582 réponses à ce sujet

[Biotic Sage]

Lizardviking wrote...

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.

So pretend your Shepard, and the Catalyst has just gotten done talking to you.  What would you do?  What "new solution" is there other than the ones the Crucible facilitates?  I'm not being sarcastic, I'd genuinely be interested to know.

[Indy_S]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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

Looking backwards the whole time.

[Biotic Sage]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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

You are correct.  But 2 games is hardly a solidified pattern with a franchise that has a long life ahead of it.  I think a lot of people like you and me have been vocal about this, actually, and I guarantee you Bioware has heard it.  This I think is a universal criticism that spans the chasm between ending-haters and ending-likers.

I still think that if it is indeed "full speed ahead," Bioware will continue to make quality games of fantasy in space.  It just won't be quite as appealing.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 22 février 2013 - 09:48 .

[daaaav]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

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.

So pretend your Shepard, and the Catalyst has just gotten done talking to you.  What would you do?  What "new solution" is there other than the ones the Crucible facilitates?  I'm not being sarcastic, I'd genuinely be interested to know.

I'm afraid that we would have to depend on the authors for that bit of inspiration. The catalyst alone isn't responsible for this mess. The crucibile is just as guilty.

[Biotic Sage]

daaaav wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

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.

So pretend your Shepard, and the Catalyst has just gotten done talking to you.  What would you do?  What "new solution" is there other than the ones the Crucible facilitates?  I'm not being sarcastic, I'd genuinely be interested to know.

I'm afraid that we would have to depend on the authors for that bit of inspiration. The catalyst alone isn't responsible for this mess. The crucibile is just as guilty.

Well let's take it one step further and say that ME1 is responsible for the mess.  It introduced god-like, unstoppable Reapers into the mix.  How do solve this problem?  Not by fighting them and winning, because that would undermine their appeal and make them seem wimpy in retrospect.  Not by losing to them, because we still want to feel heroic.  How then, other than with a Crucible?

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 22 février 2013 - 09:51 .

[78stonewobble]

Biotic Sage wrote...
Well let's take it one step further and say that ME1 is responsible for the mess.  It introduced god-like, unstoppable Reapers into the mix.  How do solve this problem?  Not by fighting them and winning, because that would undermine their appeal and make them seem wimpy in retrospect.  Not by losing to them, because we still want to feel heroic.  How then, other than with a Crucible?

Let the crucible be a reaper kill switch (just a signal) or just as it seems right now. A giant EMP.

But it's kinda off topic.

[Dr_Extrem]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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

You are correct.  But 2 games is hardly a solidified pattern with a franchise that has a long life ahead of it.  I think a lot of people like you and me have been vocal about this, actually, and I guarantee you Bioware has heard it.  This I think is a universal criticism that spans the chasm between ending-haters and ending-likers.

I still think that if it is indeed "full speed ahead," Bioware will continue to make quality games of fantasy in space.  It just won't be quite as appealing.

the problem is not "fantasy in space" its "we abandon/ignore our own lore if needed". too much "anything goes" - cause "the plot demands". this is bad story telling and beneath bioware.

and from a scientific pov, 2 out of 3 IS a pattern. if we include dragon age and swtor, its 4 out of 6. the direction is clear - lore is good and fine but easily abandoned or ignored, if the plot or drama demands it.

its not about mass effect not being sci-fi. its about short sighted decisions that are made, to force a dramatic scene or cheap tear jerker.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 22 février 2013 - 09:57 .

[Indy_S]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Well let's take it one step further and say that ME1 is responsible for the mess.  It introduced god-like, unstoppable Reapers into the mix.  How do solve this problem?  Not by fighting them and winning, because that would undermine their appeal and make them seem wimpy in retrospect.  Not by losing to them, because we still want to feel heroic.  How then, other than with a Crucible?

