333 réponses à ce sujet

[GimmeDaGun]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

ioannisdenton wrote...

Now that the dust has settled and after i gave myself enough time out of these forums letting myself not beeing indoctrinated into hating every aspect of Me3 (i think i did) i wanna point out some things (replayed the WHOLE trilogy with Dlc from scratch; i am currently am on my Me3 playthrough) :

• Me3 had the best visual style of Me games. And not just because it is a more recent game, i am not talking about texture quality. Bioware put quite some time in visuals. People complain and whine about those 2d sprites (which actually is modeled after Jack) in the intro but reality is that the game looks fantastic. There are tons of details in the world!
  Different lighting , different lightining themes in various areas ; other are more blueish others more yellowish.
  Where me2 had TONS of coffeymakers everywhere, Me3 features a visual detail that surpasses Me2 and actually makes the world feel more alive. The citadel looks alive, surkesh, tuchanca ruins , Rannoch.. fantastic!!
• Music and sound effects. Again great detail!! You can even hear people typing in the interfaces. On citadel the various news announcements make the the world feel more alive again. All these people talking; their personal stories etc. Last but not least the normandy's war room, you can hear Vigil's theme via the normandy's engines. Whoever came up woth this is a genious.
• 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
  Now the quality of the story is not even half as bad as some here claim. Sure the original ending deserved the backlash, sure the choices do not matter as we thought they would, sure the catalyst was unexpected (i think bioware thought the cataluyst as the last minute story twist) but Me3 made me feel way more emotions that the previous ME games. This alone says a lot.

Been a while since i visited this forum and wanted to share my final thoughts about Me3.

1. True.

2. True.

3. The most story, sure, but also the worst story with the most inconsistencies and just blatantly aweful writing that more often than once contradicts previously established lore. This is why ME3 recieves so much negative feedback and this is why ME3 in my opinion sucks.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
[*]Point 3: Are you serious? And what about ME2's non-existent and ridiculously lame plot (it's all about seperate short stories and exploration in the galaxy)? Also what makes ME1's plot so special? Let's just check it out again: You as a special agent of the peaceful galactic community has to chase down the evil one who endangers humanity and the galaxy and who happened to recruit some dangerous robot-race. While you do that you figure out that this evil one is the agent of some ancient world consuming evil which had destroyed the civilization on which's legacy your galactic civilization evolved. Big surprise this ancient, mysterious evil is  coming for the galaxy again and some day you may be the one who can stop it. In the end, you catch the baddy and win. Story continues. Aha, like I haven't seen this anywhere before. Even my 2-year-old son can write something more creative and original than that, and I don't even have a 2-year-old son. Lets face it. It's not the bones of the story which made ME interesting, but the spicing: the setting, the lore, the atmosphere, the different races and their cultures, their history and the characters. 

[MSandt]

ioannisdenton wrote...
Me3 had the best visual style of Me games. And not just because it is a more recent game, i am not talking about texture quality. Bioware put quite some time in visuals. People complain and whine about those 2d sprites (which actually is modeled after Jack) in the intro but reality is that the game looks fantastic. There are tons of details in the world!
Different lighting , different lightining themes in various areas ; other are more blueish others more yellowish.
Where me2 had TONS of coffeymakers everywhere, Me3 features a visual detail that surpasses Me2 and actually makes the world feel more alive. The citadel looks alive, surkesh, tuchanca ruins , Rannoch.. fantastic!!

I agree but I still found the game's looks a bit static. Future ME titles should have more dynamic environments. Dynamic weather, day-night cycle, destructible environments, etc. For example, in ME2, every time you return to Illium, it's the same time of day and weather. There are plenty of games on the market that have incredible, dynamically interesting environments (Far Cry 2, STALKER, BF3, etc.) so it's not like that technology is not here yet.

[MSandt]

Eryri wrote...

The ending did not fit thematically for me at all. Mass Effect has many themes, and "Victory through sacrifice" was never the most obvious or compelling one for me. Far more important, and obvious within the narrative, were themes of kindling trust between different groups, working together to accomplish more together than could be done apart. Self-determination was also an important theme for me, and the terrible consequences of trying to attain control of others.

Well that's what was so great about the ending, that it forced you to come to grips with the reality of the situation. There'd be no cheap solutions that made everything right, only bittersweet, but tough all the same, choices.

However, even more problematic than dodgy space magic, are the unbelievable developments in Shepard's character. In order to successfully defeat the Reapers, Shepard has to accept, and act, on the instructions of a creature that admits to being their Commander in Chief. He has to activate the crucible in one of three ludicrous and lethal ways that seem to be part of some sort of dark joke. Why would he believe that the Catalyst is not trying to trick him into killing himself, sabotaging the crucible, or both?

