606 réponses à ce sujet

[DeathScepter]

iakus wrote...

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.

Between Poor Story Telling and Indoctrination Theory, I prefer Indoctrination Theory due to I rather believe in the fantasy of Bioware has excellent story telling and They actually pull it off.


No I am not indoctrinated anymore....I think.       I don't hear any voices nor having dreams of oily shadows. 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Cthulhu, what I don't understand is how we seem to be in agreement here, but in disagreement on the DA3 forum. What gives? I just have to ask: did you let Loghain live? I did. I just want to pick the side that kills the most Orlesians in DA3.

Of course I spared Loghain; he's awesome.

What do we disagree about regarding DA? Are you strongly anti-qunari or anti-Morrigan or something?

Anti-qunari. It's the way they treat women. It's the same problem I had with Caesar's Legion in Fallout NV. But my characters romanced Zevran and were BFF with Morrigan (played a male blood mage once who romanced her and left with her in Witchhunt). I hated Leiliana.

[mass perfection]

Soooooooooooo Control is the best ending?

[Nole]

mass perfection wrote...

Soooooooooooo Control is the best ending?

For a narcissist Shepard like mine? 

Yes.

[CronoDragoon]

txgoldrush wrote...

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

The issue is not the existence of sacrifice but the nature of it. Had Shepard died firing the Crucible in Destroy and the EDI and geth were fine I'd have no real problem with the endings. They'd still be merely good and not great, but when people speak of narrative cohesion what jumps out at me is the thematic dissonance going on in Destroy if you made peace on Rannoch.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 10 juin 2013 - 07:43 .

[Jukaga]

NeonFlux117 wrote...




I like your list of top 5 games. Those are amazing. Glad someone else enjoys Spec ops the Line as much as me. 

Criminally underated game.

Sorry op, off topic. 

Just started playing Spec-ops on the weekend, very good so far even if the gameplay is a little stifled. I do like how the decision making is fully organic to the gameplay and that it can be easy to miss some possiblities. Could be a lesson here for the next ME game.

[wright1978]

iakus wrote...

@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.

QFT

[KaiserShep]

mass perfection wrote...

Soooooooooooo Control is the best ending?

Newp. 

[CronoDragoon]

tickle267 wrote...


i suppose if the shepalyst remains sane but is posessive over reaper tech so that no other power can rival it, then yes... unless you want freedom: *snip*

I don't need the Shepalyst for that to be familiar.

[txgoldrush]

TMZuk wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Because they fail to even pinpoint the central conflict, especially with the Catalyst.

The ending is NOT about organics and synthetics, its about sacrifice.

Why?

Because that's what the central conflict revolves around. In fact, organics and synthetics theme only matters in the synthesis ending. The central conflict is one of METHOD not MOTIVE. In fact, Shepard really doesn't argue to the motives, he argues against his methods. 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).

This is the protagonist and antagonist conflict.......the protagonist is willing to sacrifice himself or herself to preserve the galaxy and the ones they love, and call for others to sacrifice not without thought or feeling. The antagonists, both TIM and the Catalyst, ruthlessly sacrifice lives to pursue their goals and motives, with no thought whatsoever. THIS IS THE CONFLICT. 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 the central conflict not only of the ending, not only of Mass Effect 3, but the entire trilogy. But nope, BSNers don't recognize the obvious, harping on the Catalyst's motives while completely ignoring Shepards arguments in the end. Nevermind the Catalyst's creation strikes at the heart another theme, people are willing to create or harness things that they do not understand to pursue their goals and solutions to problems, backfiring due to lack of understanding.

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

So when anti enders say that the themes of the ending come out of nowhere, they really do not get it.

Sorry.... but.... NO!

The Starbrat is a Deux Ex Machina, and it forces Shepard into a role that is totally counter to how he/she has been throughout the game. I have NEVER perceived Shepard as someone willing to lie down and die for the greater good. I have never played any of my Shepards like that, and I resent the very idea. Shepard is a resourceful pragmatic soldier. Not the second coming of Christ.

The martyr-dom forced upon my character is the most sickening part of the ending. Shepard becomes a contrived and embarrasing Space Messiah! I am an atheist to boot, and this quasi-religious BS is causing the bile to rise in my throat!

On another edition of "You don't get it"

If the starbrat is such a deus ex machina, why doesn't he solve the problem himself?

[txgoldrush]

Tonymac wrote...

This is another pathetic attempt by a developer cronie to put the blame on the player for the failure of the game. We as players tell the devs/Bioware that the ending sucks balls. They point at us and yell that we are too dumb to get it - try to shame us into backing down or being quiet.

