232 réponses à ce sujet

[The Night Mammoth]

It appears contrived to pretty much everyone who didn't read Liara's homeworld comic, so the vast majority of the fanbase.

So the Crucible's foundation in the series exists solely in one line of dialogue in one the previous game's DLC packs, and in a comic most people will never have heard of, let alone actually read.

It may not be absolutely contrived, but the justification is tenuous at best.

[txgoldrush]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

It appears contrived to pretty much everyone who didn't read Liara's homeworld comic, so the vast majority of the fanbase.

So the Crucible's foundation in the series exists solely in one line of dialogue in one the previous game's DLC packs, and in a comic most people will never have heard of, let alone actually read.

It may not be absolutely contrived, but the justification is tenuous at best.

Sorry but you cannot simply write off DLCs and expansions to claim contrivance.

Nevermind the theme of the cycle of the past helping the next one, which ME1 established. The Crucible fits right into this theme established in ME1.

Also listen to Liara's dialogue on Mars in ME3, she explains how she got it. its simply not that contrived. You are forcing your argument despite evidence against it.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 21 mars 2013 - 01:06 .

[hiraeth]

txgoldrush wrote...

Really, pay attention to everything Liara says on Mars, she makes the Crucible far less contrived than you are making it out to be, In fact LOTSB hints that the Broker had more Prothean data than the one used on Ilos. Its not contrived, it jsut wasn't Shepard's story.

And no, the problem with ME1 and ME2 is despite all those options....only a major Paragon or Reneagde character is feasible for te best outcomes. Nevermind that Shepard in th efirst two games, as well as Hawke in DA2 existed in a very bad middle area between set protagonist and fully customizable open world protagonist. ME1 and ME2's Shepard lacked the freedom of past characters that allowed you to define them, but lacks the set focus of a protagonist that has more structure and definition, like a Geralt or a JC Denton. He was the worst of both worlds, nevermind that he was erratic because you assigned a tone to a philosophy...the same flaw that wrecked Jade Empire as a narrative. This goes back to Drew K and his overratedness as a writer.

I did pay attention to Liara on Mars, and I disagree that she makes the Crucible less contrived. Having "more Prothean data than the one used on Ilos" does not mean I should have completely expected the Crucible. I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

And in terms of the dialogue style--we seem to have different preferences. I prefer the fully customizable open world protagonist to the set protagonist, and the way dialogue was handled in ME1 and ME2 is what attracted me to the series.

[txgoldrush]

MassEffectFShep wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Really, pay attention to everything Liara says on Mars, she makes the Crucible far less contrived than you are making it out to be, In fact LOTSB hints that the Broker had more Prothean data than the one used on Ilos. Its not contrived, it jsut wasn't Shepard's story.

And no, the problem with ME1 and ME2 is despite all those options....only a major Paragon or Reneagde character is feasible for te best outcomes. Nevermind that Shepard in th efirst two games, as well as Hawke in DA2 existed in a very bad middle area between set protagonist and fully customizable open world protagonist. ME1 and ME2's Shepard lacked the freedom of past characters that allowed you to define them, but lacks the set focus of a protagonist that has more structure and definition, like a Geralt or a JC Denton. He was the worst of both worlds, nevermind that he was erratic because you assigned a tone to a philosophy...the same flaw that wrecked Jade Empire as a narrative. This goes back to Drew K and his overratedness as a writer.

I did pay attention to Liara on Mars, and I disagree that she makes the Crucible less contrived. Having "more Prothean data than the one used on Ilos" does not mean I should have completely expected the Crucible. I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

And in terms of the dialogue style--we seem to have different preferences. I prefer the fully customizable open world protagonist to the set protagonist, and the way dialogue was handled in ME1 and ME2 is what attracted me to the series.

By your logic, than Vigil is contrived and his file is a Deus Ex Machina....you want to follow this logic?

[hiraeth]

txgoldrush wrote...

By your logic, than Vigil is contrived and his file is a Deus Ex Machina....you want to follow this logic?

Vigil was introduced in the first game, which is the game that sets the tone and introduces the player to the lore and rules of the universe. If the Crucible had been introduced in ME1, I wouldn't be calling it contrived.

[The Night Mammoth]

txgoldrush wrote...

No, the ending can define a theme....the main conflicts define the themes as well. Pay attention to the beginning of ME1 and its end, you will see that the theme was defining ones place in the galaxy.

