506 réponses à ce sujet

[Wolfva2]

That's an interesting take Massive. If anything could overcome indoctrination it would be strong emotions. Though I'd hazard a guess indoctrination involves the co-opting or manipulation of emotions, nonetheless, strong emotions have long been used in various stories to provide a link between characters, enabling them to focus and overcome domination.

Not that I think it would work for ME, since many people (myself included) have play throughs where they don't have an LI. Then again, a strong sense of duty could fulfill the emotional bond I suppose.

[David7204]

I'd prefer the final conflict to be a little more visible. And a little more plausible. And frankly, a little less cheap. It's an incredibly easy scene to write. It would just come off as a cop-out.

Modifié par David7204, 07 mai 2013 - 02:19 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Wolfva2 wrote...

That's an interesting take Massive. If anything could overcome indoctrination it would be strong emotions. Though I'd hazard a guess indoctrination involves the co-opting or manipulation of emotions, nonetheless, strong emotions have long been used in various stories to provide a link between characters, enabling them to focus and overcome domination.

Not that I think it would work for ME, since many people (myself included) have play throughs where they don't have an LI. Then again, a strong sense of duty could fulfill the emotional bond I suppose.

Go with the love of the Normandy. That's a possible idea.

I'm not a person who's a huge believer in the love of duty, or the love of the big abstract things like the quest for knowledge or galactic safety. Ironic since I'm actually in the military. 

I'm an advocate of such things of course, but at the end of the day, I believe that people fight for the stake that they have in the future, their reason to live, to care. Bring people together under the banner of unity for their own share in the future and how they are fighting for their stake, and for each other. Every time they increase their strength in unity, they increase the belief in their stake and make new ones through camaraderie.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

I'd prefer the final conflict to be a little more visible. And a little more plausible. And frankly, a little less cheap. It's an incredibly easy scene to write. It would just come off as a cop-out.

It's not a cop-out. And it's my headcanon and fiction. It's how Shepard is able to gain the strength to beat the Reapers hold. I still haven't narrowed down how Shepard will activate the Crucible yet. He'll probably have to destroy a power conduit or something.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 07 mai 2013 - 02:25 .

[Wolfva2]

I thought about that Massive; it'd be like Kirk's love of the Enterprise. That doesn't work for me though. Much as I like the Normandy, and the Enterprise, in the end they're just ships. On the other hand, I do feel very strongly about duty. Takes all kinds of people I suppose <LOL>.

[David7204]

You can basically have any character win against any amount of psychological force by just saying 'They have really strong willpower." It's one thing to have the hero get up after being hit, it's another to have the entire conflict rest on it. It's just not satisfying. It doesn't help that the audience doesn't actually see any of it except maybe the character gritting his teeth or something.

Modifié par David7204, 07 mai 2013 - 02:35 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

You can basically have any character win against any amount of psychological force by just saying 'They have really strong willpower." It's one thing to have the hero get up after being hit, it's another to have the entire conflict rest on it. It's just not satisfying. It doesn't help that the audience doesn't actually see any of it except maybe the character gritting his teeth or something.

Well, it's not meant to satisfy everyone David. I'm making it for my own enjoyment and for those who have asked me to make it. There is no widespread audience to show it too. At least not that part. It's plenty satisfying to me. I'm making sure that it is.

It's a... mental exchange. Like the beacon on Eden Prime. Shepard it's how the Reapers origins and motivations are revealed. It's never outright said by any Reaper what the motivation or history behind them. It's shown, from the exchange. Just as Shepard is subjected to the Reapers' mental attack (it's different from indoctrination; it's a full on psychic attack.) Shepard is able to rally his thoughts, strength, and will around Miranda. He's not going to give her up, or let her get hurt. She provides him with the strength to stand up and break the Reapers hold. Just as TIM does the same. TIM's love for humanity is what drives him to resist. He won't let the Reapers use him as a tool to undermine humanity anymore. He kills himself by charging a Reaper conduit that gets damaged, leaving a hole for Shepard to exploit. Shepard shoots and destroys the Reapers core and it activates the Crucible to cause an indoctrination backfire effect on all the Reapers on and around Earth. Their core's are overloaded and forced to reboot, giving the fleets time to destroy the Reapers around Earth. The ones on Earth, with their now non-functioning core, no longer have a mass effect field to keep them stabilized and they are literally crushed by their own weight as they fall to the ground. The rest of the Reapers in the galaxy are destroyed by the method I already described.

