329 réponses à ce sujet

[Redbelle]

OnlyMrChill wrote...

I'm a bit late on the Mass Effect trilogy but I've been playing it these past few months and I just beat the last game (ME3 extended cut) and I got an ending that I believe might just be one of the best ending I have ever experienced in a video game. It was the Destroy Ending.

 I maxed out my readiness by playing multiplayer, had all the war assets and went all out.
I:
Killed the Reapers
My Crew survived (except for edi, didn't care for her tho)
Shep survived
Life is back to normal, they just got to repair the mass relays

I also didn't care for the Geth or Tali and her species dying. I only cared about me, Miranda, ensuring humanities survival and killing those damn reapers.



So why all the hate towards the ending(s) of this game?

@OP

Ok, good. Your individual experience was good. And that's good.

Except. It's really not all good.

Becasue I'm one of those people who wanted to save everyone. Including EDI.

Shep is not alive. He's also not dead. He's a good example of Shrodinger's cat in that the breath scene, could have been his first, or last.

Tali is my LI and the geth are needed to see her species get up on it's feet faster than it otherwise would. Plus the Geth have taken on the form of synthetic life that deserves the chance to decide it;s place in the galaxy.

In short. I wanted what I wanted to be something I could acheive through hard work and a superior understanding of the game through a playthrough or two.

And it just doesn't happen. Instead I'm forced to watch as Star Brat hijacks my player agency and come to the harsh realistion that this game is about to ignore what the game is about, and did so well, back in ME2. TAking past choices and rolling them into a ball that you can use to affect the outcome of the game.

Instead I got RBG. And if I wanted to replay with a different Shepard who experienced different outcomes in the past games. Then again. It comes down to RBG. There is no sliding goal post to dictate how well you have done as in ME2 where success can be measured by who survives the suicide mission.

Likewise, there is no punch the air moment of victory seen in ME1's ending where Shepard emerges dramatically as the unbowed hero.

Instead I'm forced to endure listening to games as art argument's from developers and gamer's who all want to make something more out of playing video games, which is no bad thing I will add, as reinvention and instigating new idea's is what led to ME in the first place.

But at the very core of every gamer's and developer's experience playing and making, has to be the fundamental principle of, making a video game first. Not drop a load of cod philosophy on the player in the final ten minutes. Which can be shot down by a group of video game enthusiast's who wonder where the game play went.

BioShock Infinite is a good example of how to end a game and blow your mind. Contextually relevant fight that is both important and unique as a gameplay experience........... Then run around and talk alot.

Not, horde mode in SP with faceless no named Reapers who are the strongest in game.

Has anyone else noticed how, depsite having no actual end of game boss. Fan's have latched onto the figure that is Maruader Shields? As he is the last enemy encounter you have in the game? And yet we see those claim that they don't want end of level bosses.

Yet fans have highlighted something as an end of level boss.......

So anyway. Glad you enjoyed yourself OP. It's just a shame your experience wasn't the same as everyone elses who walked a mile in Shepards shoes.

Modifié par Redbelle, 07 août 2013 - 07:24 .

[3DandBeyond]

iakus wrote...

essarr71 wrote...



I'm reminded of leaving on the Normandy for the first time, ever.  Telling a crew full of different species about how the threat is greater than all of their problems, and being victorious.  I'm reminded of working for a pro-human group, forming alliances with every species that can carry a gun - even synthetic ones - to face a threat greaten than all of their problems, and being victorious.

And I'm reminded of ME3, where I see the MEU working together, dismissing old grudges and finally moving past old hatreds, rising up united to face the ultimate threat.. and being told it's not a lick of good.  That it's pointless.  And the only way to win is to kill my friends, strip their freedom, or correct their "deficiencies".  After they charged extra for a squadie to tell me that "being the same was a weakness." 

The series did an amazing job of setting up a fantastic message before pulling an about-face and dismissing it's worth.

There's actually a scene that highlights exactly that.

On Earth, when you're trying to get rid of the reaper guarding the beam, you actually see a human, asari, turian, and krogan teaming up, working as a unit to stop it..  And they all got curb-stomped for their trouble..  It's all hopeless until The Shepard arrives and saves the galaxy from themselves with Space Magic.

Yes, it all kind of reeks of futility since the end game is to agree with the impish reaper keeper, give up everything you ever said or thought (based on dialogue that BW wrote).  And to top it off all that "we must work together to destroy a common foe" stuff that Shepard worked for, with the implication that the galaxy would be all the better for it, ends up being Shepard making the decision, doing the heavy lifting, suiciding mostly for something that is now imposed upon the galaxy.  Cutesy cutscenes and slide shows follow where everyone is supposed to smile for the camera.

It comes down to none of that being necessary except as a way to create the big re-programming device in the sky.  It's mere presence changed the kid?  Or Shepard getting to the place to have an audience with the Wizard of Oz, er I mean Star Kid changed him or his coding or his 'tude? 

