260 réponses à ce sujet

[Chashan]

But it wouldn't. In fact it would create a slew of problems and
narrative holes, such as what's the motivation for the Reapers? Who
created them? Removing that Catalyst wouldn't fix anything, it would
just leave a whole bunch of unanswered questions, it's not seemless in
the slightest. Simply saying it would be, without addressing the flaws
or explaining how, doesn't actually make it so. Be specific too, don't
just be vague.

You asked what's the common issue, I simply stated which is. As well as the least painful way of addressing it.

Are the motivations at all important anymore, when left unaddressed for most of the game? When what the kill-bots are doing is quite explicitly shown? I daresay they aren't, and some things left unsaid can go a-ways.

And does, in fact. I like my MEHEM-iteration of the finale. Entirely optional, as the EC supposedly is. And while I thank BW for expanding the end with EC enough so that projects like MEHEM are feasible in the first place, I know which I like better.
Entirely subjective, that, but then what discussion about a piece of entertainment isn't?

Because the series is about choice. A series, an RPG, about choices,
built around choices, advertised a being about morally grey, difficult
choices, should present you with choice. And what choices accumulated?
In what way? Again, be specific, don't just be vague.

I see that you will not even comment on the rather blunt, megalomanic nature of the Catalyst's offer of choices, then.

Simple, the two bigger arcs of ME3 alone, Tuchanka and Rannoch, would provide impactful enough aftermaths following the war. Resurgent Krogan upsetting the balance of the powers that be in Council space or alternatively whether keeping the genophage intact was indeed the right call, Quarians settling in on their homeworld again and/or the challenge of accepting/dealing with the Geth following their involvement in galactic affairs. Recalling the decision at the end of ME1 in a more meaningful way would have helped too.

Fairly nice set of variables, without the need to put up a magic god-generator. As well as questions I rather mull over rather than fantasizing about Shepard 3.0's god-imperium or why green-circuit boards for everything supposedly improves matters, etc.

Another vague, non-answer. Present me an alternative ending,
don't just criticise without substance or point. Your entire post is
"They're bad and would be better without the Catalyst". How? What would
make them better? I want you to tell me that, to present a better
ending, to actually explain your point with a bit more depth than vague
statements with nothing to back it up, but something tells me you wont.

I stated the problem, and the most straightforward solution before. From there, it's a fairly open game what's done.

If anything, that's one of the few good things the vanilla-end did: motivate different, creative approaches in its place.

[Clayless]

iakus wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

You could probably start by addressing my criticisms, as looking at that post I'm not even sure if we're reading the same thread.

Why?  I already told you I'm not playing your game.  It's rigged from the start.  There is nothing I can say that you won't tear apart.  No amount of polish would be good enough for you.  No alternative won't be riddled with inconsistencies and plot holes.  If it's not a Bioware ending, it simply won't be good enough.

So, to be clear, not only is it Bioware's fault that you don't like the ending, it's my fault that you can't think of a better one? Your imagination and ability to create a narrative that fixes the problems you have and doesn't have any clear, objective, plot holes is restricted by someone else's "game"?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Redbelle]

jimr9999us wrote...

-shrug-

I've played ME1 5 times, ME2 3 times, ME3 once.

After 100+ hours "being" Shepard it was hard to let go. But the thing I loved most about ME3 was that it let me say good-bye.

It's rare that a game sacrifices its protagonist at its conclusion. I appreciate the opportunity to move on.

To many of the games I play all have protag's who sacrifice themselves. ME3's sacrifice was the most ridiculous one ever put to disc.

Shepard literally watches his mentor die thanks to the influence of the Reaper's. He's watched world's burn. Friends and families ripped apart. He himself has suffered loss and death.

And when he meet's the orchestrator of it all. He just sit's down and talks it out.

The man is a soldier. He met the enemy. Now give him an axe and point him to the hard drive so he can shut it down and then call in tech support to board and convert the Crucible to kill only the Reapers.

Because that is what the goal of Shepard is and always has been before Shepard fell unconcious and got carried up and away to the Starbrat's Gaga land.

