582 réponses à ce sujet

[Biotic Sage]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Well if you aren't comfortable with making the sacrifice for the greater good without their consent on principle, then that's why I could see some people choosing Refuse, having faith in the future cycles to finish the job.

Yeah, because murdering everybody is better than just murdering some of them.

Seriously, Refuse felt like a big "screw you" to the more vocal fans  "Don't like our philosophical masterpiece, eh?  Well, joke's on you!  Everyone dies!  LOL!"  Again, was that their intention?  Probably not, but the final message of a work exists independently of authorial intent.

That's why I think Refuse is dumb.  You are given three options.  None are ideal.  But there they are: the Crucible gives you three options that you wouldn't have had without it that allow your cycle to live without being reaped.  To these people I would say: man up and choose one.  Bioware obviously thought the same thing, because "everyone dies" is exactly what you get if you don't pick one (Refuse).  I hope that was their intention, to provide the real consequence of not using the Crucible and then laugh to themselves at the people who picked Refuse because none of the choices were "acceptable to them."  I'll tell you what, if there were a real life Shepard who picked Refuse, I'd be pretty pissed off that he sacrificed all intelligent life on meaningless principle.

[AdmiralCheez]

Biotic Sage wrote...

I'll still disagree with your "Starbrat" analysis on objective terms.  It is not the Catalyst's logic that dictates the terms.  The Crucible dictates the terms, which is the culmination of thousands of civilizations and races working together to combat the Reaper's iron hold on galactic determinism.  If anything, this is an argument FOR diversity and working together.  Which is why the OP is null in my opinion.

Wrong.  The Crucible is a bomb that the Catalyst converts into a giant battery.  Listen closely to the final conversation (as terrible as it is).  Anyway, it doesn't matter what the Crucible was supposed to do/represent because that's not what comes across in the ending.  THAT is why the endings suck.  THAT is why everyone is complaining.  Basically every major narrative theme in the Mass Effect trilogy is stomped into a bloody pulp in the last five minutes.

Side note: Synthesis is the only ending where everyone's happy afterwards (KEIJI COMES BACK TO LIFE HOLY HELL WHAT?!), and it's the only ending that requires a "perfect" playthrough.

PS: Refuse ending.  The problem isn't that tough choices have to be made to win wars.  Hell, we've done that--look at Virmire!  The problem is that Bioware dropped a(n unintentional) "screw you" without actually addressing the reasons why people were refusing in the first place!

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 22 février 2013 - 09:06 .

[Biotic Sage]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

I'll still disagree with your "Starbrat" analysis on objective terms.  It is not the Catalyst's logic that dictates the terms.  The Crucible dictates the terms, which is the culmination of thousands of civilizations and races working together to combat the Reaper's iron hold on galactic determinism.  If anything, this is an argument FOR diversity and working together.  Which is why the OP is null in my opinion.

Wrong.  The Crucible is a bomb that the Catalyst converts into a giant battery.  Listen closely to the final conversation (as terrible as it is).  Anyway, it doesn't matter what the Crucible was supposed to do/represent because that's not what comes across in the ending.  THAT is why the endings suck.  THAT is why everyone is complaining.  Basically every major narrative theme in the Mass Effect trilogy is stomped into a bloody pulp in the last five minutes.

Side note: Synthesis is the only ending where everyone's happy afterwards (KEIJI COMES BACK TO LIFE HOLY HELL WHAT?!), and it's the only ending that requires a "perfect" playthrough.

It came across to me, which is why I never hated the endings.  But you just accepted what I said, but are mad that it didn't come across on your original playthrough?  That's a bad argument for the integrity of a work.  If I don't get something the first time, and then later I do get it or it's explained to me, then I have to reassess the work.

And I have listened closely to the final conversation, as closely as anyone has.  Nowhere does it say the Crucible is a giant bomb.  The Crucible itself is a plot device that doesn't make any sort of sense, but its symbolic meaning is that it represents unity and cooperation among different civilizations and races.  Some people can't accept that explanation, which I totally understand; in that case the ending isn't your cup of tea.  But it's soft sci-fi so I'm ok with it.  I'm less ok with the Lazarus project.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 22 février 2013 - 09:06 .