The fact that the Catalyst was actually telling the truth doesn't make it any better. In fact it makes it worse. Both protagonist and antagonist are equally stupid. I almost think Shepard doesn't even deserve to succeed. Not just because of the morally dubious consequences of each choice, but because of how incredibly, naively, stupidly credulous he would have to be to pick one of them.

I've heard this argument before and I still don't understand it. Shepard at that point is in no condition to argue. She's there basically because the Catalyst allows her to be there. She could turn her back but what would be the point of that? After all, the destruction option delivers exactly what she's there for, the destruction of the Reaper threat.

Also, if the Catalyst is just joking around, why would it allow Shepard to be there in the first place? The Catalyst could have made any choice it wanted on its own.

[TheProtheans]

GimmeDaGun wrote...                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
[*]Point 3: Are you serious? And what about ME2's non-existent and ridiculously lame plot (it's all about seperate short stories and exploration in the galaxy)?    

ME2 seems more like a filler between the first and last game of the trilogy and it is unfair to blame ME2 for things ME3 didn't expand on in it's story.

Also what makes ME1's plot so special? Let's just check it out again: You as a special agent of the peaceful galactic community has to chase down the evil one who endangers humanity and the galaxy and who happened to recruit some dangerous robot-race. While you do that you figure out that this evil one is the agent of some ancient world consuming evil which had destroyed the civilization on which's legacy your galactic civilization evolved. Big surprise this ancient, mysterious evil is  coming for the galaxy again and some day you may be the one who can stop it. In the end, you catch the baddy and win. Story continues. Aha, like I haven't seen this anywhere before. Even my 2-year-old son can write something more creative and original than that, and I don't even have a 2-year-old son. Lets face it. It's not the bones of the story which made ME interesting, but the spicing: the setting, the lore, the atmosphere, the different races and their cultures, their history and the characters. 

Which are all a part of the story, the bare bones of a great bad evil is never strong when it doesn't have lore attached to it which is exactly what it got in Mass effect.
The history is the strongest component of any story, it can't just be pop there's bob.
So if you really think like you do then ME3 should be the worse game for you as it is a sequel to something you find old, sequels to crap are always worse.

Modifié par TheProtheans, 02 juin 2013 - 05:31 .

[Redbelle]

GimmeDaGun wrote...



I think Dune is one of the coolest things that ever happened to sci-fi. 


You seem to be more of a fan of the techy-based nerdish "hard" sci-fi and less of a fan of the more philosophical, symoblist, and moralising "soft" sci-fi. I personally prefer the latter, not so much the former. To me it's not the explanaiton and the nerdy-techy side of things what is important (frankly I don't give a crap about the technical details and explainations), but what it wants to tell me, what it's message is. Well, ME is a mixture of both types of sci-fi families and I prefer the "softish" things in it, maybe that's why I like the ending too. It's not something really serious or philosophical, but it is definitely not about the "how it happens" but about the "what happens, and what questionst that may raise". It plays around with classic sci-fi cliches and aims to encourage you to speculate and play around with thoughts. To me it's a good thing. I prefer this over a very simple but technically well explained, straight-forward bang-bang->win, kiss type of ending. Maybe that's why I could never enjoy Star Trek at all. 

Which Dune? The one with Patrick Stuart, the series or the book?

And it's not  about the nerdish techy aspect. Its the settings and the way sci fi enables larger story telling capacity.

It's also the art of writing I enjoy experiencing.

Take Tchunka. You might think that I like it because of Mordin being all techy and geeky trying to cure Eve. It's not about the tech though. It's about Mordin. With his history of causing the Genophage it's odd to see him trying to cure it. But he does so, rationalising all the way. But dig deeper and you see that Mordin has developed a bond between himself and Eve. Mordin stands up to Wrex forcing Wrex to re-evaluate Mordin as 'not just another Salarian'. Mordin's sacrifice, (or not as the case may be), is indicative of a strong compulsion to cure the Genophage even if he has to die to do it. And while he's doing all this he's talking about inner body processes whle ticking off possibilties of organs, hormone production and the like as if he was fired up on coffee.

The science does not define Mordin. The science grounds Mordin. He convinces the player that he does know what he is talking about. Which is good because Mordin is meant to be a doctor.

The problem comes when writers fall back on ALL techno babble.

Star Trek Voyager was probably the worst offender in relative recent memory. That example of how to explain a clone with the memories of the original......... What you did not know was that the original was dying and needed an organ transplant. Of which the clone was created with an increased aging process. But therein lay human drama, because the clone who essentially was the original, didn't want to die until he recognised that his aging process meant he would never live a real life, and that his sister needed the original to save her. That is human drama in the world of sci-fi that deals with the contemporary issues of human cloning while allowing the character to grow in the eye's of the viewer, even though strictly speaking, the character was flat on his back in a med bay and his 'copy' was acting in the originals stead.

