279 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Pressedcat wrote...

If BioWare says that in their fictional world it is possible to build a super-weapon that can target and destroy all AI in the galaxy, you just have to take their world for it. It's not like you haven't done it before.

No I don't.  Because that's terrible storytelling

I can accept biotics, mass effect fields, etc, because it was established right off the bat that there's these magic rocks that cause them.  They're the basis of most of the "space magic" in this world.  Okay, fine.  This is the primary divergence from our world.  It's what makes it different from ours (there's a few other things, but this is the big one)

But if you introduce another kind of space magic, you have to establish how this is different, where it fits into this universe.  


Saying "It's science fiction" is every bit as much a copout as "a wizard did it"  In fact, it's essentially the same thing.

[The Night Mammoth]

Why are some people incapable of understanding the difference between, say, biotics, something explained pretty thoroughly and ingrained into the very fabric of Mass Effect, an established part of the lore than everyone doesn't even have to consciously accept because it's always been there and makes sense within the setting, and something like the Crucible, which is basically the polar opposite, a concept thrown in two thirds through and is largely absent from the story and world for the vast majority of the time we spend in it, which has a less than vague explanation of its function, origin and workings.

It should be obvious why people accept the mass effect but not stuff like Synthesis. One makes sense within the setting and has an explanation, the other doesn't. That's the difference. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 28 septembre 2013 - 01:09 .

[Han Shot First]

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that a happy ending would have ruined Mass Effect 3, but I do think it wouldn't have been the right tone. Bittersweet was the way to go, Bioware just way overshot that into depressingly bleak territory.

Also Starbrat. What were they thinking?

[CronoDragoon]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

We didn't get an in detail explanation to the degree where they explained the actual science of the whole project, and given how this is a Sci Fi story, that wouldn't be necessary. The explanation we got though was leagues better than what we got with the breath scene, which essentially had no explanation at all. Again it's not a good comparison but if you're gonna be stubborn about it then there's no point in continuing. 

Science fiction is an extrapolation of our world. In our world it's more likely for people to survive explosions than come back from the dead. I think you're right that there's no point continuing, though.

[Pressedcat]

Granted it wasn't established right off the bat, but it wasn't exactly just announced right at the end that there was this whole new technology either.

Right at the beginning of ME3 we were introduced to the Crucible, we were told that it was incredibly advanced, and we learnt throughout the game that it was the sum total of the scientific and technological innovations of numerous cycles of past and present. We are told that it is different (far more advanced than anything else known about in the Galaxy) and where it fits into the universe (a weapon created by some of the greatest minds from numerous different cycles with the sole purpose of defeating the Reapers). If it remains somewhat enigmatic, it is because it is meant to be one of the most technologically advanced objects ever to exist. BioWare could have come up with techno-babble to explain how it works, but even within the fictional, incredibly technologically advanced galaxy within which Shepard's adventures take place, it is singularly advanced. It is as futuristic to Shepard and his ilk as Shepard's own technological world is to us.

It is a reach, but given the way the Reapers were built up throughout the trilogy, and the lack of escalation amongst the other races, we were going to need something unusual.

And lets face it, if you were more positively disposed towards the whole ME3 ending, you'd be more likely to hand-wave the whole thing.

Modifié par Pressedcat, 28 septembre 2013 - 02:16 .

[frostajulie]

funny I think a happy ending would have made the journey more satisfying and inspired the same level of replayability as the first 2. As it stands now I have not played ME3 since playing the Citadel DLC. I just can't stand to play it knowing where the game ends up. I am thankful for the MEHEM that can help so many people come to terms with how the series ended. But I have never been more let down or crushed by a video game and I have been playing games since I was 4 when I would play my uncles Atari while he was at school. You play a game and finish seeking that feeling of epic win, that flush of victory, what I have termed the gamergasm. I always play a game to the end I did not even know there were people out there who did not play a game till the end until I started joining online forums. Admittedly as I got older I stopped playing so many games and there was even a span of years where I played Bioware games exclusively but always I beat the game and got that rush at the end, that thrill of satisfaction where I felt elevated to awesome. ME3 promised that moment after all they delivered epically in 1 and 2 and biowares other titles delivered as well. But ME3 stole that moment they stole that rush, the joy that all the hard interactive work of getting to the end that makes video games so satisfying for many players including myself. The ending ruined the journey. A happy ending would have saved it. Funny how opinions are you have one and I have another. Well you got your way. Many who DL MEHEM were able to get some semblence of theirs. Let it go I found my peace by pretending ME3 never happened.