Well, I don't even think the whole crucible changed me thing makes any sense.  Fundamentally his whole idea as he says was to go for synthesis-he's been trying and failing at it.  So, how has he changed at the end?  His reapers, his solution don't work anymore, but he's still using them.  He has thought ascension/harvesting organics is the thing to do but synthesis is now possible (his preference), and he keeps on harvesting organics.  He's still serving his original problem of synthetics killing organics so even that notion has not changed, even though since he is the all-seeing eye, he should have known something else was possible.

The only thing that has changed is that choices become possible for Shepard.  Shepard got to the room of power and can now make a choice, but even in that the kid has not changed at all.  If Shepard doesn't make a choice, refuses/rejects shoots blindly and hits the virtual kid instead of the kid saying Shepard must make a choice or the kid shutting down, he reverts back to a non-working solution, the reapers.  What has changed?

To me, even though it would have been way too simple the way this is all written, if Shepard refused to make a choice everything should have just shut down.  The reapers don't work, he can't force synthesis, it could happen but only if Shepard chooses to make it happen.  But everything else the kid has done has failed to do what he thinks should happen.  It would make more sense for him to become resident in the background like I guess in ME1 as he thinks up a solution that will work instead of going with a failed idea.  I'd think he'd be working on some way to get that choice to work using another method-even how about indoctrinating someone else into coming up there and jumping into the green.

[Vinchisters]

It's a shame that OnlyMrChill, one of the last reasonable people on the BSN, is getting lynched for having a different opinion than the butth**t masses. The fixed endings are fine, deal with it. It's not like Casey Hudson himself came out of your screen at the ending and punched you in the face. What is so difficult to understand.

[CronoDragoon]

Redbelle wrote...

Shep is not alive. He's also not dead. He's a good example of Shrodinger's cat in that the breath scene, could have been his first, or last.

He's alive in my playthrough. Then again, I don't ignore obvious narrative structure. /shrug

Tali is my LI and the geth are needed to see her species get up on it's feet faster than it otherwise would. Plus the Geth have taken on the form of synthetic life that deserves the chance to decide it;s place in the galaxy.

Yep, geth dying sucked.

Instead I got RBG. And if I wanted to replay with a different Shepard who experienced different outcomes in the past games. Then again. It comes down to RBG. There is no sliding goal post to dictate how well you have done as in ME2 where success can be measured by who survives the suicide mission.

There is, actually. The problem isn't that there's no sliding scale(because there is; watch low EMS Destroy), it's that there should have been a level of competence above the current "best" ending.

Likewise, there is no punch the air moment of victory seen in ME1's ending where Shepard emerges dramatically as the unbowed hero.

Unpopular opinion alert! That scene is thoroughly stupid. "Oh something crashed in Shepard's general vicinity. He's totally dead no need to go check." I mean come on, people harp on ME3's emotion-over-logic approach but this isn't any better.

[Xamufam]

Glad you are enjoying it.

For me it didn't fit the story.
The ending suffers from to many rewrites.
It's nonsensical, it's thematically revolting, it isn't consistent, there was no logic in it
It's likely IT was true & the real ending would have been a DLC but after the rage they tried to make it work, The ending just feels like a dream. Casey also said he was going to talk about the ending when more people had played it.

Modifié par Troxa, 07 août 2013 - 08:40 .

[3DandBeyond]

Redbelle wrote...



@OP

Ok, good. Your individual experience was good. And that's good.

Except. It's really not all good.

Becasue I'm one of those people who wanted to save everyone. Including EDI.

Shep is not alive. He's also not dead. He's a good example of Shrodinger's cat in that the breath scene, could have been his first, or last.

Tali is my LI and the geth are needed to see her species get up on it's feet faster than it otherwise would. Plus the Geth have taken on the form of synthetic life that deserves the chance to decide it;s place in the galaxy.

In short. I wanted what I wanted to be something I could acheive through hard work and a superior understanding of the game through a playthrough or two.

And it just doesn't happen. Instead I'm forced to watch as Star Brat hijacks my player agency and come to the harsh realistion that this game is about to ignore what the game is about, and did so well, back in ME2. TAking past choices and rolling them into a ball that you can use to affect the outcome of the game.

Instead I got RBG. And if I wanted to replay with a different Shepard who experienced different outcomes in the past games. Then again. It comes down to RBG. There is no sliding goal post to dictate how well you have done as in ME2 where success can be measured by who survives the suicide mission.

Likewise, there is no punch the air moment of victory seen in ME1's ending where Shepard emerges dramatically as the unbowed hero.

Instead I'm forced to endure listening to games as art argument's from developers and gamer's who all want to make something more out of playing video games, which is no bad thing I will add, as reinvention and instigating new idea's is what led to ME in the first place.

But at the very core of every gamer's and developer's experience playing and making, has to be the fundamental principle of, making a video game first. Not drop a load of cod philosophy on the player in the final ten minutes. Which can be shot down by a group of video game enthusiast's who wonder where the game play went.