We get the ending. Its just so dumb and breathtakingly stupid and poorly written tht there is NO excuse for it.

Many forumites are trying hard to comprehend the ending - as if an answer will help them deal with the utter garbage that is the end. A prime example of this would be the the indoctrination theory. It was a good effort on their part - and happened to be a more interesting story than the devs tried to paint.

Try as hard as you might, a spaceterd is still a spaceterd. You can't make it any better. You can call it high minded, "only the intellectually elite get it" and all of that other jazz - even blame Bush for it. Its still just a spaceterd.

No, you actually don't....this is why anti enders grasp for bizarre theories and try and see the Catalyst as something he is not (like he is a puppetmaster trickster) instead of taking the most straightforward approach and actually listening to what the game is saying. And this is for the Extended Cut, the original ending is underdeveloped.

The problem is that the audience, or anti-enders simply just doesn't listen...either through not getting it or refusing to get it. Its all there in the Extended Cut and enhanced further with Leviathan, but the audience simply doesn't want to piece it together just because they don't like how it ends, so they simply ignore the story.

Many forumites try hard to understand the ending because they don't get it.

And really, the ending is pretty straightforward, no bizarre theories needed.

[txgoldrush]

CronoDragoon wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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

The issue is not the existence of sacrifice but the nature of it. Had Shepard died firing the Crucible in Destroy and the EDI and geth were fine I'd have no real problem with the endings. They'd still be merely good and not great, but when people speak of narrative cohesion what jumps out at me is the thematic dissonance going on in Destroy if you made peace on Rannoch.

There is no thematic dissonance, you can't save everyone, the game tells you this.

Although Shepard having to sacrifice geth and EDI to destroy the Reapers could be written better. There is actually an even better reason that they would be destroyed and Bioware should have used that....they have Reaper code.

But other than that...its thematically similar to Arrival. Its the "ruthless calculus of war". You cannot save everyone.

[txgoldrush]

Slayer299 wrote...

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....

and anti enders are not arrogant and spout drivel?

Please...they are kings of drivel.....too ignorant to see why the game ended the way it did.

And if they can't even grasp the conflict in the ending, they are clueless and don't get it.

And just because you don't like it doesn't mean its flawed.

[Bill Casey]

txgoldrush wrote...

No, you actually don't....this is why anti enders grasp for bizarre theories and try and see the Catalyst as something he is not (like he is a puppetmaster trickster) instead of taking the most straightforward approach and actually listening to what the game is saying.

What he's saying is racist as hell...

[Bill Casey]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

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! 

It wasn't too much for me, because I didn't know IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A VICTORY...

[Bill Casey]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...
What he's saying is racist as hell...

Um no. No it isn't.

YES IT IS
GOD DAMN IT

Modifié par Bill Casey, 10 juin 2013 - 11:24 .

[BuzzShepardN7]

You can stick any theme on the ending but it is still bad as writing and entertainment. Understanding and liking are different things. The ending failed to be fun or entertain as a video game in my opinion. Therefore it was a bad ending. I am pretty sure Bioware would have much rather had people enjoy the ending and then worry about the theme in hindsight. They simply tried too hard to do exactly what everyone is discussing- find a unifying theme, put it all together and kill Shepard in a unique way etc. etc. instead of just letting people play a game and blow stuff up with your powers.

[CronoDragoon]

txgoldrush wrote...

There is no thematic dissonance, you can't save everyone, the game tells you this.

I'm not talking about the existence of sacrifice. I'm talking about Destroy being the ending that most fervently rejects the Catalyst's assertions about the nature of the universe while simultaneously undermining and/or destroying the player's prime example of why the Catalyst isn't needed.

What I am saying is that Destroy picked precisely the wrong sacrifice and the wrong way to sacrifice. To illustrate this, let me ask you: what is the deeper meaning to sacrificing the geth and EDI specifically in Destroy, besides needing a sacrifice in the Destroy ending, a requirement that could have been fulfilled in many ways? Unless of course you are RPing an AI-hater.

[Bill Casey]

Synthetics will kill you all, rawrghgh...
We can't get along...

It's hateful fear mongering used to justify horrible war crimes...
It's The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion in goddamn game form...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 10 juin 2013 - 11:38 .

[KiwiQuiche]

Bill Casey wrote...

Synthetics will kill you all, rawrghgh...
We can't get along...

It's hateful fear mongering used to justify horrible war crimes...
It's The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion in goddamn game form...

Gorramit Bill Murray Casey!