242 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr_Extrem]

chemiclord wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

tbh ... i dont care about the writers intent when it comes to this scene. i would normally dont do it either but this ... thing .. is something different, since its presence alone disturbs my perception of the enitre meu. its existance brings up questions - questions regarding the first 2 games and the answers to them, are not pleasant.

how would you rewrite it?

(i really am curious)

First of all, I'd drop the cooperative attitude the Catalyst.  This is a being that should be looking down on this insignificant insect that dares question its conclusions.  It has billions of years and countless cycles of experience to tell it its correct in said conclusions.  This... mere child... has what?  A short term cooperation of synthetic and organic races that will last a blink of an eye in the cosmic scale?  Color the Catalyst not impressed.

Second of all, I'd adjust the premise slightly so that it wasn't so much organic/synthetic conflict, instead conflict in general.  Then all sorts of evidence comes into play.  The Rachni Wars (and the systematic extermination of a sentient species)... the Krogan Rebellions (and subsequent Genopage).  To hell with organic/synthetic... organic/organic is just as capable of exterminating all life in the galaxy.

And THAT'S the point I'd have run with.  As quick to war as species in this galaxy are, it's only a matter of time before they reach a point where ALL life (advanced or not) is at risk.  The Catalyst stops that from happening by harvesting advanced races before they reach that point.  And it's first target was the Leviathans who designed it.

It's a simplistic theme... but let's be honest, ME as a whole wasn't exactly Asmiov to begin with.  It doesn't need (and probably shouldn't be) all that complex.

I'd also alter the consequences of each choice as well... but that's kinda nitpicking and this post is already getting too long as it is.  If you want I can expand later.

exactly my thought.


that would have been far better. the problem is, that a catalyst with this "attitude", would see no reason in welcoming shepard at all nor even give him/her the chance to change the modus operandi.


the introduction of the organic vs. synthetic theme was garbage all along ... every cycle ever build synthetic life? every 50k years, without exception? 

conflict in general would have fit to the theme of mass effect and since there is always conflict, the catalysts argumentation would have been easier to follow.


to me, one of the problems with the catalysts concept is, that is hard to believe, that there is an omnipotent ai living on the station, that despite all its power has no clue, that some protheans managed to sabotage its janitors. i mean .. a gravitational anomaly, the size of the conduit, should get its attention. following the events, the catalyst could just have contacted sovi to clean the house and breed new keepers. the catalyst itself, destabilises the card house of its own existance. 


cutting it out is maybe crude and the game looses the conversation about the reapers motivation - but imho, the reapers can work without knowing it. it would not work with a "blofeld"-archenemy but the lovecraftian nature of the reapers allow them to stay mysterious.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

"I just need to know one thing.... where they are." -- Vasquez, Aliens

[Ieldra]

@OP:
EC Synthesis works well for me. I'm not exactly pleased at Shepard's death, and I could post epic rants about how they forced that sacrifice scenario into the ending with no grounding in in-world logic, but I have two distinctive lore-friendly scenarios for bringing Shepard back after the end, so that's what will happen in the timeline of my main Shepard.

EC Control, in either variant, is great. My interpretation of Control includes that there is continuity of identity, so it's really "Shepard as a hyper-advanced AI" who's shaping the fate of the galaxy after Control. So, I'm very much ok with how things play out. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 février 2013 - 11:26 .

[chemiclord]

Dr_Extrem wrote...
exactly my thought.


that would have been far better. the problem is, that a catalyst with this "attitude", would see no reason in welcoming shepard at all nor even give him/her the chance to change the modus operandi.


the introduction of the organic vs. synthetic theme was garbage all along ... every cycle ever build synthetic life? every 50k years, without exception? 

conflict in general would have fit to the theme of mass effect and since there is always conflict, the catalysts argumentation would have been easier to follow.


to me, one of the problems with the catalysts concept is, that is hard to believe, that there is an omnipotent ai living on the station, that despite all its power has no clue, that some protheans managed to sabotage its janitors. i mean .. a gravitational anomaly, the size of the conduit, should get its attention. following the events, the catalyst could just have contacted sovi to clean the house and breed new keepers. the catalyst itself, destabilises the card house of its own existance. 


cutting it out is maybe crude and the game looses the conversation about the reapers motivation - but imho, the reapers can work without knowing it. it would not work with a "blofeld"-archenemy but the lovecraftian nature of the reapers allow them to stay mysterious.

