169 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Zaidra wrote...

Being the multi-billion credit company that cerberus is, with how paranoid they are, (preparing for worst case scenario when they were building the Normandy SR-2), would they not have put an EMP/other pulse defense on the AI core? Why wouldn't they think of that?

We have that technology now, and it's not that expensive. Why wouldn't cerberus of all companies use that technology a few hundred years in the future?

If stopping the Crucible effect was that easy, it wouldn't work on the Reapers either.

[AlanC9]

Reikilea wrote...

Well It makes sense if you only target technology created or enhanced by reapers. That´s why it makes sense if relays are gone too in Destroy and Normandy equipped with reapers tech gets it too. 

Targeting "Reaper code" is like targeting "Chinese code."

[Kabraxal]

AlanC9 wrote...

Reikilea wrote...

Well It makes sense if you only target technology created or enhanced by reapers. That´s why it makes sense if relays are gone too in Destroy and Normandy equipped with reapers tech gets it too. 

Targeting "Reaper code" is like targeting "Chinese code."

Except we are shown in game that it has a different quality than other programming that easily sets it apart... so targetting reaper code is actually feasible.

[SpamBot2000]

Well well, we finally have the Auld Wolf canon of Art for our edification.

Terry Pratchett, Doctor Who, The Longest Journey.

Time to quit thuggery, move out of the cave and edumacate myself. In time, I too may be able to pass judgment on the common luddite herd.

[nos_astra]

Kabraxal wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Reikilea wrote...

Well It makes sense if you only target technology created or enhanced by reapers. That´s why it makes sense if relays are gone too in Destroy and Normandy equipped with reapers tech gets it too. 

Targeting "Reaper code" is like targeting "Chinese code."

Except we are shown in game that it has a different quality than other programming that easily sets it apart... so targetting reaper code is actually feasible.

How does an energy pulse target code?

[ZLurps]

Reikilea wrote...

ZLurps wrote...

Arcian wrote...

Reikilea wrote...

Well I can only pick destroy. Synthesis is forced crap to get Joker laid. Control is way to risky. And I wanted to get rid of the reapers.

Destroy is a great option. I fully support this option. And to the "genocide" and edi. I always took it as - you are destroying reapers so you destroy everything reaper. That means geth enhanced by reaper code and Edi made from reaper parts. No synthetic organic crap. Just getting rid of the reapers.

The issue is that there's no logical reason for the geth and EDI to die. Neither use Reaper code for their basic "life functions". The geth use it to increase their intelligence and EDI uses it for her anti-Reaper cyberwarfare suites.

That's the problem with Destroy. If the writing made sense, EDI and the geth wouldn't die. And if they didn't, there would be no incentive to pick Control or Synthesis.

Or alternatively, every platform that can run "synthetic life" would be destroyed, meaning everything from Ships to Quarian suits.

The problem with Destroy from science point of view is that it doesn't make any more sense than Synthesis.

Well It makes sense if you only target technology created or enhanced by reapers. That´s why it makes sense if relays are gone too in Destroy and Normandy equipped with reapers tech gets it too. Geth use the code now, they I know they didnt need it before, but the code changed them (the way they operate a live) and they are using it Now - the moment Shepard pushes the red button. Edi too. I´m not really broken hearted over Edi, I loathed that character. (not what edi represents, only the way it was done. ) And of course I´ll miss geth. But this is just war. Things like this happen.

It may be the fact that reaper tech couldnt be erased form Edi´s or Geth current state. So the destroy option could have targeted the whole being.

If I think about it like this it makes more sense to me. I thought if catalyst has power to magically change whole life into organics/synthetics synthesis, targetting reaper technology and destroying it makes sense too.  Or that´s how it should be.

No it doesn't, unless you take space magic approach to things. My point though was that since OP mentioned Synthesis being scientific nonsense, Destroy shouldn't get free pass either, because it's just variant of Synthesis space magic.

If you take space magic approach, it's bit here and there even then. Some Quarian on Rannoch decided to back up Geth uploaded to envirosuit on their equivalent of our blu-ray disc, any sort of optical media. Now Reaper beam appears, what it's going to do? Magically fry that optical disc? So after the beam Quarian notices that suit isn't functioning like before, notices Geth software is non-functional and restores back up, Geth perceives events like one minute memory loss.

Ultimately, software is an idea. To destroy it you need to destroy it's creators, which gets us back in square one.

Modifié par ZLurps, 09 mars 2013 - 07:30 .

[AlanC9]

ZLurps wrote...