[Iakus]

Robosexual wrote...

iakus wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

You could probably start by addressing my criticisms, as looking at that post I'm not even sure if we're reading the same thread.

Why?  I already told you I'm not playing your game.  It's rigged from the start.  There is nothing I can say that you won't tear apart.  No amount of polish would be good enough for you.  No alternative won't be riddled with inconsistencies and plot holes.  If it's not a Bioware ending, it simply won't be good enough.

So, to be clear, not only is it Bioware's fault that you don't like the ending, it's my fault that you can't think of a better one? Your imagination and ability to create a narrative that fixes the problems you have and doesn't have any clear, objective, plot holes is restricted by someone else's "game"?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Man, you may well have a fine career in politics, tehy way you spin words.

At any rate, no.  I am simply not going to entertain you with my own ideas for an ending.  If MR Gamble, Hudson, Walters, et al want to ask my my ideas for an alternate ending, they can PM me and I will happily bounce ideas around (and while i'm at it, I'd like a million dollars and a pony)

But I'm not going to further discuss it with you, not because "I can't think of a better one"  But because no idea I come up with will meet your impossible standards.  If you mock other ideas that have been presented, basic though they are, yet hold what Bioware came up with on such a lofty platform, it's clear your perception of other people's ideas is highly skewed

[Clayless]

Chashan wrote...

You asked what's the common issue, I simply stated which is. As well as the least painful way of addressing it.

Are the motivations at all important anymore, when left unaddressed for most of the game? When what the kill-bots are doing is quite explicitly shown? I daresay they aren't, and some things left unsaid can go a-ways.

And does, in fact. I like my MEHEM-iteration of the finale. Entirely optional, as the EC supposedly is. And while I thank BW for expanding the end with EC enough so that projects like MEHEM are feasible in the first place, I know which I like better.
Entirely subjective, that, but then what discussion about a piece of entertainment isn't?

That doesn't address anything. You said removing the Catalyst would fix problems and be seemless, but didn't explain how or in what way. This, right here, is a dodging of the question and the challenge presented to you based off your claim.

I see that you will not even comment on the rather blunt, megalomanic nature of the Catalyst's offer of choices, then.

It's the Crucible's options, not the Catalyst's choices. Not that this has anything to do with what I said, it's just another side-stepping.

Simple, the two bigger arcs of ME3 alone, Tuchanka and Rannoch, would provide impactful enough aftermaths following the war. Resurgent Krogan upsetting the balance of the powers that be in Council space or alternatively whether keeping the genophage intact was indeed the right call, Quarians settling in on their homeworld again and/or the challenge of accepting/dealing with the Geth following their involvement in galactic affairs. Recalling the decision at the end of ME1 in a more meaningful way would have helped too.

Fairly nice set of variables, without the need to put up a magic god-generator. As well as questions I rather mull over rather than fantasizing about Shepard 3.0's god-imperium or why green-circuit boards for everything supposedly improves matters, etc.

Following the war? You said your previous choices would all culminate to the end, and the end would be based off them. Following the war isn't the problem at hand, the war and the Reapers are the problem. You said it was simple yet you never actually addressed it.

I stated the problem, and the most straightforward solution before. From there, it's a fairly open game what's done.

If anything, that's one of the few good things the vanilla-end did: motivate different, creative approaches in its place.

Another vague non-answer and side-stepping. You said removing the Catalyst would fix the problem, explain how, what would be an alternative? If your answer really is MEHEM it's just proving my point about people caring more about bland, highly contrived, happy endings than storytelling.

Modifié par Robosexual, 27 août 2013 - 04:25 .

[Iakus]

More evidence of your impossible to please platform

[Clayless]

iakus wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

So, to be clear, not only is it Bioware's fault that you don't like the ending, it's my fault that you can't think of a better one? Your imagination and ability to create a narrative that fixes the problems you have and doesn't have any clear, objective, plot holes is restricted by someone else's "game"?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Man, you may well have a fine career in politics, tehy way you spin words.

