1470 réponses à ce sujet

[Morlath]

David7204 wrote...

I don't think a nonconventional solution based on the Leviathans would work very well.

As far as I can see the only issue with the Leviathans is "waking up the beast". Namely kicking them into acting rather than hiding results in them trying to be the Apex species again and indoctrinate everyone. If they went the Leviathan route then they'd need to also work out a weapon to kill the Leviathans.

[IanPolaris]

Morlath wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I don't think a nonconventional solution based on the Leviathans would work very well.

As far as I can see the only issue with the Leviathans is "waking up the beast". Namely kicking them into acting rather than hiding results in them trying to be the Apex species again and indoctrinate everyone. If they went the Leviathan route then they'd need to also work out a weapon to kill the Leviathans.

That would be my number one concern.  However, that would argue for more research into the orbs and how to use them and not less, IMHO.

-Polaris

[Reorte]

Morlath wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I don't think a nonconventional solution based on the Leviathans would work very well.

As far as I can see the only issue with the Leviathans is "waking up the beast". Namely kicking them into acting rather than hiding results in them trying to be the Apex species again and indoctrinate everyone. If they went the Leviathan route then they'd need to also work out a weapon to kill the Leviathans.

The problem with using the Leviathans is if they could beat the Reapers why haven't they already done so? The Reapers destroyed them at the time of their creation, when the Reapers would've been a lot weaker and the Leviathans a lot stronger. That's a rather awkward situation to write your way around (especially if you want to do it convincingly).

[Morlath]

Reorte wrote...

Morlath wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I don't think a nonconventional solution based on the Leviathans would work very well.

As far as I can see the only issue with the Leviathans is "waking up the beast". Namely kicking them into acting rather than hiding results in them trying to be the Apex species again and indoctrinate everyone. If they went the Leviathan route then they'd need to also work out a weapon to kill the Leviathans.

The problem with using the Leviathans is if they could beat the Reapers why haven't they already done so? The Reapers destroyed them at the time of their creation, when the Reapers would've been a lot weaker and the Leviathans a lot stronger. That's a rather awkward situation to write your way around (especially if you want to do it convincingly).

Again, my creative juices can only come up with one idea off the top. Essentially the entire Reaper harvest and "betrayl" by the Catalyst caused a major psychological blow to the Leviathan mentality.

But it's actually far more thin a story than the Catalyst introduction.

[David7204]

Right off the bat?

- It requires keeping the Leviathans themselves, which I would be on the fence about. I don't like the Reaper motive one bit, and giving them a better one might necessitate scrapping the Leviathans. I very much liked the mission through, so maybe they could be repurposed.

- It raises a lot of question of why the Leviathans have done nothing for so long if they can take out Reapers so easily. Dunno if those could be answered well.

- It raises questions of why the Reapers don't have some kind of defense or preparation against such an effective weapon. It raises questions of why the Reapers don't have such a weapon themselves.

- There needs to be some sort of heavy price for nonconventional victory to make it very clear that conventional victory is the best option. Dunno how that would work for such an effective weapon.

- There needs to be new information and challenges concerning the weapon revealed right up until the climax. That might be tough, considering this weapon seems pretty cut and dry.

- It needs to work alongside a conventional victory, and the player can't choose until the end. That means that the Leviathans shouldn't 'go to waste,' so to speak. What happens if Shepard is able to achieve conventional victory and they aren't needed after all?

- It could severly interfere with the tone. The ending to a perfect playthrough of ME 3 should have a tone of triumph, unity, love, friendship, all that poetic crap. That might be jeopardized if the Leviathans are still hanging around right in the background.

Modifié par David7204, 11 mai 2013 - 12:31 .

[Reorte]

Morlath wrote...

Reorte wrote...

The problem with using the Leviathans is if they could beat the Reapers why haven't they already done so? The Reapers destroyed them at the time of their creation, when the Reapers would've been a lot weaker and the Leviathans a lot stronger. That's a rather awkward situation to write your way around (especially if you want to do it convincingly).