Ultimately, software is an idea. To destroy it you need to destroy it's creators, which gets us back in square one.

Yep. Like I said upthread, Bio got this right with the standard AIs, which can't be backed up because they're quantum states rather than pure data.

[ZLurps]

ScriptBabe wrote...

ZLurps wrote...

ScriptBabe wrote...

Very nice post. Thank you.

For what it's worth -- I am a professional screenwriter and novelist, and I think the problem was a very simple one. It's structural and it goes all the way back to the first game. For an ending to work all the pieces have to be laid in at the beginning. The problem, the villain(s) and the solution. A reader/viewer/player should be able to look back at the end and go, "Wow, I totally see how they did that. All the clues were there."

The designers laid in the problem quickly and elegantly -- Reapers. We had a personified villain in the first game. Things got a bit wobbly in the second, and the third instead of being faced with Harbinger -- the ultimate Reaper we had TIM as a stand in villain. Then at the very end we are presented with a new antagonist in the form of the Catalyst. It was whiplash, and because it came out of nowhere people were frustrated and disoriented. The Crucible was also never hinted at in the earlier games which made it feel like Deus ex machina. The theme of Mass Effect was unity through diversity. That should have been the ultimate solution. The writers even suggested as much in some of Javik's dialog. The Protheans failed because they were conquerors. There was no grand alliance.

I know it's hard in a game or a TV series to plot the arc. You never know if the game or the show is going to continue, but you have to plot to the conclusion, or have a trap door that enables you to give a satisfying climax even if they pull the plug on your project. Bottom line, you have to know the end before you start. When I plot a movie or a book I begin with the climax and work backward. If I can't find that climax I know this is a story that isn't going to work.

Overall though there is much to praise in this franchise. They failed to stick the landing, but they gave us a great ride on the way.

I have read quite a bit behind the scenes stuff and it's interesting how writers had ideas how to advance the Reaper plot, but those ideas never ended in game. I guess person who decided to rejected them might have felt that leaving as much as possible open, would leave more room to manoeuvre in ME3 production. Well...

That's unfortunate.  In an open sandbox game like Skyrim you can get away with that.  You just can't in a narrative driven story like Dragon Age: Origins or Mass Effect.  Everything has to lead toward that ultimate climax.  I'm struggling to address notes on a script right now where the execs want more scenes with this one particular character.  That's great, but these scenes have to advance the plot or they're just filler.  In Mass Effect it seemed like all my efforts to build an alliance to face the Reapers was ultmately pointless ie filler.  And I still thing an unalloyed happy ending could and should have been offered.  I'm a big proponent of the happy ending.  I think they get a bad rap from critics.  In Dragon Age you really could craft an ending that was appropriate to your character.  Not so much in ME. 

Yes, it appears they spent some sweet time re-inventing the wheel in franchise for ME3 and then failed to meet  deadline because of that. They requested 6 months extension for developing but got just 3, which is why certain sections of ME3 fall pretty short and ending is hacked together by using whatever they had. Some graphics is recyclded from previous DLC etc.

[just.a.dude]

Arcian wrote...

The issue is that there's no logical reason for the geth and EDI to die. Neither use Reaper code for their basic "life functions". The geth use it to increase their intelligence and EDI uses it for her anti-Reaper cyberwarfare suites.

That's the problem with Destroy. If the writing made sense, EDI and the geth wouldn't die. And if they didn't, there would be no incentive to pick Control or Synthesis.

So you are saying in a make believe universe where people can generate Mass Effect fields with their bodies it is a stretch to think that the crucible can send out a pulse of energy that targets only synthetic inteligence? The Crucible is the Deus ex machina (no, I am not talking about the game) of the Mass Effect universe (much like the exaust port in Star Wars, the computer virus in Independance Day, the germs in War of the Worlds and so on).

I get your Fallout 3 argument, but it does not apply to this case. Taking the science of the Mass Effect universe into account, the effects of both the Destroy and Control options are very plausible. Synthesis less so, but not out of the ball park. They could have played it safe and made it a shoot your way to the activation switch ending.They chose to leave it up to the player. I admit the endings could have been better. What I do not understand is the desire for no head canon. Its a RPG and as such head canon is part of the game.

Lets remember what Grell the Robot said: "Science fiction is an existential metaphor, that allows us to tell stories about the human condition. Isaac Asimov once said: 'Individual science fiction stories may seem as trivial as ever to the blinder critics and philosophers of today — but the core of science fiction, its essence has become crucial to our salvation, if we are to be saved at all."

