381 réponses à ce sujet

[eddieoctane]

AlanC9 wrote...

cerberus1701 wrote...
Padding and justifying him after the fact is not foreshadowing.

Someone came up with the phrase "retroactive foreshadowing."

That's how I;ve been describing the content of Leviathan for a while now. Not sure if I made it up or claiming to, just that I use it a lot. Talk about an oxymoron, though.

[eddieoctane]

Ieldra2 wrote...

cerberus1701 wrote...
*snip*

Heh. Lovely oxymoron, that.

Not exactly. If you play the story will all the DLC, the events of Leviathan will be valid foreshadowing. That this was added late in the publishing history doesn't matter for your experience of the story. It only matters for your opinion of the publishing sequence.

You do realize that means that the game was not narratively complete at the time of release, right? Cuttign off the ending to sell later is questionable, though it can be remedied by creatign a whole sequel. Cutting a chapter out of the middle of a book that is crucial for the finale to make sense is either bad business, bad writing, or both.

Modifié par eddieoctane, 12 mars 2013 - 08:14 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

eddieoctane wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

cerberus1701 wrote...
*snip*

Heh. Lovely oxymoron, that.

Not exactly. If you play the story will all the DLC, the events of Leviathan will be valid foreshadowing. That this was added late in the publishing history doesn't matter for your experience of the story. It only matters for your opinion of the publishing sequence.

You do realize that means that the game was not narratively complete at the time of release, right? Cuttign off the ending to sell later is questionable, though it can be remedied by creatign a whole sequel. Cutting a chapter out of the middle of a book that is crucial for the finale to make sense is either bad business, bad writing, or both.

its mostly just bad decision  

[Mike 9987]

Don't fall into the same trap we did. Everyone likes it at first, but hanging around here will make you hate it in time. Trust me. Leave while you still can.

[Urdnot Amenark]

Faded-Myth wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

So basically I think lots of people here got really angry at BioWare because one message of the ending is There is no Heaven.

Bro, I'm an atheist.  You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Seconded. I don't believe in afterlife. Wait, yes I do. It's on Omega and has badass music. /groan 

That's an Afterlife I can believe in.

[Linkenski]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

I have seen all of the endings. The original endings are essentially the same, only sadder.

Not quite true. In the OEs the relays are completely destroyed. In the EC they are merely disabled and quickly rebuilt. Thus we go from "technological dark age" in which the ME galaxy as we know it is gone...to a relatively minor hiccup before the galaxy is back on its feet.

...which is why he says they were "sadder" but as others have said, it isn't really about whether it's sad or not, but it's because of the incoherence of the ending that everyone (still) hate it. Yes it's sad... but why? Apparently the writers tried to make it sad or bittersweet intentionally, and therefore they just put in what was needed to make it so, without really considering whether it made sense or not.

The core problem is that, at the end we are asked to solve a problem, that the reapers have been trying to solve for their entire existence, but the problem is non-existent at this point in the story, because it revolves around whether Synthetics and organics can coexist peacefully. We have already come to the conclusion to this plot-point earlier in the story as we have either saved the geth, the quarians or made peace between them.

This whole issue of organics and synthetics that is presented towards the very end, comes out of nowhere and it even leaves us with very little time to figure out what it means, before we are asked to make the right choice.

On the other hand though, you can turn it around and say, that if the Catalyst is programmed to solve this issue, and he can't move on even though the problem has been solved, because he is a shackled AI, then he is a prime example of why synthetics and organics can't be in the same room. They don't understand each other, but you can make them, and forever end this issue by choosing synthesis.

But speaking of synthesis, we now have another topic of great debate because many fans think it doesn't make sense, because it's basically space magic.

I can't argue with that, because the way the Catalyst presents it sounds very dumb, devoid of any correct factual knowledge and overall too unconvincing. This is a flaw in the writing, but i don't think too much about it and i usually go with that ending, because i love the concept.