BioShock Infinite is a good example of how to end a game and blow your mind. Contextually relevant fight that is both important and unique as a gameplay experience........... Then run around and talk alot.

Not, horde mode in SP with faceless no named Reapers who are the strongest in game.

Has anyone else noticed how, depsite having no actual end of game boss. Fan's have latched onto the figure that is Maruader Shields? As he is the last enemy encounter you have in the game? And yet we see those claim that they don't want end of level bosses.

Yet fans have highlighted something as an end of level boss.......

So anyway. Glad you enjoyed yourself OP. It's just a shame your experience wasn't the same as everyone elses who walked a mile in Shepards shoes.

Yes exactly and very well put.  And one other thing of note.  If one did care about the quarians and many people do, and the geth, and again many do, but felt destroy was what had to happen and many do, then it portends the killing of not just the geth but the quarians as well considering how that story line ended up-the geth augmenting the quarians suits in order to help to increase their immunities.  The quarians' suits are tech and will be damaged, the geth at best will be damaged but indications are they will de destroyed. 

Those surviving quarians (if any) will be in a pickle since their ships (tech),  and the stuff they need to repair damaged suits (tech and tech) are all damaged.  Why reclaim Rannoch if the outcome is to die?  Why resolve things with the geth and learn to co-exist and even care about each other if greenness can make you one?  Why do so if some unseen (Shreaper) overseer will come along and force you to do so under their reaper minions?  Why do any of this is if this sets you the player up to care what happens and the ending just demolishes what you've done?

The several actual writers who have disseminated the path (not the content) that stories take outline the main problems with this whole thing as a story and also as a game.

There's the setup where we learn what the problem is.  The rising action, where the conflict begins.  A moment when the conflict is intense and then a resolution, a "we did it" or a "we failed" moment.  And an epilog.  The writers from the beam on actually gave the game the feeling of an epilog.  The conflict was not intense (and that being the conflict with the reapers) and had not yet been resolved.  It felt off because it was.  And there is no moment of relief or where we feel like it was all worth it.  Then you can play it again to see if you get another version and wow it's the same, always the same.

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Shep is not alive. He's also not dead. He's a good example of Shrodinger's cat in that the breath scene, could have been his first, or last.

He's alive in my playthrough. Then again, I don't ignore obvious narrative structure. /shrug
---snipped

Once again though while we know that the intent was to likely create some sort of question mark fun feel good moment, the whole thing is a total failure.  It is obvious that the torso thing was put into the original ending in order to have that "buy some DLC" screen make more sense, even if the DLC was never intended to come after the ending (but I think it quite possibly was, or part of it was).  The idea was that if there wasn't one "alive" Shepard at the end, then who would want to buy more DLC of Shepard's escapades.

Sure, she's alive in mine too but to get to that idea you have to totally abandon any idea of what we're shown as making sense and you sort of have to abandon an idea that it will make you feel like Shepard's alive.  Well to be fair maybe not you (and that's fine) but for a heck of a lot of us, me included.

I listen to what the kid says Destroy will do and have to question if Shepard would live through that.  I don't know, it seems like he's saying Shepard will die or at least be badly injured.  Ok, move on.  Shepard is forced by incredibly bad writing and/or a very weak gun and/or very bad aim when trying to shoot something the size of a VW Bug, to stand right next to the tube.  You know because that totally believable "shoot me" target won't pop up otherwise.  Shepard shoots and gets hit by a great blast which again very likely would at least do some horrific damage to all the organic parts left on Shepard.  Couple this with the "all synthetics will be targeted. Even you are part synthetic" and "all tech will be damaged" stuff and well this can't be good. 

Then we have a "headless" torso lying under some really heavy looking rubble in some unknown place taking a gasp and presumably on the way to being found by the crew of the Normandy who are how far away?  Shepard is still mostly human after all and no matter how super fast the Normandy is well it could take awhile.  But I accept this as Shepard's life gasp.  It just doesn't make sense that it is (so part of this is my hope that it is) and it doesn't feel like it is (because there's nothing to suggest it makes sense).  For it to resonate with me, it needed more.  You can't argue with feelings because they are what people do without thinking, but in this one scene it's not just the emotions that don't feel right, it's what we're shown that makes many think it's not right.

I know you know this but sometimes it bears repeating.  People say it's obvious but it isn't obvious.  In order for that to be true the heart and the mind must agree.  So that scene feels like Shepard died and it makes more sense that s/he would have. 

[CronoDragoon]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I know you know this but sometimes it bears repeating.  People say it's obvious but it isn't obvious.  In order for that to be true the heart and the mind must agree.  So that scene feels like Shepard died and it makes more sense that s/he would have. 

The moment Shepard survives a laser beam from Harbinger, you either turn the game off or accept that this dude just doesn't function like a normal human. And really, isn't that precisely the argument used to justify the idea that Shepard should be able to "do the impossible" a la the Suicide Mission? Either you accept that Shepard is special - both in body and mind - or he's just a normal guy. A small explosion at the Destroy console isn't going to kill him. He's the goddamn Batman of the ME universe; normal rules don't apply to him and never have. This isn't new.