Mass Effect is no different. Its story is a metaphor for the human condition exploring among others, themes of freedom, equalitiy, oppression and evolution. It tells the struggle of one generations struggle against the establishment (just like Star Wars or the Matrix).

Before the EC you were given three choices as solutions to the questions posed in the narrative of the story. Yes, it was lame, but considering ME is a RPG, I expect to shape the outcome.  With the EC there are basically two choices: 1. Accept a solution presented by the establishment or 2. refuse and continue the struggle for the right to actively participate and come up with a solution.

I am happy to refuse. The beacon and the "tell me another shepard story" scene at the end confirm that the efforts of my shepard were not in vain (in fact crucial) and eventually brought the "lesser" organics and synthetics the equality, freedom and right to evolution they deserved.

Modifié par just.a.dude, 09 mars 2013 - 07:49 .

[ZLurps]

AlanC9 wrote...

ZLurps wrote...


Ultimately, software is an idea. To destroy it you need to destroy it's creators, which gets us back in square one.

Yep. Like I said upthread, Bio got this right with the standard AIs, which can't be backed up because they're quantum states rather than pure data.

Not sure if we are on the same page here. True creator of Reaper/Catalyst code was not Catalyst, but it was an idea and labour of Leviathans, so as idea Reaper code still exists, magic beam destroyed Levianthans as well.

[just.a.dude]

ScriptBabe wrote...

The designers laid in the problem quickly and elegantly -- Reapers. We had a personified villain in the first game. Things got a bit wobbly in the second, and the third instead of being faced with Harbinger -- the ultimate Reaper we had TIM as a stand in villain. Then at the very end we are presented with a new antagonist in the form of the Catalyst. It was whiplash, and because it came out of nowhere people were frustrated and disoriented. The Crucible was also never hinted at in the earlier games which made it feel like Deus ex machina. The theme of Mass Effect was unity through diversity. That should have been the ultimate solution. The writers even suggested as much in some of Javik's dialog. The Protheans failed because they were conquerors. There was no grand alliance.

Overall though there is much to praise in this franchise. They failed to stick the landing, but they gave us a great ride on the way.

You really sum it up nicely. The sad thing is that if it had been establish that the starchild that shepard sees is a representation of Harbinger it becomes much cleaner. Maybe the "So be it." is supposed to hint at that.

[Mixon]

One more IT prove:
http://s019.radikal....cdb833c4284.jpg
xD

[JamieCOTC]

@Auld Wulf

I played The Longest Journey when it came out, loved the game. (I even have a femshep named after the main character, April Ryan). I consider it one of the best story based games ever made. It's a novel in game format, filled w/ mystery, a character that grows as the game progresses and beautiful detail that has nothing to do w/ the main story. My biggest quibble w/ TLJ is that I could see the end coming a mile away. Even so, there were times, in which I was horrified by what the story might do to that girl.

In fact the ending of ME3 reminded me of the ending of TLJ in some contexts, but it just flat fails as the ambiguity is there simply for its own sake. And then there is the disconnect between Shepard and the kid as the kid is too forced to properly work. In TLJ the mystery had purpose as only through unraveling that mystery did we understand what needed to be done. In TLJ there is no disconnect between her and the "Catalyst" as they form a friendship, but he still haunts her in a way that is far more effective than the kid in ME3.

I do give BW points for trying and I think the idea of the game, that so much be left to the interpretation of the player is sound, but it just doesn't come off and some parts fail utterly. So, I agree w/ OP 100%. Like Jessica Marizan said, "never fall in love w/ a plot."

[SurfaceBeneath]

Arcian wrote...
CONTROL
What happens: Shepard gives up his/her life to merge with the Reaper consciousness and become the new Catalyst.
The issue: The first and foremost problem with Control is that it is an 11th hour solution that was never really considered as a legit solution in the first 10 hours. Most characters, Shepard included, ridiculed TIM for even considering the notion of controlling the Reapers.

From the first second of ME1 to the last before the conversation with the Catalyst, Shepard's primary, unchanging goal has been the destruction of the Reapers. For some reason, this changes not five minutes after the conversation where Shepard convinces TIM to kill himself because his plan to control the Reapers is doomed to fail.

Here, the consistency of the plot is once more ruined by the plot itself. I can understand BioWare's reasoning. Multiple endings are a BioWare staple, and there's not that many flavors to Reaper destruction. Unfortunately, the solution does not actually solve the problem - if anything, it introduces more of them.