Modifié par Linkenski, 12 mars 2013 - 08:30 .

[archangel1996]

geceka wrote...

archangel1996 wrote...

With all due respect, BW can explain me crap, at the end of the day it is still crap

That's besides my point here (you are entitled to your own opinion), I was arguing for a distinction between "Bioware wanted to clear things up because they think we are dumb" vs. "Bioware wanted to clear things up because they think they didn't make them clear enough in the first place". Whether you like the cleared-up plot points is beyond the scope of this.

Since my opinion is the same opinion of many many people....And i was pointing out that if crap reamins crap after a DLC(that shoudln't have been necessary in the first place) hardly they made a good work
EC is just the arrogant way of BW to say: It's your problem, not ours, you are wrong but we are kind enough to let you know
They put it for free and they gave the impression to be good people with good hearts, so they can say "We gave ya a free DLC what do you want more?? Now buy ****ing Omega(that was NOT cut from the game), ****ing Leviathan(that is NOT that important for the plot) and trust us"

Modifié par archangel1996, 12 mars 2013 - 08:33 .

[RedBeardJim]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...


The star child didnt give you a way to defeat the reapers, he explained how to use the device that cycles of civilizations handed down, the device that your species constructed, the device that fleets gave their lives to protect.  The starchild didnt defeat the reapers, the crucible did.  thats not deus ex machina, the star child doesnt play the role of active god in this story, he's merely a vehicle for information to the player.

Yeah, about that --

How and/or why did several cycles' worth of civilizations incorporate the Citadel into their plans for the Crucible, given the fact that in every cycle prior to this one, the first thing the Reapers did was seize the Citadel and shut down the relays?

What good would it have done the Protheans to build the Crucible, given that they had no way to use it?

Edit: this is not entirely a complaint about the ending, more a complaint about the entire Crucible plotline.

Modifié par RedBeardJim, 12 mars 2013 - 08:33 .

[archangel1996]

Mike 9987 wrote...

Don't fall into the same trap we did. Everyone likes it at first, but hanging around here will make you hate it in time. Trust me. Leave while you still can.

Nope, always hated it

[Big Bad]

Linkenski wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

I have seen all of the endings. The original endings are essentially the same, only sadder.

Not quite true. In the OEs the relays are completely destroyed. In the EC they are merely disabled and quickly rebuilt. Thus we go from "technological dark age" in which the ME galaxy as we know it is gone...to a relatively minor hiccup before the galaxy is back on its feet.

...which is why he says they were "sadder" but as others have said, it isn't really about whether it's sad or not, but it's because of the incoherence of the ending that everyone (still) hate it. Yes it's sad... but why? Apparently the writers tried to make it sad or bittersweet intentionally, and therefore they just put in what was needed to make it so, without really considering whether it made sense or not.

The core problem is that, at the end we are asked to solve a problem, that the reapers have been trying to solve for their entire existence, but the problem is non-existent at this point in the story, because it revolves around whether Synthetics and organics can coexist peacefully. We have already come to the conclusion to this plot-point earlier in the story as we have either saved the geth, the quarians or made peace between them.

This whole issue of organics and synthetics that is presented towards the very end, comes out of nowhere and it even leaves us with very little time to figure out what it means, before we are asked to make the right choice.

This (the bolded part) is one of my biggest problems with the ending.  My Shepard made peace between the Geth and Quarians; my Shepard thought that EDI and Legion were just as much "people" as anybody else.  But then we meet the Catalyst and are told with100% certainty that organics and synthetics can't coexist.  I feel like this is a dramatic thematic reversal that is completely unjustified, especially since we aren't given the opportunity to try to rebut it.  The writers force us to accept the notion that synthetics will inevitably completely wipe out organic life.  It becomes an axiom of the Mass Effect universe, full stop. That pisses me off because I think the idea is totally wrong. 