[KyleR92]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

I'll still disagree with your "Starbrat" analysis on objective terms.  It is not the Catalyst's logic that dictates the terms.  The Crucible dictates the terms, which is the culmination of thousands of civilizations and races working together to combat the Reaper's iron hold on galactic determinism.  If anything, this is an argument FOR diversity and working together.  Which is why the OP is null in my opinion.

Wrong.  The Crucible is a bomb that the Catalyst converts into a giant battery.  Listen closely to the final conversation (as terrible as it is).  Anyway, it doesn't matter what the Crucible was supposed to do/represent because that's not what comes across in the ending.  THAT is why the endings suck.  THAT is why everyone is complaining.  Basically every major narrative theme in the Mass Effect trilogy is stomped into a bloody pulp in the last five minutes.

Side note: Synthesis is the only ending where everyone's happy afterwards (KEIJI COMES BACK TO LIFE HOLY HELL WHAT?!), and it's the only ending that requires a "perfect" playthrough.

PS: Refuse ending.  The problem isn't that tough choices have to be made to win wars.  Hell, we've done that--look at Virmire!  The problem is that Bioware dropped a(n unintentional) "screw you" without actually addressing the reasons why people were refusing in the first place!

Keiji being "alive" is not a good thing it destroys Kasumi and is not healthy for her. It's the one paragon choice I feel like bioware actually really punished you for (which is a good thing 100% paragon is boring).

[CroGamer002]

@AdmiralCheez

I will only add that Refuse ending only makes sense on with very low EMS.

Why?

Because ALL life in Milky Way is screwed with Low EMS Destroy ending.

Not just space-flight races we know, but EVERY SINGLE ONE THAT EXIST.


All of the sudden Refuse is better.
If you play the game pretty badly.

Which you do on purpose only.

[Dr_Extrem]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Side note: Synthesis is the only ending where everyone's happy afterwards (KEIJI COMES BACK TO LIFE HOLY HELL WHAT?!), and it's the only ending that requires a "perfect" playthrough.

this alone keeps me from playing mass effect 4 ... it is safe to assume, that synthesis will be the basement for future installments.

with the ec, synthesis is available @ 2800+ ems ... it will pop up even if you killed the geth.

[daaaav]

Biotic Sage wrote...


Well if you aren't comfortable with making the sacrifice for the greater good without their consent on principle, then that's why I could see some people choosing Refuse, having faith in the future cycles to finish the job.

Ha! I actually did choose refuse the first time because  atleast for a few moments, Commander Farking Shepard returned. And then everything died. 

Incase your interested, I would not advocate dooming the entire galaxy for the sake of Edi and the Geth. But what value is to be gained from these utilitarian thought experiments?

Modifié par daaaav, 22 février 2013 - 09:18 .

[Biotic Sage]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Side note: Synthesis is the only ending where everyone's happy afterwards (KEIJI COMES BACK TO LIFE HOLY HELL WHAT?!), and it's the only ending that requires a "perfect" playthrough.

this alone keeps me from playing mass effect 4 ... it is safe to assume, that synthesis will be the basement for future installments.

with the ec, synthesis is available @ 2800+ ems ... it will pop up even if you killed the geth.

When Bioware makes Destroy the canon ending that ME4 builds off of, please remember this conversation and PM me.  If they do make Synthesis the foundation, then I'll gladly concede to your understanding of the series in all future instances and bow before you.

[Bill Casey]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

with the ec, synthesis is available @ 2800+ ems ... it will pop up even if you killed the geth.

That was true before the EC...

[Biotic Sage]

daaaav wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...


Well if you aren't comfortable with making the sacrifice for the greater good without their consent on principle, then that's why I could see some people choosing Refuse, having faith in the future cycles to finish the job.

