232 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

Getorex wrote...

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.

So ending the cycle and making the Catalyst reassess his cycle after billion of years isn't overcoming impossible odds? Wow

You can't avoid most sacrifices in ME3...what game did you play?

Face it....take a look at the EC...what theme does every ending end on?

From PC Gamer

Casey Hudson summarizing ME3 (This is an article quote):
"Casey sums up Mass Effect 3 as being about victory through sacrifice, the scale of that sacrifice has been increasing with each new chapter"

[txgoldrush]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

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.

a) 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.

c) 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.

d) 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.

e) 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.

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

a) You can, you can be as xenophobic as possible, support Terra Firma, and the backstab the Council, while whining all game how humans got the shaft. Thats subverting the theme.

thats not cooperation, thats willingness to follow Shepard. You can't claim cooperation in ME2, it wasn't deep in ME2. If it was about cooperation, more effort would have been done with squad on squad relations. Conflicts are barely resolved.

c) Falsely, in a subverted way, which can backfire, which than subverts the theme.

d) How? The only way sacrifice can be avoided in some cases is preperation an dmaking the right decisions in ME1 and ME2. Others are unavoidable. And every character has to deal with sacrifice.

e) No, people wanted the job done.....look at that Krogan scout team that sacrificed themselves so the next team can succeed. Or Rila setting the bomb off.

f) However, victory through sacrifice is involved in almost all of them.

Explain to me, why is unity the theme covered in only one ending while sacrifice is covered in all of them?

[GreyLycanTrope]

Biowar pls

[Dorrieb]

txgoldrush wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...

Dude_in_the_Room wrote...
Was the feat to big to be able to create a worthy enough ending?

Actually they had it. Up until the confrontation with the Illusive Man and Anderson's death, they had aced it, and there was no reason why it couldn't have ended there. But they got overly ambitious and went for a last-minute twist that came out of nowhere. It must have seemed to them at the time that they were being oh-so-clever, when they were in fact being too clever for their own good.

No, the Reaper master was foreshadowed on Thessia and alluded to by the Vendetta VI.

Thematically out of nowhere.

Wrong again.....

The Reaper motives were foreshadowed by the dying Reaper on Rannoch who uses the quarian geth conflict in his argument for bringing order to the chaos.

Oh, you poor soul, foreshadowing is a part of plot, not theme. Perhaps it might help if you considered that I'm every bit as clever as you, and that I paid as much attention to the game as you did, instead of talking down to me. I get that you liked the endings from the start and that you believe that it makes you special, but not everyone who disagrees is as dumb as you believe.

[txgoldrush]

Dorrieb wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...

Dude_in_the_Room wrote...
Was the feat to big to be able to create a worthy enough ending?

Actually they had it. Up until the confrontation with the Illusive Man and Anderson's death, they had aced it, and there was no reason why it couldn't have ended there. But they got overly ambitious and went for a last-minute twist that came out of nowhere. It must have seemed to them at the time that they were being oh-so-clever, when they were in fact being too clever for their own good.

No, the Reaper master was foreshadowed on Thessia and alluded to by the Vendetta VI.

Thematically out of nowhere.

Wrong again.....

The Reaper motives were foreshadowed by the dying Reaper on Rannoch who uses the quarian geth conflict in his argument for bringing order to the chaos.

Oh, you poor soul, foreshadowing is a part of plot, not theme. Perhaps it might help if you considered that I'm every bit as clever as you, and that I paid as much attention to the game as you did, instead of talking down to me. I get that you liked the endings from the start and that you believe that it makes you special, but not everyone who disagrees is as dumb as you believe.

No, the motive of the anatgonist, a plot point, IS foreshdowed on Rannoch.

And once again, the ending is only thematically out of nowehere if you were not paying attention.

[MegaSovereign]

The Crucible just needed bigger teeth.

NOM NOM NOM

[chemiclord]

The problem I have with attributing ANY over-arching theme to the ME trilogy is the fundamental fact that the plot was not prepared in advance. When you write by the seat of your pants, you tend to get a story that flows in its own directions, drifting off center, then back, then somewhere else.

Those who try to find a pattern (either over the trilogy or even within the individual games themselves) might as well be looking for Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster.

