncertainty was part of the plot.[/quote]

Alright i'm out! Since you are now resorting too Wikipedia too defend your ramblings on the narrative i'll consider that a white flag.

Thanks for playing though![/quote]

Or you refuse to admit that its in the narrative. Did you not even listen to Liara in the DLC?

You are just another poster who ignores the narrative.



At 1:35.....your argument is proven wrong...its all in the narrative.[/quote]

See! That's better providing some tangible evidence instead of your own extended headcannon all the time.

So it seems the old shadowbroker knew about the collectors and their relation too the reapers. Still it provides no evidence that he "gave up" and "turned sides" which you claim. It looked more like he was playing all angles frantically too find an escape for himself.

Also as the narrative u posted says the old shadowbroker knew there was more prothean knowledge out there. After what was it 2-3 years since ME1 he couldn't find any solid evidence yet Liara manages too do just that in 6 months? While doing all the other stuff i posted above and you don't find that contrived and poor storytelling?

*edit* squashing the quotepyramid![/quote]

Yeah, there is evidence.....did you not read Redemption or listened to Liara on Illium. The Broker tried to give Shepard's body to the Collectors. If thats not turncoat, what is?[/quote]

That's because you see what you want too see. If you pay attention too the dialogue in LOTSB it's obvious that he's playing all angles trying too find a way too survive. Yes he tries too hand Shepard's body over too the Collectors. He's also frantically searching for more Prothean knowledge which he fails at for 2-3 years while Liara gets things done in barely 6 months with a makeshift Shadowbroker base.

And once again you can scream all you want about a multimedia franchise but stuff like this should have been eleborated in the game. Not in a novel or a comic or Cerberus news or whatever. External sources are great for extended universe crap not core issues.

Modifié par Outsider edge, 02 janvier 2013 - 10:25 .

[Ownedbacon]

txgoldrush wrote...

Ownedbacon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Daniel_N7 wrote...

I know this is a recurring issue but it's also an inevitable one. The Crucible is very much the main narrative problem with Mass Effect 3.

If BioWare had a clear outline of where the story was going, from the start, it's certain that references to the Crucible would arise in the first game - or at least in the second. The most obvious moment would be an obscure reference made by Vigil to some sort of super-weapon that was being attempted by the Protheans against the Reapers, whose plans were hidden in some dark corner of the galaxy. Finding these plans would then be one of the threads to be resolved - or at least initiated - in Mass Effect 2, opening the ground to the events in Mass Effect 3.

Doesn't this mean that it's a narrative problem with the entire trilogy, rather than ME3 in particular?

Well if ME3 took a different approach to defeating the Reapers their wouldn't be any problems with the overall story. The Prothean's saving throw was to sabotage the Keepers and this is all the writers had intended back in ME1. The Crucible wasn't added until very late in the ME2 DLC cycle. ME3 should as any other sequel develop off of what is established and what fits within the narrative so far not to alter things established in order to make a new concept work.

For example, George Lucas surrounded by other talented individuals created one of the greatest movie series in the original Star Wars trilogy (Ewoks aside).Then Lucas years later took on creating a prequel trilogy without the other talented individuals. Surrounded by "yes men" he developed some terrible movies making changes to pre-established lore. Rather than make the prequels follow what was established in the originals he went back and altered the originals. You can't blame ROTJ for inconsistent storytelling for Leia remembering her mother alive and being sad when Lucas years later decided to have her mother die giving birth.

The original Star Wars trilogy made the same sin as what you blame ME3 for doing, altering the narrative.

Remember the time when Obi Wan said that Vader betrayed and murdered Luke's father. Because at first, there were NO plans to make Vader Luke's father. It was added during Empire Strikes Back. This lead to some ridiculous dialogue in Return of the Jedi as they laughable try to get around the alteration of the plot where basically Obi Wan had to explain the "lie" to Luke.

And the fact is, the Star Wars saga wasn't planned until in the middle of TESB so it too has the same "problems" the ME series has. Nevermind off screen events between the movies as well, which Mass Effect also does.

The Crucible misses being contrived...why?

1) Because it did fit a theme of the past cycle assisting the future cycle, which ME1 brought.
2) Because its found by the correct character whose quest was set up in the last game.
3) Its found early in ME3 and fleshed out
4) The origins are meaningless because of the scope of the timeframe renders it not important.
5) There is a significant time gap which allows for the finding to happen
6) And it uses the elements of existing lore in its function.

The ONLY parts, the ONLY parts I consider contrived in ME3

1) The movement of the Citadel to Earth, hopefully the next DLC will explain this.
2) The scope of synthesis, to where, even with dark energy amplification the Citadel provides, how would just one body affect the entire galaxy.

I meant to reply to this earlier but haven't been on BSN for a while.

In the original Star Wars[A New Hope] many of the characters weren't explored that deeply. TESB is where a lot of character development takes place and where Vader is revealed to be Luke's father. This change occurs and is established in the second installment. The narrative of Star Wars is picking up and developing at this point. The original Star Wars didn't have a set path for how, if any sequels would follow. TESB is the point where they sat down and laid the down new plot points or alterations. From these the following installment ROTJ would continue and complete the story.

With Mass Effect we had that one game that ends sort of the same way as Star Wars the heroes are triumphant but the threat Reapers or in SW the Empire is still out there. The adventure is wrapped up and can be a stand alone story but leaves room for the possibility of sequels. Followed by success it warranted a sequel. During the sequel we saw new plot points and story unravel that would lead into its sequel. This is the same for both Mass Effect and Star Wars. In Mass Effect 2 these new story additions can be assumed to have relevance to stopping the Reapers or their motivations waiting to see them play out in the following installment ME3.
    • Harbinger using Collectors to hurry and collect humans to build a Reaper even before the harvest begins.
    • Humanity's diversity and geneticuniqueness why is it so important?
    • Dark Energy and Haelstrom
    • Saving or Destroying the Collector base
    • Harbinger as antagonist and Reaper individuality.
Only many of these developments that were in ME2 are suddenly abandoned in between games late in the development of DLC (Shadow Broker). Instead of seeing these new additions to the plot come to fruition in the sequel they are substituted. Going back to Star Wars had Vader been revealed as Luke's father in the beginning of ROTJ and hinted at in Expanded Universe books after TESB released it could be comparable to the Crucible.

The Crucible/Catalyst plot is a poor alteration/addition because it tears down the Reapers and other developments from ME2.

Modifié par Ownedbacon, 26 janvier 2013 - 06:42 .