It's a theme, just not the theme. 

No, its the theme of ME2. It manages to be the premise AND the theme.

One of the themes in Mass Effect 2 is cooperation. You're not describing a theme, but part of the premise of both story and gameplay. 

No, you miss the point...bu tby your logic, if you want to go by prevelance, guess what? Sacrifice is the most prevelant theme in ME3.

I don't see how it's any more prevalent than hope or unity, but whatever, you missed my point by ignoring the word 'potentially' in my post. 

You simply do not get theme...yes a work can have many themes, but one theme is always more important than the others. Fans simply cannot let go to the fact that sacrifice is the main theme of ME3, so they accuse the ending of breaking themes.

I understand theme just fine, no, not always, and we're not talking about the ending. 

[chemiclord]

MassEffectFShep wrote...

I give you that ME1 and 2 had a script that had to account for many dialogue options, but I preferred this to ME3 where autodialogue ran rampant and I felt like (a) my Shepard was doing things that were out of character for the person I created through ME1 and 2, and ( I had very little control over how my character was reacting to the plot. I agree that you finalize the plot and writing and then work on how to give the player agency to interact with those...but I didn't feel like that was done in ME3 (but was done in ME1 and 2).

The problem I have with this statement is that it doesn't even do it the way you think in ME1 and ME2.  Those games had many dialogue "options" in name only.  ME1 was infamous for giving you five choices that only said three different things (and all led to the exact same end point).  ME2 was so transparent that not only were the only real viable options always in the same place on the wheel, they were highlighted in bright blue or blood red just to make sure that you didn't miss 'em.

It was an illusion at best... a pretty poor one that was shattered immediately upon a second playthrough of both games.  I was quite alright doing away with that nonsense.

[txgoldrush]

MassEffectFShep wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

By your logic, than Vigil is contrived and his file is a Deus Ex Machina....you want to follow this logic?

Vigil was introduced in the first game, which is the game that sets the tone and introduces the player to the lore and rules of the universe. If the Crucible had been introduced in ME1, I wouldn't be calling it contrived.

You aren't getting it.

Vigil is introduced out of nowhere with little to no foreshadowing and gives you a file that lets you win.

Thats the defintion of contrived.

You are moving the goalposts.

[The Night Mammoth]

txgoldrush wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

It appears contrived to pretty much everyone who didn't read Liara's homeworld comic, so the vast majority of the fanbase.

So the Crucible's foundation in the series exists solely in one line of dialogue in one the previous game's DLC packs, and in a comic most people will never have heard of, let alone actually read.

It may not be absolutely contrived, but the justification is tenuous at best.

Sorry but you cannot simply write off DLCs and expansions to claim contrivance.

I'm not claiming absolute contrinvance, merely that it appears that way to a part of the audience, read the last sentence of my post. 

Nevermind the theme of the cycle of the past helping the next one, which ME1 established. The Crucible fits right into this theme established in ME1.

That doesn't make its appearence any less contrived if you didn't read the comic or play LotSB or remember what Liara says. 

Also listen to Liara's dialogue on Mars in ME3, she explains how she got it. its simply not that contrived.

That doesn't make it any less contrived. The fact that it exists and was found exactly when needed and fulfilled exactly what the protagonist and the plot needed at that time and that it hadn't been heard of before, was what made it contrived to people who, like I said, hadn't read the comic, played the DLC, or made the relatively obscure connection from the DLC. 

You are forcing your argument despite evidence against it.

You don't have 'evidence'. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 21 mars 2013 - 01:22 .

[Linkenski]

ME3 was the most important game in the franchise in many ways, because it was supposed to culminate and conclude everything that was established in ME1 and ME2 respectively, so to me it's just baffling why they chose to go with ME3 having the shortest development time! ME1 took around 2-3 years (even more maybe) and 2 took 2+ years, while 3 only took them around 1,5 a year to make. They even said themselves that ME3 was supposed to be the biggest game yet (i know they meant loud explosions rather than more content though) and i think it was way too ambitious to think they could manage with so little time on their hands.

I also recall a recent interview with SuperMac where he said that he thinks they delivered on the narrative when you look at the time table they were confined to work in. I think that says something, or at least hints, that they were completely rushed by EA to finish the story.