Ha! I actually did choose refuse the first time because it atleast for a few moments Commander Farking Shepard returned. And then everything died. 

Incase your interested, I would not advocate dooming the entire galaxy for the sake of Edi and the Geth. But what value is to be gained from these utilitarian thought experiments?

They wanted Destroy to come with a cost.  I certainly won't assert that having EDI and the Geth is the only way to achieve this, but I do agree that there needs to be a cost associated with each choice.  If EDI and the Geth weren't destroyed in, ahem, Destroy, and there was nothing to replace that cost, then Destroy would be a pretty simple choice to make.  Not very interesting.

[Dr_Extrem]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Side note: Synthesis is the only ending where everyone's happy afterwards (KEIJI COMES BACK TO LIFE HOLY HELL WHAT?!), and it's the only ending that requires a "perfect" playthrough.

this alone keeps me from playing mass effect 4 ... it is safe to assume, that synthesis will be the basement for future installments.

with the ec, synthesis is available @ 2800+ ems ... it will pop up even if you killed the geth.

When Bioware makes Destroy the canon ending that ME4 builds off of, please remember this conversation and PM me.  If they do make Synthesis the foundation, then I'll gladly concede to your understanding of the series in all future instances and bow before you.

i wont play me4 - even with a destroy setting ... too many haed-desk moments in the last game. too many "jump the shark" moments as well.

i played the game because of shepard and the crew. synthesis would only be the final insult to the franchise.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 22 février 2013 - 09:19 .

[Biotic Sage]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Side note: Synthesis is the only ending where everyone's happy afterwards (KEIJI COMES BACK TO LIFE HOLY HELL WHAT?!), and it's the only ending that requires a "perfect" playthrough.

this alone keeps me from playing mass effect 4 ... it is safe to assume, that synthesis will be the basement for future installments.

with the ec, synthesis is available @ 2800+ ems ... it will pop up even if you killed the geth.

When Bioware makes Destroy the canon ending that ME4 builds off of, please remember this conversation and PM me.  If they do make Synthesis the foundation, then I'll gladly concede to your understanding of the series in all future instances and bow before you.

i wont play me4 - even with a destroy setting ... too many haed-desk moment in the last game. too many "jump the shark" moments as well.

i played the game because of shepard and the crew. synthesis would only be the final insult to the franchise.

Fair enough.  Your loss if there's a new crew and protagonist that you'd find even more interesting.  If you enjoy the ME universe or the sci fi at all, I'd think that alone would be enough to come back.  I mean really, it was only one bad game (if you even think it was a bad game, which I don't).

[Bill Casey]

Mesina2 wrote...

I will only add that Refuse ending only makes sense on with very low EMS.

You need 2800 ems to give the refuse speech...
Otherwise, you have to shoot the catalyst...

[AdmiralCheez]

Biotic Sage wrote...

It came across to me, which is why I never hated the endings.  But you just accepted what I said, but are mad that it didn't come across on your original playthrough?  That's a bad argument for the integrity of a work.  If I don't get something the first time, and then later I do get it or it's explained to me, then I have to reassess the work.

Okay, interpreting fiction like this?  Hella subjective.  Of course we'll get different strokes for different folks.  As subjective as it is, however, there's still a huge majority of fans that hate the goddamned ending.  As an author, it's important to predict how an audience will react if you want to get your message across.  Bioware predicted incorrectly, and they've embittered, like, I dunno, 90% of their fanbase because of it.

My point being this: If you want people to get it, explain it clearly the first time.  People generally don't read books, watch movies, or play games again when they didn't enjoy them the first time around.  Most of the time, you've only got one shot to say what you've got to say, so you'd damned well better say it right.  You don't get to sit there with your arms crossed and nose in the air all like, "oh you just don't get it," because that means you've failed as an author.

Well, unless the point was for people to not get it.  In which case, thanks for making my college lit courses a most miserable sort of hell.  Authors like this?  You are all jerks.