With all that being said, I agree that it isn't emotionally cathartic to see one breath in the rubble as opposed to a full-blown "finding Shepard" scene. I just dislike the argument that he's dead (or that you don't know if he's alive) that stems from this emotional disappointment. It's a desperation argument to try and find some other reason to explain why the breath scene doesn't work when really, the simple fact is that the lack of emotional release is enough of an argument already.

[Shaigunjoe]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Ok, exactly how was I supposed to know that the catalyst thought chaos was bad in ME1 when the catalyst is non-existent in ME1.  And sorry but yes chaos is random, it's a mess.  You are speaking merely of the one form of it with chaos theory, but chaos is about a jumble of things, disorganized and by any stretch of the imagination even there is a randomness within it.  Chaos Theory is a more organized and has more order within it-the term is even defined as such within Wikipedia as differing in this way from chaos.  I did use the example of Chaos Theory because it is a non-linear thing whereas strict order is very linear.  And the kid sees things very linearly.

And yes I know the reapers came through periodically.  Just because you can assume this means they preferred order doesn't mean it makes any of this any better.  That's the point.  The reapers displayed order at its worst as punctuated by the kid at the end-and he controls them so they are then an extension of his "desires".  That doesn't lead me to conclude that it's oh so cool to decide by complying that he's right and order is the bestest most precious thing ever.  Throughout ME, if the reapers had constantly said "we must have order!  Stop this foolish nonsense of chaos" it would have been one more reason to think they were just wrong and needed to be gone.  But in the end the kid clearly defines order as good, chaos as bad and never does Shepard contest this.  In fact, making a choice that serves the idea of order being good and chaos being bad is exactly the problem I have with how chaos/order is presented at the end.

And no, the reapers weren't ok with randomness if they were after order.  In fact, they seeded the galaxy with tech just to insure that randomness had as little effect as possible.  They returned cyclically and not randomly.  They used indoctrination to control things so as to rule out randomness.  In fact it's altogether likely that one of the reasons they had problems with Shepard was because before the galaxy had been a pretty orderly place.  Even the example of the Protheans is one of a galaxy that sought order.  It's one of the reasons why I had problems with the Protheans and the reapers.  But in the end all of us unless we refuse to do so, must tacitly agree with this narrow-minded view that order is good, chaos is bad and it's not true. 

I never said the catalyst was in ME 1, I said the reapers of ME 1 liked order.  Any reasonable thinker would conclude that reapers liked order, so it should not be surprising that once you meet the catalyst that he likes order too.  Regardless of how you feel about the dialogue option, if you did not realize that chaos/order was a central reaper theme at that point you were not pay attention.

Nope, wrong about randomness, you can have ordered randomness as well, trying to define chaos as randomness just shows your ignorance.  And if reapers were truely not ok with randomness, they would have seeded life as well as tech, but they had no probably with the random evolution of life.  Interestingly, they were okay with it up until evolution became not so random anymore, because it was too hard to predict the future.  Which is why synthesis is the giant FU to the catalyst and his ideals, as nobody really knows whats going to happen.

I think your analogy of dynamical systems is appropriate, (for once!)  As the catalyst does see life as a huge non-linear dynamical system, which at some point cross a bifurication point and he can no longer accuratly predict what will happen.  So he puts in place an open loop  control that consists of a periodic step function. Another indication that they have no problem with randomess because his solution is open loop, which makes it more susceptible to random perturbations.  If he thought randomness was a problem, he would have made a more robust controller.

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...
With all that being said, I agree that it isn't emotionally cathartic to see one breath in the rubble as opposed to a full-blown "finding Shepard" scene. I just dislike the argument that he's dead (or that you don't know if he's alive) that stems from this emotional disappointment. It's a desperation argument to try and find some other reason to explain why the breath scene doesn't work when really, the simple fact is that the lack of emotional release is enough of an argument already.

I'm not sure "desperation argument" is quite the right term. From what I've seen "Shepard is dead" is often deployed as rhetoric rather than as an argument. Or perhaps even "rhetoric" isn't right, since it's not really trying to convince anyone of anything -- anyone who takes the phrase seriously is already on that side.

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 août 2013 - 08:28 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
With all that being said, I agree that it isn't emotionally cathartic to see one breath in the rubble as opposed to a full-blown "finding Shepard" scene. I just dislike the argument that he's dead (or that you don't know if he's alive) that stems from this emotional disappointment. It's a desperation argument to try and find some other reason to explain why the breath scene doesn't work when really, the simple fact is that the lack of emotional release is enough of an argument already.

I'm not sure "desperation argument" is quite right. From what I've seen "Shepard is dead" is often deployed as rhetoric rather than as an argument.

Or maybe it's simply not as obvious as you think it is.