At any rate, no.  I am simply not going to entertain you with my own ideas for an ending.  If MR Gamble, Hudson, Walters, et al want to ask my my ideas for an alternate ending, they can PM me and I will happily bounce ideas around (and while i'm at it, I'd like a million dollars and a pony)

But I'm not going to further discuss it with you, not because "I can't think of a better one"  But because no idea I come up with will meet your impossible standards.  If you mock other ideas that have been presented, basic though they are, yet hold what Bioware came up with on such a lofty platform, it's clear your perception of other people's ideas is highly skewed

In other words you can't present a viable alternative to the thing you've been criticising for almost 2 years and it's, somehow, other peoples fault.

You sure proved me wrong. Little did I know that there's plenty of viable alternatives, it's only no one is allowed to see them in case they point out the glaring flaws. Never have I had to eat my words so much before.

[Iakus]

Robosexual wrote...

In other words you can't present a viable alternative to the thing you've been criticising for almost 2 years and it's, somehow, other peoples fault.

No.

I won't use you as a sounding board for my ideas. Because you place Bioware's endings on a pedestal and will mercilessly savage any idea that threatens them, placing impossible standards on them even if they make more sense than Bioware's own endings.

You sure proved me wrong. Little did I know that there's plenty of viable alternatives, it's only no one is allowed to see them in case they point out the glaring flaws. Never have I had to eat my words so much before.

There are viable alternatives.  There have been for over a year.  You just prefer to mock them rather than actually engage in a discussion in how they could be better presented.

[Chashan]

That doesn't address anything. You said removing the Catalyst would
fix problems and be seemless, but didn't explain how or in what way.
This, right here, is a dodging of the question and the challenge
presented to you based off your claim.

Just going by what it looks like in practice, but if you are going to ignore that...fine, end of conversation.

It's the Crucible's options, not the Catalyst's choices. Not that this
has anything to do with what I said, it's just another side-stepping.

It still translates to 'playing god' whichever way you put it, and the Catalyst is the one to present the options. Which can perfectly be interpreted as it offering the deal.

Following the war? You said your previous choices would all
culminate to the end, and the end would be based off them. Following the
war isn't the problem at hand, the war and the Reapers are the problem.
You said it was simple yet you never actually addressed it.

Yes, every war is completed by merging with the enemy or commandeering them the same way as in ME3's finale. Literally.

Being the vehicle for the action that the war is, I find it satisfying enough that the Reapers get blasted - without laughably tacked on hostage-situation. Again something already exercised, and working.

Epilogues are part of the end, and the game concentrating on that would have been preferable as it has a wealth of material to work with. Which again begs the question why the inclusion of the Catalyst was at all desirable and needed.

Another vague non-answer and side-stepping. You said removing the
Catalyst would fix the problem, explain how, what would be an
alternative? If your answer really is MEHEM it's just proving my point
about people caring more about bland, highly contrived, happy endings
than storytelling.

Your opinion. Development of MEHEM is still going on, looks pretty impressive, and as things stand I certainly will cheer on its progress.

It is abundantly clear that you like things as they are in the vanilla end, and you are welcome to that. You've been provided for with the core-game's narrative, so why bother to expend time and energy in fruitless discussions?

[AlanC9]

JamesFaith wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Gabbenator8787 wrote...
Honestly as a harcore RPGer, it truly boggles the mind that there are people out there who are willing to endure a linear final mission, an extremely tedious trench run and psuedo-philosophical dribble from from caper the genocidal ghost for 20 straight times in a row. 

The "I am a hardcore RPGer " card? Really?

Why so suprised?

This is the guy who once claimed that you are not "true fan" when you have positive opinion on endings.

But I have ti admit that after "true fans" and "hardcore fans"  is "hardcore RPGer" new superiority over others label here. 

Good point. I've seen that move plenty of times here, and it shouldn't surprise me.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

Robosexual wrote...
In other words you can't present a viable alternative to the thing you've been criticising for almost 2 years and it's, somehow, other peoples fault.

No.

I won't use you as a sounding board for my ideas. Because you place Bioware's endings on a pedestal and will mercilessly savage any idea that threatens them, placing impossible standards on them even if they make more sense than Bioware's own endings.

So Robosexual would make criticisms that you think would be invalid. Wouldn't that make him look bad, rather than you? I'm not sure what you're scared of here.