[clarkusdarkus]

I played ME3 once and it was without EC, i tried a 2nd playthrough but got to mars and thought why bother, Now to me the game was pretty crap by itself, Then the earth mission was a letdown aswell, But nothing will top how ridiculous that whole last 15 mins turned out to me....it was so mindblowingly ridiculonkous that it became quite laughable how bad it was, its been talked to death and explained to death on whats wrong with it.....

ME3 will always be known for its ending which split a fanbase and also lost some fans.....an ending to a trilogy should have the story wrapped up, it should be coherent and not confuse the audience as its coming to an end, ME3 throws that logic out of the window and some even have the gall to defend it..

[Dormin]

This Pyjack doesn't get it

[wright1978]

clarkusdarkus wrote...

I played ME3 once and it was without EC, i tried a 2nd playthrough but got to mars and thought why bother, Now to me the game was pretty crap by itself, Then the earth mission was a letdown aswell, But nothing will top how ridiculous that whole last 15 mins turned out to me....it was so mindblowingly ridiculonkous that it became quite laughable how bad it was, its been talked to death and explained to death on whats wrong with it.....

ME3 will always be known for its ending which split a fanbase and also lost some fans.....an ending to a trilogy should have the story wrapped up, it should be coherent and not confuse the audience as its coming to an end, ME3 throws that logic out of the window and some even have the gall to defend it..

The trainwreck of an ending is like a blot on the horizon that dampens the mood to complete game's started. Yeah it is a shame ME will be remembered for the poorly delivered ending rather than what came before in the trilogy.

[Jaulen]

Brass_Buckles wrote...

Had nothing to do with it being sad, but the many reasons have been explained hundreds of times on the boards.

Why not search the forums and actually read what people said about the endings instead of trying to start yet another completely pointless argument about the endings?

^This +1,000

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

RedBeardJim wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...


The star child didnt give you a way to defeat the reapers, he explained how to use the device that cycles of civilizations handed down, the device that your species constructed, the device that fleets gave their lives to protect.  The starchild didnt defeat the reapers, the crucible did.  thats not deus ex machina, the star child doesnt play the role of active god in this story, he's merely a vehicle for information to the player.

Yeah, about that --

How and/or why did several cycles' worth of civilizations incorporate the Citadel into their plans for the Crucible, given the fact that in every cycle prior to this one, the first thing the Reapers did was seize the Citadel and shut down the relays?

What good would it have done the Protheans to build the Crucible, given that they had no way to use it?

Edit: this is not entirely a complaint about the ending, more a complaint about the entire Crucible plotline.

Well if you look at the end of the game, the reapers take back the citadel, and we fight them for a chance to dock it with the crucible (if you have low ems you get to see the reapers actively attacking the crucible, with less fleets arround to distract them)

we also didnt realise what the catalyst was until the crucible was near completion.  There are any number of ways previous cycles could have attempted construction and failed.  what was important was that they passed on the blueprints in the hopes someone would succeed.  (This happens for our cycle in the rejection ending)

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

wright1978 wrote...

clarkusdarkus wrote...

I played ME3 once and it was without EC, i tried a 2nd playthrough but got to mars and thought why bother, Now to me the game was pretty crap by itself, Then the earth mission was a letdown aswell, But nothing will top how ridiculous that whole last 15 mins turned out to me....it was so mindblowingly ridiculonkous that it became quite laughable how bad it was, its been talked to death and explained to death on whats wrong with it.....

ME3 will always be known for its ending which split a fanbase and also lost some fans.....an ending to a trilogy should have the story wrapped up, it should be coherent and not confuse the audience as its coming to an end, ME3 throws that logic out of the window and some even have the gall to defend it..

The trainwreck of an ending is like a blot on the horizon that dampens the mood to complete game's started. Yeah it is a shame ME will be remembered for the poorly delivered ending rather than what came before in the trilogy.

i feel like citadel dlc has gone a long way towards making people feel good about products with the name "Mass Effect" on them.  its enough to make a mass effect gaiden starring commander newcharacter sound like a great idea  

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Big Bad wrote...

