606 réponses à ce sujet

[KiwiQuiche]

Seboist wrote...

Need I remind everyone that the OP once claimed that Kai Leng was SUPPOSED to be a joke(lol).

Oh god, you're making me have flashbacks.

[AlexMBrennan]

OK, OP, you are completely right about the themes of the ending.

Too bad it still sucks - if the head villain arbitrarily lets Shepard win then there is no sense of achievement.

[N7recruit]

Yeah I know sacrifice was a huge part of the ending & the war as it should be but it was ham fisted in its execution.

I didn't appreciate that they made up some high minded bull**** which you needed to be familiar with from other stories to properly comprehend & apply context to in order to understand what they were going for.

The situation did not feel "Real" for Mass Effect. I'd rather have more grounded choices that still ask me difficult questions than this half assed **** that are there to make ME more "Higher Level."

+ They were tipy toeing around our squad when it came to sacrifice. They should have gone through hell @ the end with Shepard & they would have without batting an eyelash.

How prepared you were & the choices you made should have depicted what you would have to give up (more than some lines of dialogue or a pretty picture on a bare bones Epilogue)

A more somewhat personal happy ending for Shepard should have been attainable for completionists if they want it. But afterwards every one honours those who died & finally one last get together with everyone before parting ways as the galaxy is rebuilt.

Basically if the conflict was more grounded (remove God Kid) and put the player more believable situations in a proper final mission with a MASSIVE epilogue (Even with the extended cut it's tiny), I think we would be all right, or at least there would be one less fault to ME3

[iOnlySignIn]

txgoldrush wrote...

This is why you can't go...."well, Starchild, geth and quarian peace can prove you wrong" because that simply is not the conflict Shepard has with him, the conflict is his cycle.
...

Also, the TIM conflict is not about destroying the Reapers or controlling them (although it can be with a Paragon) its about once again, not only his methods, but that they are counterproductive (as well as he is indoctrinated).
...

And the entire Catalyst conversation shows the Catalyst's character flaw, he simply doesn't truly understand organics and their are hints of this throughout the conversation, especially if Shepard dissents some of the choices.
...

This is why Shepard had to sacrifice to fire the Crucible, the themes define him as such.

^ These are my favorite bits of the OP.

Thanks for making my day. 5/5 would read again.

Modifié par iOnlySignIn, 10 juin 2013 - 12:44 .

[TheRealJayDee]

txgoldrush wrote...

sacrifice

What sacrifice? My power hungry, racist Shepard would only be rewarded in the end. He could choose to

1) destroy the Reapers at no cost (synthetics are things) and probably even return to help mankind secure it's rightful place at the top of the galactic food chain

2) essentialy ascend to godhood and reign supreme for all days to come, shaping the galaxy after his own will

3) infuse every being in existence with his own superior essence, becoming the prime father of a new state of being in the whole galaxy

Where's the sacrifice?

Sure, my nice Paragon Shep has to sacrifice either his allies and a close friend, the galaxy's chance for a completely self-determined future or the very existence of potentially problematic diversity. In that context the sacrifice of his own life isn't really even of concern to him.

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 10 juin 2013 - 12:55 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

There's more than one kind of sacrifice OP. You can give of yourself for the benefit of another is one kind, but there's also the sort of sacrifice were one cuts other people's hearts out to appease an angry volcano god. ME3's ending comes off as the latter.

Not to mentionn if Shepard is completely opposed to the ideas of Synthetics you can kill the Reapers and every other AI in the galaxy while subverting the very concept of sacrifice since you basically just made off like a bandit with no downside from that perspective.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 10 juin 2013 - 01:19 .

[Iakus]

@OP

Forced sacrifice isn't.

You force a protagonist to a particular fate, that's no longer a game about choice.

You railroad an outcome regardless of playstyle, that's no longer roleplaying.

When you tell the player "comply or die anyway" there is no longer agency.

The game was about breaking cycles, not submitting to the inevitable.

Modifié par iakus, 10 juin 2013 - 01:44 .

[Slayer299]

I have to wonder if you (txgoldrush) are not somehow related to Auld Wulf with the sheer, unadulterated arrogance and drivel you both spout here on BSN.

On topic - Here is a clue OP, telling people that they are 'stupid', clueless, 'just don't get it' does not validate your point over anyone elses', it just proves you like to troll....

Modifié par Slayer299, 10 juin 2013 - 02:16 .

[AresKeith]

I now ship Txgoldrush with Seival, and David

Too bad Auld Wulf isn't here anymore (

[Zazzerka]

AresKeith wrote...