By changing the win condition. I'd make it not about killing them and instead about keeping them out. Put up some kind of bubble around the galaxy so nothing can get in or out. That sounds really stupid, I know, but it's an example of where this could have gone. Fighting Sovereign was about keeping them out, Arrival was about keeping them out. It could be pulled off.

Alternately, running away. Flee through some kind of mega relay to another galaxy. Have a war about getting as many people or pieces of technology through as possible. At the end, destroy the mega relay to prevent the Reapers from following. This one even sets up a Brave New World thing for sequels to follow up on.

[Biotic Sage]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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

You are correct.  But 2 games is hardly a solidified pattern with a franchise that has a long life ahead of it.  I think a lot of people like you and me have been vocal about this, actually, and I guarantee you Bioware has heard it.  This I think is a universal criticism that spans the chasm between ending-haters and ending-likers.

I still think that if it is indeed "full speed ahead," Bioware will continue to make quality games of fantasy in space.  It just won't be quite as appealing.

the problem is not "fantasy in space" its "we abandon/ignore our own lore if needed". too much "anything goes" - cause the plot demands. this is bad story telling.

and from a scientific pov, 2 out of 3 IS a pattern. if we include dragon age and swtor, its 4 out of 6. the direction is clear - lore is good and fine but easily abandoned of ignored, if the plot or drama demands it.

its not about mass effect not being sci-fi. its about short sighted decisions that are made, to force a dramatic scene or cheap tear jerker.

Well that's a different but also valid complaint.  Good fantasy still sticks to its own rules just like good sci-fi.  This is why Harry Potter's bad fantasy, because anything goes, especially in the 7th book.  Or hell, there was a time travel device in the third book.  Nobody thinks to use these when there's all out war?

I didn't see as many instances of ignoring or abandoning established lore in Mass Effect though.  I saw a few, which did bother me, but not nearly as many as something like Harry Potter.  Plot and drama should be constructed around an established lore, not the other way around.

[Dr_Extrem]

78stonewobble wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...
Well let's take it one step further and say that ME1 is responsible for the mess.  It introduced god-like, unstoppable Reapers into the mix.  How do solve this problem?  Not by fighting them and winning, because that would undermine their appeal and make them seem wimpy in retrospect.  Not by losing to them, because we still want to feel heroic.  How then, other than with a Crucible?

Let the crucible be a reaper kill switch (just a signal) or just as it seems right now. A giant EMP.

But it's kinda off topic.

why not turn the tables and tell the catalyst to gtfo of my galaxy or else i shoot the tube and end its miserable exiatance?

shepard was shown to be THE negotiator - paragon and renegade. tell the reapers to ****** off or else they get destroyed.

[Rhayak]

O geez, people STILL bark that Synthesis "takes away" something?

All we see in the ending is each and every civilization living happily ever after. Everyone's cultural and racial identity is still there, hardly compromised by having that little green glow.
The only point ever brought up against this is the baseless assumption that they've been brainwashed.

Synthesis is something that gets ADDED so that everyone can have a common ground, including the non-organics. Other than that, humans are still humans and krogans are still krogans, etc.
It's ot difficult to understand unless one has a serious lack of mental elasticity.

And really, to say the Mass Effect series has a racist message means your brain isn't working at all. In matters of race, gender and even sexual orientation, it's practically the most open, equal-minded game ever made.

[Biotic Sage]

Indy_S wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Well let's take it one step further and say that ME1 is responsible for the mess.  It introduced god-like, unstoppable Reapers into the mix.  How do solve this problem?  Not by fighting them and winning, because that would undermine their appeal and make them seem wimpy in retrospect.  Not by losing to them, because we still want to feel heroic.  How then, other than with a Crucible?

By changing the win condition. I'd make it not about killing them and instead about keeping them out. Put up some kind of bubble around the galaxy so nothing can get in or out. That sounds really stupid, I know, but it's an example of where this could have gone. Fighting Sovereign was about keeping them out, Arrival was about keeping them out. It could be pulled off.