Linkenski wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

I have seen all of the endings. The original endings are essentially the same, only sadder.

Not quite true. In the OEs the relays are completely destroyed. In the EC they are merely disabled and quickly rebuilt. Thus we go from "technological dark age" in which the ME galaxy as we know it is gone...to a relatively minor hiccup before the galaxy is back on its feet.

...which is why he says they were "sadder" but as others have said, it isn't really about whether it's sad or not, but it's because of the incoherence of the ending that everyone (still) hate it. Yes it's sad... but why? Apparently the writers tried to make it sad or bittersweet intentionally, and therefore they just put in what was needed to make it so, without really considering whether it made sense or not.

The core problem is that, at the end we are asked to solve a problem, that the reapers have been trying to solve for their entire existence, but the problem is non-existent at this point in the story, because it revolves around whether Synthetics and organics can coexist peacefully. We have already come to the conclusion to this plot-point earlier in the story as we have either saved the geth, the quarians or made peace between them.

This whole issue of organics and synthetics that is presented towards the very end, comes out of nowhere and it even leaves us with very little time to figure out what it means, before we are asked to make the right choice.

This (the bolded part) is one of my biggest problems with the ending.  My Shepard made peace between the Geth and Quarians; my Shepard thought that EDI and Legion were just as much "people" as anybody else.  But then we meet the Catalyst and are told with100% certainty that organics and synthetics can't coexist.  I feel like this is a dramatic thematic reversal that is completely unjustified, especially since we aren't given the opportunity to try to rebut it.  The writers force us to accept the notion that synthetics will inevitably completely wipe out organic life.  It becomes an axiom of the Mass Effect universe, full stop. That pisses me off because I think the idea is totally wrong. 

my shepard made peace between them too,  but i kept thinking "This could  fall apart any number of ways"  (what if the rachni declare war on the geth over something or some conflict?  that peace could shatter, or another new ai could spring up and ruin everything.  The Yahg are evil hyper-geniouses, afterall)

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 12 mars 2013 - 09:22 .

[RedBeardJim]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

RedBeardJim wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...


The star child didnt give you a way to defeat the reapers, he explained how to use the device that cycles of civilizations handed down, the device that your species constructed, the device that fleets gave their lives to protect.  The starchild didnt defeat the reapers, the crucible did.  thats not deus ex machina, the star child doesnt play the role of active god in this story, he's merely a vehicle for information to the player.

Yeah, about that --

How and/or why did several cycles' worth of civilizations incorporate the Citadel into their plans for the Crucible, given the fact that in every cycle prior to this one, the first thing the Reapers did was seize the Citadel and shut down the relays?

What good would it have done the Protheans to build the Crucible, given that they had no way to use it?

Edit: this is not entirely a complaint about the ending, more a complaint about the entire Crucible plotline.

Well if you look at the end of the game, the reapers take back the citadel, and we fight them for a chance to dock it with the crucible (if you have low ems you get to see the reapers actively attacking the crucible, with less fleets arround to distract them)

we also didnt realise what the catalyst was until the crucible was near completion.  There are any number of ways previous cycles could have attempted construction and failed.  what was important was that they passed on the blueprints in the hopes someone would succeed.  (This happens for our cycle in the rejection ending)

Someone, in some past cycle, came up with the idea of incorporating the Citadel, as the Catalyst, into the Crucible plans. It wasn't our cycle, it wasn't the Protheans, it was someone before them. How and/or why could that idea have ever possibly worked?

The only reason "we" didn't know it was the Citadel was that the plans as they were retrieved were incomplete. But the Protheans knew, as it was their VI that told us (and TIMmy). And it wasn't their idea, it came down to them.

