333 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

txgoldrush wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Or maybe its the truth and you simply don't like it.

People here FAIL to get the ending and it shows.

They get it just fine, pal.

Obviously they don't....they can't even locate the conflict.

Which would be?

The very straightforward fact that Shepard opposes the Catalyst's cycle (his forcible sacrifice of others to achieve his goals), meaning it really isn't about organics and synthetics, but the methods used by the Catalyst.

The KEY to the Catalyst's character is the flaw in that he simply does not understand organic life. This is obvious in his dialogue and his mannerisms.

So as Dreamgazer already stated, They get it just fine pal

[MassivelyEffective0730]

MASSEFFECTfanforlife101 wrote...

Correction: Amazing!

I'm not surprised if you didn't actually understand anything about the ending beyond the superficial explanation you got from the Catalyst.

You seem to fall very much into the category of taking whatever the writer gives you without thinking, from what I've seen of your posts.

Challenge yourself. Think deeper.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 05 juin 2013 - 07:21 .

[txgoldrush]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Or maybe its the truth and you simply don't like it.

People here FAIL to get the ending and it shows.

They get it just fine, pal.

Obviously they don't....they can't even locate the conflict.

You know, I thinks arrogant to say that most of the hardcore fans don't get something the creators intended. Typically, if so many people didn't get what the creators were trying to say, the blame usually always lies with the creator.

To say that people who didn't get it is a fallacy, an argument of the exclusion, a "no true scotsman" if you will.

I for one understood perfectly the theme behind the ending. I perfectly understand the series up to that point as well. Among the main themes that I'm able to draw from the narrative mess (it's basically that seeing as how the writers didn't plan ahead and more or less winged it throughout the series), organic vs synthetic is fairly minor. It's a minor theme that had a presence throughout the story but was never built up or alluded as the all important meaning behind the trilogy.

Non-existant is the idea in Mass Effect prior to the ending of how they decided to implement the entire ending concept. There's nothing brilliant behind it either. In all honesty, I think Hudson or SuperMac got the idea for synthesis while watching the matrix, and, running short for time and sadly desperate for idea's decided to run with the idea of synthesis as a final solution to the trilogy. To achieve this, they had to comb the series for a plausible theme in which to base the hypothetical theme of the ending scenario. They decided that the organic/synthetic issue was a good idea and ran with it. 

In essence, they had an idea they wanted to implement and decided to use Mass Effect as a testbed for that idea. Synthesis was that idea, and the original ending was framed behind the hope that players would accept synthesis as, not just the best ending, but the only ending. That's why the outcome (of the original ending especially) feels so geared towards synthesis. They also believed that being intentionally vague with descriptions and information was a better way to get people to accept things. In fact, they wanted to ensure it.

They changed Mass Effect to make their vision of synthesis fit into the story, instead of basing their idea around more plausible outcomes, science, and themes.

They should have changed their idea to fit Mass Effect. 

I don't want to talk about the incredibly bad execution of the ending, or the parts leading up to it. That's all completely and narratively baffling, to this day, why anyone would think that was any good.

And in your post, it really shows that you didn't get it.

Organics and synthetics weren't even the endings main theme, it wasn't the all important meaning of the trilogy.....Here you go again.

It is the CONTEXT not the CONFLICT.

The Catalyst's motives can be about anything, but the conflict in the ending would not change because simply put, the ending really isn't about the context (unless you pick synthesis), its about conflict. And the conflict is based around sacrifice, the main theme of ME3. The conflict is between one who will sacrifice herself to save the galaxy (or sacrifice others with regret when her hand is forced, and not with out thought)  vs. one who will forcibly sacrifice others in the name of his goal, with little regards for their lives and choices. And this is true for both TIM and the Catalyst.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Then why did they use the context of organics vs synthetics to highlight the idea of sacrifice? A literal conflict (and perpetual conflict) between two different forms of life works for sacrifice how?

That doesn't stack up.

[txgoldrush]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Then why did they use the context of organics vs synthetics to highlight the idea of sacrifice? A literal conflict (and perpetual conflict) between two different forms of life works for sacrifice how?

That doesn't stack up.