It could have been mitigated by actually giving Shepard a chance to support Control as a legit alternative to the "Kill Reapers"-plan present throughout the trilogy. As that never happens, Control feels tacked on - and probably is.

snip....

THE CATALYST
What happens: When Shepard attempts to activate the Crucible, the leader of the Reapers appears to offer Shepard three different solutions to the Reaper problem.
The issue: If the leader of my sworn enemies came to me and gave me three options to destroy him and his army, would I believe him? The answer is naturally no. The endings of Mass Effect requires me to answer yes for them to work. If Refuse was a legit ending, no one would pick the other three endings, making them redundant, which is probably why Refuse is a no-win ending.

Lorewise, Shepard has absolutely zero reasons to believe the Catalyst is speaking the truth. It's the leader of the Reapers. Shepard has mouthed off to both Sovereign and Harbinger before without trusting a word they've said. So what's the difference with the Catalyst?

The Catalyst is a plot device required to make the desired plot work, and Shepard trusting the Catalyst is also required for the plot to work.

Once more, the consistency of the plot is ruined by the plot itself. The idea of the Catalyst was probably so well-liked among the writers that they failed to see the effects it would have on the plot.

I'm going to argue against you in these two points.

Firstly with Control: you state as a weakness of this idea that Shepard was always trying to "Destroy the Reapers". However this is kind of a simplification of a broader goal which was "Stop the Reaper Cycle." Before the Catalyst (or if you have played Leviathan, before that) the two ideas were inextricable from one another because it was assumed that the Reapers were the cause of the Reaper Cycle. However after these two events we learn that this is not the case. The Reapers are essentially just mechanisms that keep the cycle moving. Once we've learned this, then the player's relationship with the Reapers has room to change significantly and gives way for a possible "Control" outcome. That outcome is never expressed by Shepard in game because there's really no reason to believe it's possible and the only proponent of controlling the Reapers, TIM, has taken a giant leap off the moral event horizon. However once we learn that Control is one of the manifestations of the power of the Crucible, it's logical to assume that a pragmatic Shepard might decide this is a viable outcome and take advantage of it.

Now with the Catalyst, again having played Leviathan actually kind of makes a big difference here because the player is significantly forewarned of the Catalyst beforehand. From the Leviathans we learn that the Catalyst is simply following its directive as it was designed. It's not inherently evil or untrustworthy, it's just doing what it was designed to do. Additionally when the Crucible plugs into the Citadel and primes to activate and Shepard meets the Catalyst, the Catalyst has already admitted defeat. By gathering all the races of the galaxy and constructing the Crucible, you've shown that organics (and possibly synthetics too depending on what happened to the Geth) can work together to oppose synthetics and defeated it on the one grounds it is possible to defeat it on. You've proven that the Reaper Cycle is no longer a way for it to fulfill that directive. Why should Shepard believe it? Because neither it or the Reapers have given any indication that they're even capable of deception and we know from either Leviathan or from its own exposition that they have no motivation above fulfilling their programmed directive. Hell when you press it on Control and Destroy options it frankly admits it doesn't want you to choose those because it sees those as less optimal outcomes. If it didn't want Shepard to activate the Crucible and stop the Reaper Cycle for good it would have never shown up in the first place to help you use it. 

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 09 mars 2013 - 08:00 .

[RainbowDazed]

Auld Wulf wrote...

I think writers should be allowed to have their darlings, because often it makes for a more interesting story. I mean, we can all easily explain away any of the issues brought up by the OP. I have many times in the past, and I'd do it again if I thought anyone would actually listen. The fact of the matter is is that we have too many people who have an overpowering fetish for meticulous works. But that's not what good writing is about. Some of the best works have featured 'darlings,' and the authors have (correctly) had very screw you attitudes in regards to critical reception.

It's like how Pratchett doesn't use chapters. One critic picked him up on this because apparently the only way to properly write a novel is to use chapters, and a lack of them is one of Pratchett's darlings. So, on the next book, Pratchett uses this quote on the back of his book just to make fun of the guy. This is because everyone who actually reads knows that the imperfections make the work, not the perfection. It's what the author puts of themselves into their story - their passions, their dreams, their ideals. Those are what make for a great story.

Oh, sure. You could feed the OP's fetish and pick through a story to make it clinically meticulous and perfect, but then it would be an effing boring bloody story. That would be like telling Doctor Who's Moffat that he's not allowed to use the Silence or mysteries any more, that he has to wrap everything up quickly, that nothing can be left to speculation. I mean, the Silence and the Weeping Angels are Moffat's darlings, but do they ruin Doctor Who? Do they really? I always felt that the show was better since he took the helm, and his episodes were the best of new Who anyway.