[OdanUrr]

matchboxmatt wrote...

I don't mean to re-open old wounds, but this was brought up in a discussion I had elsewhere, and thought it was worth sharing. Whenever someone talks about Mass Effect 3, the ending is and always has been a point of contention. Most people's complaints about Mass Effect 3 come down to something that happened in the last five minutes: the lack of closure or explanation, the red-green-blue decision, the absence of a "happy ending". Even with the Extended Cut, not everyone was satisfied. That's because it never fixed the biggest problem with the ending, and perhaps all of the Mass Effect series:



That the star child existed at all.

I don't mind the Catalyst existing, but I do have some concerns as to how it was presented. Could ME3 have worked without it? Certainly. However, since it would leave the Reapers as unknowable god-like entities and evil ones at that, it would be pointless to introduce any other option beyond destroying them. If someone wanted any alternatives they'd have to introduce a character that would explain that the Reapers accomplish some purpose that can be construed as "good."

I know I'm totally preaching to the choir here. No one is ever going to say / has ever said that the star child was a good idea. What I think is interesting, though, is figuring out why he doesn't fit in the Mass Effect universe in the first place, because if you give it enough thought, he is the sole reason why the ending didn't work.

The Catalyst could've worked if it had been properly introduced. I think part of what rubs people the wrong way is that it takes the form of the child we met back on Earth in an attempt to shove the drama down our throats. I don't know about you but I was sick and tired of Shepard dreaming about the kid. The last thing I wanted was probably for the Catalyst to take its shape.

Having said that, the Catalyst is, by no means, the sole reason why the ending didn't work. I'm afraid the Crucible played a larger role in that (for more on that there's a link on my signature).

Beyond the fact that he's a deus ex machina, what he represents is thematically inconsistent with the entire series. For one, none of the options he presents are like anything you've faced before. Every decision you made up to that point had a practical outcome and impact - a race being wiped out, a person being saved, etc. The option he gives you at the end, however, is meta-physical. In destroy, all sentient technology (however that's discerned) is destroyed. In control, your essence is transitioned from organic to synthetic. In Synthesis, every single living tissue and synthetic component is somehow transformed. In every decision (save for refusal), the entirety of the galaxy is affected down to the essence of being.

The Catalyst being a DEM isn't particularly bad. For instance, in the last episode of The Legend of Korra, Korra loses her bending abilities only to have Avatar Aang restore them to her in the last couple of minutes. Thus, Aang acts as a deus ex machina. It's really an amazing scene, even if it kind of destroys a potential story-arc for season two, but that's another matter entirely.

The ending is, in fact, thematically consistent with the theme of ME3. Whether I like it or not, the theme of ME3 was centered around sacrifice. You can potentially lose old friends and save or doom entire species, and this is before we ever trigger the Crucible. When we get to the Crucible we're asked to sacrifice the Geth* (Destroy) or sacrifice ourselves (Control). As for Synthesis, it's so vague that the sacrifice could be anything from our free will to our individuality. In any case, I must disagree with you that every decision affects the galaxy "down to the essence of being." To my mind, only Synthesis does that.

I do agree with you that the options the Catalyst presents, and its consequences, are not practical in the sense that they do not follow from the Crucible's operation. In fact, the writers went out of their way to obscure anything related to how the Crucible works. My impression is that they first worked out that the Catalyst would be trying to solve the "organic-synthetic problem" and then decided to build the Crucible's operation around the outcomes they desired. In essence, "we want these endings to do these things, so the Crucible is able to do all of them." That is why I said, in the thread I referenced above, that the endings are built around the creator-created problem and do not follow from the Crucible's operation.

*There's some content there that would seem to imply all forms of technology will be affected somehow, part of the original "galactic dark age" concept probably.