[DJBare]

shodiswe wrote...

What would have been great is a real ending(endgame), that gives/makes the buildup justice....

Succinct and to the point, nothing else needs to be said in my opinion.

[Iakus]

Pressedcat wrote...

Granted it wasn't established right off the bat, but it wasn't exactly just announced right at the end that there was this whole new technology either.

Right at the beginning of ME3 we were introduced to the Catalyst, we were told that it was incredibly advanced, and we learnt throughout the game that it was the sum total of the scientific and technological innovations of numerous cycles of past and present. We are told that it is different (far more advanced than anything else known about in the Galaxy) and where it fits into the universe (a weapon created by some of the greatest minds from numerous different cycles with the sole purpose of defeating the Reapers). If it remains somewhat enigmatic, it is because it is meant to be one of the most technologically advanced objects ever to exist. BioWare could have come up with techno-babble to explain how it works, but even within the fictional, incredibly technologically advanced galaxy within which Shepard's adventures take place, its is singularly advanced. It is as futuristic to Shepard and his ilk as Shepard's own technological world is to us.

It is a reach, but given the way the Reapers were built up throughout the trilogy, and the lack of escalation amongst the other races, we were going to need something unusual.

And lets face it, if you were more positively disposed towards the whole ME3 ending, you'd be more likely to hand-wave the whole thing.

Actually the Catalyst was only described as a mysterious component to teh Crucible.  THe Crucible itself has been refined over the cycles by the previous races, not the Catalyst.

The first hint of what the Catalyst is was given by Vendetta on Thessia (well past the halfway point for the game) which it hypothosized that the Reapers a greater master rather than driving the cycles themselves.  Even then the Catalyst and this intelligence are not seen as teh same entity.

[Pressedcat]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Why are some people incapable of understanding the difference between, say, biotics, something explained pretty thoroughly and ingrained into the very fabric of Mass Effect, an established part of the lore than everyone doesn't even have to consciously accept because it's always been there and makes sense within the setting, and something like the Crucible, which is basically the polar opposite, a concept thrown in two thirds through and is largely absent from the story and world for the vast majority of the time we spend in it, which has a less than vague explanation of its function, origin and workings.

Granted it wasn't a particularly good comparison. I am infact capable of understanding the difference between an element of the fictional universe you have to buy into from the outset of the game, and something that is introduced only late into the game. The functionality of the Crucible does demand that you suspend your disbelief one more time.

However, although its function and workings are not discussed deeply, I don't think it is fair to describe its explanation as "less than vague". Discussions of the inner workings of the Crucible would be by necessity meaningless techno-babble. After all, it is described by the scientists working upon it as more advanced than anything they have ever seen before. Equally, the writers could have talked about the species from past cycles that have worked upon the crucible but, except the Protheans, none of these species have ever really been mentioned before (at least not in any depth). The writers would be put in the position of creating entire civillisations for the sole purpose of saying "and they developed this part of the Crucible", or "they investigated this tangent, but found it was a dead end". They could have done it, but it would have just been background noise.

We are told it is the cumulative work of countless generations of cycles, we are told that it is a weapon created for the sole purpose of combatting the Reapers where all else has proved ineffectual, and we are told it is incredibly advanced. I think it is fair to say that when its function is finally revealed at the end of the game, we have had more than a few hints that we should expect something big, something exhibiting incredible levels of technology.

I'm not arguing that the Crucible's functionality isn't a stretch, and that the development of the Crucible throughout the game couldn't have been handled better, I'm simply saying that neither is it fair to dismiss the whole thing entirely out of hand as nonsense and space-magic. You don't have to take the purpose and implementation of the Crucible within ME3's storyline as infallible, but please don't just dismiss it as laughable nonsense with absolutely no merit, the result of nothing more than 'terrible writing'. By all means dislike the end of ME3 and the Catalyst's part in that ending, but please acknowledge that others might feel differently. To state that something is utter nonsense and terrible writing is an absolute, a position from which no discussion can take place.

Modifié par Pressedcat, 28 septembre 2013 - 02:14 .