Sometimes it's just painfully apparent to me who does and doesn't read. The OP doesn't read a lot, I think. At least not good stories. Because if you read good tales, told by the best talespinners, then you gain a tolerance for eccentricity - because you understand what a book is. A book is a walk through another person's head. It's seeing things from a different perspective, experiencing worlds that could only exist there, in the mind of the writer. And that's very important. The writer shouldn't have to spell everything out, either.

Quoth Cortez: Mystery is important.

To be honest, I think if any of you had complainers had actually played The Longest Journey (and none of you have) then you'd have complained about it. You'd have complained about the ending, the ambiguity, the mystery, the bizarre puzzles, and you'd have spent so much time complaining that you'd fail to see how beautiful of an experience it is. I just can't understand what it's like to be so shallow, petty, hateful, and bitter that you can't lose yourself in the work of another. That you must critically analyse it rather than living it.

That's really kind of sad. And I feel sorry for you. If you can't just walk through their works, taking in what they've shared, just transporting yourself to their world for a while. Escapism is borne of accepting that a writer's world is never perfect, is frequently strange, and yes, there are darlings present. But that's what the story is about. The story is something that is distinctly the writer's, something that's unique to them, their passion and dreams... and you want to take that away just to make for a clinically perfect story?

This is what I say when I feel that large swathes of BSN have no imagination, that they wouldn't be able to write worth ****. And no, I'm not talking documentaries, here, or 'stories' that do an almost exact historical retelling of something with minor differences. But the kind of imagination it takes to create worlds. The imagination that BioWare has, but you don't.

I like your post. I don't agree with everything you wrote and think that at some points the post above gets a bit rude, but the overall message I like and agree with. 

OT: The ending of "The Longest Journey" is one of the best endings every. It might be a bit telling of me, but I was surprised about how things played out at the end. 

[SurfaceBeneath]

To be fair, the ending of the Longest Journey makes 99% of game endings look like complete trash.

[Applepie_Svk]

Arcian wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Well well, we finally have the Auld Wolf canon of Art for our edification.

Terry Pratchett, Doctor Who, The Longest Journey.

Time to quit thuggery, move out of the cave and edumacate myself. In time, I too may be able to pass judgment on the common luddite herd.

Laughed more than I probably should have.

The worst part of this ME3 writing is the main plot device - the Crucbile, which is funny because BioWare made such a mistake for second time. In ME2 it was stupid plot which reminds more then "Reapers out there" space opere where we are helping to each fellow comrade to get out of their own mess...

Crucilbe was niether explanained or unexplained, while the Crucible´s EMS codex tried to explain that it´s able to target Reapers and our sciencist have no idea what exactly it will do but whatever it will be for sure it will be big.

And lore telling us that the origin is unkown, the everytime it failed because of time or indoctrination, as much as the outcome is unkown, not to mentioned that writers manage to make a plothole with size of Texas just with the existence of this pile of crap. As far as we know each cycle started with activation Citadel Relay and deactivation relay network, how could you craft something which is supposed to work with unkown entity on Citadel which is locked far away with ability to move the Citadel whatever it desire to, not to mentioned that you have to also moved the Crucible and connect it with Citadel.

If I am supposed to believe lore which they told me since the ME1, then Catalyst is red herring and it´s funny because ME3 promo campaing was promoting for some reason red herring.

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 09 mars 2013 - 08:08 .

[CronoDragoon]

Auld Wulf wrote...

I think writers should be allowed to have their darlings, because often it makes for a more interesting story

1. That's because you don't see the darlings that were cut during the creative process. You are seeing the ones that support and enhance the story and were left in because of that.

2. Style is also not a "darling" in the sense that the term "kill your darlings" is usually used; normally it's used for characters or plot points that are interrupting the flow of the story, the focus of the plot, etc. 

3. The Longest Journey is great.

4. Lol @ "OP doesn't read." If you know the term "Kill your Darlings" then you most likely read.

[Applepie_Svk]

but still... why red herring ?

[SurfaceBeneath]

CronoDragoon wrote...
4. Lol @ "OP doesn't read." If you know the term "Kill your Darlings" then you most likely read tvtropes

fixed!

[CronoDragoon]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
4. Lol @ "OP doesn't read." If you know the term "Kill your Darlings" then you most likely read tvtropes

fixed!

Don't you dare link it.

[SurfaceBeneath]

And damn anyone who reads this thread to hours upon hours of tvtrope surfing?

I'd never be so evil.