It's very easy handwaved away by the Catalyst acknowledging that it's an AI that is programmed to oversee and guide, but not given the means to interact directly.  Then, that also explains why it did nothing to assist Sovereign in ME1, and why it can't stop Shepard from using the Crucible (though it would try REALLY hard to sway him in the direction most suitable for its purposes).

The means to make the Catalyst make sense is there, and not particularly hard.  I honestly think that was the intent too... but its scene is written so horribly that it comes off as a confounding mess of seemingly disjointed and contradictory logic.

Modifié par chemiclord, 26 février 2013 - 02:53 .

[iorveth1271]

EC Refusal was my ending and I personally, having gotten the impression that the next cycle destroyed the Reapers w/o the Crucible, am perfectly content with his fate.

Everything was better than the illusion of a victory IMO.

[AlanC9]

Redbelle wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

The only thing that really bothers me about the MEHEM is that it completely cuts out the Catalyst.  As awful as it is presented, It inherently irks me when author's intent is thumbed at and blatantly rejected.  If I were writing the mod, I'd DEFINITELY rewrite that entire scene (because my GOD is it a mess), but I wouldn't cut it entirely.

Catalyst or no, wasn't having to make a morally troubling choice also part of the intent? 

Edit: I'm just not sure the design objectives can be reconciled.

A troubling choice may have been a desire. But the intent that followed us through 3 game's was to beat the Reaper's in such a way that they either leave with their tail between their leg's, or are outright destroyed. Ignoring the implication's of what the RGB choice's do destroying the Reaper's was alway's the goal. Narratively, to suddenly have a new character and a choice flung at us at the last minute was a mistake as these thing's distract us from Shepard's singluar goal by suddenly throwing more information than we need at us. Shepard uses Crucible to kill Reaper's. Simple story telling at the end of a narrative.

The MEHEM accomplishes this.

This means essentially that "Bio should have had different design objectives." Which answers my question since we're not trying to respect the existing design objectives. But then chemiclord can't do what he says he wants to do.

Modifié par AlanC9, 26 février 2013 - 03:02 .

[AlanC9]

iorveth1271 wrote...

EC Refusal was my ending and I personally, having gotten the impression that the next cycle destroyed the Reapers w/o the Crucible, am perfectly content with his fate.

Everything was better than the illusion of a victory IMO.

How is Destroy the illusion of a victory? Or Control, for that matter.

And what does the next cycle not using the Crucible have to do with anything? It's great that their AIs don't get killed --- assuming that they had any, and that they didn't actually use the Crucible. But our cycle's just as dead.

[saracen16]

Shepard's fate is fitting. Mass Effect is about making the hard choices, each having their pros and cons, but all - and I mean, all, choices - involved some sort of sacrifice. Shepard sacrificing himself is not just a hero's going-out-with-a-bang, but also a testimony to a theme that we can all identify with in the series: sacrifice.

[iorveth1271]

AlanC9 wrote...

iorveth1271 wrote...

EC Refusal was my ending and I personally, having gotten the impression that the next cycle destroyed the Reapers w/o the Crucible, am perfectly content with his fate.

Everything was better than the illusion of a victory IMO.

How is Destroy the illusion of a victory? Or Control, for that matter.

And what does the next cycle not using the Crucible have to do with anything? It's great that their AIs don't get killed --- assuming that they had any, and that they didn't actually use the Crucible. But our cycle's just as dead.

Illusion of a victory as that this victory has not been achieved on our own. Instead, the Catalyst OFFERS you three ways to win the war - the ENEMY offers YOU three diverse ways to win the war against HIMSELF.

Where's the feeling of having achieved a true victory in that, especially when those three choices are either becoming the Reaper Overlord yourself (with which I can't even start to count the amount of variables that can **** the so-called "peace" up), commiting genocide on sentient races you swore to protect (at least I did - and yes, I considered EDI and the Geth sentient, living beings) or gene-raping the entire galaxy into becoming a hybrid of organic and synthetic, which - while in theory an interesting concept - just rubs me the wrong way.

Ultimately, for me, it comes down to the fact I'm being offered the victory. That makes it no victory at all.

And as to your second point, let me take the example of Javik and the Turian idea of victory. As long as just one Turian's left standing, the war's still won. Even if that's not the case, I consider our sacrifice worth it as we managed to allow the next cycle to win without walking into a possible Reaper trap, as the Protheans tried for us, and preventing them from repeating our mistakes.

Modifié par iorveth1271, 26 février 2013 - 03:18 .