Edit: in any case, why not point him to someone else's proposed alternative?

There are viable alternatives.  There have been for over a year.  You just prefer to mock them rather than actually engage in a discussion in how they could be better presented.

Could you point me to one of those viable alternatives that isn't "happier"?

Modifié par AlanC9, 27 août 2013 - 05:14 .

[AlanC9]

Chashan wrote...
Epilogues are part of the end, and the game concentrating on that would have been preferable as it has a wealth of material to work with. Which again begs the question why the inclusion of the Catalyst was at all desirable and needed.

Well, that part's pretty obvious. The Catalyst is there to solve a problem ME1 introduced. Namely, that the cycles are not rational for the Reapers. They don't advance any actual Reaper interests that wouldn't be far better served by other strategies.

Of course, one can say that this isn't a big problem for the story, or even that the problem is insoluble and ME1 irretrievably screwed the series. Either of these means that handwaving the Reapers' origin and purpose away is desirable.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

So Robosexual would make criticisms that you think would be invalid. Wouldn't that make him look bad, rather than you? I'm not sure what you're scared of here.

It's not fear, it's pointlessness.  I'mnot going to just walk into a buzzsaw.

Frankly I don't even know why I'm continuing to debate this

There are viable alternatives.  There have been for over a year.  You just prefer to mock them rather than actually engage in a discussion in how they could be better presented.

Could you point me to one of those viable alternatives that isn't "happier"?

No.  BEcause if you consider having a "happier" altrnative to what we got to automatically invalidate said alternative, then debate has broken down already.

As I have said numerous times, I want a variety of outcomes, both happy and sad.  And with lots of variations for both.  Not some uniform forced "bittersweetness" no matter which path you take.

[The Night Mammoth]

AlanC9 wrote...

Chashan wrote...
Epilogues are part of the end, and the game concentrating on that would have been preferable as it has a wealth of material to work with. Which again begs the question why the inclusion of the Catalyst was at all desirable and needed.

Well, that part's pretty obvious. The Catalyst is there to solve a problem ME1 introduced. Namely, that the cycles are not rational for the Reapers. They don't advance any actual Reaper interests that wouldn't be far better served by other strategies.

We didn't know what the Reaper's interests were in ME1, so we had no idea whether the cycles were rational or not. That continued right up until the Catalyst appeared, and told us what their interests were and attempted to rationalise them within the same ten or so minutes. 

Of course, one can say that this isn't a big problem for the story, or even that the problem is insoluble and ME1 irretrievably screwed the series. Either of these means that handwaving the Reapers' origin and purpose away is desirable.

Why would the first game have irretrievably screwed the series? 

[AlanC9]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

We didn't know what the Reaper's interests were in ME1, so we had no idea whether the cycles were rational or not. That continued right up until the Catalyst appeared, and told us what their interests were and attempted to rationalise them within the same ten or so minutes. 

And here's the handwave, right on schedule.

We did know they were irrational. You're just refusing to think about them, so you don't have to face the irrationality.That's a viable strategy if it makes you feel better about the games, but it's not available to all of us.

Edit: I'm using a very limited sense of "rational" here.  Doing the cycle because God told them to would also be rational, if you grant the Reapers the appropriate premise. So the question is, what are the bizarre premises that make the cycles desirable?

We know what the cycles don't do. They don't give the reapers anything physically useful. They could mine their own resources or farm their own organics far more efficiently. Technology? Nope; they harvest races before they get to the Reapers' own level of technology.

Of course, one can say that this isn't a big problem for the story, or even that the problem is insoluble and ME1 irretrievably screwed the series. Either of these means that handwaving the Reapers' origin and purpose away is desirable.

Why would the first game have irretrievably screwed the series? 

By introducing an insoluble problem. It wouldn't screw it for you since you don't mind doing the handwave.

Modifié par AlanC9, 27 août 2013 - 05:35 .

[Kel Riever]

Saying ME1 screwed up the series? Really?

That's like saying the invention of cars screwed up the modern Honda Accord.

I believe the proper term is, "Lolwut?!"