Second is that every single decision results in a sacrifice. Even though Mark Walters and Casey Hudson stated that this was the theme of the series, I'm inclined to disagree. If ME2's "suicide mission" was any indicator, it's actually about survival. Every challenge has always afforded some leeway to be victorious. It's only in the last choice that you can't get everything that you want. It sounds spoiled, but it's an expectation they built up through the whole trilogy and only broke in the last five minutes. Every other sacrifice was either imposed (Anderson), by characterization (Mordin), or a result of negligence / poor choice (Miranda / Suicide Mission). Never was there a decision that you made that didn't have an entirely or reasonably positive outcome. Even in Tuchanka, the loss of Salarian support can be gained by other means.

Well, seems like I got ahead of myself back there. Yes, each ending carries a sacrifice, though those are clearer in Destroy and Control, and, like I said before, ME3 deals with sacrifice. I disagree that "you can't get everything that you want" only in "the last five minutes" of ME3. Throughout the game you're faced with outcomes you don't desire, such as the falls of Earth and Thessia, not to mention a certain encounter with a would-be ninja assassin. On a more personal level you can't save Thane, or Mordin, or even one of Samara's daughters, to mention a few. Did the previous games lead us to believe we might get away unscathed? Possibly. ME2 certainly contributed to that more than ME1 ever did with the now-legendary suicide mission.

Oh, you're saying those don't count as sacrifices? Is it because Shepard didn't pull the trigger so to speak? Does that make Mordin's last act any less of a sacrifice? Would you diminish Thane's choice just because it wasn't Shepard who told him to fight Kai Leng? And what's this about "Salarian support can be gained by other means"? Yes, you can gain some Salarian support in a particular playthrough but this doesn't hold true for every variant of the game. Some players may be forced to kill the VS or to watch in terror (or joy) as Tali commits suicide. Some players may decide to side with the Salarians and end up killing Mordin and Wrex. There's an element of risk attached to many of your choices. The fact that you can metagame around this by playing a "perfect" playthrough doesn't remove this element.

No, what you're saying is, to my mind, something different and altogether more basic. You expected to win with no casualties involved, just like you can in a particular playthrough of ME2 and despite the grim evidence presented to you (ham-fisted at times, mind you) in ME3.

The biggest reason that the star child doesn't work, though, is that he downplays the main antagonists of the series - the reapers. The primary reason why they were so intimidating was because they were enigmatic. You had no idea where they came from or what their goals were, and even if you were to find out, it would be beyond your comprehension. They were gods. No matter what the writers chose to do, the fact that they tried to answer the question of their existence at all undermined their purpose. Like all great story telling, some elements are more effective if left to the imagination (Inception's ending comes to mind). This is especially true for the reapers.

I somewhat disagree. Like I said, could ME3 have worked without the Catalyst? Yes. The main reason the "Star Child" doesn't work is that it was a new character, introduced at the very end of the third game, with no foreshadowing whatsoever in the previous games or in ME3, and that the writers refused to explore (in the original cut and before Leviathan). Think about it, what's the point of introducing a mysterious and unknowable character only to explain another mysterious and unknowable character? You could be sequel-baiting, sure, but that's hardly the case here.

I agree that, sometimes, some things are best left to the imagination. However, I believe this is more a case of a poorly written and introduced character. Until Leviathan came along I was forced to write my own Catalyst origin story to headcanon many of the issues I had with its integration into the narrative (also on my signature). And even after Leviathan, I'm afraid I still hold on to my own story somewhat (fills some of the holes better, to my mind).

So let's apply it. Imagine a Mass Effect without the star child. Imagine if you concluded your confrontation with The Illusive Man only to confront a recognizeable foe - the voice of the reapers, Harbinger. Imagine if you had one final discussion where he was as hostile, intimidating, unforgiving, and mysterious as ever. Imagine if emotions were high, and instead of giving you an explanation, the only thing he afforded you was an argument like every other time you spoke with the reapers. Perhaps he gives a vague warning - "Without us, you will suffer a fate than the one we offered you". After that, he gave you a high-stakes choice with only two or three outcomes that are large in scale, but not meta-physical in application. Like every other decision, however, there is some moral ambiguity, but a potential victory either in the short-term or long-term. Maybe afterwards, the EC slideshow follows. Or even better - you don't get any of the EC content. You get something no larger than what we got in ME2 or ME1 - Shepard looking off in the stars, catching a sight of his team, and boldly going where no man has gone before. Would you have been angry by the lack of choice then? The lack of explanation or closure? The lack of "effect" your previous choices had?