[Ticonderoga117]

iorveth1271 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

iorveth1271 wrote...

EC Refusal was my ending and I personally, having gotten the impression that the next cycle destroyed the Reapers w/o the Crucible, am perfectly content with his fate.

Everything was better than the illusion of a victory IMO.

How is Destroy the illusion of a victory? Or Control, for that matter.

And what does the next cycle not using the Crucible have to do with anything? It's great that their AIs don't get killed --- assuming that they had any, and that they didn't actually use the Crucible. But our cycle's just as dead.

Illusion of a victory as that this victory has not been achieved on our own. Instead, the Catalyst OFFERS you three ways to win the war - the ENEMY offers YOU three diverse ways to win the war against HIMSELF.

Where's the feeling of having achieved a true victory in that, especially when those three choices are either becoming the Reaper Overlord yourself (with which I can't even start to count the amount of variables that can **** the so-called "peace" up), commiting genocide on sentient races you swore to protect (at least I did - and yes, I considered EDI and the Geth sentient, living beings) or gene-raping the entire galaxy into becoming a hybrid of organic and synthetic, which - while in theory an interesting concept - just rubs me the wrong way.

Ultimately, for me, it comes down to the fact I'm being offered the victory. That makes it no victory at all.

And as to your second point, let me take the example of Javik and the Turian idea of victory. As long as just one Turian's left standing, the war's still won. Even if that's not the case, I consider our sacrifice worth it as we managed to allow the next cycle to win without walking into a possible Reaper trap, as the Protheans tried for us, and preventing them from repeating our mistakes.

I want to expand on your "offered victory" part. It's not even a victory for us if you don't pick destroy.

[iorveth1271]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

iorveth1271 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

iorveth1271 wrote...

EC Refusal was my ending and I personally, having gotten the impression that the next cycle destroyed the Reapers w/o the Crucible, am perfectly content with his fate.

Everything was better than the illusion of a victory IMO.

How is Destroy the illusion of a victory? Or Control, for that matter.

And what does the next cycle not using the Crucible have to do with anything? It's great that their AIs don't get killed --- assuming that they had any, and that they didn't actually use the Crucible. But our cycle's just as dead.

Illusion of a victory as that this victory has not been achieved on our own. Instead, the Catalyst OFFERS you three ways to win the war - the ENEMY offers YOU three diverse ways to win the war against HIMSELF.

Where's the feeling of having achieved a true victory in that, especially when those three choices are either becoming the Reaper Overlord yourself (with which I can't even start to count the amount of variables that can **** the so-called "peace" up), commiting genocide on sentient races you swore to protect (at least I did - and yes, I considered EDI and the Geth sentient, living beings) or gene-raping the entire galaxy into becoming a hybrid of organic and synthetic, which - while in theory an interesting concept - just rubs me the wrong way.

Ultimately, for me, it comes down to the fact I'm being offered the victory. That makes it no victory at all.

And as to your second point, let me take the example of Javik and the Turian idea of victory. As long as just one Turian's left standing, the war's still won. Even if that's not the case, I consider our sacrifice worth it as we managed to allow the next cycle to win without walking into a possible Reaper trap, as the Protheans tried for us, and preventing them from repeating our mistakes.

I want to expand on your "offered victory" part. It's not even a victory for us if you don't pick destroy.

I suppose that depends on whether you wanted to "destroy" or simply "stop" the Reapers.

[Ticonderoga117]

iorveth1271 wrote...

I suppose that depends on whether you wanted to "destroy" or simply "stop" the Reapers.

Well using the motivations ingame, it's Destroy by the time ME3 rolls around.
Defiantly isn't control anyway.

[thefallen2far]

I feel like Shepard was a failure, in the end. No matter what you do or how you do it, Shepard is just a failure.

I know that making him a failure is supposed to humanize him, but I don't think humanity is inherently inept. I think of all the video game heroes like Snake, Nathan Drake, Samus, Master Chief, Issac..... I never thought of them as "less human" because they were successful.

Even James Marsden felt somewhat successful in his adventure, but was betrayed.... it wasn't inability, it was more that his personal flaw of being a great character lead to his downfall.

I guess I feel pity for Shepard. If the character was less of a disappointment in the end, I think i'd be more positve, but she/he was just a failure in the end.

[Iakus]

Let's see
ME1, uplifting victory

ME2 possibility of "perfect victory" even though you didn't rescue a single colonist from the Collector Base

ME3:  No victory without extreme compromise.

yeah...