Anyway, I don't know if that was really being said, but it has come up before at least in other threads.

[Kel Riever]

By the way, I don 't disagree that the Reapers in ME1 were possibly irrational. Actually, we don't really know their motives in ME1, but we can gather from the conversation from Sovereign that while its method of thinking makes apparent sense to itself, Sovereign is not exactly interested or able to have a conversation with 'a lesser being' that counters it.

I, of course, am in the camp that once Glowjob opens its mouth, though, that the words that come out of it just make no sense at all.  Worse, my character Shep was forced to listen to it.

Modifié par Kel Riever, 27 août 2013 - 05:37 .

[sveners]

Robosexual wrote...

sveners wrote...

Ok, I'm not really involved in this discussion but I do have a few thoughts here.

Many people felt a loss of ...control/agency ...  thanks to the Catalyst.  Also the implications it presented from always having been there.

What about a VI instead. A VI without motivation, a simple infodump on the Crucible, it's background and connection to the Reapers. It would allow some of us to feel more in control, rather than the vehicle for the Catalysts redemption.

Failing that, perhaps try to give some more emotional satisfaction. I know that for me, a memorial for Shepard would have been nice, perhaps a mention of her/his name in the epilogues. If it was somewhat like DA:O, I would be quite happy.

Just a few thoughts. And I doubt either can be called "happy"?

So your problem is the Catalyst had a motivation for the harvest that Shepard wasn't in control of? That situation isn't something that randomly appears at the end, that situation is present throughout the series, Shepard was never in control of the harvest. The Catalyst being an infodump wouldn't change anything either, it would effectively remove an intelligence from the Reapers and players that felt like they weren't in control would feel even more powerless due to not being able to change a simple VI. Whether or not the Catalyst is an ancient AI, or an ancient box with a bunch of information in it, the situation is still the same.

As for your second part, Shepard did get a memorial and their name mentioned in the epilogue.

What is wrong with you?

You asked for a "non-happy" alternative to the current endings. I gave you that. Instead of acknowledgning that I did in fact provide what you asked, you attacked my proposals. Dismissing them. 

No, the situation would be drastically different if the Catalyst were an ancient VI. 

Wrong. Shepard got no mention in Destroy, high or low. Shepard got no mention in Synthesis, and whatever that thing at the end of Control is, it's not Shepard, something it makes abuntantly clear.

I know I should have written "proper" memorial, since you seem determined to be an ass. Yes, Shepard gets a 4 second cutscene with a few sad/bored looking faces. Worst part "Commander Shepard".

Have you ever, while on these forums, written "ok, you have a point", or even "understand but disagree"? or something along those lines..

[AlanC9]

Kel Riever wrote...

Saying ME1 screwed up the series? Really?

That's like saying the invention of cars screwed up the modern Honda Accord.

Actually, it's more like how the QWERTY keyboard screwed up modern computers. Sometimes a bad design gets locked in.

[Kel Riever]

AlanC9 wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

Saying ME1 screwed up the series? Really?

That's like saying the invention of cars screwed up the modern Honda Accord.

Actually, it's more like how the QWERTY keyboard screwed up modern computers. Sometimes a bad design gets locked in.

Being a fan of ME1 more than the other two, I would say I see your analogy, but I disagree with it.  Problematic is one thing, but establishing a story is another.  Especially in the creative realm.  Probably both our analogies are flawed in that they are techincal ones.  A better analogy would probably be to say The Hobbit screwed up The Lord of the Rings.  Which to me would equally make no sense, though the stories are about entirely different subjects, and The One Ring transforms into something fairly evil, though that is not insinuated in The Hobbit.

In other words, consistency was maintained though the drive of LotR is entirely different than The Hobbit.  This isn't going to be that productive a conversation, though, I predict because I know you do not dislike the ending(s) of ME3 as much as me, Alan.  So I'll just agree to disagree with you.

[The Night Mammoth]

AlanC9 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

We didn't know what the Reaper's interests were in ME1, so we had no idea whether the cycles were rational or not. That continued right up until the Catalyst appeared, and told us what their interests were and attempted to rationalise them within the same ten or so minutes. 

And here's the handwave, right on schedule.