That was a clever concept well handled and portreyed. That was grounded in science. And had philosophy, moral rationalisation in the face of circumstance. All those things you say you like.

Well I like them too, but I like my sci-fi to be grounded in it's own universe while obeying it's own rule set.

The end of ME3 broke the boundaries of it's established rule set at the 11th hour in a way that was impossible to overlook. It had moralising and that. But it was not grounded. It was intellecturalism and conception of possibilities that defied established boundaries.

Frankly, the Catayst's 10 minute conversation held enough material to provide the driving narrative of ME4.

Modifié par Redbelle, 02 juin 2013 - 05:55 .

[Eryri]

MSandt wrote...

Well that's what was so great about the ending, that it forced you to come to grips with the reality of the situation. There'd be no cheap solutions that made everything right, only bittersweet, but tough all the same, choices.

I'm afraid I don't see it the same way. For me, the Crucible and the 3 choices are cheap solutions. Quasi-magical nonsense that solves the problem at the last minute in a deeply unsatisfying way. And I wouldn't describe synthesis as bittersweet so much as saccharine. Real life conflicts aren't solved by miraculously and instantaneously merging two groups together. Homophobia will not be addressed by making everybody bi-sexual. Religious intolerance will not be solved by making everyone unitarian. It's complete fantasy. It's totally inapplicable to real life and deeply unsatisfying to me as any sort of allegory.

Also, if the Catalyst is just joking around, why would it allow Shepard to be there in the first place? The Catalyst could have made any choice it wanted on its own.

Why would Shepard assume that the Catalyst had actually brought him to the right place in which to activate the Crucible? We assume it is because we're playing a video game, and so we expect to be brought to the right place to do whatever it is the game designers want us to do. But why would Shepard, as a character in that position, think that? For all he knows, the Catalyst has just kidnapped him and imprisoned him in a place where he's less likely to harm it. With Shepard being a soldier I would imagine he would be rather more suspicious of the Catalyst's motives. 

Shepard also has no reason to believe that smashing a big glass tube full of flamable gas is actually the way the Crucible, immensely complicated as it is, was designed to be switched on. Who would design such a system? If I were in his shoes, I would suspect that this thing was trying to get rid of me as quickly as possible by tricking me into killing myself. Or into sabotaging the crucible before it can charge up, or whatever, and kill him and all his Reapers. Presumably the Catalyst's physical control over the citadel is limited, or it wouldn't have needed Sovereign to try to reactivate the relay on its behalf. It might also have vented all the Citadel's oxygen into space and decapitated the galactic government in the early stages of the war, but for some reason couldn't or wouldn't. Perhaps, (my Shepard would think), trickery is the only means it has left to defend itself?

As I said before, the fact that the Catalyst was being sincere doesn't improve the situation for me. Shepard wins more by good luck than good judgement. We only win because the Catalyst has (temporarily) lost interest in fighting. I find that a very unsatisfying form of victory.

Modifié par Eryri, 02 juin 2013 - 07:03 .

[Applepie_Svk]

ioannisdenton wrote...

[*]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
Been a while since i visited this forum and wanted to share my final thoughts about Me3.

ME1 set an universe and build it from scratch, so no ME1 had a greater addition to Mass Effect universe. ME3 ignored some of the previous estabilished actions, others were retconed and a plot of Catalyst, Crucible, Protheans and Reapers is in total mess. So, yes Mass Effect 3 deserved what it gets... You know that song - you can ́t always get what you want ... and it ends in this way for Casey and Walters, god I hope that they will never get full power over some project.

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 02 juin 2013 - 07:22 .

[AlanC9]

Eryri wrote...

Shepard also has no reason to believe that smashing a big glass tube full of flamable gas is actually the way the Crucible, immensely complicated as it is, was designed to be switched on. Who would design such a system? If I were in his shoes, I would suspect that this thing was trying to get rid of me as quickly as possible by tricking me into killing myself. Or into sabotaging the crucible before it can charge up, or whatever, and kill him and all his Reapers. Presumably the Catalyst's physical control over the citadel is limited, or it wouldn't have needed Sovereign to try to reactivate the relay on its behalf. It might also have vented all the Citadel's oxygen into space and decapitated the galactic government in the early stages of the war, but for some reason couldn't or wouldn't. Perhaps, (my Shepard would think), trickery is the only means it has left to defend itself?

Of course, your Shepard could just sit there and watch the Crucible do nothing for a while. You figure there's any point where he'd figure out that nothing was going to happen, or would the Crucible always be blown up first?

[txgoldrush]

Redbelle wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Yeah but the ending is everything, I pick and choose, but I pick and choose whats is with out a doubt the most important part. The ending is not only the most important part of me3 but the entire series

You can't defend something by pointing at something else and say "they did it too".