[AlanC9]

iakus, are you actually telling me you don't know what the scene means? You've gone a bit wobbly on this in the past.

Anyway, that's why I said "often" rather than always.

[AlanC9]

Redbelle wrote...
Becasue I'm one of those people who wanted to save everyone. Including EDI.

Shep is not alive. He's also not dead. He's a good example of Shrodinger's cat in that the breath scene, could have been his first, or last.

Tali is my LI and the geth are needed to see her species get up on it's feet faster than it otherwise would. Plus the Geth have taken on the form of synthetic life that deserves the chance to decide it;s place in the galaxy.

In short. I wanted what I wanted to be something I could acheive through hard work and a superior understanding of the game through a playthrough or two.

Could you develop this a little bit more? How much of everything the PC wants should the PC be able to get?100%? 90%?

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

I know you know this but sometimes it bears repeating.  People say it's obvious but it isn't obvious.  In order for that to be true the heart and the mind must agree.  So that scene feels like Shepard died and it makes more sense that s/he would have. 

The moment Shepard survives a laser beam from Harbinger, you either turn the game off or accept that this dude just doesn't function like a normal human. And really, isn't that precisely the argument used to justify the idea that Shepard should be able to "do the impossible" a la the Suicide Mission? Either you accept that Shepard is special - both in body and mind - or he's just a normal guy. A small explosion at the Destroy console isn't going to kill him. He's the goddamn Batman of the ME universe; normal rules don't apply to him and never have. This isn't new.

With all that being said, I agree that it isn't emotionally cathartic to see one breath in the rubble as opposed to a full-blown "finding Shepard" scene. I just dislike the argument that he's dead (or that you don't know if he's alive) that stems from this emotional disappointment. It's a desperation argument to try and find some other reason to explain why the breath scene doesn't work when really, the simple fact is that the lack of emotional release is enough of an argument already.

Well sure and I've ripped apart that whole beam thing too so I'd never defend that "just had my armor ripped from my body so I'm going to Disneyland" scene.

The main difference is that I do get past that, not willingly at all believe me.  And there's a vast difference between the idea of Shepard doing the impossible and having it feel plausible and doing the impossible and having it just not feel so.  As I said it's about the integration of feelings and thought.  People can overcome the incredible things they're shown if they just feel right.  For me this means had there been one minor scene where squadmates found Shepard and picked her up out of the rubble and then a fade out, my emotions would have overruled what I had seen before, what seemed logical.

The suicide mission was set up as impossible but the player could do things to make it possible or totally mess it up, and everything in between.  We were given the idea that wink wink, it's impossible, but always had this idea that it wasn't.  If the worst happened I think you had to work to get that but you could play it again and do better.

I agree with you so much that s/he's set up to be some sort of super human and it's so much why I do have problems with that scene.  But the other part of it is none of that was necessary.  It was totally ridiculous to have the description be so well, dumb (you know the description is just a bunch of words strung together to impose ambiguity), then to force Shepard to stand next to big tube go boom by making the gun not work until the little bitty target showed up.  The whole thing is someone trying to hard to be cute about "guess what Shepard's dead" and then that breath is straight out of soap opera cliff hangers 101. 

Believe me that scene was nothing new, since I've been watching soap operas for over 30 years-I've seen so many torsos gasping in rubble that I know what they were going for.  The difference is that's a cliff hanger soaps used on Fridays as a tease for Monday's show-then 6 months later someone finds the torso and all's happy again.  It's an overworked scene but one that at least in serial shows did have a conclusion.  And as a watcher I always knew that whether the torso lived or died might be based on contract talks with the soap execs.

As the big finish to a game where this was the main character and who everyone cared about, it felt and feels wrong.  Given the description and the way it plays out, there's nothing that can make it better.  As I said it needed more.  The beam scene at least had stuff that came after.  The suicide mission, the beginning of ME2, as much as they set up this Shepard the invincible, they all had what the torso scene did not-stuff that came after.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus, are you actually telling me you don't know what the scene means? You've gone a bit wobbly on this in the past.

Anyway, that's why I said "often" rather than always.

I know what it's supposed to mean.  It's meant to be a hint, a ray of hope.  A possibility, nothing more.

You find it obvious.  I acknowledge it's something that can be interpreted that way.  Others have a hard time even getting that far.

And if so many people have a hard time getting to that point, I have to question how obvious it is at all.

For example, I thought it was pretty clear the relays didn't nova in the original endings.  Others thought Shepard blew up the galaxy.  Just because I didn't come to that conclusion doesn't make it "obvious" that the relays didn't rupture 

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus, are you actually telling me you don't know what the scene means? You've gone a bit wobbly on this in the past.

Anyway, that's why I said "often" rather than always.

His point is that obvious is well obvious.  It's not something left dangling, even when you know what it's supposed to mean.  It doesn't feel like what it's supposed to mean, so having it feel bad makes it ambiguous.  There's no real way to explain it if you can't see that.  As I said you can't argue with feelings.  We all are hard-wired differently.  You may be more able to just accept what is and not need for it to feel right, but some of us are different.