And I have listened closely to the final conversation, as closely as anyone has.  Nowhere does it say the Crucible is a giant bomb.  The Crucible itself is a plot device that doesn't make any sort of sense, but its symbolic meaning is that it represents unity and cooperation among different civilizations and races.  Some people can't accept that explanation, which I totally understand; in that case the ending isn't your cup of tea.  But it's soft sci-fi so I'm ok with it.  I'm less ok with the Lazarus project.

You know what else was symbolic?  That damned kid in the vent.  I hated his ass, too.  Any important character or plot element that exists solely to be a symbol is hollow and lifeless.  Protip: avoid these in writing.

[78stonewobble]

@steinvegard (op)

Well, maybe it isn't a anti-diversity per say. More like a natural progression.

If we look at todays earth of the intermingling and watering out of the diverse cultures. I think it comes quite naturally and slowly with the increased freedom of people to move around the world and from interaction with between different cultures. Learning about each other and in doing so becoming more alike. Besides what would be the alternative to slowly becoming a more homogenous group?

The alternative being isolationism, segregation and eg. frowning upon mixed race marriages and what not.

As it is right now, if you're lucky and living in the right place. You get to choose, individually, whether to embrace something different or what you came from.

Contrary to the solution of synthesis, where someone else chooses what is perfect and chooses it for everyone.

[Dr_Extrem]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Side note: Synthesis is the only ending where everyone's happy afterwards (KEIJI COMES BACK TO LIFE HOLY HELL WHAT?!), and it's the only ending that requires a "perfect" playthrough.

this alone keeps me from playing mass effect 4 ... it is safe to assume, that synthesis will be the basement for future installments.

with the ec, synthesis is available @ 2800+ ems ... it will pop up even if you killed the geth.

When Bioware makes Destroy the canon ending that ME4 builds off of, please remember this conversation and PM me.  If they do make Synthesis the foundation, then I'll gladly concede to your understanding of the series in all future instances and bow before you.

i wont play me4 - even with a destroy setting ... too many haed-desk moment in the last game. too many "jump the shark" moments as well.

i played the game because of shepard and the crew. synthesis would only be the final insult to the franchise.

Fair enough.  Your loss if there's a new crew and protagonist that you'd find even more interesting.  If you enjoy the ME universe or the sci fi at all, I'd think that alone would be enough to come back.  I mean really, it was only one bad game (if you even think it was a bad game, which I don't).

when i look at the descent the franchise made, its not a loss for me. i will keep some of the good memories a have before bioware kills them as well - like joker and garrus suddenly abandoning their best friend.


imho, this franschise is no longer sci fi at all .. tech is only there and a concvenient tool. too much  "anything goes". mass effect became fantasy in space. its a story that happens to play in the future.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 22 février 2013 - 09:33 .

[CroGamer002]

Bill Casey wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

I will only add that Refuse ending only makes sense on with very low EMS.

You need 2800 ems to give the refuse speech...
Otherwise, you have to shoot the catalyst...

Wait, really?

That makes no sense.

That's the time refuse makes sense and yet nothing on it mentioned?



Did Biwoare even THINK on th... wait, don't answer that one.

[AdmiralCheez]

Biotic Sage wrote...

They wanted Destroy to come with a cost.  I certainly won't assert that having EDI and the Geth is the only way to achieve this, but I do agree that there needs to be a cost associated with each choice.  If EDI and the Geth weren't destroyed in, ahem, Destroy, and there was nothing to replace that cost, then Destroy would be a pretty simple choice to make.  Not very interesting.

Don't you see, though?!  That's the problem!  If the other options really have so little going for them that the only way to get players to pick them is genocide?  You done screwed up.