Again, my creative juices can only come up with one idea off the top. Essentially the entire Reaper harvest and "betrayl" by the Catalyst caused a major psychological blow to the Leviathan mentality.

But it's actually far more thin a story than the Catalyst introduction.

Unfortuantely whilst that could be an explanation it doesn't strike me as a terribly convincing one. Mind you that's a common problem with a lot of explanations we get in ME3 (both official and otherwise).

[Morlath]

Reorte wrote...

Unfortuantely whilst that could be an explanation it doesn't strike me as a terribly convincing one. Mind you that's a common problem with a lot of explanations we get in ME3 (both official and otherwise).

Like I said, the Catalyst makes more sense and simply suffered for lack of introduction to hold off the majority of the anger.

[IanPolaris]

Reorte wrote...

Morlath wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I don't think a nonconventional solution based on the Leviathans would work very well.

As far as I can see the only issue with the Leviathans is "waking up the beast". Namely kicking them into acting rather than hiding results in them trying to be the Apex species again and indoctrinate everyone. If they went the Leviathan route then they'd need to also work out a weapon to kill the Leviathans.

The problem with using the Leviathans is if they could beat the Reapers why haven't they already done so? The Reapers destroyed them at the time of their creation, when the Reapers would've been a lot weaker and the Leviathans a lot stronger. That's a rather awkward situation to write your way around (especially if you want to do it convincingly).

Well, I think the easiest explaination is that they (the Leviathans) don't have the necessary resources to do so on their own.  This might consist of not having enough globes.  It might consist of not having enough signal strength even with the globes to reach far enough to "see" a Reaper.

It might also be that the Leviathans are afraid of the Reapers (actually this certainly seems to be true) and suspect that they won't be able to kill enough Reapers fast enough before the Reapers finish them off.  It took all of Shepard's persuasive powers after all to get the Leviathans to join at all.

Of course these limitations can be worked around or even eliminated in cooperation with other species (or if the other species find a way to mimic what the Leviathans do which we already know is possible via Shepard)

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Morlath wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Unfortuantely whilst that could be an explanation it doesn't strike me as a terribly convincing one. Mind you that's a common problem with a lot of explanations we get in ME3 (both official and otherwise).

Like I said, the Catalyst makes more sense and simply suffered for lack of introduction to hold off the majority of the anger.

I disagree.  The Leviathan makes more sense and is in keeping with the Genre of Mass Effect (and the Catalyst is not).

-Polaris

[Morlath]

IanPolaris wrote...

I disagree.  The Leviathan makes more sense and is in keeping with the Genre of Mass Effect (and the Catalyst is not).

-Polaris

The Catalyst comes straight from the same backstory as the Leviathans.

[IanPolaris]

Morlath wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I disagree.  The Leviathan makes more sense and is in keeping with the Genre of Mass Effect (and the Catalyst is not).

-Polaris

The Catalyst comes straight from the same backstory as the Leviathans.

Watch "understated nerdrage" and perhaps you can better appreciate where I am coming from.  I don't care about the backstory.  I care about the story genre.   I will try to make this as concise as possible.  For most of Mass Effect, you play what is often called a "Socratic Exercise" (and what some call talky-techy sci-fi), where the developers say, "If you lived in a world where 'X' is true, then how would you handle "Y" moral/ethical/social question."  For this to work, you have to have a well constructred and internally consistant lore in which we can build our referential framework.

Mass Effect (like Star Trek and Babylon 5 before) does this brilliantly.....all the way until the Crucible (OK it stumbles with Shepard's ressurection but that's only a stumble).  The Leviathans fit within this genre.  Yes they are powerful and poorly understood creatures, but they follow the same basic rules, and have specific limitations that can be accounted for like anyone else (including the Reapers).

The Star-kid breaks this genre to flinders.  You do NOT have a good idea of what is or isn't possible and therefore you have no basis on which to make ethical or moral judgements.  At this point you have left the Socratic or Talky-Techy Genre and that is a huge mistake.