Modifié par RedBeardJim, 12 mars 2013 - 09:38 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

RedBeardJim wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

RedBeardJim wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...


The star child didnt give you a way to defeat the reapers, he explained how to use the device that cycles of civilizations handed down, the device that your species constructed, the device that fleets gave their lives to protect.  The starchild didnt defeat the reapers, the crucible did.  thats not deus ex machina, the star child doesnt play the role of active god in this story, he's merely a vehicle for information to the player.

Yeah, about that --

How and/or why did several cycles' worth of civilizations incorporate the Citadel into their plans for the Crucible, given the fact that in every cycle prior to this one, the first thing the Reapers did was seize the Citadel and shut down the relays?

What good would it have done the Protheans to build the Crucible, given that they had no way to use it?

Edit: this is not entirely a complaint about the ending, more a complaint about the entire Crucible plotline.

Well if you look at the end of the game, the reapers take back the citadel, and we fight them for a chance to dock it with the crucible (if you have low ems you get to see the reapers actively attacking the crucible, with less fleets arround to distract them)

we also didnt realise what the catalyst was until the crucible was near completion.  There are any number of ways previous cycles could have attempted construction and failed.  what was important was that they passed on the blueprints in the hopes someone would succeed.  (This happens for our cycle in the rejection ending)

Someone, in some past cycle, came up with the idea of incorporating the Citadel, as the Catalyst, into the Crucible plans. It wasn't our cycle, it wasn't the Protheans, it was someone before them. How and/or why could that idea have ever possibly worked?

it may have just been a "needs" thing like "We realised in order for this to work the citadel is the perfect tool!"  it could have been a previous cycle that was warned about the reapers.  Or maybe it was designed arround the citadel by a race before the cycle had become so efficient.  (a species that had gotten far enough to actually study the citadel and find out about the reapers, but had been snuffed out before completing the device). 

There are a million ways it could work.  I dont think someone said "Well we could make the crucible work on its own but lets make it require the citadel to be jerks"  when they said the plans for the crucible were passed down to cycles, to me that says that the reaper information was passed to cycles other than ours.  perhaps the protheans didnt discover the crucible plans until after the invasion. 


the thing about something like warnings and plans left for future generations is that it can skip a few and still be relevant.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 12 mars 2013 - 09:46 .

[Big Bad]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

Linkenski wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

I have seen all of the endings. The original endings are essentially the same, only sadder.

Not quite true. In the OEs the relays are completely destroyed. In the EC they are merely disabled and quickly rebuilt. Thus we go from "technological dark age" in which the ME galaxy as we know it is gone...to a relatively minor hiccup before the galaxy is back on its feet.

...which is why he says they were "sadder" but as others have said, it isn't really about whether it's sad or not, but it's because of the incoherence of the ending that everyone (still) hate it. Yes it's sad... but why? Apparently the writers tried to make it sad or bittersweet intentionally, and therefore they just put in what was needed to make it so, without really considering whether it made sense or not.

The core problem is that, at the end we are asked to solve a problem, that the reapers have been trying to solve for their entire existence, but the problem is non-existent at this point in the story, because it revolves around whether Synthetics and organics can coexist peacefully. We have already come to the conclusion to this plot-point earlier in the story as we have either saved the geth, the quarians or made peace between them.

This whole issue of organics and synthetics that is presented towards the very end, comes out of nowhere and it even leaves us with very little time to figure out what it means, before we are asked to make the right choice.