Because the antagonist, clearly not truly understanding organic life, wants to sacrifice entire civilizations against their will to achieve his purpose of his creation, his creation being part of another major theme of the series...how beings try to use or create forces they can't control or have no idea of their full capabilities for power, control, or solution to a problem.

The main themes of the series are perfectly realized here.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 05 juin 2013 - 07:22 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

txgoldrush wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Then why did they use the context of organics vs synthetics to highlight the idea of sacrifice? A literal conflict (and perpetual conflict) between two different forms of life works for sacrifice how?

That doesn't stack up.

Because the antagonist, clearly not truly understanding organic life, wants to sacrifice entire civilizations against their will to achieve his purpose of his creation, his creation being part of another major theme of the series...how beings try to use or create forces they can't control or have no idea of their full capabilities for power, control, or solution to a problem.

The main themes of the series are perfectly realized here.

And it seems like you're trying to reconcile two different forms of 'sacrifice'. You have the heroic, altruistic variation of self sacrifice for the lives of others versus selfishness to live over the lives of others.. Then you have the more scientific, more detached variation, akin to spending money or resources to try and alter an experiment.

It's trying to push too different shades on one for that matter.

I see where you're coming from, and believe me I understand that right there. That's a failure on the writers to effectively use the distinction (or to stick with it).

It's trying to force two different meanings on the context of the ending. One meaning goes one way. The other goes another way.

[AresKeith]

I'm still waiting on txgoldrush to randomly attack another game to defend ME3

[Slayer299]

 
Don't give him any new ideas! 

[txgoldrush]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Then why did they use the context of organics vs synthetics to highlight the idea of sacrifice? A literal conflict (and perpetual conflict) between two different forms of life works for sacrifice how?

That doesn't stack up.

Because the antagonist, clearly not truly understanding organic life, wants to sacrifice entire civilizations against their will to achieve his purpose of his creation, his creation being part of another major theme of the series...how beings try to use or create forces they can't control or have no idea of their full capabilities for power, control, or solution to a problem.

The main themes of the series are perfectly realized here.

And it seems like you're trying to reconcile two different forms of 'sacrifice'. You have the heroic, altruistic variation of self sacrifice for the lives of others versus selfishness to live over the lives of others.. Then you have the more scientific, more detached variation, akin to spending money or resources to try and alter an experiment.

It's trying to push too different shades on one for that matter.

I see where you're coming from, and believe me I understand that right there. That's a failure on the writers to effectively use the distinction (or to stick with it).

It's trying to force two different meanings on the context of the ending. One meaning goes one way. The other goes another way.

"I see where you're coming from, and believe me I understand that right there. That's a failure on the writers to effectively use the distinction (or to stick with it)."

No, they stick with it the entire time....conversations both with TIM and The Catalyst carry this theme.

"It's trying to force two different meanings on the context of the ending. One meaning goes one way. The other goes another way."

No it doesn't.  There is only one meaning. Shepard, as well as countless others, have to make a great sacrifice to stop the cycle of forced sacrifice.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 05 juin 2013 - 07:46 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

txgoldrush wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Then why did they use the context of organics vs synthetics to highlight the idea of sacrifice? A literal conflict (and perpetual conflict) between two different forms of life works for sacrifice how?

That doesn't stack up.

Because the antagonist, clearly not truly understanding organic life, wants to sacrifice entire civilizations against their will to achieve his purpose of his creation, his creation being part of another major theme of the series...how beings try to use or create forces they can't control or have no idea of their full capabilities for power, control, or solution to a problem.

The main themes of the series are perfectly realized here.

And it seems like you're trying to reconcile two different forms of 'sacrifice'. You have the heroic, altruistic variation of self sacrifice for the lives of others versus selfishness to live over the lives of others.. Then you have the more scientific, more detached variation, akin to spending money or resources to try and alter an experiment.

It's trying to push too different shades on one for that matter.

I see where you're coming from, and believe me I understand that right there. That's a failure on the writers to effectively use the distinction (or to stick with it).

It's trying to force two different meanings on the context of the ending. One meaning goes one way. The other goes another way.

"I see where you're coming from, and believe me I understand that right there. That's a failure on the writers to effectively use the distinction (or to stick with it)."

No, they stick with it the entire time....conversations both with TIM and The Catalyst carry this theme.