[Ultranovae]

Successful thread OP
But you're interpretation of the endings are too cynical, you not really seeing the context of the choices being provided. You need to see the choices in terms of the major conflicts that have been presented to the player and format he perspective that the player has been forced into a situation in which something has to be compromised. Not quite the ideal ending but with something that directly ties in with your priorities.
Do you accomplish your mission, yet sacrifice a whole species in the cold calculus of war?
Or consider the fact that another theme has been that we shouldn't wield power we don't fully comprehend, and so, Do you, in a paradigm shift, realize that this time the best solution may be to accept the illusive man's claim, and wield the enormous you might not be ready for the greater good?
Synthesis is different beast altogether. It seems to deal with the conflict between master and slave, or as the game call them creators and created. The problem is not that synthetics will always destroy organics. The problem is that the created will always arise and surpass their creators.
Synthesis erases the line between creators and created, while keeping the diversity of each species, it fundamentally change every individual in the galaxy. Is it posed on everyone without consent? Yeah definitely, but that is precisely the compromise in a decision with no easy answers.

[Dr_Extrem]

78stonewobble wrote...

@steinvegard (op)

Well, maybe it isn't a anti-diversity per say. More like a natural progression.

If we look at todays earth of the intermingling and watering out of the diverse cultures. I think it comes quite naturally and slowly with the increased freedom of people to move around the world and from interaction with between different cultures. Learning about each other and in doing so becoming more alike. Besides what would be the alternative to slowly becoming a more homogenous group?

The alternative being isolationism, segregation and eg. frowning upon mixed race marriages and what not.

As it is right now, if you're lucky and living in the right place. You get to choose, individually, whether to embrace something different or what you came from.

Contrary to the solution of synthesis, where someone else chooses what is perfect and chooses it for everyone.

synthesis says that diversity is bad and its eliminated in the process - the only diverse things are the looks.


in the synthised world, we live together, because we are not diverse anymore

in the real world, we live togehter, despite being diverse.


its a question of choice - thats a big difference.

[daaaav]

Biotic Sage wrote...

daaaav wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...


Well if you aren't comfortable with making the sacrifice for the greater good without their consent on principle, then that's why I could see some people choosing Refuse, having faith in the future cycles to finish the job.

Ha! I actually did choose refuse the first time because it atleast for a few moments Commander Farking Shepard returned. And then everything died. 

Incase your interested, I would not advocate dooming the entire galaxy for the sake of Edi and the Geth. But what value is to be gained from these utilitarian thought experiments?

They wanted Destroy to come with a cost.  I certainly won't assert that having EDI and the Geth is the only way to achieve this, but I do agree that there needs to be a cost associated with each choice.  If EDI and the Geth weren't destroyed in, ahem, Destroy, and there was nothing to replace that cost, then Destroy would be a pretty simple choice to make.  Not very interesting.

Yep, and to avoid having this particular cost come across as anything other than a cheap piece of counterweight, Bioware should have involved Edi and the Geth in the decision. They also could have devoted more effort into convincing the player that there actually WAS an irreconcilable difference between organics and synthetics. This would have given more weight into the decision to eradicate the Reapers. Unfortunately, the Reapers solution to the proposed problem is so absurd that it condems their purpose to absurdity by default.

Bioware fail to allow us to sympathise with the Reapers or to give pause while considering the Catalysts "problem", all they can manage  to give the final decision some weight is to arbitrarily kill off some allies?

Bah

Modifié par daaaav, 22 février 2013 - 09:39 .

[Biotic Sage]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

It came across to me, which is why I never hated the endings.  But you just accepted what I said, but are mad that it didn't come across on your original playthrough?  That's a bad argument for the integrity of a work.  If I don't get something the first time, and then later I do get it or it's explained to me, then I have to reassess the work.

Okay, interpreting fiction like this?  Hella subjective.  Of course we'll get different strokes for different folks.  As subjective as it is, however, there's still a huge majority of fans that hate the goddamned ending.  As an author, it's important to predict how an audience will react if you want to get your message across.  Bioware predicted incorrectly, and they've embittered, like, I dunno, 90% of their fanbase because of it.

My point being this: If you want people to get it, explain it clearly the first time.  People generally don't read books, watch movies, or play games again when they didn't enjoy them the first time around.  Most of the time, you've only got one shot to say what you've got to say, so you'd damned well better say it right.  You don't get to sit there with your arms crossed and nose in the air all like, "oh you just don't get it," because that means you've failed as an author.