Alternately, running away. Flee through some kind of mega relay to another galaxy. Have a war about getting as many people or pieces of technology through as possible. At the end, destroy the mega relay to prevent the Reapers from following. This one even sets up a Brave New World thing for sequels to follow up on.

I like these ideas.  Expel them from the galaxy or like you said, full retreat to a NEW galaxy.  Discovering a secret, lost mega relay to a new galaxy to set up a new galactic civilization would be very interesting for the series' future entries.  However, apparently the Reapers could just kind of drift back toward the Milky Way and get here in a couple of years if they were expelled back into dark space...ugh.  That was a major disappointment in the trilogy.  The Reapers should have returned in a much more creative way.

I have to wonder though if those would be at all well-received.  Wouldn't people just whine even more about being powerless if you literally can't stop the Reapers and either have to run from them or just keep them at a distance?

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 22 février 2013 - 10:05 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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

You are correct.  But 2 games is hardly a solidified pattern with a franchise that has a long life ahead of it.  I think a lot of people like you and me have been vocal about this, actually, and I guarantee you Bioware has heard it.  This I think is a universal criticism that spans the chasm between ending-haters and ending-likers.

I still think that if it is indeed "full speed ahead," Bioware will continue to make quality games of fantasy in space.  It just won't be quite as appealing.

the problem is not "fantasy in space" its "we abandon/ignore our own lore if needed". too much "anything goes" - cause the plot demands. this is bad story telling.

and from a scientific pov, 2 out of 3 IS a pattern. if we include dragon age and swtor, its 4 out of 6. the direction is clear - lore is good and fine but easily abandoned of ignored, if the plot or drama demands it.

its not about mass effect not being sci-fi. its about short sighted decisions that are made, to force a dramatic scene or cheap tear jerker.

Well that's a different but also valid complaint.  Good fantasy still sticks to its own rules just like good sci-fi.  This is why Harry Potter's bad fantasy, because anything goes, especially in the 7th book.  Or hell, there was a time travel device in the third book.  Nobody thinks to use these when there's all out war?

I didn't see as many instances of ignoring or abandoning established lore in Mass Effect though.  I saw a few, which did bother me, but not nearly as many as something like Harry Potter.  Plot and drama should be constructed around an established lore, not the other way around.

to close the circle and come back to the topic.

- too much anything goes
- descent from (relatively hard) scifi to something else
- abandoning/ignoring lore if the plot demands it
- shepard dies a pointless death
- character retcons (garrus and joker)
- highly questionable message (even if not intended)


in short: jumping sharks, jumping sharks everywhere

[AdmiralCheez]

Biotic Sage wrote...

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).

Preaching to the choir, honeybun.  You don't want the audience feeling like you think they're stupid.  However, that knee-jerk reaction is still important.  Feelings register more quickly than thoughts in the brain, so it's best to appeal to emotion first, then layer the intellectual stuff behind it.  That way, the audience gets to experience both the high-energy kick and the pleasant, thoughtful aftertaste.  Oh, and by the way?  You're more likely to spend time thinking about something if you have strong feelings about it.

So yeah, making the audience think isn't bad.  However, they should still get it.  This is hard stuff, but that's why most of us don't write novels.

ME3's ending really feels like they tried to do a deep and juicy science fiction sendoff, but didn't have the experience, wits, or finesse to pull it off.  Writing is complicated (and so is animating/acting/programming), and having a checklist of stuff to include isn't enough.  The ending of a story is (arguably) the most important part, so it should get the most thought, love, and hard work.  ME3's didn't, and it left me and a lot of other people feeling the opposite of what Bioware wanted.  And then we thought about it long and hand, because we cared so much about the series that we wanted to make sure we didn't read into it the wrong way, and we came out feeling even worse.

Unfortunately, I'm not a profressional writer and I'm not Bioware, so I don't know exactly what they wanted or how to fix it.  All I can do is guess and talk about my experiences.  Still, though, the level of suck is baffling.