And the ending fit the series, especially thematically.

You didn't like how It ended....tough.

There is a tad bit of hipocrasy, you avoid large parts of my argument thoughout you smigit 2 line posts. Then you become supremely arrogant about it. It is fustrating.

No I didn't..."you didn't get it" accounts for your entire argument of the ending.

And if you can't take some handwaving, don't be a sci fi fan.

An energy bursts through the relay system is plausible. Nevermind that lore stated that the Citadel is not only a relay coordinator, but a dark energy amplifier. The only thing that needs a big handwave is synthesis and it is one done well.

Ok...... if that is all true..... why was this information not brought out in the narrative instead of being tucked away in the Codex?

For that matter. if this information is in the codex, why was there no one who could talk about what the Crucible could do? Instead of repeatedly saying, we don't know what it does but we'll pin all our hopes on it anyway...... when before Liara was adament that it was a weapon of some kind. And Hackett said it was capable of releasing large amounts of energy?

It sounds as if you are a sci-fi fan of the Dune mentaity, where you don't have to know how things are plusible. You just give a mutant some spice and they catapult you, in a liner, across the universe.

As opposed to Star Trek, where a clone, showing signs of having the same memories as the original, can be explained away through saying "We may have just proven the theory that human memory is somehow tied to our genetics".

Or explaining how Shuttles can tow a ship (despite having never done so in any ST series), with the line. "Shuttles don't create that kind of thrust. We need to modify the engines to to move the mass the ship without blowing the shuttles".

It's all about carrying the viewer, or in this case player, with the narrative. Not leaving them behind. Sure you can skip an explanation under the right circumstances and not have it impact the narrative to heavily. But to do it time and time again in succession points to a script that a professional writer never allowed to mature in wood, or was submitted for peer review to gain perspective on their writing.

As for the endings being thematically correct. It's still a giggle to have the Catalyst say that you can control the Reapers, after spending a game arguing the opposite with TIM where minutes before you had convinced him to shoot himself in the head.

Shepard, in ME3, is heavily integrated with the Alliance Navy. At no point does Shepard argue with his collegaues that maybe we could control the Reapers. Or synthesise Synth and Org life. The message throughout the game is destroy the Reapers and Control is a concept that Shepard is dynamically opposed to on account of his position and the writing. The only pause for thought comes when the Cat says you have to kill EDI, at minimum.

Uh oh....you missed something.

There is a moment in the game where if you do Ontarom after Horizon, you can get one final status update with Hackett. It is here where you can ask Hackett "What if TIM is right?"

Nevermind EDI...also took the "control" option on Eva...and TIM notices this and points it out to you.

You also completely missed the thematic difference of TIM controlling the Reapers, and Shepard controlling them. TIM seeked the power of the Reapers and would sacrifice anyone to achieve that goal, and humanity with it...while Shepard has it thrust upon him (he never seeks it), but would have to give up "everything he has", meaning he has to sacrifice himself to control the Reapers.

[GimmeDaGun]

Redbelle wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...



I think Dune is one of the coolest things that ever happened to sci-fi. 


You seem to be more of a fan of the techy-based nerdish "hard" sci-fi and less of a fan of the more philosophical, symoblist, and moralising "soft" sci-fi. I personally prefer the latter, not so much the former. To me it's not the explanaiton and the nerdy-techy side of things what is important (frankly I don't give a crap about the technical details and explainations), but what it wants to tell me, what it's message is. Well, ME is a mixture of both types of sci-fi families and I prefer the "softish" things in it, maybe that's why I like the ending too. It's not something really serious or philosophical, but it is definitely not about the "how it happens" but about the "what happens, and what questionst that may raise". It plays around with classic sci-fi cliches and aims to encourage you to speculate and play around with thoughts. To me it's a good thing. I prefer this over a very simple but technically well explained, straight-forward bang-bang->win, kiss type of ending. Maybe that's why I could never enjoy Star Trek at all. 

Which Dune? The one with Patrick Stuart, the series or the book?

And it's not  about the nerdish techy aspect. Its the settings and the way sci fi enables larger story telling capacity.

It's also the art of writing I enjoy experiencing.

Take Tchunka. You might think that I like it because of Mordin being all techy and geeky trying to cure Eve. It's not about the tech though. It's about Mordin. With his history of causing the Genophage it's odd to see him trying to cure it. But he does so, rationalising all the way. But dig deeper and you see that Mordin has developed a bond between himself and Eve. Mordin stands up to Wrex forcing Wrex to re-evaluate Mordin as 'not just another Salarian'. Mordin's sacrifice, (or not as the case may be), is indicative of a strong compulsion to cure the Genophage even if he has to die to do it. And while he's doing all this he's talking about inner body processes whle ticking off possibilties of organs, hormone production and the like as if he was fired up on coffee.