-Polaris

[Archonsg]

Am I the only one to find it amusing that the phrase "it makes sense" is in any way attached to the Catalyst?


While both Catalyst and Leviathans are from the same back story, they don't both share the same degree of credibility.

In the Leviathans' case, we have an "Aha!" moment where we put two and two together and can easily recognize the Leviathans as the Race that birthed the Reapers.

Here, though while introducing the Catalyst, is where things get screwy. If they had played it as the AI gone rogue, insane and homicidal, to be destroyed, it would have worked. Essentially the Catalyst becomes the ultimate big baddy.

Instead, because it was written specifically to justify the entire ending silliness, they made it out to be a "misunderstood" AI solution that really had organic life's interest at heart. And in doing so tried to de-villainfy the Reapers, "they are killing you to save you, because sooner or later you'll make synthetics that will kill you, so these synthetics will kill you before you can make your own synthetics."

And yes, I do understand that not *all* life are killed by the Reapers and in context of the "we kill you to save you",
It does make insane sense.

I just prefer not to be party to that insanity.

[Morlath]

IanPolaris wrote...

Watch "understated nerdrage" and perhaps you can better appreciate where I am coming from. I don't care about the backstory. I care about the story genre. I will try to make this as concise as possible. For most of Mass Effect, you play what is often called a "Socratic Exercise" (and what some call talky-techy sci-fi), where the developers say, "If you lived in a world where 'X' is true, then how would you handle "Y" moral/ethical/social question." For this to work, you have to have a well constructred and internally consistant lore in which we can build our referential framework.

Mass Effect (like Star Trek and Babylon 5 before) does this brilliantly.....all the way until the Crucible (OK it stumbles with Shepard's ressurection but that's only a stumble). The Leviathans fit within this genre. Yes they are powerful and poorly understood creatures, but they follow the same basic rules, and have specific limitations that can be accounted for like anyone else (including the Reapers).

The Star-kid breaks this genre to flinders. You do NOT have a good idea of what is or isn't possible and therefore you have no basis on which to make ethical or moral judgements. At this point you have left the Socratic or Talky-Techy Genre and that is a huge mistake.

-Polaris

On a side note, do you have a problem with the Q?

To start with, there's nothing wrong with a show, game, film, play or book criss-crossing sub-genre or genre types as a concept. Having a game begin Socratic and end as another type of story telling is not a terrible thing in and of itself.

But again, I don't agree with you in your conclusion nor do I agree with the conclusion of that video (even though it's very nicely done). Or rather, I disagree with the conclusion you have come up with in response to issues I agree are issues.

The Catalyst and even its conclusions (the three possible endings) can be induced by playing all three games. The main focus of Control and Destroy are already there (Shepard vs TIM) and even Synthesis is sprinkled around the three games.

All the parts are there inside the ME games to make the ending logical even with the Catalyst and the options it offers. It's the execution of the ending that's the problem for me, not what it's trying to actually say/do.

[PsyrenY]

IanPolaris wrote...

The Star-kid breaks this genre to flinders.  You do NOT have a good idea of what is or isn't possible and therefore you have no basis on which to make ethical or moral judgements.  At this point you have left the Socratic or Talky-Techy Genre and that is a huge mistake.

It's a shackled AI. What's so hard to understand about that? You have all the information you need to handle that situation.

Archonsg wrote...

Instead, because it was written specifically to justify the entire ending silliness, they made it out to be a "misunderstood" AI solution that really had organic life's interest at heart. And in doing so tried to de-villainfy the Reapers, "they are killing you to save you, because sooner or later you'll make synthetics that will kill you, so these synthetics will kill you before you can make your own synthetics."