This (the bolded part) is one of my biggest problems with the ending.  My Shepard made peace between the Geth and Quarians; my Shepard thought that EDI and Legion were just as much "people" as anybody else.  But then we meet the Catalyst and are told with100% certainty that organics and synthetics can't coexist.  I feel like this is a dramatic thematic reversal that is completely unjustified, especially since we aren't given the opportunity to try to rebut it.  The writers force us to accept the notion that synthetics will inevitably completely wipe out organic life.  It becomes an axiom of the Mass Effect universe, full stop. That pisses me off because I think the idea is totally wrong. 

my shepard made peace between them too,  but i kept thinking "This could  fall apart any number of ways"  (what if the rachni declare war on the geth over something or some conflict?  that peace could shatter, or another new ai could spring up and ruin everything.  The Yahg are evil hyper-geniouses, afterall)

Yes, anything could happen.  But we are told by the Catalyst--and are forced to accept--that it inevitably will happen.  That's what pisses me off.  In a series that is all about choice, they hit you with this abrupt and (IMO) overly-determinstic ending that flies in the face (thematically, not logically per se) of what we've experienced throughout the course of the series. 

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Big Bad wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

Linkenski wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

I have seen all of the endings. The original endings are essentially the same, only sadder.

Not quite true. In the OEs the relays are completely destroyed. In the EC they are merely disabled and quickly rebuilt. Thus we go from "technological dark age" in which the ME galaxy as we know it is gone...to a relatively minor hiccup before the galaxy is back on its feet.

...which is why he says they were "sadder" but as others have said, it isn't really about whether it's sad or not, but it's because of the incoherence of the ending that everyone (still) hate it. Yes it's sad... but why? Apparently the writers tried to make it sad or bittersweet intentionally, and therefore they just put in what was needed to make it so, without really considering whether it made sense or not.

The core problem is that, at the end we are asked to solve a problem, that the reapers have been trying to solve for their entire existence, but the problem is non-existent at this point in the story, because it revolves around whether Synthetics and organics can coexist peacefully. We have already come to the conclusion to this plot-point earlier in the story as we have either saved the geth, the quarians or made peace between them.

This whole issue of organics and synthetics that is presented towards the very end, comes out of nowhere and it even leaves us with very little time to figure out what it means, before we are asked to make the right choice.

This (the bolded part) is one of my biggest problems with the ending.  My Shepard made peace between the Geth and Quarians; my Shepard thought that EDI and Legion were just as much "people" as anybody else.  But then we meet the Catalyst and are told with100% certainty that organics and synthetics can't coexist.  I feel like this is a dramatic thematic reversal that is completely unjustified, especially since we aren't given the opportunity to try to rebut it.  The writers force us to accept the notion that synthetics will inevitably completely wipe out organic life.  It becomes an axiom of the Mass Effect universe, full stop. That pisses me off because I think the idea is totally wrong. 

my shepard made peace between them too,  but i kept thinking "This could  fall apart any number of ways"  (what if the rachni declare war on the geth over something or some conflict?  that peace could shatter, or another new ai could spring up and ruin everything.  The Yahg are evil hyper-geniouses, afterall)

Yes, anything could happen.  But we are told by the Catalyst--and are forced to accept--that it inevitably will happen.  That's what pisses me off.  In a series that is all about choice, they hit you with this abrupt and (IMO) overly-determinstic ending that flies in the face (thematically, not logically per se) of what we've experienced throughout the course of the series. 

In ME1 you had no choice to save the genophage cure.  You had no choice about taking tali with you or not.  You had no choice about returning to the citadel after the 4th planet.
in ME2 you had no choice to bring kaiden/ashley with you, you had no choice whether to trust cerberus or not.  You had no choice about installing the reaper iff.  You had no choice about installing an AI on the normandy.  You had no choice about alot of things.

In The Walking Dead you had no choice about whether Carly survives episode 3, you had no choice about lee getting bitten in episode 4, you had no choice about trusting the dairy farmers in episode 2, you had no choice about kenny sacrificing himself to put ben out of his misery/grab the walky talkie in episode 5.


but suddenly ME3 limits your choices at the end of the game and now its unnacceptable?

These games exist within worlds where there is internal logic and reality to it.  if we could just make choices that defy the setup of the story (the reapers are too hard to kill.  their shields are way too strong) why even bother with the "higher grade species" concept in the first place?