"It's trying to force two different meanings on the context of the ending. One meaning goes one way. The other goes another way."

No it doesn't.  There is only one meaning. Shepard, as well as countless others, have to make a great sacrifice to stop the cycle of forced sacrifice.

They use two different applications of the word sacrifice, and they treat them both as one as to a counter theme of another.

That doesn't float well with modern logic. Or narrative.

[txgoldrush]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Then why did they use the context of organics vs synthetics to highlight the idea of sacrifice? A literal conflict (and perpetual conflict) between two different forms of life works for sacrifice how?

That doesn't stack up.

Because the antagonist, clearly not truly understanding organic life, wants to sacrifice entire civilizations against their will to achieve his purpose of his creation, his creation being part of another major theme of the series...how beings try to use or create forces they can't control or have no idea of their full capabilities for power, control, or solution to a problem.

The main themes of the series are perfectly realized here.

And it seems like you're trying to reconcile two different forms of 'sacrifice'. You have the heroic, altruistic variation of self sacrifice for the lives of others versus selfishness to live over the lives of others.. Then you have the more scientific, more detached variation, akin to spending money or resources to try and alter an experiment.

It's trying to push too different shades on one for that matter.

I see where you're coming from, and believe me I understand that right there. That's a failure on the writers to effectively use the distinction (or to stick with it).

It's trying to force two different meanings on the context of the ending. One meaning goes one way. The other goes another way.

"I see where you're coming from, and believe me I understand that right there. That's a failure on the writers to effectively use the distinction (or to stick with it)."

No, they stick with it the entire time....conversations both with TIM and The Catalyst carry this theme.

"It's trying to force two different meanings on the context of the ending. One meaning goes one way. The other goes another way."

No it doesn't.  There is only one meaning. Shepard, as well as countless others, have to make a great sacrifice to stop the cycle of forced sacrifice.

They use two different applications of the word sacrifice, and they treat them both as one as to a counter theme of another.

That doesn't float well with modern logic. Or narrative.

and how?

Tell me this second meaning you came up with.

[mcoot]

I dislike the endings as they stood initially quite intensely. With the extended cut, it's alright so long as I only take Destroy to be canon, because Synthesis is stupid and impossible, and Control contradicts the stuff Shepard said in the previous scene with TIM.

Overall, I do have to say that ME3 was probably my favourite in the series. I loved all three games, but if I really have to rank them then I would have to go ME3 > ME2 > ME1. Ignoring the ending I felt ME3 was the best written game with the most interesting missions.

I can deal with Destroy with personal headcanon removing the 'all synthetic life must die' aspect. I had a good experience with it, and really that's all I care about.

[FlamingBoy]

txgoldrush wrote...



Yet you are not defending your understanding...and instead of defending yourself when I put you on the spot, you simply want to deny it.

And its no lie when you do miss the point, hence, this is why I say that you really didn't get it.

Lets say I don't get it (which still is a lie but I will work for it a secound), this behaviour is intolerable either way, simply put its ad-hominen, you attack the credibility of a person (sometimes different games which is really odd) instead of defending the game.

If I said the sky was green, you would disagree and say "I didn't get it" instead of saying the sky was blue. That is the problem.

Modifié par FlamingBoy, 05 juin 2013 - 08:36 .

[Galbrant]

The game had some decent combat, good squad banter on the ship, and had some good story arc's like Tuchunka and Rannoch. But everything else was garbage the insipid noisy fetch quests with a boring reaper chase minigame tacked on. Garbage main plot, Intro, Citadel Coup, and Priority Earth The butcher dialog wheel with no neutral options with extensive autodialog made me think if I was playing on action mode. Oh and lets not forget the god awful endings where it went from pick a color Pre-EC to pick a war crime and die or die along with everyone else Post-EC. So much being a hero folks, unless you were smart enough to get the PC version and get MEHEM.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

This thread needs to be locked.

[TheProtheans]

dreamgazer wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

Hating on the first two games instead of ME3 is more hip and trendy right now.
Even if there is no good reason other than to defend something bad about ME3.

It is? Gauging by the reactions from peturbed fanboys when the first two games are talked about with a hint of criticism, especially ME1, it ain't trendy.