Just food for thought.

I fail to understand why so many people have a "keen interest" on Harbinger. In any event, your scenario is a bit on the vague side with no clear idea on what the Crucible would do. Would it still be able to destroy, control, or "synthesize"? Why would Harbinger give us any choice at all? How's Harbinger involved with the Crucible? Because without the "Star Child" the scenario you propose would run like this: Shepard convinces TIM to commit suicide; Anderson and Shepard watch Earth and die; the Reapers win. The End.

Roll the Looney Tunes' credits song.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 07 mai 2013 - 03:07 .

[In Exile]

David7204 wrote...

So do players want the Reapers to have a legitimate motive or not?

What the Catalyst provides isn't a legitimate motive. It's far too stupid to even be within the real of legitimate.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
Assuming the Catalyst and the Leviathans were actually right, that is. Even if that's true, we also need the post-Destroy or Control galaxy to be unable to find a better solution that shows the Reaper "solution " to be an idiotic waste of lives and time. 

Because if the Reapers are just a mistake, then the narrative's exactly what it always was; Shepard stopping the Reapers from killing everything.

But even if this is true, that's not something the narrative explores or allows you to challange. The Crucible doesn't operate as a "stop the reapers" button - it operates as a stop the Catatlyst's problems, button. All of the three choices aren't framed as a solution to the reaper problem, but to the organic-synthetic problem. Well, you might say that destroying is an exception, except with Bioware going TROLOLOL EDI/GETH DIE. 

[MASSEFFECTfanforlife101]

Nothing was broken.

[Epic777]

The ending is, in fact, thematically consistent with the theme of ME3. Whether I like it or not, the theme of ME3 was centered around sacrifice. You can potentially lose old friends and save or doom entire species, and this is before we ever trigger the Crucible. When we get to the Crucible we're asked to sacrifice the Geth* (Destroy) or sacrifice ourselves (Control). As for Synthesis, it's so vague that the sacrifice could be anything from our free will to our individuality. In any case, I must disagree with you that every decision affects the galaxy "down to the essence of being." To my mind, only Synthesis does that.

How can sacrifice be the theme of ME3 when the whole reason for the cycles is based on a synthetic vs organic conflict? Thats why the Catalyst was created, that is why the reapers were made, surely that must be the theme of ME3?

[Ridwan]

All this stuff about writing and referencing books and what not, it's all a bunch BS.

The kid stole our thunder and we didn't get a sense of achievement when we finished the game. That's what it all boils down to. It's a video game and when you finish it, you want to feel like a boss and say "That was awesome" and try a new game on a higher difficulty setting.

Modifié par M25105, 07 mai 2013 - 05:42 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

MASSEFFECTfanforlife101 wrote...

Nothing was broken.

Care to tell us why? 

Or are you going to take the Brovikk approach and insult?

[Foxhound2121]

Star child didn't really break anything for me.

It was the three choices and the three endings afterwards being copy and pasted out of another video game that I have already played in original Deus Ex. I was entirely disappointing in their creativity right there. I was like, "What the hell Casey Hudson, I didn't buy Deus Ex, I bought Mass Effect 3."

Modifié par Foxhound2121, 07 mai 2013 - 07:46 .

[nos_astra]

Auld Wulf wrote...
Another "I want Mass Effect to have the plot depth of Space Invaders where everything is unexplained." thread. Really?

Trying to explain the unknowable enemy who is beyond our comprehension and nigh undefeatable is setting yourself up for failure.

You could as easily focus on the character, how they deal with such a situation, how the galaxy deals with such a situation and how everyone scrambles for surival.

Modifié par klarabella, 07 mai 2013 - 07:57 .

[David7204]

If it was easy, anybody could do it.

That being said, it probably would have been smart to cut down on some of the 'beyond your comprehension' dialogue. But I fully believe the Reapers could have been left mysterious until the climax and yet have a satisfying and plausible motive with a satisfying reponse from Shepard.