For instance, I'm not a big fan of stories that are ended with some narrative or words on a screen to say what happens next unless the major parts important to me have been shown.  Like a movie where some serial killer is being chased after and the catharsis is seeing him get convicted (when he was so sure he'd get away with it all)-I can live with some epilog narrative that says he spends the rest of his life in prison.  But it's less emotionally satisfying if the final scene is of someone figuring out who the killer is and the narrative says the guy was caught, convicted, and put in jail.  Show don't tell.  I've seen movies that end like this where you don't get the satisfaction of seeing how a conflict is ended.  Now, there's no ambiguity about it but it's not a real conclusion, for me, either so it can feel ambiguous.

Some of us needed more that was obvious.  You didn't and that's just how you are and that's ok.  But for it to feel right, I needed to see just one more thing.

I won't even go into the fact that a lot of it would still have made me feel pretty crappy as to the geth and EDI but this is more just about the torso.

[Mcfly616]

Lol at the people who say "we united....just to get destroyed".


As if "uniting" is a get out of jail free card. Clearly, experience in the realm of sci fi is in short supply around these parts. Protagonists, army's, species.....get wiped out all the time in this genre, regardless of everything they may have done right. Same goes for real life. Sometimes, when the Reaper comes calling, there's no way out (no pun intended)

[Iakus]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Lol at the people who say "we united....just to get destroyed".


As if "uniting" is a get out of jail free card. Clearly, experience in the realm of sci fi is in short supply around these parts. Protagonists, army's, species.....get wiped out all the time in this genre, regardless of everything they may have done right. Same goes for real life. Sometimes, when the Reaper comes calling, there's no way out (no pun intended)

Nobody came back from the Omega IV Relay
Ilos was just a legend
The rachni died out two thousand years ago
You can't come back from being two years dead

The trilogy was full of impossibilities made possible.  What makes this one so special?

[3DandBeyond]

Shaigunjoe wrote...


I never said the catalyst was in ME 1, I said the reapers of ME 1 liked order.  Any reasonable thinker would conclude that reapers liked order, so it should not be surprising that once you meet the catalyst that he likes order too.  Regardless of how you feel about the dialogue option, if you did not realize that chaos/order was a central reaper theme at that point you were not pay attention.

Nope, wrong about randomness, you can have ordered randomness as well, trying to define chaos as randomness just shows your ignorance.  And if reapers were truely not ok with randomness, they would have seeded life as well as tech, but they had no probably with the random evolution of life.  Interestingly, they were okay with it up until evolution became not so random anymore, because it was too hard to predict the future.  Which is why synthesis is the giant FU to the catalyst and his ideals, as nobody really knows whats going to happen.

I think your analogy of dynamical systems is appropriate, (for once!)  As the catalyst does see life as a huge non-linear dynamical system, which at some point cross a bifurication point and he can no longer accuratly predict what will happen.  So he puts in place an open loop  control that consists of a periodic step function. Another indication that they have no problem with randomess because his solution is open loop, which makes it more susceptible to random perturbations.  If he thought randomness was a problem, he would have made a more robust controller.

Yeah that for once comment is really cute considering this whole discussion and how I've clearly described things.  Just because the reapers liked order does not mean that in the end I should tacitly agree that order is best.  And it's because this whole concept and how it plays out is very much like Babylon 5's Chaos and Order but used very badly is part of what is wrong with it.  In Babylon 5, the forces for Chaos and Order were fighting to have Sheridan agree with them that one was better than the other and he rejected them both, saying that the galaxy would find their own way.

Simply put neither chaos nor order is fundamentally bad.  But the kid's version of them clearly defines order as good and chaos as bad.  I disagree.  And he is clearly against randomness since order rules it out.   Why you keep arguing that he doesn't see randomness as a problem when he's against evolution and wants complete order is beyond me.  Again, you are not looking at this as if chaos inserts any form of randomness and by virtue of what it is, it does.  It needn't always do so but it does.  Order completely denies any form of randomness and is all about complete control-whether it's self-control or outside control is of no consequence.  But whatever.  Order can be bad and can be good.  Chaos can be bad and can be good.  It's why I'd never agree with him. 

But your idea is that if the reapers liked order then somehow I should find it more palatable when the kid wants it too.  I don't.  I wanted to kill the reapers.  So, why now would I want to help the kid solve his problem when it's never been my problem?

I don't care if the reapers believed that puppies were bad.  It wouldn't make me think the kid's idea that they were bad was any better.

And I wasn't surprised about chaos and order-I was appalled at how stupidly it was used especially given the great way B5 handled the whole thing.

[3DandBeyond]

iakus wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Lol at the people who say "we united....just to get destroyed".