Well, unless the point was for people to not get it.  In which case, thanks for making my college lit courses a most miserable sort of hell.  Authors like this?  You are all jerks.

And I have listened closely to the final conversation, as closely as anyone has.  Nowhere does it say the Crucible is a giant bomb.  The Crucible itself is a plot device that doesn't make any sort of sense, but its symbolic meaning is that it represents unity and cooperation among different civilizations and races.  Some people can't accept that explanation, which I totally understand; in that case the ending isn't your cup of tea.  But it's soft sci-fi so I'm ok with it.  I'm less ok with the Lazarus project.

You know what else was symbolic?  That damned kid in the vent.  I hated his ass, too.  Any important character or plot element that exists solely to be a symbol is hollow and lifeless.  Protip: avoid these in writing.

Authors don't like to be obtuse.  But they don't like to be shallow and simple either.  Especially with good sci-fi: you have to trust your audience to crunch some numbers and take some steps toward constructing an understanding.  If you write only for the people who judge the integrity of the work based only on the initial, knee-jerk reaction, then it's going to be bad.  Some people don't like the endings based on well-thought out and considered reasons, which is all good and well.  But the vast majority that don't like ME3's endings are just clinging to their initial, gut-reaction (that obviously didn't sit well) to a seemingly god-like figure explaining what's what (speaking of protip: in science fiction, if a figure seems god-like and infallible, chances are it ain't).

Now I'll agree with you about the execution.  I still had criticisms even though I liked the endings.  Specifically:
- The Crucible was a bit convenient and its backstory wasn't explained enough
- Definitely not enough investigate dialogue options in the original cut (which would have helped people "get it"
- Omission of key scenes, like how the hell my running-toward-beam squad got on the Normandy
- No, the EC doesn't fix the above, it only makes it worse with a totally out of place, pacing-destroying pickup scene

[Biotic Sage]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

when i look at the descent the franchise made, its not a loss for me. i will keep some of the good memories a have before bioware kills them as well - like joker and garrus suddenly abandoning their best friend.


imho, this franschise is no longer sci fi at all .. tech is only there and a concvenient tool. too many "anything goes". mass effect became fantasy in space. its a story that happens to play in the future.

Hopefully they get back to the roots and the core ideas of what made ME1 great science fiction.  ME2 and ME3 were well done, fun stories with great cinematic presentations, but I agree with you that there is way too much "fantasy in space" stuff.  They are even pushing it for soft sci fi.  Star Wars is fantasy in space and that's fine; it doesn't act like it's science fiction.  The Mass Effect franchise needs to pick a side going forward, and I do hope it's further toward sci-fi than fantasy than what we've seen in ME3.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

The root of the problem with the catalyst scene is the fact that Shepard just accepts and surrenders to the Catalyst's logic and demands, a problem that still remains in the EC. The Catalyst wanted a new solution, and Shepard as the hero should have given him one, one that is not based on these insane choices.

[Dr_Extrem]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

when i look at the descent the franchise made, its not a loss for me. i will keep some of the good memories a have before bioware kills them as well - like joker and garrus suddenly abandoning their best friend.


imho, this franschise is no longer sci fi at all .. tech is only there and a concvenient tool. too many "anything goes". mass effect became fantasy in space. its a story that happens to play in the future.

Hopefully they get back to the roots and the core ideas of what made ME1 great science fiction.  ME2 and ME3 were well done, fun stories with great cinematic presentations, but I agree with you that there is way too much "fantasy in space" stuff.  They are even pushing it for soft sci fi.  Star Wars is fantasy in space and that's fine; it doesn't act like it's science fiction.  The Mass Effect franchise needs to pick a side going forward, and I do hope it's further toward sci-fi than fantasy than what we've seen in ME3.

sadly, there is no indicator, that shows any "back to the roots" movement. instead, its full speed ahead.