Too bad Auld Wulf isn't here anymore (

WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN

[Fixers0]

Skipped out the irrelevant parts

txgoldrush wrote...
You can accept that sacrifice is the main theme, or you can continue to be ignorant about it, refusing to accept this fact.

or you can just wake up out of your little mind induced fanatasy and start facing the reality.

txgoldrush wrote...
Once again, tell me, why does the three main endings all end in taking about sacrifice with the memorial wall scene?

Because it's a contrived, nonsensical mess of storytelling?

Modifié par Fixers0, 10 juin 2013 - 02:26 .

[AresKeith]

Zazzerka wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Too bad Auld Wulf isn't here anymore (

WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN

2 days ago, I think

He made a blog

[The Night Mammoth]

Yes, well, thank you for enlightening us all, txgoldrush. Anything else you'd like to share with us, maybe, inform us of what day it is tomorrow or what color the sky is?

[Zazzerka]

AresKeith wrote...

2 days ago, I think

He made a blog

Really? That was his swan song?

[Kel Riever]

OP: You missed the point of the ending?

Wait, I read your post. You did.

Well, at least you are honest.

[SpamBot2000]

Wow, most of Texas completely miss the point of the BSN.

[DeathScepter]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

The ending was an attempt for and I quote from Hudson- "High level storytelling". And an attempt at deus ex machina. One of the themes of the entire game is sacrifice not just the ending. Derp.

The ending isn't bad cause "we don't get it" it's bad cause it's bad storytelling and lacks narrative cohesiveness and also introduces a major character- The Catalyst, in the last 15 minutes of a 90 plus hour narrative and plot.

That's called poor writing and storytelling.

Nuff said.

I like you. Smart Poster.

[elrofrost]

Sacrifice was the whole point of the 3rd game. And the rest of the series. Especially if you didn't research the games before you played. I lost Wrex, Ashley, Jack, Jacob, & Tali (not to mention most of the Normandy) all before ME3. That's sacrifice.

So yes, of course the endings were about sacrifice. I doubt that point escaped anyone. It's how the sacrifice was accomplished that's the rub.

Now I didn't want an ending where Shepard flies off into the sunset with his LI in his arms. But I did want an ending that took my actions and choices into account. It's not Shepard's dying that bothers me, it's the lack of depth in the end game.

I loved ME3 up until the end. The game was deep, thought provoking, sad, and entraining. I had to pause the game in several places to pull myself together - Thane and Mordin sacrificing themselves; watching Legion die because of my choice; putting my LI on a shuttle during the final battle and watching him fly off (ok I almost lost it then) that's sacrifice.

And after all that in ME1, 2 AND 3 - I get that ending? Please.. even the extended cut was cheap.

My the way, I choice Control. Even in the second play-though, which was my "perfect" game I chose Control.

Modifié par elrofrost, 10 juin 2013 - 08:55 .

[Liamv2]

No sevil or auld wolf posting i am dissapoint

[Iakus]

DeathScepter wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

The ending was an attempt for and I quote from Hudson- "High level storytelling". And an attempt at deus ex machina. One of the themes of the entire game is sacrifice not just the ending. Derp.

The ending isn't bad cause "we don't get it" it's bad cause it's bad storytelling and lacks narrative cohesiveness and also introduces a major character- The Catalyst, in the last 15 minutes of a 90 plus hour narrative and plot.

That's called poor writing and storytelling.

Nuff said.

I like you. Smart Poster.

Indeed.

Bioware started showboating at the very end.  Tripped, fell flat on thier face.  Then blamed the audience for not getting it.

[string3r]

Indoctrinated presence detected.

[frostajulie]

Bill Casey wrote...

Rape, slavery and genocide are not sacrifices...
They are sick war crimes...

If sacrifice is what the narrative was about, it fails horribly in the ending...

slow clap

[teh DRUMPf!!]

MegaSovereign wrote...


Starts to make the Reapers seem like a good idea. Next stop BSN.

Refer to sig.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Bill Casey wrote...

And Arrival fails horribly for that matter...
The achievement for blowing up a Batarian system is "The Ultimate Sacrifice"...

Harbinger: "You consider this a victory, a star system sacrificed"

**** you...
If you're a Renegade who doesn't like Batarians, there is no sacrifice...
And if you're a Paragon, Arrival isn't a victory. It's a second act defeat...

If that was too much for you, it begs the question why you played ME3.

Somebody enjoys misery! 

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 10 juin 2013 - 03:46 .