Lee never gets the chance to choose to "find a cure to the zombie infection" because it defies too much of the existing concept.  It turns the threat into a non threat when the way to defeat them is "just try really hard"  Gurren Lagann ends with one of these "We tried hard enough to win" endings and i found it REALLLY unsatisfying at the time.  What was the point of anything if all you had to do to win was punch as hard as possible and then say "no see because i'm the good guy i'm always right"

is that what you want?   a totally weak ass ending where the reapers are turned into pushovers just so you can have shepard give a thumbs up?  Shepard is one part of a larger whole.  Just because you got the geth to cease fire for....a week?  does that mean that the aeons of machines turning against organics over thousands of years was unimportant?  Javik's story about a machine race turning against its peaceful host species unprovoked is just....."oh that wont happen again, not in a MILLION years!!!" 

Yeah its a legitimate concern but not defenite.  there should have been an option to bring up the peace with the geth in that ending, if only for the starchild to ask the player how long that peace will last IN the game.  most people need to be challenged to think deeper about something or they'll just stop at "oh we did it yay"



The main thing is that Mass Effect is only about chosing what your character does.  it isnt about choosing on behalf of the fiction, but rather on shepard's behalf.  only things that shepard can have influence over.  It kind of upset me that the geth/quarian peace was so easy to obtain.  All shepard did was say "I know tali just said to knock off their **** but i'm shepard and i'm telling you to knock off your ****"  That SHOULD NOT have worked.  it was corny and set a bad precident.  The reason people are so pissed about the ending is that bioware gave us an easy out of the most pivotal moment of that arc.  We should have HAD to make a choice between the quarians and the geth.  giving us that third option was so awful.  We should have been arguing about that conflict on rannoch, not about whether the starchild was right or not, but because bioware gave us a happy ending to that mission we have this mess to sort out.  :/

look at what happy endings do.  ARE YOU HAPPY NOW??  ARE YOU???  >((

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 12 mars 2013 - 10:15 .

[Iakus]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

i feel like citadel dlc has gone a long way towards making people feel good about products with the name "Mass Effect" on them.  its enough to make a mass effect gaiden starring commander newcharacter sound like a great idea  

Not to me.

My first question on the announcement of a new Mass Effect game is going to be "Why should I trust you again?"

[RedBeardJim]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

RedBeardJim wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

RedBeardJim wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...


The star child didnt give you a way to defeat the reapers, he explained how to use the device that cycles of civilizations handed down, the device that your species constructed, the device that fleets gave their lives to protect.  The starchild didnt defeat the reapers, the crucible did.  thats not deus ex machina, the star child doesnt play the role of active god in this story, he's merely a vehicle for information to the player.

Yeah, about that --

How and/or why did several cycles' worth of civilizations incorporate the Citadel into their plans for the Crucible, given the fact that in every cycle prior to this one, the first thing the Reapers did was seize the Citadel and shut down the relays?

What good would it have done the Protheans to build the Crucible, given that they had no way to use it?

Edit: this is not entirely a complaint about the ending, more a complaint about the entire Crucible plotline.

Well if you look at the end of the game, the reapers take back the citadel, and we fight them for a chance to dock it with the crucible (if you have low ems you get to see the reapers actively attacking the crucible, with less fleets arround to distract them)

we also didnt realise what the catalyst was until the crucible was near completion.  There are any number of ways previous cycles could have attempted construction and failed.  what was important was that they passed on the blueprints in the hopes someone would succeed.  (This happens for our cycle in the rejection ending)

Someone, in some past cycle, came up with the idea of incorporating the Citadel, as the Catalyst, into the Crucible plans. It wasn't our cycle, it wasn't the Protheans, it was someone before them. How and/or why could that idea have ever possibly worked?

it may have just been a "needs" thing like "We realised in order for this to work the citadel is the perfect tool!"  it could have been a previous cycle that was warned about the reapers.  Or maybe it was designed arround the citadel by a race before the cycle had become so efficient.  (a species that had gotten far enough to actually study the citadel and find out about the reapers, but had been snuffed out before completing the device). 