[Pressedcat]

iakus wrote...


Actually the Catalyst was only described as a mysterious component to teh Crucible.  THe Crucible itself has been refined over the cycles by the previous races, not the Catalyst.

The first hint of what the Catalyst is was given by Vendetta on Thessia (well past the halfway point for the game) which it hypothosized that the Reapers a greater master rather than driving the cycles themselves.  Even then the Catalyst and this intelligence are not seen as teh same entity.

Doh, I meant to write Crucible, not Catalyst. It's getting pretty late where I am and I'm really slowing down. I hope you'll forgive me if I go back and edit my post to prevent any further confusion. After that I'm off to bed.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

You shoot a plasma conduit and destroy it (Technology). EDI is built from Reaper Tech - parts of Sovereign. The Geth have Reaper Code. Shepard has some Reaper parts, And because they contain these infernal and evil components parts, they must be destroyed. The mass relay technology is also reaper tech, and therefore it too must be destroyed. We did not earn these things on our own. This is the Dark Ages Solution.

You'll lose nothing more than you've already lost. But if you choose a reaper friendly solution The Enlightened Age Solution. The Reapers will repair the relays and all the damaged reaper tech for you.

but apparently if your EMS is high enough Marauder Shield's bullet didn't cause enough bleeding and the blast from the plasma conduit didn't damage the rest of Shepard enough to kill him/her.

This is the worst written ending I've seen. It is stupid.

[KaiserShep]

When was it determined that the cybernetic implants in Shepard are derived from reaper technology?

Modifié par KaiserShep, 28 septembre 2013 - 04:33 .

[MegaSovereign]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

You shoot a plasma conduit and destroy it (Technology). EDI is built from Reaper Tech - parts of Sovereign. The Geth have Reaper Code. Shepard has some Reaper parts, And because they contain these infernal and evil components parts, they must be destroyed. The mass relay technology is also reaper tech, and therefore it too must be destroyed. We did not earn these things on our own. This is the Dark Ages Solution.

You'll lose nothing more than you've already lost. But if you choose a reaper friendly solution The Enlightened Age Solution. The Reapers will repair the relays and all the damaged reaper tech for you.

but apparently if your EMS is high enough Marauder Shield's bullet didn't cause enough bleeding and the blast from the plasma conduit didn't damage the rest of Shepard enough to kill him/her.

This is the worst written ending I've seen. It is stupid.

To be fair, you've essentially substituted the ending with your own headcanon. No where does it imply that the Crucible only targets Reaper technology, nor does the ending specify how Shepard lives/dies.

[Tyreslol]

If the ending was just Shepard vaporized by Harbinger in a cutscene, followed by 10-15 minutes of the Reapers harvesting the galaxy and leaving behind a Shepard-Reaper in preparation for the next cycle - Bioware would have written a less godawful, nonsensical ending than the garbage we were given.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

MegaSovereign wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

You shoot a plasma conduit and destroy it (Technology). EDI is built from Reaper Tech - parts of Sovereign. The Geth have Reaper Code. Shepard has some Reaper parts, And because they contain these infernal and evil components parts, they must be destroyed. The mass relay technology is also reaper tech, and therefore it too must be destroyed. We did not earn these things on our own. This is the Dark Ages Solution.

You'll lose nothing more than you've already lost. But if you choose a reaper friendly solution The Enlightened Age Solution. The Reapers will repair the relays and all the damaged reaper tech for you.

but apparently if your EMS is high enough Marauder Shield's bullet didn't cause enough bleeding and the blast from the plasma conduit didn't damage the rest of Shepard enough to kill him/her.

This is the worst written ending I've seen. It is stupid.

To be fair, you've essentially substituted the ending with your own headcanon. No where does it imply that the Crucible only targets Reaper technology, nor does the ending specify how Shepard lives/dies.

You're right. It targets all technology because technology is evil. It is left open and up to your imagination to determine if Shepard survived an explosion of a plasma conduit from a distance of about 10 feet or not which somehow the strength of your military force determines. <_<

The ending was ****. I just hope they didn't kill off the horses because they're going to need them again at least in the destroy ending. Mystified reaper plot was stupid.

[AndyAK79]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Entitled whiner.

Cry on a nun's shoulder.