Modifié par iakus, 26 février 2013 - 04:37 .

[AlanC9]

[quote]iorveth1271 wrote...
Illusion of a victory as that this victory has not been achieved on our own. Instead, the Catalyst OFFERS you three ways to win the war - the ENEMY offers YOU three diverse ways to win the war against HIMSELF.

Where's the feeling of having achieved a true victory in that, especially when those three choices are either becoming the Reaper Overlord yourself (with which I can't even start to count the amount of variables that can **** the so-called "peace" up), commiting genocide on sentient races you swore to protect (at least I did - and yes, I considered EDI and the Geth sentient, living beings) or gene-raping the entire galaxy into becoming a hybrid of organic and synthetic, which - while in theory an interesting concept - just rubs me the wrong way.

Ultimately, for me, it comes down to the fact I'm being offered the victory. That makes it no victory at all.
[/quote]

This is muddling up two unrelated concepts. One is that a "true" victory must be achieved by the unaided efforts of the protagonist; I don't see why this is relevant myself, but so be it. The other is that a "true" victory means getting everything the way the protagonist wanted it. By this standard there are quite  a few untrue victories. I'm also unclear how getting the entire human race exterminated is any kind of victory.

[quote]And as to your second point, let me take the example of Javik and the Turian idea of victory. As long as just one Turian's left standing, the war's still won. Even if that's not the case, I consider our sacrifice worth it as we managed to allow the next cycle to win without walking into a possible Reaper trap, as the Protheans tried for us, and preventing them from repeating our mistakes.[/quote]

 Ican't make any response to a concept this non-rational

[/quote]

[Redbelle]

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...


[quote]And as to your second point, let me take the example of Javik and the Turian idea of victory. As long as just one Turian's left standing, the war's still won. Even if that's not the case, I consider our sacrifice worth it as we managed to allow the next cycle to win without walking into a possible Reaper trap, as the Protheans tried for us, and preventing them from repeating our mistakes.[/quote]

 Ican't make any response to a concept this non-rational

[/quote]
[/quote]

How about this concept then.

WW2. Men in a trench. A grenade come's sailing in and lands. Everyone will die.

Man throws himself in grenade and dies. Everyone else lives.

The concept that was being spoken of was one of sacrifice. Refusal end's up being the sacrifice of the cycle, but Shepard has no way of knowing 100% that they will fail. Only the player knows this because no other possibility is available according to BW and data miner's.

So what is refuse? Sucide or sacrifice?

Taken from our relative position it's one or the other. Taken from Shepards position it's neither. Shepard doesn't know what the outcome will be. But Shepard does know that he and Liara have left the information needed by other cycles if the Reaper war goes south.

That information is found by the next cycle, and the information is delivered in a way that actually get's that cycle on board to the Reaper threat much earlier than ever before. And they win. No more Reapers. And isn't no more Reaper's the point of the exercise?

Sure, you can do the same thing with destroy, but going back to the WW2 trench analogy, destroy is the equivilent of pushing other soldier's who you know onto the grenade in your place. Not the most virtuous of act's.

[Redbelle]

AlanC9 wrote...

iorveth1271 wrote...

EC Refusal was my ending and I personally, having gotten the impression that the next cycle destroyed the Reapers w/o the Crucible, am perfectly content with his fate.

Everything was better than the illusion of a victory IMO.

How is Destroy the illusion of a victory? Or Control, for that matter.

And what does the next cycle not using the Crucible have to do with anything? It's great that their AIs don't get killed --- assuming that they had any, and that they didn't actually use the Crucible. But our cycle's just as dead.

Well, with destroy, their is a cost, but their has already been a cost in the death's the galaxy has suffered.

Destroy however, is a personal cost. Because all synthetic life dying is not because of an act of warfare. Destroy is an act of one individual wiping out a newly emerging form of life along with the enemies of all life that meet's Reaper standard's for harvesting.

That act is therefore on the player's. A player has to commit genocide on an enemy, which is morally shaky ground but hey, it's war. While simultaneously commiting genocide on an allied species. Which is not morally shanky ground. It's a moral landslide! (If your so inclined to think).

One of the generally accepted rules of warfare is that you do not shoot your comrade's in the back. You look out for them. Destroy take's this generally accepted rule and plays with the audience. In effect saying, 'You can destroy the Reaper's if you destroy an ally'.

[Dr_Extrem]

iakus wrote...