Modifié par David7204, 07 mai 2013 - 08:04 .

[Jadebaby]

I feel sorry for Buzz Aldrin.

[PsyrenY]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Well, it plays a very big part of my story David. It's how I envision the ending. The overall concepts are there too. I'm not saying that she should be the key to everyone's victory. But she is definitely the key to my Shepard's success.

But not every Shep even has an LI. Or some people deliberately killed off theirs, or broke up with them, for added poignance. And while Shepard does captain the Normandy, he doesn't appear to have that kind of attachment to it. (The only person who does seems to be Joker, and even that is directed more toward EDI than to the ship itself.)

Basically, what drives every Shep varies so much that centering the ending around it would be too resource-intensive, and even impossible for some Sheps.

(Incidentally, this is why attempting to tug our heart strings with the kid was also a colossal failure.)

[The Twilight God]

Morlath wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...
Regardless, the Reapers are still unexplained at the end of ME3.

The Leviathan's explain their origin, but their motives remain a mystery. Even to the Leviathans. They are not performing the tasks the Intelligence was created to perform. And no amount of hollow claims of a "solution" by the Kid can erase the objective fact that nothing the Reapers do is preserving life on any level. Whatever their true motivation was it died with them.

I completely disagree.

The Reapers, the way they act and everything they can can only fit into the very explanation of being tools for the Intelligence. They are "saving" (as in like saving a file) organic life within their own creation so that each organic species is not lost to the "eventual death from synthetics".

It's an explanation and solution that makes no sense from an organic view but it works if you believe in what the Catalyst is supposed to be.

Of course they are lost. They no longer exist. This is an objective fact. All the humans who where processed? Gone. What remains is a machine that is nothing like the goo infused into some mechanical monstrosity. There likes, dislikes, loves, hobbies, personality, etc. etc. is lost forever. No if's, and's or but's.

This whole "organic perspective" is a load of BS. A ridiculous excuse to ignore the obvious idiocy of the Kid's explanation. It would, in fact, take the deranged mind of an organic to think the Reapers were preserving anything. No machine could be so delusional. If all the reapers wanted was a genetic record of species they could have taken a single sample and collected all the knowledge from the species libraries and went on back to dark space. Leaving events to transpire as they will. Or, why not just police the galaxy like Control Shepard thinks he is going to do?

Exactly. The Kid is full of it. 

And the Catalyst is the Citadel. "Catalyst" was just a code word the protheans used to hide the Citadel's role in utilizing the Crucible. Therefore, the Kid cannot be the Catalyst. "Catalyst" was and remained the Citadel. And as I pointed out the Citadel came AFTER the Intelligence so. You were lied too. Plain and simple.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 07 mai 2013 - 08:36 .

[Wolfva2]

Twilight, methinks you're confusing something here. The purpose of the Reapers and their harvest was to protect LIFE, not individuals. They did not exist to make sure Humans, Turians, etc lived. They exist to ensure that ORGANIC LIFE is not completely wiped out by synthetics. The belief being that when a species became advanced enough, they would create smarter synthetics. The synthetics would then, upon seeing the flawed organics, decide to eliminate ALL organics to remove the 'chaos' factor inherent in life.

By harvesting the higher lifeforms periodically, the Reapers allow new life to propagate, something that would not happen if synthetics had their way. The Reapers couldn't care less about Humanity, Asari, Protheans, whatever. They are there to protect life. If no civilization ever advances to the ability to create synthetics, they would never harvest again.

It's like fishing quota systems. You're allowed to catch X number of fish of a certain size. Anything under that size get's tossed back. These systems exist because, otherwise, the fish would be fished into extinction. The Catalyst was programmed to believe synthetics would fish organic life into extinction, so it established it's own quota system. The little fish (like what would become the alliance governments of the last cycle) get tossed back to grow while the big fish (Protheans) are mounted on a wall.

[The Night Mammoth]

Wolfva2 wrote...

The belief being that when a species became advanced enough, they would create smarter synthetics. The synthetics would then, upon seeing the flawed organics, decide to eliminate ALL organics to remove the 'chaos' factor inherent in life.