The science does not define Mordin. The science grounds Mordin. He convinces the player that he does know what he is talking about. Which is good because Mordin is meant to be a doctor.

The problem comes when writers fall back on ALL techno babble.

Star Trek Voyager was probably the worst offender in relative recent memory. That example of how to explain a clone with the memories of the original......... What you did not know was that the original was dying and needed an organ transplant. Of which the clone was created with an increased aging process. But therein lay human drama, because the clone who essentially was the original, didn't want to die until he recognised that his aging process meant he would never live a real life, and that his sister needed the original to save her. That is human drama in the world of sci-fi that deals with the contemporary issues of human cloning while allowing the character to grow in the eye's of the viewer, even though strictly speaking, the character was flat on his back in a med bay and his 'copy' was acting in the originals stead.

That was a clever concept well handled and portreyed. That was grounded in science. And had philosophy, moral rationalisation in the face of circumstance. All those things you say you like.

Well I like them too, but I like my sci-fi to be grounded in it's own universe while obeying it's own rule set.

The end of ME3 broke the boundaries of it's established rule set at the 11th hour in a way that was impossible to overlook. It had moralising and that. But it was not grounded. It was intellecturalism and conception of possibilities that defied established boundaries.

Frankly, the Catayst's 10 minute conversation held enough material to provide the driving narrative of ME4.

Frank Herbert's Dune of course.

[txgoldrush]

Eryri wrote...

At the risk of raising the temperature of this debate even further...

The ending did not fit thematically for me at all. Mass Effect has many themes, and "Victory through sacrifice" was never the most obvious or compelling one for me. Far more important, and obvious within the narrative, were themes of kindling trust between different groups, working together to accomplish more together than could be done apart. Self-determination was also an important theme for me, and the terrible consequences of trying to attain control of others.

Those themes were undermined by all three of the ending choices. Control seems like a vain attempt to impose Shepard's will on the galaxy. This is despite him spending most of the game telling TIM that he not only cannot control the Reapers, he shouldn't even if he could.

Synthesis is an attempt to attain a utopia by minimising diversity and forcing everyone into a happy-clappy hegemony. And destroy betrays Edi and the Geth's trust in Shepard, and treats them like disposable tools instead of people.

Also, synthesis is not the only facet of the ending that strains credulity. Destroy and control also require a liberal sprinkling of handwavium to be believable. Destroy, for example, is apparently able to differentiate between sentient, and non-sentient machinery. Perhaps the Crucible has a built in soul detector? The improbability of the Normandy pick-up, and Shepard's survival after being engulfed in red flame don't help matters either. Nor does the fact that relay explosions apparently don't roast every world around them after all, at least not any more. Or the sudden amnesia that afflicts the Reapers when they forget that their possession of the Crucible would allow them to shut down the relays and strand the Crucible far away from the Citadel.

However, even more problematic than dodgy space magic, are the unbelievable developments in Shepard's character. In order to successfully defeat the Reapers, Shepard has to accept, and act, on the instructions of a creature that admits to being their Commander in Chief. He has to activate the crucible in one of three ludicrous and lethal ways that seem to be part of some sort of dark joke. Why would he believe that the Catalyst is not trying to trick him into killing himself, sabotaging the crucible, or both?

The fact that the Catalyst was actually telling the truth doesn't make it any better. In fact it makes it worse. Both protagonist and antagonist are equally stupid. I almost think Shepard doesn't even deserve to succeed. Not just because of the morally dubious consequences of each choice, but because of how incredibly, naively, stupidly credulous he would have to be to pick one of them.

Wow, you really didn't get it.

What theme does all three major endings end on? Sacrifice. Sacrifice is definitely the key theme to ME3, more than any other theme. It is the keystone theme, the main theme....nothing else.

And if you don't like Control and Synthesis...than don't pick them. In an above post I have already explained how Shepard controlling the Reapers is far different from TIM.

And most of this board really does not get the Catalyst's character and his fatal character flaw. Its actually a subtle one, but one that is telling. The Catalyst simply does not truly understand organic life.

[dreamgazer]

txgoldrush wrote...

And most of this board really does not get the Catalyst's character and his fatal character flaw. Its actually a subtle one, but one that is telling. The Catalyst simply does not truly understand organic life.

Subtle?!

[txgoldrush]

dreamgazer wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

And most of this board really does not get the Catalyst's character and his fatal character flaw. Its actually a subtle one, but one that is telling. The Catalyst simply does not truly understand organic life.

Subtle?!

Notice how he argues around any ethical concerns you have. At one point Shepard says "that's beside the point".

He only sees organic life as a concept, he does not truly understand why its important.