As if "uniting" is a get out of jail free card. Clearly, experience in the realm of sci fi is in short supply around these parts. Protagonists, army's, species.....get wiped out all the time in this genre, regardless of everything they may have done right. Same goes for real life. Sometimes, when the Reaper comes calling, there's no way out (no pun intended)

Nobody came back from the Omega IV Relay
Ilos was just a legend
The rachni died out two thousand years ago
You can't come back from being two years dead

The trilogy was full of impossibilities made possible.  What makes this one so special?

And it isn't only about uniting and getting destroyed.  It's about uniting only to have it boiled down to Shepard going it alone, making the decision FOR EVERYONE.  And each decision being about just how badly you can frack up the galaxy afterward (but everyone smile for the slide show).  It's about uniting for no real purpose.  Might as well, given the choices, try and find places to hide like Leviathan did, and try to outlive the reaper incursion until you die.  It would accomplish just about as much as any uniting did.


And to be clear, this isn't a debate about how all the other SF stories go or what happens anywhere else in this genre.  It's about what has happened in this game, this particular work.  It's about the precedence that has been set and the story world or milieu of this franchise.

The writers set up impossible as being totally doable, that the Shepard must die thing is just something that's tongue in cheek and means nothing because actually Shepard must live (and must do so over and over again), that suicide is avoidable, that sacrifice has meaning. 

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 07 août 2013 - 09:03 .

[Iakus]

3DandBeyond wrote...

And it isn't only about uniting and getting destroyed.  It's about uniting only to have it boiled down to Shepard going it alone, making the decision FOR EVERYONE.  And each decision being about just how badly you can frack up the galaxy afterward (but everyone smile for the slide show).  It's about uniting for no real purpose.  Might as well, given the choices, try and find places to hide like Leviathan did, and try to outlive the reaper incursion until you die.  It would accomplish just about as much as any uniting did.

"But take heart, look around you.  You are not in this fight alone"



Yeah I can see taking the Normandy, some favorite characters, and flying beyond the relay network and trying to live off the grid being a more desirable choice. 

Given the popularity of Citadel, I think that would have toppled Destroy as being the most popular option, given how pointless the struggle was.

Modifié par iakus, 07 août 2013 - 09:03 .

[essarr71]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Lol at the people who say "we united....just to get destroyed".


As if "uniting" is a get out of jail free card. Clearly, experience in the realm of sci fi is in short supply around these parts. Protagonists, army's, species.....get wiped out all the time in this genre, regardless of everything they may have done right. Same goes for real life. Sometimes, when the Reaper comes calling, there's no way out (no pun intended)

In the genre, sure.  But we're not comparing ME3 to other works that fall under the sci-fi umbrella.  We're comparing it to the tone of the series, which shoves cooperation and it's virtues down our throats.  Even the most renegade of Sheps is doing what they're doing to get everyone to fall in line.. be thru lies or cutting off dead weight.

I suppose another way of viewing this perspective is if the Harry Potter novels ended with the British nuking Hogwarts.  It's a perfectly legitimate and understandable end.. but not what the series was building toward at all.

[Redbelle]

AlanC9 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...
Becasue I'm one of those people who wanted to save everyone. Including EDI.

Shep is not alive. He's also not dead. He's a good example of Shrodinger's cat in that the breath scene, could have been his first, or last.

Tali is my LI and the geth are needed to see her species get up on it's feet faster than it otherwise would. Plus the Geth have taken on the form of synthetic life that deserves the chance to decide it;s place in the galaxy.

In short. I wanted what I wanted to be something I could acheive through hard work and a superior understanding of the game through a playthrough or two.

Could you develop this a little bit more? How much of everything the PC wants should the PC be able to get?100%? 90%?

2 things.

First. No I won't develop that. Because I know what your driving at. And it's childish to ask such a question when we both know that

1. If I say 100% you will come back and say that expectation's by the hundred thousand's of player makes that impossible. and

2. The game is what it is. And therefore in argument will not resolve anything and is academic

And that last part of point two is where the question's need to be addressed.

How to develop a game.

What is the development vision? What do you want the player to get out of it? How much are you as a developer prepared to invest in your craft? Can the developer build uon what is already there to offer as good a gaming experience as those that came before it?

It's these question's that need addressing. Not some arbitary. "What did you expect to get". Followed up by. "How much of what you expected to get, should you get"?

It's a question that has no satisfactory answer you can use. Because ask that question to another and the answer will be different because the terms and condition's that player puts on the question wll be different to mine.

I.e. I choose destroy. Other guy chooses synthesis.

Perhaps a better question would be. How relevant to the end game do you wish your past action's to influence the ending. Which again. Is academic.

So let's go for broke and just ask flat out.

Did you expect BW to develop a better ending for ME3 than what it developed in ME2?

ME2 had a sliding scale of success based on past action's and interactive playable event's

ME3 has 3/4 endings built upon finding stuff that slightly influenced the cut scene's until the fan rection to the feeling of being shortchanged, in that they asked for the ending to be redeveloped...... was sort of met.

*Edit

Incidently..........

Take a moment to review some of the DA:I features. Straight away you will notice.

'No repeating dungeon's level designs'.