[txgoldrush]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

No, the ending can define a theme....the main conflicts define the themes as well. Pay attention to the beginning of ME1 and its end, you will see that the theme was defining ones place in the galaxy.

1) It's a theme, just not the theme. 

No, its the theme of ME2. It manages to be the premise AND the theme.

2) One of the themes in Mass Effect 2 is cooperation. You're not describing a theme, but part of the premise of both story and gameplay. 

No, you miss the point...bu tby your logic, if you want to go by prevelance, guess what? Sacrifice is the most prevelant theme in ME3.

3) I don't see how it's any more prevalent than hope or unity, but whatever, you missed my point by ignoring the word 'potentially' in my post. 

You simply do not get theme...yes a work can have many themes, but one theme is always more important than the others. Fans simply cannot let go to the fact that sacrifice is the main theme of ME3, so they accuse the ending of breaking themes.

I understand theme just fine, no, not always, and we're not talking about the ending. 

1) Wrong its the theme....thats what the ending of the game is defined by. Oh and paragon/renegade in ME1 mostly revolved around humanities place in th egalaxy...should we work with other species or should we do thing our own way? Regardless, at the end of ME1, humanities role in th egalaxy becomes defined. Think on this...ME1 is how humanity truly becomes a mjor player on the galactic scale.

2) You are not getting it....ever thought that the theme can also be part of the premise and gameplay? Yes, its the premise but its also the main narrative theme, get it through your head. Oh, and cooperation is much of a theme in ME2, its never truly explored. Why? Because the characters rarely had bonds with eachother....something ME3 fixed.

3) Because without sacrifice, you would not get the unity in the first place. Oh, on the unity thing....you can subvert that theme through your choices. Please tell me, why does unity only is covered in one of th eendings while sacrifice is covered in all of them?

Almost every mission in ME3 deals with sacrifice....either one sacrificing his life for the mission or revolves around sacrificing others for th emission or to achieve the goal. Nevermind the conflict between TIM and Shepard is more about sacrifice, not destroy vs control.

[txgoldrush]

Linkenski wrote...

ME3 was the most important game in the franchise in many ways, because it was supposed to culminate and conclude everything that was established in ME1 and ME2 respectively, so to me it's just baffling why they chose to go with ME3 having the shortest development time! ME1 took around 2-3 years (even more maybe) and 2 took 2+ years, while 3 only took them around 1,5 a year to make. They even said themselves that ME3 was supposed to be the biggest game yet (i know they meant loud explosions rather than more content though) and i think it was way too ambitious to think they could manage with so little time on their hands.

I also recall a recent interview with SuperMac where he said that he thinks they delivered on the narrative when you look at the time table they were confined to work in. I think that says something, or at least hints, that they were completely rushed by EA to finish the story.

No, ME3 had more development time than ME2. The gap between ME2 and ME3 is bigger than ME1 and ME2.

[hiraeth]

txgoldrush wrote...

MassEffectFShep wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

By your logic, than Vigil is contrived and his file is a Deus Ex Machina....you want to follow this logic?

Vigil was introduced in the first game, which is the game that sets the tone and introduces the player to the lore and rules of the universe. If the Crucible had been introduced in ME1, I wouldn't be calling it contrived.

You aren't getting it.

Vigil is introduced out of nowhere with little to no foreshadowing and gives you a file that lets you win.

Thats the defintion of contrived.

You are moving the goalposts.

If you want to get technical, Liara chasing the shadowbroker is contrived. So is the VS becoming a spectre. At some point new elements have to be introduced into games, and that's fine as long as they are introduced at the right time (or at an appropriate time) and as long as they are introduced appropriately. When I say that I find the Crucible contrived, I mean that I think it should have been explicitly introduced earlier in the series (as in, ME1), and at the very least it should have been fleshed out more in game once introduced in ME3. The Crucible is the key to defeating the reapers--to concluding the trilogy. It's one of the most important elements of the game, and it should be introduced at an appropriate time and introduced appropiately. Vigil was technically contrived, but it didn't bother me because I was still getting to know the universe and the rules about what can happen in it. It would have been nice to know about Vigil earlier in the game, but it didn't kill the momentum of the game. Being given a killswitch after the war is going on in the final game (and then being denied details about it when I probe the Catalyst) just didn't sit right with me. Obviously your'e fine with it, and that's great. Again, I don't have to agree with your interpretation of the function and parameters of in-game contrivances, or how to react to them.