[MSandt]

Eryri wrote...

MSandt wrote...

Well that's what was so great about the ending, that it forced you to come to grips with the reality of the situation. There'd be no cheap solutions that made everything right, only bittersweet, but tough all the same, choices.

I'm afraid I don't see it the same way. For me, the Crucible and the 3 choices are cheap solutions. Quasi-magical nonsense that solves the problem at the last minute in a deeply unsatisfying way. And I wouldn't describe synthesis as bittersweet so much as saccharine. Real life conflicts aren't solved by miraculously and instantaneously merging two groups together. Homophobia will not be addressed by making everybody bi-sexual. Religious intolerance will not be solved by making everyone unitarian. It's complete fantasy. It's totally inapplicable to real life and deeply unsatisfying to me as any sort of allegory.

And yet there are millions who think that the solution to every problem is to make everyone behave and act the same, to create a new man, be that a collectively-minded Soviet citizen, a race-conscious national socialist or a pious Muslim, Christian or whatever. Forced harmony and equalization is behind nearly all fascist ideals.

You don't have to accept it. Synthesis was, to me, the least appealing choice. But the fact that it's there makes sense. Maybe the Catalyst had been trying to come up with a compromise solution? You don't have to agree with the Catalyst's logic. As I said, deities are rarely reasonable or wise. They're petty patriarchs who should be destroyed. Of course, Shepard is out of her league to do anything about it at that point.

The other choices make sense as well. The Catalyst created the cycle so he'd obviously have the ability to control it as well. The destruction choice is there probably as a fail safe: you don't create an existential threat unless you're certain you can pull the plug on them in case something goes wrong.

Why would Shepard assume that the Catalyst had actually brought him to the right place in which to activate the Crucible? We assume it is because we're playing a video game, and so we expect to be brought to the right place to do whatever it is the game designers want us to do. But why would Shepard, as a character in that position, think that? For all he knows, the Catalyst has just kidnapped him and imprisoned him in a place where he's less likely to harm it. With Shepard being a soldier I would imagine he would be rather more suspicious of the Catalyst's motives.

It's the most logical conclusion, that the Catalyst took her to the right place to make the choice. After all, the Catalyst could have easily killed her much earlier instead of dragging her all the way to the decision chamber. That's the conclusion I drew and that's obviously the conclusion my Shepard drew as well. My Shepard also knows that it'd be of no use to start questioning the Catalyst at that point. And that's the beauty of it: no fleet is gonna show up at the last second to destroy the Catalyst, destroy its system, save Shepard and land on Earth for the celebrations. The writers managed to avoid such an easy, expected and cliché solution.

Shepard also has no reason to believe that smashing a big glass tube full of flamable gas is actually the way the Crucible, immensely complicated as it is, was designed to be switched on. Who would design such a system?

The Catalyst never expected any species to get that far. (Note that the Crucible had been readied before Shepard ignited the gas anyway.) That's the reason the Catalyst was willing to consider the possibility that he might have been wrong.

Presumably the Catalyst's physical control over the citadel is limited, or it wouldn't have needed Sovereign to try to reactivate the relay on its behalf. It might also have vented all the Citadel's oxygen into space and decapitated the galactic government in the early stages of the war, but for some reason couldn't or wouldn't. Perhaps, (my Shepard would think), trickery is the only means it has left to defend itself?

This is not terribly important but I think the Catalyst merely oversees the cycle instead of micromanaging it, for example, by trying to get rid of the council.

As I said before, the fact that the Catalyst was being sincere doesn't improve the situation for me. Shepard wins more by good luck than good judgement. We only win because the Catalyst has (temporarily) lost interest in fighting. I find that a very unsatisfying form of victory.

And yet you wouldn't even be there, not even close, without all the fighting and exercise of good judgement.

[The Heretic of Time]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

The most story, sure, but also the worst story with the most inconsistencies and just blatantly aweful writing that more often than once contradicts previously established lore. This is why ME3 recieves so much negative feedback and this is why ME3 in my opinion sucks.

                                                                                                                                                                                                         
Are you serious? And what about ME2's non-existent and ridiculously lame plot (it's all about seperate short stories and exploration in the galaxy)?

That too sucked.

Also what makes ME1's plot so special? Let's just check it out again: You as a special agent of the peaceful galactic community has to chase down the evil one who endangers humanity and the galaxy and who happened to recruit some dangerous robot-race. While you do that you figure out that this evil one is the agent of some ancient world consuming evil which had destroyed the civilization on which's legacy your galactic civilization evolved. Big surprise this ancient, mysterious evil is  coming for the galaxy again and some day you may be the one who can stop it. In the end, you catch the baddy and win. Story continues. Aha, like I haven't seen this anywhere before. Even my 2-year-old son can write something more creative and original than that, and I don't even have a 2-year-old son.