We did know they were irrational. You're just refusing to think about them, so you don't have to face the irrationality.That's a viable strategy if it makes you feel better about the games, but it's not available to all of us.

Woah, what's with the hostility? I made a simple point, that we didn't know what they wanted or why they were harvesting the galaxy. I don't even know what I'm supposed to be handwaving. I really don't know why the Reaper cycle would be irrational from the information the first game gave. 

Of course, one can say that this isn't a big problem for the story, or even that the problem is insoluble and ME1 irretrievably screwed the series. Either of these means that handwaving the Reapers' origin and purpose away is desirable.

Why would the first game have irretrievably screwed the series? 

By introducing an insoluble problem. It wouldn't screw it for you since you don't mind doing the handwave.

Scew what? And should I rephrase the question? I should rephrase the question.

Why is the problem insoluble? 

[KaiserShep]

Robosexual wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

Yet to see what? Other criticisms regarding the ending? All one needs to do is peruse the forums, and search outside BSN, turning selective reading mode off, of course.

I have, I've been here for over a year and I've seen lots of criticism, but it generally boils down to calling things that aren't plot holes, plot holes, or ****ing about Bioware because the ending made them feel sad. Have you ever actually seen anyone discuss the parts of the ending they hate? Or do you just see ****ing about it and a point blank refusal to change their faulty preconceived notions? Unlike you though, someone below you has responded and I'll respond in kind.

So, you saw absolutely no criticisms beyond the things you mentioned that have any merit? Of all the input you've clearly read through over the past year, not a single one made a case that met your standard for what passes as a reasonable argument? Typically, if a work of fiction draws a lot of negative feedback, there's a fair amount of good reasons as to why this work was so badly received. Hell, people can find obvious, glaring faults in works of fiction that they love. But not this time, eh? Problematic, to be sure, along with this:

Present an alternate ending, as in make one up? What would be the point of that?

To see if you have a point? To see if you can create a better alternative to the thing you hate? People ****, people even go as far to say it's "ignorant" to say that fans only want happy endings despite how contrived it may be, but when pressed it seems mindless ****ing is about as far as it goes.

You need to understand why this sort of demand undermines your point. It's a trap. It's not meant to see whether or not the other person has a point. It's made specifically to create an insurmountable task in which the outcome relies solely on your opinion of what constitutes a good ending. It wouldn't matter what I wrote, because it'd just be a target for you to harpoon anyway. The "Can you do better" argument is an invalid counterpoint. I say there's no point, because throwing ideas upon the altar of your immensely high standards would be an act of futility.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 27 août 2013 - 06:34 .

[CronoDragoon]

[quote]Robosexual wrote...

I have, I've been here for over a year and I've seen lots of criticism, but it generally boils down to calling things that aren't plot holes, plot holes, or ****ing about Bioware because the ending made them feel sad. Have you ever actually seen anyone discuss the parts of the ending they hate? Or do you just see ****ing about it and a point blank refusal to change their faulty preconceived notions? Unlike you though, someone below you has responded and I'll respond in kind.[/quote]
[/quote]

There's been less of it lately (there's been less interesting discussion in general), but upon release and the following months I found quite a lot of interesting criticisms of the ending. Here's one of my favorites that had really interesting discussion for an impressive number of pages: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10022779/1

Now, if you want to account for this with your "generally" statement then that is fine, but I could also say that following release, "generally" pro-ending threads contained very little argument and a lot of dissing people who didn't like it. And that whole debate over which group is more mature really doesn't lead anywhere good.

The truth is that there are plenty of good reasons to both like and dislike the ending. Of course, that viewpoint isn't sexy or rage-inducing so usually when I say it, it gets drowned out by both sides.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 27 août 2013 - 08:22 .

[dreamgazer]

CronoDragoon wrote...

The truth is that there are plenty of good reasons to both like and dislike the ending. Of course, that viewpoint isn't sexy or rage-inducing so usually when I say it, it gets drowned out by both sides.

Pick a side, CD. You're not a true fan if you don't. 

[The Night Mammoth]

Ugh, his neutrality is too strong, someone help me hold his head under the water.