Modifié par chemiclord, 21 mars 2013 - 03:03 .

[spirosz]

You know what I love me, some



foreshadowing.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Let's pay attention together shall we.

"Our studies led us to believe time is cyclical. Many patterns repeat."
"Like the Reaper attacks."
"And beyond the same peaks of evolution the same valleys of dissolution. The same conflicts are expressed in every cycle but in a different manner. The repetition is to pertinant to be merely chance."
"We assumed the Reapers were responsible for the pattern."
"Perhaps though I believe the Reapers are the servants of the pattern. They are not it's master."

So first we have an attempt at justifying the synthetics/organics conflict by saying that a pattern exists beyond the existance of the Reapers. And than we are told that the Reapers might be responsible for the pattern, though if the pattern predates them and they are just servants of the pattern this is unlikely. All we find out from this is that a pattern of conflict exists and the Reapers may or may not be the driving force behind it.

Glowboy isn't forshadowed at all, all we know for certain is that a pattern of extinctions exists and that something is causing it. Whether the Reapers are reponsible for the pattern or reactionary to it is up in the air, that's about it.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 21 mars 2013 - 03:16 .

[Dorrieb]

txgoldrush wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...

Oh, you poor soul, foreshadowing is a part of plot, not theme. Perhaps it might help if you considered that I'm every bit as clever as you, and that I paid as much attention to the game as you did, instead of talking down to me. I get that you liked the endings from the start and that you believe that it makes you special, but not everyone who disagrees is as dumb as you believe.

No, the motive of the anatgonist, a plot point, IS foreshdowed on Rannoch.

Yes, and plot IS distinct from theme. Do you need more time to process this? Would a diagram help?

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

spirosz wrote...

You know what I love me, some



foreshadowing.

lol imagine having to create dlc to foreshadow the ending for a game you already released.

On another note thank God I bailed out of this thread when I did, the conversation has got sillier.

[txgoldrush]

Dorrieb wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...

Oh, you poor soul, foreshadowing is a part of plot, not theme. Perhaps it might help if you considered that I'm every bit as clever as you, and that I paid as much attention to the game as you did, instead of talking down to me. I get that you liked the endings from the start and that you believe that it makes you special, but not everyone who disagrees is as dumb as you believe.

No, the motive of the anatgonist, a plot point, IS foreshdowed on Rannoch.

Yes, and plot IS distinct from theme. Do you need more time to process this? Would a diagram help?

Yes, but the theme of the ending is the same as the rest of the game.

[txgoldrush]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Let's pay attention together shall we.

"Our studies led us to believe time is cyclical. Many patterns repeat."
"Like the Reaper attacks."
"And beyond the same peaks of evolution the same valleys of dissolution. The same conflicts are expressed in every cycle but in a different manner. The repetition is to pertinant to be merely chance."
"We assumed the Reapers were responsible for the pattern."
"Perhaps though I believe the Reapers are the servants of the pattern. They are not it's master."

So first we have an attempt at justifying the synthetics/organics conflict by saying that a pattern exists beyond the existance of the Reapers. And than we are told that the Reapers might be responsible for the pattern, though if the pattern predates them and they are just servants of the pattern this is unlikely. All we find out from this is that a pattern of conflict exists and the Reapers may or may not be the driving force behind it.

Glowboy isn't forshadowed at all, all we know for certain is that a pattern of extinctions exists and that something is causing it. Whether the Reapers are reponsible for the pattern or reactionary to it is up in the air, that's about it.

You forgot the part where Shepard asks "Who is the master?"....you didn't put up the rest of the conversation.

[txgoldrush]

DinoSteve wrote...

spirosz wrote...

You know what I love me, some



foreshadowing.

lol imagine having to create dlc to foreshadow the ending for a game you already released.

On another note thank God I bailed out of this thread when I did, the conversation has got sillier.

Missing Link foreshdows Deus Ex HR's ending...ME3 isn't the only one to do this.

[chemiclord]

I'm not sure I'd call that foreshadowing as much as a shout-out really.

Besides, effective foreshadowing requires more than one throw-away line.  It's bits and pieces, seemingly disconnected at the time you find them, coming together to form the big picture later.