[txgoldrush]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

It appears contrived to pretty much everyone who didn't read Liara's homeworld comic, so the vast majority of the fanbase.

So the Crucible's foundation in the series exists solely in one line of dialogue in one the previous game's DLC packs, and in a comic most people will never have heard of, let alone actually read.

It may not be absolutely contrived, but the justification is tenuous at best.

Sorry but you cannot simply write off DLCs and expansions to claim contrivance.

I'm not claiming absolute contrinvance, merely that it appears that way to a part of the audience, read the last sentence of my post. 

Nevermind the theme of the cycle of the past helping the next one, which ME1 established. The Crucible fits right into this theme established in ME1.

1) That doesn't make its appearence any less contrived if you didn't read the comic or play LotSB or remember what Liara says. 

Also listen to Liara's dialogue on Mars in ME3, she explains how she got it. its simply not that contrived.

2) That doesn't make it any less contrived. The fact that it exists and was found exactly when needed and fulfilled exactly what the protagonist and the plot needed at that time and that it hadn't been heard of before, was what made it contrived to people who, like I said, hadn't read the comic, played the DLC, or made the relatively obscure connection from the DLC. 

You are forcing your argument despite evidence against it.

3) You don't have 'evidence'. 

1) It makes it less contrived becuase it fits the universe that was establishe din the first game.

2) Then why don't you condemn many trilogies for doing the same thing in introducing new concepts in teh second or third work? You want to follow your own logic here? This includes Star Wars.

3) I do, its the script...nevermind if you played the DLC, it fits into the script.

[The Night Mammoth]

txgoldrush wrote...

1) Wrong its the theme....thats what the ending of the game is defined by. Oh and paragon/renegade in ME1 mostly revolved around humanities place in th egalaxy...should we work with other species or should we do thing our own way? Regardless, at the end of ME1, humanities role in th egalaxy becomes defined. Think on this...ME1 is how humanity truly becomes a mjor player on the galactic scale.

So? I don't see how this more important to ME1 than say, racism, cooperation, the dangers of power or perseverance, to give a few examples. 

2) You are not getting it....ever thought that the theme can also be part of the premise and gameplay? Yes, its the premise but its also the main narrative theme, get it through your head. Oh, and cooperation is much of a theme in ME2, its never truly explored. Why? Because the characters rarely had bonds with eachother....something ME3 fixed.

Can, but isn't. Yes, cooperation being good is an important part of ME2, the entire game is laden with it.

3) Because without sacrifice, you would not get the unity in the first place.

Unification is a reason people are potentially sacrificing themselves.

Oh, on the unity thing....you can subvert that theme through your choices.

You can subvert sacrifice in much the same way.

Please tell me, why does unity only is covered in one of th eendings while sacrifice is covered in all of them?

Unity is inherently part of the entire ending, it's the only reason you're standing there.

Almost every mission in ME3 deals with sacrifice....either one sacrificing his life for the mission or revolves around sacrificing others for th emission or to achieve the goal. Nevermind the conflict between TIM and Shepard is more about sacrifice, not destroy vs control.

Almost every mission in ME3 deals with unity if you strip everything down in the same way.

The second part I don't agree with. It's not about destroy versus control, but it's not mainly about sacrifice either.

[txgoldrush]

MassEffectFShep wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

MassEffectFShep wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

By your logic, than Vigil is contrived and his file is a Deus Ex Machina....you want to follow this logic?

Vigil was introduced in the first game, which is the game that sets the tone and introduces the player to the lore and rules of the universe. If the Crucible had been introduced in ME1, I wouldn't be calling it contrived.

You aren't getting it.

Vigil is introduced out of nowhere with little to no foreshadowing and gives you a file that lets you win.

Thats the defintion of contrived.

You are moving the goalposts.