What is so bad about ME1's one story? It's a classic space-opera story that borrows elements of some of the best and most-loved sci-fi series from the 80's and 90's.

It's nothing new or original, but that doesn't make it bad. Especially for a video-game story it's quite good.

Lets face it. It's not the bones of the story which made ME interesting, but the spicing: the setting, the lore, the atmosphere, the different races and their cultures, their history and the characters. 

Which is true, but that doesn't mean they can just write a complete shite plot, sparkle it with some "spicing" over and then think they can get away with it.

No matter how good your spicing is, shit will always taste like shit.

ME1's plot was nothing new, but at least it was coherent and not complete shit.

[Redbelle]

txgoldrush wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Yeah but the ending is everything, I pick and choose, but I pick and choose whats is with out a doubt the most important part. The ending is not only the most important part of me3 but the entire series

You can't defend something by pointing at something else and say "they did it too".

And the ending fit the series, especially thematically.

You didn't like how It ended....tough.

There is a tad bit of hipocrasy, you avoid large parts of my argument thoughout you smigit 2 line posts. Then you become supremely arrogant about it. It is fustrating.

No I didn't..."you didn't get it" accounts for your entire argument of the ending.

And if you can't take some handwaving, don't be a sci fi fan.

An energy bursts through the relay system is plausible. Nevermind that lore stated that the Citadel is not only a relay coordinator, but a dark energy amplifier. The only thing that needs a big handwave is synthesis and it is one done well.

Ok...... if that is all true..... why was this information not brought out in the narrative instead of being tucked away in the Codex?

For that matter. if this information is in the codex, why was there no one who could talk about what the Crucible could do? Instead of repeatedly saying, we don't know what it does but we'll pin all our hopes on it anyway...... when before Liara was adament that it was a weapon of some kind. And Hackett said it was capable of releasing large amounts of energy?

It sounds as if you are a sci-fi fan of the Dune mentaity, where you don't have to know how things are plusible. You just give a mutant some spice and they catapult you, in a liner, across the universe.

As opposed to Star Trek, where a clone, showing signs of having the same memories as the original, can be explained away through saying "We may have just proven the theory that human memory is somehow tied to our genetics".

Or explaining how Shuttles can tow a ship (despite having never done so in any ST series), with the line. "Shuttles don't create that kind of thrust. We need to modify the engines to to move the mass the ship without blowing the shuttles".

It's all about carrying the viewer, or in this case player, with the narrative. Not leaving them behind. Sure you can skip an explanation under the right circumstances and not have it impact the narrative to heavily. But to do it time and time again in succession points to a script that a professional writer never allowed to mature in wood, or was submitted for peer review to gain perspective on their writing.

As for the endings being thematically correct. It's still a giggle to have the Catalyst say that you can control the Reapers, after spending a game arguing the opposite with TIM where minutes before you had convinced him to shoot himself in the head.

Shepard, in ME3, is heavily integrated with the Alliance Navy. At no point does Shepard argue with his collegaues that maybe we could control the Reapers. Or synthesise Synth and Org life. The message throughout the game is destroy the Reapers and Control is a concept that Shepard is dynamically opposed to on account of his position and the writing. The only pause for thought comes when the Cat says you have to kill EDI, at minimum.

Uh oh....you missed something.

There is a moment in the game where if you do Ontarom after Horizon, you can get one final status update with Hackett. It is here where you can ask Hackett "What if TIM is right?"

Nevermind EDI...also took the "control" option on Eva...and TIM notices this and points it out to you.

You also completely missed the thematic difference of TIM controlling the Reapers, and Shepard controlling them. TIM seeked the power of the Reapers and would sacrifice anyone to achieve that goal, and humanity with it...while Shepard has it thrust upon him (he never seeks it), but would have to give up "everything he has", meaning he has to sacrifice himself to control the Reapers.

How many points were made in favour of destroy where Shep acknowledged it was a good idea?

How many point where control was acknowledged as a good idea?

The thematic point of control is overshadowed by the theme of destroying the Reapers or die trying. That was the theme, begun at the start and carried through.

TIM is consistently being told he's crazy for thinking he could control the Reapers. And as for EDI. Her situation is indeed a much needed mirror for Shepard to stop and consider the implication's of control. But it's steamrolled over in favour of the pacing of the B plot.

For control to become a thematic concept that can be scrutinised, the idea needed to be discussed with a character who is not in direct opposition to Shepard. And who is smart or has a unique perspective on how it could be accomplished. This however, could not be done in a game that has spent two previous games drilling home the point that Reapers cannot be controlled. And spends the majority of it's dialogue, refusing to allow Shepard, and by that I mean the player, to acknowledge control as a potential option before the Cat shows up.