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

These are all problems I have with it, too, but they all take a backseat to Starkid.

[Dr_Extrem]

Rhayak wrote...

O geez, people STILL bark that Synthesis "takes away" something?

All we see in the ending is each and every civilization living happily ever after. Everyone's cultural and racial identity is still there, hardly compromised by having that little green glow.
The only point ever brought up against this is the baseless assumption that they've been brainwashed.

Synthesis is something that gets ADDED so that everyone can have a common ground, including the non-organics. Other than that, humans are still humans and krogans are still krogans, etc.
It's ot difficult to understand unless one has a serious lack of mental elasticity.

And really, to say the Mass Effect series has a racist message means your brain isn't working at all. In matters of race, gender and even sexual orientation, it's practically the most open, equal-minded game ever made.

free will and the right of self determination are nothing?

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 22 février 2013 - 10:07 .

[Vubica]

EntropicAngel wrote...

 Grow up, children.

To say that THE CATALYST'S point of view is BIOWARE'S point of view is nothing short of ignorance--and if not that, then stupidity.

It's called writing a villian, folks.

In addition, do you even know what they choice "Destroy" means? It means you reject that premise.

The game supports you being able to reject that premise.


It is not Bioware's mesage. You are wrong.

Shooting the Starchild is REJECTING that premise, Destroy is sort of genocide towards the geth imo

[Rhayak]

Dr_Extrem wrote...
free will and the right of self determination are nothing?

There is just plain nothing to support the statement that Synthesis takes those away.... as i already said....

[Dr_Extrem]

Rhayak wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...
free will and the right of self determination are nothing?

There is just plain nothing to support the statement that Synthesis takes those away.... as i already said....

well forcing change on any organism in the galaxy, sort of violates the right of self determination of said organisms.

[ZLurps]

TheJediSaint wrote...

Or, as the way I see it, the audience can see meaning that isn't really there.   If you look at ME3's ending with your sensors tuned to finding a particular message, then you're likely to see it.    Because something that means nothing can mean anything.

It's really funny especially when people know that ending was a rush jub. BW had to use whatever content they had (some Catalyst room graphipcs are recycled from Lair of the Shadow Broker, animation and lighting issues for example and so on.

I also very much agree what you said about people giving way too much credit to vacuum that the ending is, though I also get vibe that there are people who like create negative associations between ending and negative things in real life, like racism, just to take a shot at BW. While people are free to write what they want, I think it's pretty sad. There are many issues in ME3 and how things were delivered to critisise and I really don't see the need for "victimisation" like this.

[AdmiralCheez]

Rhayak wrote...

In matters of race, gender and even sexual orientation, it's practically the most open, equal-minded game ever made.

RACE: Of the two najor black characters, one dies, while the other gets a girl knocked up while cheating on you.  Of the two major Asian characters, both are basically ninjas, and one of them wears slanty-eye goggles.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION: Lesbians everywhere, but the community had to beg for a gay male couple.  And let's not forget the asari, because "omg bi gurlz will do anything lol so hot."

GENDER: Oh boy.  Here we go....






Mass Effect does a better job at some of the open-minded stuff than other games, and actually does some stuff very well, but don't you dare sit here and tell me that it's the most open, equal-minded game ever made.

[Biotic Sage]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Preaching to the choir, honeybun.  You don't want the audience feeling like you think they're stupid.  However, that knee-jerk reaction is still important.  Feelings register more quickly than thoughts in the brain, so it's best to appeal to emotion first, then layer the intellectual stuff behind it.  That way, the audience gets to experience both the high-energy kick and the pleasant, thoughtful aftertaste.  Oh, and by the way?  You're more likely to spend time thinking about something if you have strong feelings about it.

So yeah, making the audience think isn't bad.  However, they should still get it.  This is hard stuff, but that's why most of us don't write novels.