If you want to get technical, Liara chasing the shadowbroker is contrived. So is the VS becoming a spectre. At some point new elements have to be introduced into games, and that's fine as long as they are introduced at the right time (or at an appropriate time) and as long as they are introduced appropriately. When I say that I find the Crucible contrived, I mean that I think it should have been explicitly introduced earlier in the series (as in, ME1), and at the very least it should have been fleshed out more in game once introduced in ME3. The Crucible is the key to defeating the reapers--to concluding the trilogy. It's one of the most important elements of the game, and it should be introduced at an appropriate time and introduced appropiately. Vigil was technically contrived, but it didn't bother me because I was still getting to know the universe and the rules about what can happen in it. It would have been nice to know about Vigil earlier in the game, but it didn't kill the momentum of the game. Being given a killswitch after the war is going on in the final game (and then being denied details about it when I probe the Catalyst) just didn't sit right with me. Obviously your'e fine with it, and that's great. Again, I don't have to agree with your interpretation of the function and parameters of in-game contrivances, or how to react to them.

Tali convienantly showing up to deliver evidence of Saren's guilt in ME1, the Lazarus Project of ME2....Vigil, is far more contrived than the Crucible. Why? Becuase the Crucible is fleshed out after its introduced, its talked about, its worked on, than its defined. This is before its put into use. Nevermind it uses elements of the universe, not add anything new to it (synthesis excluded, although Shepards cyborg nature is the trigger here).

And really fans of Bioware shoouldn't even call anything contrived.

[spirosz]

But you're free to call things contrived?

[The Night Mammoth]

txgoldrush wrote...

1) It makes it less contrived becuase it fits the universe that was establishe din the first game.

Like I said, it could appear contrived because of when it appears, and the nature of it. 

2) Then why don't you condemn many trilogies for doing the same thing in introducing new concepts in teh second or third work? You want to follow your own logic here? This includes Star Wars.

This isn't a Star Wars forum and we aren't talking about Star Wars, this is a textbook attempt at a strawman. 

3) I do, its the script...nevermind if you played the DLC, it fits into the script.

That's not evidence of anything. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 21 mars 2013 - 01:41 .

[MegaSovereign]

The Crucible should have been foreshadowed in the LoTSB DLC. That was the whole point of Liara being the Shadow Broker anyway....So that she had the means to find the Crucible plans during the 6 months after Arrival.

[hiraeth]

txgoldrush wrote...

Tali convienantly showing up to deliver evidence of Saren's guilt in ME1, the Lazarus Project of ME2....Vigil, is far more contrived than the Crucible. Why? Becuase the Crucible is fleshed out after its introduced, its talked about, its worked on, than its defined. This is before its put into use. Nevermind it uses elements of the universe, not add anything new to it (synthesis excluded, although Shepards cyborg nature is the trigger here).

And really fans of Bioware shoouldn't even call anything contrived.

Introducing new elements to the story (even if it fits the definition of contrivance) alone doesn't bother me. It's when it's done at a bad time and done poorly. In my opinion, the Crucible was introduced poorly and at a bad time. It's really as simple as that. You can list all the evidence that hints at the Crucible, and if that evidence didn't line up properly at the moment that the Crucible is introduced for a certain player, then the player may think the Crucible is contrived. This is a subjective experience. If you think it was introduced appropriately, then you were more OK with/liked that part of the story more than I did. Good for you.

I'm a fan of Bioware, and I can call anything contrived if that's how I experienced it.

[txgoldrush]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

1) Wrong its the theme....thats what the ending of the game is defined by. Oh and paragon/renegade in ME1 mostly revolved around humanities place in th egalaxy...should we work with other species or should we do thing our own way? Regardless, at the end of ME1, humanities role in th egalaxy becomes defined. Think on this...ME1 is how humanity truly becomes a mjor player on the galactic scale.

1) So? I don't see how this more important to ME1 than say, racism, cooperation, the dangers of power or perseverance, to give a few examples. 

2) You are not getting it....ever thought that the theme can also be part of the premise and gameplay? Yes, its the premise but its also the main narrative theme, get it through your head. Oh, and cooperation is much of a theme in ME2, its never truly explored. Why? Because the characters rarely had bonds with eachother....something ME3 fixed.

2) Can, but isn't. Yes, cooperation being good is an important part of ME2, the entire game is laden with it.

3) Because without sacrifice, you would not get the unity in the first place.

3) Unification is a reason people are potentially sacrificing themselves.

Oh, on the unity thing....you can subvert that theme through your choices.

4) You can subvert sacrifice in much the same way.

Please tell me, why does unity only is covered in one of th eendings while sacrifice is covered in all of them?

5) Unity is inherently part of the entire ending, it's the only reason you're standing there.