Modifié par chemiclord, 21 mars 2013 - 03:34 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

txgoldrush wrote...

You forgot the part where Shepard asks "Who is the master?"....you didn't put up the rest of the conversation.

Yes two additional lines which ask who is the master and the answer that this is unknown only that it seems to indicate galactic extinction.

So basically all we're talking about is the pattern, the master of which can be either an intelligent being or some sort of natural cosmic force. Using the word master is a bit of a misleading so I get how you got confused but unless your meta gaming this little exchange doesn't amount to a hill of beans outside of saying that the Reapers have a motivation for doing what they do, which we already knew and for all intents and purposes doesn't do a think to indicate someone is actually pulling their strings just that they're trying to solve or a causing the problem of mass extinction.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 21 mars 2013 - 03:39 .

[txgoldrush]

chemiclord wrote...

The problem I have with attributing ANY over-arching theme to the ME trilogy is the fundamental fact that the plot was not prepared in advance. When you write by the seat of your pants, you tend to get a story that flows in its own directions, drifting off center, then back, then somewhere else.

Those who try to find a pattern (either over the trilogy or even within the individual games themselves) might as well be looking for Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster.

Like the TV shows its isnpired from......does Star Trek or Babylon 5 have a central theme overall....no, it switches week to week.

However, the ME series is consistant on many of its themes...unity, sacrifice, ends justify the means, scientific ethics, etc....but there never is an overarching main theme.....and this is okay.

[txgoldrush]

Greylycantrope wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

You forgot the part where Shepard asks "Who is the master?"....you didn't put up the rest of the conversation.

Yes two additional lines which ask who is the master and the answer that this is unknown only that it seems to indicate galactic extinction.

So basically all we're talking about is the pattern, the master of which can be either an intelligent being or some sort of natural cosmic force. Using the word master is a bit of a misleading so I get how you got confused but unless your meta gaming this little exchange doesn't amount to a hill of beans outside of saying that the Reapers have a motivation for doing what they do, which we already knew and for all intents and purposes doesn't do a think to indicate someone is actually pulling their strings just that they're trying to solve or a causing the problem of mass extinction.

and yet it still foreshadows a driving force....you are moving the goalposts to say otherwise.

The driving force doesn't pop out of nowhere after this.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

chemiclord wrote...

I'm not sure I'd call that foreshadowing as much as a shout-out really.

Besides, effective foreshadowing requires more than one throw-away line.  It's bits and pieces, seemingly disconnected at the time you find them, coming together to form the big picture later.

I know that, I was just using that image to make a point. The Levithan DLC is meant to be the foreshadowing. The only real foreshadowing tbh.

Modifié par DinoSteve, 21 mars 2013 - 03:53 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

txgoldrush wrote...
and yet it still foreshadows a driving force....you are moving the goalposts to say otherwise.

The driving force doesn't pop out of nowhere after this.

A driving force which we already knew about, the Reapers keep telling us they have reason to be doing what they're doing. Villain motivations and Uber AI that controls everything aren't synonymous though, hence the Catalyst comes out of no where.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 21 mars 2013 - 03:49 .

[txgoldrush]

Greylycantrope wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
and yet it still foreshadows a driving force....you are moving the goalposts to say otherwise.

The driving force doesn't pop out of nowhere after this.

A driving force which we already knew about, the Reapers keep telling us they have reason to be doing what they're doing. Villain motivations and Uber AI that controls everything aren't synonymous though, hence the Catalyst comes out of no where.

but yet the word "master" is used....you can call it misleading all you want...its still a foreshadow.

[GreyLycanTrope]

txgoldrush wrote...
but yet the word "master" is used....you can call it misleading all you want...its still a foreshadow.

When we've just established that we're not even refering to an actual person or character but a galactic force? Not foreshadowing.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 21 mars 2013 - 03:55 .

[chemiclord]

It was foreshadowing... in the barest minimal sense in that it kinda sorta set the stage that SOMETHING maybe perhaps might be a central "leader" to the Reaper menace.

That doesn't mean it was good foreshadowing or done well.

Modifié par chemiclord, 21 mars 2013 - 04:11 .

[Dorrieb]

txgoldrush wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...