There are a million ways it could work.  I dont think someone said "Well we could make the crucible work on its own but lets make it require the citadel to be jerks"  when they said the plans for the crucible were passed down to cycles, to me that says that the reaper information was passed to cycles other than ours.  perhaps the protheans didnt discover the crucible plans until after the invasion. 


the thing about something like warnings and plans left for future generations is that it can skip a few and still be relevant.

I think it was more like "Let's have the Catalyst be the Citadel!" and "Oooh, yeah! And the Reapers capture the Citadel, so you have to fight through them to get to it!" "Yeah, that's excellent!" and nobody went "Wait, how the hell could the Citadel be part of the Crucible? How would that work?" or "Wait, wasn't the Reapers capturing the Citadel what they spent the entire first game preventing? How does the war not end right then?" or "Does any of this *make sense*?" or "Maybe we need a couple more Codex entries"

IOW, you've spent a lot more time thinking about this than the writers did.

[eddieoctane]

Big Bad wrote...

*snip*

Yes, anything could happen.  But we are told by the Catalyst--and are forced to accept--that it inevitably will happen.  That's what pisses me off.  In a series that is all about choice, they hit you with this abrupt and (IMO) overly-determinstic ending that flies in the face (thematically, not logically per se) of what we've experienced throughout the course of the series. 

That sums it up rather nicely. Though our choices in the game are (narratively) shaped by the choices of other characters, we always had the chance to shape our own future as a whole. Then the Catalyst shows up, tells us free will doesn't exist because its math says so, and now we all must die for it. It's not about the player having less choice, it's about no one having any choice because math says so.

Except there are no absolutes, even in science. Electrons don't exist as tangible particles but as probability waves. The exact position, velocity, and spin of an atom cannot all be measured at the same time. Knowing one measurement causes the other to change in a totally random way. When the game went out of its way to apply real science in clever ways (so that mass accelerators, biotics, and FTL marginally makes sense) and then so deliberately ignores the same science that makes the Catalysts arguments total BS, I want to punch a baby.

Then again, synthesis is impossible for more reasons than a total disregard for the uncertainty principle, so maybe a company nominally run by two men of science gave up on applying it to a sci-fi game. I'm not sure if that's EA's fault, ripping out the actual logic to make the 3rd game more "accessible to new players", or Casey's, wanting to make an artistic statement where one didn't belong. Either way, someone really let down the fans who built up not just Mass Effect, but BioWare, as a whole.

[RedBeardJim]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...


The main thing is that Mass Effect is only about chosing what your character does.  it isnt about choosing on behalf of the fiction, but rather on shepard's behalf.  only things that shepard can have influence over.  It kind of upset me that the geth/quarian peace was so easy to obtain.  All shepard did was say "I know tali just said to knock off their **** but i'm shepard and i'm telling you to knock off your ****"  That SHOULD NOT have worked.  it was corny and set a bad precident.  The reason people are so pissed about the ending is that bioware gave us an easy out of the most pivotal moment of that arc.  We should have HAD to make a choice between the quarians and the geth.  giving us that third option was so awful.  We should have been arguing about that conflict on rannoch, not about whether the starchild was right or not, but because bioware gave us a happy ending to that mission we have this mess to sort out.  :/

look at what happy endings do.  ARE YOU HAPPY NOW??  ARE YOU???  >((

But getting to that point was *all about* what choices your Shepard made. Gave Legion to Cerberus, or never activated them, or didn't rescue Admiral Koris, or got Tali killed or exiled, or skipped the mission in the Geth Collective, or rushed through to that point and didn't have enough Reputation? No peace. No chance. That's a lot of hoops to jump through, stretching over two games.