Let's see
ME1, uplifting victory

ME2 possibility of "perfect victory" even though you didn't rescue a single colonist from the Collector Base

ME3:  No victory without extreme compromise.

yeah...

imo, its not even a victory, if the "defeated" party dictates the terms of their "defeat".

[Mathias]

Multiple endings...

Hero dies in all of them...


Seems pretty forced to me.

[Dr_Extrem]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Multiple endings...

Hero dies in all of them...


Seems pretty forced to me.

dont be so nitpicky.

[AlanC9]

Redbelle wrote...

Man throws himself in grenade and dies. Everyone else lives.

The concept that was being spoken of was one of sacrifice. Refusal end's up being the sacrifice of the cycle, but Shepard has no way of knowing 100% that they will fail. Only the player knows this because no other possibility is available according to BW and data miner's.

So what is refuse? Sucide or sacrifice?

Hmm.... so it's not a certain defeat; Shepard's just taking a terrible risk here, and this time it didn't work out and the galaxy dies? Well, while it never occurred to me or any of my Shepards that a Refuse victory was possible, it's not an outright impossible thing for a Shepard to believe. Though you do have to believe an almost inconceivable level of incompetence on the part of the Reapers themselves, in addition to believing in massive incompetence on Hackett's part (though he's got the excuse of having less information about total Reaper strength).

But in that case it isn't suicide or sacrifice. It's a mistake. He isn't trying to do what he actually ends up doing. The beacons do mean that he's only gambling with the lives of his own cycle rather than all life forever, fortunately. 

Sure, you can do the same thing with destroy, but going back to the WW2 trench analogy, destroy is the equivilent of pushing other soldier's who you know onto the grenade in your place. Not the most virtuous of act's.

If  the choices are push one soldier onto the grenade or let the grenade kill everyone in the trench, pushing that guy onto the grenade is a virtuous act. He's dead either way; the only question is whether everyone else dies with him or not.

[Reorte]

Redbelle wrote...

How about this concept then.

WW2. Men in a trench. A grenade come's sailing in and lands. Everyone will die.

Man throws himself in grenade and dies. Everyone else lives.

The concept that was being spoken of was one of sacrifice. Refusal end's up being the sacrifice of the cycle, but Shepard has no way of knowing 100% that they will fail. Only the player knows this because no other possibility is available according to BW and data miner's.

Refuse is objecting to the enemy so much that you won't fire back at him with a gun he's dropped. As for the sacrifice they can work on the scale you mention but raise it to the level of the fate of the entire galaxy and the sacrifice just comes across as utterly contrived and unconvincing.

So what is refuse? Sucide or sacrifice?

Taken from our relative position it's one or the other. Taken from Shepards position it's neither. Shepard doesn't know what the outcome will be. But Shepard does know that he and Liara have left the information needed by other cycles if the Reaper war goes south.

And since everything tells you that it probably will then it's just crazy. The only time Refuse can be justified at all is if  you've got any reason to believe that taking one of the options will make things even worse than they currently are.

That information is found by the next cycle, and the information is delivered in a way that actually get's that cycle on board to the Reaper threat much earlier than ever before. And they win. No more Reapers. And isn't no more Reaper's the point of the exercise?

Sure, you can do the same thing with destroy, but going back to the WW2 trench analogy, destroy is the equivilent of pushing other soldier's who you know onto the grenade in your place. Not the most virtuous of act's.

No, it's not. Destroy is calling in an air strike knowing that it'll kill some of your own soliders too. Refuse is running out of ammo, every route of retreat looks near-suicidal, but not using the enemy ammo that for some reason is handily lying around and will probably fit your guns (although it might make them explode), and the enemy is one who takes no prisoners. After all someone else will come along later and win the war for you.

[Xamufam]

Bioware doesnt know the diference betwen classic hero & tragic hero if you are going to kill of the character Do it right (mordin Was a tragic character that Was flawed)
When i bought the game i expected something like Heavy rain ending bitter to happy ending based on how you played the game.
DA O is biowares best game & it shows good writing.

[Darth Death]

I feel terrible. My shep deserved more.

[chemiclord]

Bah. I despise the "I (or 'my Shepard') deserved more" argument.

What you "deserve", to be quite frank, means less than jack ****. Guess what? Sometimes you don't get what you "deserve." Hell, MOST of the time, you don't get what you "deserve." 

Welcome to life.

Modifié par chemiclord, 27 février 2013 - 03:57 .