And fanboys doesn't take ME3 criticism lightly. 
I see them kicking and screaming and defending ME3 by attacking other games, it is kinda sad when your only defense is by attacking other games.

[AlanC9]

It's not an attack to apply the same standards to ME1 and ME2 that one applies to ME3. It just looks like an attack because ME1, in particular, had plenty wrong with it.

[TheProtheans]

AlanC9 wrote...

It's not an attack to apply the same standards to ME1 and ME2 that one applies to ME3. It just looks like an attack because ME1, in particular, had plenty wrong with it.

I could never apply the same standards between two games.
I'm not going to hate on lack of advanced content in older games simply because they were made first.
I know better than to do that, progression is the only way I see.
Such is with the gameplay of ME1 and such, Bioware stepping out into the water.

I guess that's make me different and not understanding of that sort of hate.
However it was perfectly reasonable to give out about it during ME1, but to use it to defend ME3 is insanely stupid.
The story is different as is not directly tied to technology, however the same sort of understanding still applies to me.
And really it shows more in the story, ever since the suspension of disbelief was shattered in ME3, people have been going years into the past to say it was already broken.
The problem is they're doing it now, that tells me it wasn't broken and that they're just doing it to defend ME3.
And if it was broken then everyone would know about it, we did not.
However everyone knows about it in ME3 as soon as it happened and outraged was ensured.

A few people's imagination of what is unrealistic is not of my concern.
They can huff and puff all they want, but their ideals don't mean ****.
Shepard still didn't get any threesome offers, that is the most unrealistic thing from ME2 and ME1.
Their opinions are less than that on my list of problems.

Modifié par TheProtheans, 05 juin 2013 - 10:54 .

[Redbelle]

txgoldrush wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Or maybe its the truth and you simply don't like it.

People here FAIL to get the ending and it shows.

They get it just fine, pal.

Obviously they don't....they can't even locate the conflict.

Sooooo feel free to use your next post to explain your thinking so they can get it.

And no wiggling out of it.

Your giving us nothing to work with here otherwise.

Explanation.

Your take on the ending/s.

The 'conflict' as you preceive it.

Go!.......

Modifié par Redbelle, 05 juin 2013 - 11:39 .

[ioannisdenton]

AresKeith wrote...

David have you played any games outside of Bioware?

i ve played tons of games outside of bioware. And most of the time i enjoy them all. But Bioware games are my favorites , i enjoy them the most. Hence i play them more than one time whereas other games i play them one time.
 However i am not biased towards Bioware

[TheRealJayDee]

I propose a cozy little thread somewhere for all the people who truly "get" Mass Effect, or maybe a group. There they can compare the fruits of their respective superior intellects and exchange exquisite insults for all eternity without being bothered by all those ignorant simpletons roaming the rest of the BSN.

So, who will bring the group "Only I truly understand Mass Effect" into life and invite... the people that need inviting?

[spirosz]

BringBackNihlus wrote...

Only Luddites and anti-intellectual ghetto dwellers look at Mass Effect 3 as anything less than a masterpiece.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

I know.

I'll convince you to like something by calling you names, insulting your intelligence, and generally saying things that would make a 5 year-old blush at how stupid I am.

That should work. 

I'M SO BRILLIANT! 

[Dominus]

Me3 had the best visual style of Me games.

The art style doesn't quite grab me the same way the original did, though I'll happily agree that the amount of graphical budget on set pieces, characters models, and just about everything else was at an all time high overall.

Music and sound effects.

Sound effects, definitely. The Audio team had a lot of fun with the weaponry and biotic effects. Music was about the same as before. A few emotional pieces. The Extended Cut Soundtrack(which was 100% free to download) was fantastic.

Me3 actually features the MOST story and this is a fact. Me1 which most people praise despite having a great main storyline, that storyline was really short. Same applies for Me2. On me3 this is not the case, almost every action you make has to do with the main storyline which is Cerberus and Reapers

Even if it has the most story as you say, it's the weakest of the three, as far as I can see. From my perception, it's the direct opposite of ME1 - It's fantastic in combat, but the story doesn't do as much for me.

Me3 made me feel way more emotions that the previous ME games.

I'll agree to that. While ME 1 & 2 had its moments, ME3 is the more emotion of the bunch.