The concept of the singularity could have been called out more before that point, but it IS present in all three games. So yes, amusing though it may be to you, the Catalyst makes sense.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 11 mai 2013 - 01:29 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

[quote]Optimystic_X wrote...
Instead, because it was written specifically to justify the entire ending silliness, they made it out to be a "misunderstood" AI solution that really had organic life's interest at heart. And in doing so tried to de-villainfy the Reapers, "they are killing you to save you, because sooner or later you'll make synthetics that will kill you, so these synthetics will kill you before you can make your own synthetics." [/quote]

The concept of the singularity could have been called out more before that point, but it IS present in all three games. So yes, amusing though it may be to you, the Catalyst makes sense.

[/quote]

Well in that case, it becomes a Chekhov's Gun. It's really a background element to the series, never taking up more room than was necessary. Then bam, thrown to the forefront of the ending theme?

That's totally not jarring at all, right?  /Sarcasm.

The presence of a theme throughout the series does not mean the Catalyst makes sense of it. I don't think he's making much sense at all. That's why I don't trust him any more than relating fact to me. 

[Steelcan]

I dont recall singularity being a threat at all. It doesnt apply to Reapers or the geth (until Legion mentions the Dyson sphere, late ME2/3)

[Morlath]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Well in that case, it becomes a Chekhov's Gun. It's really a background element to the series, never taking up more room than was necessary. Then bam, thrown to the forefront of the ending theme?

That's totally not jarring at all, right?  /Sarcasm.

The presence of a theme throughout the series does not mean the Catalyst makes sense of it. I don't think he's making much sense at all. That's why I don't trust him any more than relating fact to me. 

The Catalyst is not a Chekhov's Gun since it's actually fired/used in the firing of the Crucible and that goes against everything a Chekhov's Gun is.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

I dont recall singularity being a threat at all. It doesnt apply to Reapers or the geth (until Legion mentions the Dyson sphere, late ME2/3)

Even then, it's still completely irrelevent. The Geth have little interest in the affairs of other species. They're willing to co-exist with the galaxy provided that nobody tries to kill them. It's a very live and let live approach. The Geth aren't going to meddle in the affairs of the galaxy nor try to start a war. They wish to be left to their own advices in peace.

[eddieoctane]

David7204 wrote...

Oh boy. This crap again.

I don't bother with IGN. But I do check the GameInformer website now and again...

That's right were I stopped. Whatever GI might be doing right now that slams EA in any form, the fact remains that the rag is owned by Gamestop. I like Gamestop. Once I got my driver's license, I went there instead of church on Sundays. The staff was always fun to talk to. But I'll be damned if I'm going to take any review from the store's own publication seriously. If Ford owned Motor Week (assuming Congress didn't slap them with an anti-trust case), no one would value the information therein. There's an automatic bias there.

David7204 wrote...

Maybe you should consider the obvious fact that your experience with a game involves lots of emotional baggage that reviewers aren't supposed to take into account.

That's definitely part of the issue. Except that emotional involvement is a huge part of what made Mass Effect so great. If a reviewer doesn;t play from start to finish and hasn't touched the previous two titles, he has little or no understanding about what he's looking at. If Roger Ebert (RIP) only watched the frist 10 minutes of Iron Man 3 and never tocuhed any of the previous films in the coninutity, people would call bullcrap on his entire review. For that to be permissable in gaming "journalism" is unaccaeptable.

One can't fully understand the issues in ME3 without having played ME1&2 at least once. This is the case for a lot of reviews, however. And this carries over across most game series, as well. The result is a bunch of opinions that have little information to be based on and less value in reading.

David7204 wrote...

And guess what? It's not like ME 3 is a mediocre game with a bad ending that dragged it down further. It does a lot of things a hell of a lot better than any other game has done, including plenty of games that have gotten 10s. You want to 'punish' the game for the ending? Fine. But you don't get to cherry pick all the things you don't like and ignore all the things that are done well. Those things need to push it up just as the ending should drag it down. There's way too much high quality content in ME 3 for the game as a whole to deserve remotely close to a low score.