Almost every mission in ME3 deals with sacrifice....either one sacrificing his life for the mission or revolves around sacrificing others for th emission or to achieve the goal. Nevermind the conflict between TIM and Shepard is more about sacrifice, not destroy vs control.

6) Almost every mission in ME3 deals with unity if you strip everything down in the same way.

The second part I don't agree with. It's not about destroy versus control, but it's not mainly about sacrifice either.

1) However, you can subvert these themes, it isn't always consistant. No matter what yuou do however, humanity finds its place in the galaxy.

2) Where is the cooperation in ME2 than? Other than the two character conflicts, I don't see it. This isn;t about coooperation, its about gaining ones willingness to follow Shepard.

3) Wrong...not always. In fact many sacrifices are personal, and many sacrifices in fact show disunity, subverting that theme. Sacrificing Mordin for example.

4) No you cannot....being willing to sacrifice others to achieve sucess in the mission is part of the theme. The game covers BOTH self sacrifice AND sacrifice of others...gotta pay attention.

5) brought about because people sacrificed and made it happen....and unity is nothing if you don't make sacrifice in th eend to fire the Crucible.

6) No, it does not, some do, but not all. There are more missions dealing with sacrifice than ones dealing with unity.

[txgoldrush]

MassEffectFShep wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Tali convienantly showing up to deliver evidence of Saren's guilt in ME1, the Lazarus Project of ME2....Vigil, is far more contrived than the Crucible. Why? Becuase the Crucible is fleshed out after its introduced, its talked about, its worked on, than its defined. This is before its put into use. Nevermind it uses elements of the universe, not add anything new to it (synthesis excluded, although Shepards cyborg nature is the trigger here).

And really fans of Bioware shoouldn't even call anything contrived.

Introducing new elements to the story (even if it fits the definition of contrivance) alone doesn't bother me. It's when it's done at a bad time and done poorly. In my opinion, the Crucible was introduced poorly and at a bad time. It's really as simple as that. You can list all the evidence that hints at the Crucible, and if that evidence didn't line up properly at the moment that the Crucible is introduced for a certain player, then the player may think the Crucible is contrived. This is a subjective experience. If you think it was introduced appropriately, then you were more OK with/liked that part of the story more than I did. Good for you.

I'm a fan of Bioware, and I can call anything contrived if that's how I experienced it.

However, your double standards are showing. All the evidence of Bioware's other contrivances show up when they need to resolve something. You are picking and choosing...its either all ok or not at all ok.

And no, its done at a good time, in the beginning where the dueteragonist explains how she did it. Unlike when Tali come sout of nowhere to solve the lack of evidence against Saren because the writers are too lazy to make Shepard actually investigate.

[Getorex]

txgoldrush wrote...

MassEffectFShep wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

MassEffectFShep wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

By your logic, than Vigil is contrived and his file is a Deus Ex Machina....you want to follow this logic?

Vigil was introduced in the first game, which is the game that sets the tone and introduces the player to the lore and rules of the universe. If the Crucible had been introduced in ME1, I wouldn't be calling it contrived.

You aren't getting it.

Vigil is introduced out of nowhere with little to no foreshadowing and gives you a file that lets you win.

Thats the defintion of contrived.

You are moving the goalposts.

If you want to get technical, Liara chasing the shadowbroker is contrived. So is the VS becoming a spectre. At some point new elements have to be introduced into games, and that's fine as long as they are introduced at the right time (or at an appropriate time) and as long as they are introduced appropriately. When I say that I find the Crucible contrived, I mean that I think it should have been explicitly introduced earlier in the series (as in, ME1), and at the very least it should have been fleshed out more in game once introduced in ME3. The Crucible is the key to defeating the reapers--to concluding the trilogy. It's one of the most important elements of the game, and it should be introduced at an appropriate time and introduced appropiately. Vigil was technically contrived, but it didn't bother me because I was still getting to know the universe and the rules about what can happen in it. It would have been nice to know about Vigil earlier in the game, but it didn't kill the momentum of the game. Being given a killswitch after the war is going on in the final game (and then being denied details about it when I probe the Catalyst) just didn't sit right with me. Obviously your'e fine with it, and that's great. Again, I don't have to agree with your interpretation of the function and parameters of in-game contrivances, or how to react to them.