The Cat's introduction and 10 minute spiel only works if you disregard everything you know of the Reapers from all 3 games and take the Cat at face value. This is not a case of missing context. It's a case of poor narrative pacing mixed with a failure to wind the theme's of the ending into the plot in a way that Shepard can appreciate them and interrogate them. RBG was dropped on us the first time people did their first run through. A year on people have warmed to the concepts, it would appear, but that does nothing for the fact that ending's have taken a year to appreaciate. They should have been developed to be understood on playthrough 1. Having to rely on BSN and forums to develop an understanding of a game ending after the game has ended is a failure of writing to convey an idea. That's the problem. And it's the problem I'd like to see BW resolve to address before someone think's making the Catalyst a squadmate is a good idea........... just because someone wrote it down on a to do list.

TIM is a bad advocate for control because he aligns himself against Shepard. He makes himself the enemy and uses Cerberus against Shepard. For all his insight, he is effectively an enemy. And like many have said about the Cat, why take advice from the enemy when you are opposed to the enemies end goals?

That said. I think if TIM had met the Cat, along with Shepard and Anderson, and discovered he really cannot control the Reapers. Then suddenly he has to argue for Shep to make the choice he is unable too. In doing so his pro human stance and views would conflict with Anderson's and the Cat's. Thereby allowing Shepard the great debate needed to decide which option would best serve the galaxy.

Modifié par Redbelle, 02 juin 2013 - 09:33 .

[Redbelle]

txgoldrush wrote...

And most of this board really does not get the Catalyst's character and his fatal character flaw. Its actually a subtle one, but one that is telling. The Catalyst simply does not truly understand organic life.

On that score, I totally agree.

Also, when an opposing view that could give the Cat the perspective he needs is aired...... listen to him pronouce the word. "No"! The weight the Voice Actor(s) throws behind it. It doesn't want to understand.

Unlike EDI, the Cat does not want to learn.

[Fixers0]

I've said it before, the game is very mediocre and Bioware's very smart a this point not to brag too much and accept the fact that the've produced a product of mixed quality.

[dreamgazer]

Fixers0 wrote...

I've said it before, the game is very mediocre and Bioware's very smart a this point not to brag too much and accept the fact that the've produced a product of mixed quality.

What else are they going to say at this point? They're done with the DLC cycle, the game has already sold as many units as the first game, they won plenty of awards, and Montreal is working on the next game while Edmonton develops a new IP. 

I doubt their silence is any kind of "acceptance" over the mixed quality.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 02 juin 2013 - 10:15 .

[AlanC9]

Redbelle wrote...

The Cat's introduction and 10 minute spiel only works if you disregard everything you know of the Reapers from all 3 games and take the Cat at face value.

Huh? We hardly knew a thing about the Reapers. Vigil and Vendetta had some speculation, but that's it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 juin 2013 - 10:59 .

[Redbelle]

All I know is that Citadel injected a much needed sense of enjoyment into the precedings.... not only for it's story. But because it gave you area's where you could kick back and have fun. The EMS score system may have been a bit meh. But the score board in the combat arena where you chase after the gold is exactly what a score system is meant to do. Push you to achieve higher results than before to stay competitive.

I mentioned month's back, about games within games. FFX's Blitzball. Or the one that really got people talking, FF8 or 9's cardgame. People piped up about how they spent hours playing those rather than playing the main campaign.

ME always had a game and or puzzle element to it that ME3 removed. It's nice to have it back. Gives the game more playing power by virtue that it gives the player something else to do if the main starts to drag and you need a dose of something else.

Modifié par Redbelle, 02 juin 2013 - 10:46 .

[batman8133]

 I agree with you, Mass Effect 3 was just as good as the other games in the series.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

txgoldrush wrote...

And most of this board really does not get the Catalyst's character and his fatal character flaw. Its actually a subtle one, but one that is telling. The Catalyst simply does not truly understand organic life.

I don't think thats true

Modifié par DinoSteve, 03 juin 2013 - 02:22 .

[ContinentTurtle]

DinoSteve wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

And most of this board really does not get the Catalyst's character and his fatal character flaw. Its actually a subtle one, but one that is telling. The Catalyst simply does not truly understand organic life.

I don't think thats true

If it understood organic life, why doesn't it give us a chance to prove ourselves. Sure, other galactic civilizations began to destroy themselves,  but the Catalyst gave nobody else a chance for what might be a billion years. A BILLION YEARS. 

[Argentoid]

txgoldrush wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

It's a decent Mass Effect game with subpar writing in many areas.

And ME1 and ME2 also had subpar writing in many areas....

stop ignoring ME1 and ME2's faults to bash ME3.

The entire ME2 main plot was subpar.....even critics who gave that game high ratings mention this.

Not to mention Drew Karpyshyn is overrated.