ME3's ending really feels like they tried to do a deep and juicy science fiction sendoff, but didn't have the experience, wits, or finesse to pull it off.  Writing is complicated (and so is animating/acting/programming), and having a checklist of stuff to include isn't enough.  The ending of a story is (arguably) the most important part, so it should get the most thought, love, and hard work.  ME3's didn't, and it left me and a lot of other people feeling the opposite of what Bioware wanted.  And then we thought about it long and hand, because we cared so much about the series that we wanted to make sure we didn't read into it the wrong way, and we came out feeling even worse.

Unfortunately, I'm not a profressional writer and I'm not Bioware, so I don't know exactly what they wanted or how to fix it.  All I can do is guess and talk about my experiences.  Still, though, the level of suck is baffling.

Well I think we've established that in terms of the Catalyst and the final decision, the level of suck is subjective, because you think there are high levels of suck and I think there are low levels.  And you don't need to write novels to appreciate writing, the more important thing is to read a lot.  The more frames of reference you have the better.  ME3's ending isn't universally hated (as some on these boards seem to think).  It's vocally hated, which is not the same thing.  Nor is it universally loved, obviously, but I have yet to see a book, game, movie, etc. that is universally either loathed or loved.

[Indy_S]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Mass Effect does a better job at some of the open-minded stuff than other games, and actually does some stuff very well, but don't you dare sit here and tell me that it's the most open, equal-minded game ever made.

Yeah. That title goes to Portal.

And Biotic Sage, Portal's story is universally loved.

Modifié par Indy_S, 22 février 2013 - 10:22 .

[Biotic Sage]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Mass Effect does a better job at some of the open-minded stuff than other games, and actually does some stuff very well, but don't you dare sit here and tell me that it's the most open, equal-minded game ever made.

Damn straight.  That title belongs to The Witcher.

[Dr_Extrem]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Rhayak wrote...

In matters of race, gender and even sexual orientation, it's practically the most open, equal-minded game ever made.

RACE: Of the two najor black characters, one dies, while the other gets a girl knocked up while cheating on you.  Of the two major Asian characters, both are basically ninjas, and one of them wears slanty-eye goggles.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION: Lesbians everywhere, but the community had to beg for a gay male couple.  And let's not forget the asari, because "omg bi gurlz will do anything lol so hot."

GENDER: Oh boy.  Here we go....






Mass Effect does a better job at some of the open-minded stuff than other games, and actually does some stuff very well, but don't you dare sit here and tell me that it's the most open, equal-minded game ever made.

i love you.


please dont forget shepards "enhancements" over the course of the series.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 22 février 2013 - 10:24 .

[78stonewobble]

Rhayak wrote...

O geez, people STILL bark that Synthesis "takes away" something?

All we see in the ending is each and every civilization living happily ever after. Everyone's cultural and racial identity is still there, hardly compromised by having that little green glow.
The only point ever brought up against this is the baseless assumption that they've been brainwashed.

Synthesis is something that gets ADDED so that everyone can have a common ground, including the non-organics. Other than that, humans are still humans and krogans are still krogans, etc.
It's ot difficult to understand unless one has a serious lack of mental elasticity.

And really, to say the Mass Effect series has a racist message means your brain isn't working at all. In matters of race, gender and even sexual orientation, it's practically the most open, equal-minded game ever made.

Well it's quite simple.

Either it brainwashes people or it solves nothing? So which is it?

It can only be one or the other.


Brainwashing being "adding" something that fundamentally changes your outlook on something.

"Solves nothing" being that if people are still what they were previously there'll still be wars and people will still invent pure ai's that wipes everyone out.



Openness and acceptance of other people includes stuff you don't like. Like the right to be racist, sexist and what not.

PS: Well I guess the North Korean leadership was right.

Telling your starving people that everyone else is starving alot more leads to less conflict and lets them feel good about themselves.

It doesn't have to be the/a truth and it's just "adding" stuff.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 22 février 2013 - 11:10 .