Tali convienantly showing up to deliver evidence of Saren's guilt in ME1, the Lazarus Project of ME2....Vigil, is far more contrived than the Crucible. Why? Becuase the Crucible is fleshed out after its introduced, its talked about, its worked on, than its defined. This is before its put into use. Nevermind it uses elements of the universe, not add anything new to it (synthesis excluded, although Shepards cyborg nature is the trigger here).

And really fans of Bioware shoouldn't even call anything contrived.

Heh.  The game was never really about "sacrifice."  Any and all "sacrifice" was always pretty light and mostly avoidable.  In fact, the ending of 2/3 of the ME games were about beating SEEMINGLY impossible odds thru with hard work or dilligence.  Triumph over impossible odds in each case.  Until suddenly at the end of 3.  ME1: you COULDN'T lose.  If you failed to defeat Sovereign (with entire squad minus the gratuitous loss at Virmire) then you lost the game, ie, you failed to complete the game.  ME2: you failed to complete the game if you got your Shepard dead at the end.  You actually had to work hard to avoid doing much of anything just so you could purposefully get your team killed AND yourself.  Kind of anti-gaming.  In any case, IF you got your Shepard killed you got it wiped away (because it was wrong) with ME3 where Shepard is back in action.  You, in killing your Shepard, did so on a pure lark and via a proper playing of the game.  ME3: no matter how well you played, no matter how dilligent, no matter how much time you put in to getting through every possible mission, they forced a loss on you.  You couldn't play the game well and win.  All you got was different colors of losing.  It didn't matter also if you were a hardcore renegade or a full on sissy paragon or any mix of the two, you got EXACTLY the same ending (and EXACTLY the same emotional wreck Shepard).  It was setup like "War Games" (the movie) where the only way to win the game was not to play.

ME3 went off the rails as compared to both previous games.  ME3 stands out and apart from the previous two, almost as if it was done by entirely different writers or an entirely different company.  Or by people who had absolutely no idea what the previous two games were about or how they ended or played.

[hiraeth]

txgoldrush wrote...

However, your double standards are showing. All the evidence of Bioware's other contrivances show up when they need to resolve something. You are picking and choosing...its either all ok or not at all ok.

And no, its done at a good time, in the beginning where the dueteragonist explains how she did it. Unlike when Tali come sout of nowhere to solve the lack of evidence against Saren because the writers are too lazy to make Shepard actually investigate.

You're right, I am picking. Tali bringing me data didn't bother me and it helped the story move along. I'm picking the key to defeating the reapers as the one contrivance in the entire series that bothered me. I don't agree that everything has to be black and white--so I either blindly accept all contrivances or I'm against all of them? Some contrivances were good, some of them helped the story move faster and glossed over details I didn't care about or weren't central to the theme. The Crucible is central to the story, so it's the one contrivance that I'm going to criticize.

No comment on the second part--I just disagree.

[The Night Mammoth]

txgoldrush wrote...

1) However, you can subvert these themes, it isn't always consistant. No matter what yuou do however, humanity finds its place in the galaxy.

You can't. Racism is constant through certain characters and dialogue, the mission always requires cooperation to finish, Saren always turns rogue and Shepard always becomes a Spectre, and the characters always have to persevere to finish the job.

2) Where is the cooperation in ME2 than? Other than the two character conflicts, I don't see it. This isn;t about coooperation, its about gaining ones willingness to follow Shepard.

Everywhere, and it culminates at the end to show that cooperation is good. The more people cooperate, the better the mission goes.

3) Wrong...not always. In fact many sacrifices are personal, and many sacrifices in fact show disunity, subverting that theme. Sacrificing Mordin for example.

I didn't say 'always', so no.

Also, sacrificing Mordin is done with the purpose of uniting the salarians and the Krogan.

4) No you cannot....being willing to sacrifice others to achieve sucess in the mission is part of the theme. The game covers BOTH self sacrifice AND sacrifice of others...gotta pay attention.

I'll try and ignore the condescension, but yes, you can. With certain choices throughout the game, the theme of sacrifice can be subverted in much the same way you're suggesting the theme of unity can.

5) brought about because people sacrificed and made it happen....and unity is nothing if you don't make sacrifice in th eend to fire the Crucible.

Because people wanted unity. Sacrifice is pointless without a purpose.

6) No, it does not, some do, but not all. There are more missions dealing with sacrifice than ones dealing with unity.

Nope. Most of the missions are about uniting the species, organizations, factions, to fight the Reapers.