We also need to weight which elements are more important to which game. Having better combat than GoW (only other cover TPS that comes to mind readily) doesn't matter as much when Mass Effect has always been more about the narrative than gameplay. Yes, there is a fair amount of subjectivity in determining how much more the story matters in one game, the onlien community in another, or combat mechanics in a third. But no one will argue that the story wasn't the biggest part of ME3. And when the central element fails, to say that everything else makes up the slack is like hoping that the Golden Gate Bridge won't collapse when I remove one of the towers.

(For the record, I consider character development to be part of the story side of a game, and characterization changed in ME3 in addition to a terrible ending.)

[dreamgazer]

http://www.gameinfor...s-farewell.aspx

I was left speechless at the end of this story. I won’t divulge the feeling that washed over me during the final sequence, but I absolutely love how it concludes. Most of the major plot points and character side stories – even those harking back to Mass Effect 1 – resolve. Some of these characters feel like old friends or family members, and it’s remarkable how much emotion these fictional beings evoke. I was sad to leave them behind, but satisfied since I had no unanswered questions.

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreamgazer wrote...

http://www.gameinfor...s-farewell.aspx

I was left speechless at the end of this story. I won’t divulge the feeling that washed over me during the final sequence, but I absolutely love how it concludes. Most of the major plot points and character side stories – even those harking back to Mass Effect 1 – resolve. Some of these characters feel like old friends or family members, and it’s remarkable how much emotion these fictional beings evoke. I was sad to leave them behind, but satisfied since I had no unanswered questions.

Not sure what game he's talking about but it sounds wonderful.

[BassStyles]

@ Dreamgazer

Hmmmmmmmm

[Archonsg]

dreamgazer wrote...

http://www.gameinfor...s-farewell.aspx

I was left speechless at the end of this story. I won’t divulge the feeling that washed over me during the final sequence, but I absolutely love how it concludes. Most of the major plot points and character side stories – even those harking back to Mass Effect 1 – resolve. Some of these characters feel like old friends or family members, and it’s remarkable how much emotion these fictional beings evoke. I was sad to leave them behind, but satisfied since I had no unanswered questions.

Considering this was written for the Pre-EC ending, I am surprised that he found "no questions left unanswered."

Did he truly find the game to be worth playing? No doubt.
Did he really played to the end and not went "WTF? ... but I can't write this ****." 
I don't know. He might truly have like it, seen nothing wrong with how it ended, but to state that he truly saw nothing wrong with the pre-ec ending? That it answered all questions?
In hindsight, reading this, do you really think it was truth or a case of creative fabrication?


ps: I do want to point out that in the ending pre-ec, you *are shown* the Normandy's engines being ripped off their lateral mounts before miraculously surviving an inter-atmospheric crash (with no engines and compromised hull) and later flying off with hull and engines (which were lost in blueshift space) repaired and reattached. 
No questions unanswered huh?

Modifié par Archonsg, 11 mai 2013 - 02:46 .

[phillip100]

Archonsg wrote...

ps: I do want to point out that in the ending pre-ec, you *are shown* the Normandy's engines being ripped off their lateral mounts before miraculously surving an inter-atmospheric crash (with no engines and a compromised hull) and later flying off with hull and engines (which were lost in blueshift space) reattached. 
No questions unanswered huh?

The Normandy was never shown flying off the planet it crashed on in the pre-EC endings.

Edit: Here's a video of the High EMS Destroy Ending (Pre-EC) 

Modifié par phillip100, 11 mai 2013 - 02:49 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Morlath wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Well in that case, it becomes a Chekhov's Gun. It's really a background element to the series, never taking up more room than was necessary. Then bam, thrown to the forefront of the ending theme?

That's totally not jarring at all, right?  /Sarcasm.

The presence of a theme throughout the series does not mean the Catalyst makes sense of it. I don't think he's making much sense at all. That's why I don't trust him any more than relating fact to me. 

The Catalyst is not a Chekhov's Gun since it's actually fired/used in the firing of the Crucible and that goes against everything a Chekhov's Gun is.

That's not what I was talking about. The Chekhov's Gun is the theme, not any material piece in the series.