............Didn't fan's make the point that, despite still giving them an environment to adventure in. The reheated same old dungeon took away from the experience despite being a perfectly servicable adventuring environment?

That's a simple example of the player of the fanbase pooling their feedback into BW and them responding according to what the fans want.

ME3 has alot going for it. But if fan feedback indicates anything. It's that the concept of how to end the game is not as popular as the person  who developed it hoped it would be.

And that's the issue. Did the 1yr outcry of the ending being bad make BW sit up and wonder if perhaps, they should invest more time into their games. And shold player's encourage this outlook if they can by continuing to provide feedback that ultimately saw what fans wanted in the Citadel DLC pack.

Not, how much as a percentage, do you think BW should offer you as an individual what you want.

I'm a consumer. I'm treated as a consumer. That's fine. It's how the market works. But ME3's ending showed a disconnect with it's consumer's that they proved able to bridge in the Citadel DLC.

Modifié par Redbelle, 07 août 2013 - 09:26 .

[3DandBeyond]

essarr71 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Lol at the people who say "we united....just to get destroyed".


As if "uniting" is a get out of jail free card. Clearly, experience in the realm of sci fi is in short supply around these parts. Protagonists, army's, species.....get wiped out all the time in this genre, regardless of everything they may have done right. Same goes for real life. Sometimes, when the Reaper comes calling, there's no way out (no pun intended)

In the genre, sure.  But we're not comparing ME3 to other works that fall under the sci-fi umbrella.  We're comparing it to the tone of the series, which shoves cooperation and it's virtues down our throats.  Even the most renegade of Sheps is doing what they're doing to get everyone to fall in line.. be thru lies or cutting off dead weight.

I suppose another way of viewing this perspective is if the Harry Potter novels ended with the British nuking Hogwarts.  It's a perfectly legitimate and understandable end.. but not what the series was building toward at all.

Yes and look how that ended-the tease was that Harry had died and that what's his face (I can't remember his name, but it was the "kid" who confronted them on the bridge)--that he died.  At one point there were indications that Rowling would kill off Harry and Warner Brothers even were going to in one movie, but fans went crazy, so they changed it.

[3DandBeyond]

Redbelle wrote...


2 things.

First. No I won't develop that. Because I know what your driving at. And it's childish to ask such a question when we both know that

1. If I say 100% you will come back and say that expectation's by the hundred thousand's of player makes that impossible. and

2. The game is what it is. And therefore in argument will not resolve anything and is academic

And that last part of point two is where the question's need to be addressed.

How to develop a game.

What is the development vision? What do you want the player to get out of it? How much are you as a developer prepared to invest in your craft? Can the developer build uon what is already there to offer as good a gaming experience as those that came before it?

It's these question's that need addressing. Not some arbitary. "What did you expect to get". Followed up by. "How much of what you expected to get, should you get"?

It's a question that has no satisfactory answer you can use. Because ask that question to another and the answer will be different because the terms and condition's that player puts on the question wll be different to mine.

I.e. I choose destroy. Other guy chooses synthesis.

Perhaps a better question would be. How relevant to the end game do you wish your past action's to influence the ending. Which again. Is academic.

So let's go for broke and just ask flat out.

Did you expect BW to develop a better ending for ME3 than what it developed in ME2?

ME2 had a sliding scale of success based on past action's and interactive playable event's

ME3 has 3/4 endings built upon finding stuff that slightly influenced the cut scene's until the fan rection to the feeling of being shortchanged, in that they asked for the ending to be redeveloped...... was sort of met.

And that's the thing.  The whole idea that somehow BW should cowtow to every fans' demands or only use fans' ideas and run everything by them is a ludicrous one and what's often used to obfuscate the truth.

The set up for ME3 was a logical progression with an eye toward precedence.  ME3's ending should have been better than ME2's, it was said by BW it would have more variety, was said it would answer all questions, and choices were to matter-in fact all of our previous choices in 3 games were supposed to greatly impact the ending.  Now, some might believe that EMS exemplifies this but is that truly the "better than ME2" experience people were looking for?

When people saw that "Take Back Earth" trailer was this really the awesomeness they were expecting.  And that means that expectations could range from some version of "nothing new" to some totally new concept.  

Thing is, ME3's ending doesn't fit either category.  It isn't that cookie cutter boss fight thing (no, it's a boss conversation that is totally satisfying) but it isn't some new concept either-it's stuff from other games and stories that worked far better in them.

It lacks everything it was supposed to be, doesn't meet any kind of good expectation, and offers no real variety.  Any Shepard can get the same old thing that any other Shepard can get.  And EMS is the only thing used to decide what ending you can pick.  Repeat: pick.  I wanted to play to an ending, not pick one.  Even the choices made to get you enough EMS are meaningless-you only have to make a choice if you even need to play much of game to get all the endings.  The choices themselves don't matter.  Cure the genophage or don't-it does not really matter.  Reconcile the geth and quarians or don't-it does not matter.