The exact specifics of why this happens isn't actually given. The Catalyst just says that it will, without providing anything in terms of a supporting argument.

It's like fishing quota systems. You're allowed to catch X number of fish of a certain size. Anything under that size get's tossed back. These systems exist because, otherwise, the fish would be fished into extinction. The Catalyst was programmed to believe synthetics would fish organic life into extinction, so it established it's own quota system. The little fish (like what would become the alliance governments of the last cycle) get tossed back to grow while the big fish (Protheans) are mounted on a wall.

That's probably the best analogy as an explanation of their method that I've seen.

It's not their motive, their motive is their programming. This is their solution to the problem the Leviathans discovered, but we're not told how they came to it or why it needed to be solved or how the Catalyst deduced Reapers were the way to solve it. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 07 mai 2013 - 09:15 .

[Eryri]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

The belief being that when a species became advanced enough, they would create smarter synthetics. The synthetics would then, upon seeing the flawed organics, decide to eliminate ALL organics to remove the 'chaos' factor inherent in life.

The exact specifics of why this happens isn't actually given. The Catalyst just says that it will, without providing anything in terms of a supporting argument.

It's like fishing quota systems. You're allowed to catch X number of fish of a certain size. Anything under that size get's tossed back. These systems exist because, otherwise, the fish would be fished into extinction. The Catalyst was programmed to believe synthetics would fish organic life into extinction, so it established it's own quota system. The little fish (like what would become the alliance governments of the last cycle) get tossed back to grow while the big fish (Protheans) are mounted on a wall.

That's probably the best analogy as an explanation of their method that I've seen.

It's not their motive, their motive is their programming. This is their solution to the problem the Leviathans discovered, but we're not told how they came to it or why it needed to be solved or how the Catalyst deduced Reapers were the way to solve it. 

It's a terrible way for the Reapers to solve this so-called problem though. Civilisations don't develop at the same rate. 50,000 years is a blink of an eye in cosmic terms, but an eternity for a self-improving, self-replicating synthetic being. What if some particularly bright organic species, on the top end of the bell curve, creates an uncontrollable A.I. half way through the cycle? The Vanguard would have to be very quick about calling in the cavalry from Darkspace to deal with it before it takes over the galaxy in the Reaper's absence.

If the Reapers really were serious about being the gamekeepers for organic life as a general concept, then they should never leave the galaxy.

Even then, the Reapers aren't particularly well equipped to deal with other synthetics. They didn't prevent the Geth from nearly wiping out the Quarians after all, and the Geth were relatively benign. Imagine if someone made some sort of "grey-goo". A giant, sentient cloud of nano-machines that eat everything in their path. Thanix cannons wouldn't be much use against something like that.

Modifié par Eryri, 07 mai 2013 - 09:28 .

[Seival]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Sure there is.

Knowing the solution doesn't mean it's easy to implement.  

I mean, halfway through Fellowship of the Ring, we know how to destroy the One Ring:  Take it to Mordor and toss it back into the fires from whence it came.

Oh, no!  Where's the drama for the other 2.5 books!

I agree. Hell, the concept of a Chekov's gun would be pretty good. I think the idea of turning their indoctrination against them (like we did with Saren) will work best. Weaken them and destroy them.

I'm glad BioWare never listens to suggestions like this.

Story changed in accordance to haters' feedback would be pathetic... Or even worse than pathetic.

Modifié par Seival, 07 mai 2013 - 10:47 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Seival wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Sure there is.

Knowing the solution doesn't mean it's easy to implement.  

I mean, halfway through Fellowship of the Ring, we know how to destroy the One Ring:  Take it to Mordor and toss it back into the fires from whence it came.

Oh, no!  Where's the drama for the other 2.5 books!

I agree. Hell, the concept of a Chekov's gun would be pretty good. I think the idea of turning their indoctrination against them (like we did with Saren) will work best. Weaken them and destroy them.

I'm glad BioWare never listens to suggestions like this.

Story changed in accordance to haters' feedback would be pathetic... Or even worse than pathetic.

Didn't you fall in love with the ending of Mass Effect because of the Extended Cut? Something you whined just as much as the rest of us to get?

If this isn't hypocrisy at its finest, I don't know what is.