Oh, you poor soul, foreshadowing is a part of plot, not theme. Perhaps it might help if you considered that I'm every bit as clever as you, and that I paid as much attention to the game as you did, instead of talking down to me. I get that you liked the endings from the start and that you believe that it makes you special, but not everyone who disagrees is as dumb as you believe.

No, the motive of the anatgonist, a plot point, IS foreshdowed on Rannoch.

Yes, and plot IS distinct from theme. Do you need more time to process this? Would a diagram help?

Yes, but the theme of the ending is the same as the rest of the game.

Fine, you win. Most people didn't get the ending of ME3, but you did, didn't you, because you are special. You are smarter, paid more attention, had better understanding, and crucially will never, ever, ever tire of saying so though the weeks turn into months and the months become years. There was nothing wrong with the ending of ME3, it was a work of genius, and the only reason there was ever any controversy is because the rest of us are tasteless fools who cannot appreciate excellence because we are just not even a fraction as sophisticated as you. To argue with the likes of us is pointless, as your ideas are far too complex and our crude vocabulary far too limited for you to be able to communicate with our addled minds. Do pick up your aura of eternal superiority at the gates of Heaven, and if you're feeling kind, you might condescend to let them take your picture.

To the rest of us unworthy mortals... yeah, I think they wrote an amazing narrative, and probably knew how good it was as they were writing it, which perhaps made them overconfident and led them to take it just that tiny, little bit too far, adding a last minute twist ending that came out of nowhere and turned the entire story on its head at the worst possible point. It must have seemed like a clever idea at the time, and maybe it was, but it was the wrong place for it.

[txgoldrush]

Dorrieb wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...

Oh, you poor soul, foreshadowing is a part of plot, not theme. Perhaps it might help if you considered that I'm every bit as clever as you, and that I paid as much attention to the game as you did, instead of talking down to me. I get that you liked the endings from the start and that you believe that it makes you special, but not everyone who disagrees is as dumb as you believe.

No, the motive of the anatgonist, a plot point, IS foreshdowed on Rannoch.

Yes, and plot IS distinct from theme. Do you need more time to process this? Would a diagram help?

Yes, but the theme of the ending is the same as the rest of the game.

Fine, you win. Most people didn't get the ending of ME3, but you did, didn't you, because you are special. You are smarter, paid more attention, had better understanding, and crucially will never, ever, ever tire of saying so though the weeks turn into months and the months become years. There was nothing wrong with the ending of ME3, it was a work of genius, and the only reason there was ever any controversy is because the rest of us are tasteless fools who cannot appreciate excellence because we are just not even a fraction as sophisticated as you. To argue with the likes of us is pointless, as your ideas are far too complex and our crude vocabulary far too limited for you to be able to communicate with our addled minds. Do pick up your aura of eternal superiority at the gates of Heaven, and if you're feeling kind, you might condescend to let them take your picture.

To the rest of us unworthy mortals... yeah, I think they wrote an amazing narrative, and probably knew how good it was as they were writing it, which perhaps made them overconfident and led them to take it just that tiny, little bit too far, adding a last minute twist ending that came out of nowhere and turned the entire story on its head at the worst possible point. It must have seemed like a clever idea at the time, and maybe it was, but it was the wrong place for it.

Please....almost nothing came out of nowhere.

The dilemmas in the ending came up THROUGHOUT the narrative. How will the Crucible fire, how do we do it in a way where it doesn't wipe everything out? Are you willing to let millions die to save millions and millions more? Are synthetic beings truly alive? Should we force evolution to attain our goals? Should we use the technology of the enemy against them (EDI taking over Eva for example)? I got all this throught the entire game, not the ending.

The probelm is that fans want to cling to positive themes and ignore the negative ones...sorry but Bioware didn't. Yes, concepts of hope, unity, and overcoming the odds are there....but so is sacrifice, loss, seperation, difficult moral decisions, and the fact that you cannot save everyone. Javik can be just as right about certain things as Hackett.

They didn't change the ending past the Extended Cut because they didn't need to. It DOES work, but the vocal minority of the fanbase still refuses to get it. It isn't that flawed, it just did not go your way...get over it.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 21 mars 2013 - 05:11 .