Pay attention to yourself will you? I'm not whining about anything, I'm defending something. You are whining about the ending. And arguing that you are for some reason entitled to a different one.

I regret I am unabe to recommend a good nun.

[Reorte]

Pressedcat wrote...

The same way we allow for ships in the mass effect games to travel faster than light and humans to use biotics to hurl objects around using the power of their minds; because we willingly suspend our disbelief in order to allow BioWare to tell a story set in a future where technologies that do not currently exist are everyday. Mass Effect is not hard science fiction; a lot of the explanations they give for how things work do not stand up to scientific scrutiny, and yet we willingly overlook this all the time.

Sure that's a cop-out, but as you yourself said; you overlook certain other aspects of the game because you like them. I could say that I don't like biotics, and to me the explanation for how it works is severely lacking: "sure, so human foetuses were exposed to this 'element zero' in the womb and now they have super-powers... kinda like Radioactive man then?" [Rolls eyes].

If BioWare says that in their fictional world it is possible to build a super-weapon that can target and destroy all AI in the galaxy, you just have to take their world for it. It's not like you haven't done it before.

No, it doesn't work like that. Some nonsense cop-out is inevitable if you want FTL travel in your story, so I don't have an issue with that (unless some complete and utter genius has worked it out in the last few days for real). Biotics is just as much nonsense but it also gets a by for being established right at the start. Any fictional universe can get away with slipping in a few extra bits of nonsense in order to set things up. After that though I expect to stick to things that can work, and not just pull stuff out of thin air because the writers decided they want it in there and couldn't think how to make it actually work. "Absolutely anything can happen" is a really drama killer.

Not to mention the fact that the Crucible represents the combined efforts of scores of cycles' technological developments and innovations, the absolute pinnacle of engineered creation. It is way beyond anything seen in Shepard or anyone else's lifetime. It is not something Macgyver jimmied together in a couple of minutes. If anything deserves a little suspension of disbelief, it is the Crucible.

If anything deserved to be really carefully thought out and made to work entirely consistently with the established universe and reality it's the Crucible. Anyway, as I've pointed out several times before destroying all AI is a much harder task than destroying just the Reapers. It clearly happens only because the writers want it to and don't care about putting the pieces together properly.

You can dismiss it if you want, but you're doing so because you don't like the ending and have decided you are no longer going to collude with the BioWare writers, not because this one thing amongst all others stands out as uniquely unbelievable.

No, it doesn't stand out as uniquely unbelievable but the timing of it is hugely important. The scope of the unbelievable event also matters hugely. Unbelievable but minor is easy enough to ignore or forget. Lazarus was equally unbelievable but the story moved on and past it. You can word it like that if you like but it's misrepresenting the point somewhat. It's entirely reasonable to say "If something happens that I don't like there had better be a damned good reason for it" and providing one is one part of being a good writer. Besides, even if I had liked how the game went I'd still have been disappointed with the lack of thought - it would very much be "enjoyed in spite of ..."

Modifié par Reorte, 28 septembre 2013 - 09:36 .

[Reorte]

Tyreslol wrote...

If the ending was just Shepard vaporized by Harbinger in a cutscene, followed by 10-15 minutes of the Reapers harvesting the galaxy and leaving behind a Shepard-Reaper in preparation for the next cycle - Bioware would have written a less godawful, nonsensical ending than the garbage we were given.

That should've been one of the outcomes IMO, for a bad playthrough (and not even a "really have to work hard at making a mess of it" bad playthrough). I want games to really punch me in the gut for screwing up.

[KaiserShep]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...


You're right. It targets all technology because technology is evil. It is left open and up to your imagination to determine if Shepard survived an explosion of a plasma conduit from a distance of about 10 feet or not which somehow the strength of your military force determines.

It's not a plasma conduit. If it was, Shepard would simply have been vaporized.

[Linkenski]

ME3 was ruined from the getgo. The premise is stupid.

[Deverz]

Tyreslol wrote...

If the ending was just Shepard vaporized by Harbinger in a cutscene, followed by 10-15 minutes of the Reapers harvesting the galaxy and leaving behind a Shepard-Reaper in preparation for the next cycle - Bioware would have written a less godawful, nonsensical ending than the garbage we were given.

I really like that idea for a bad outcome. That would've been amazingly tragic.

What the ending really needed though was proper development. Even with the EC it feels rushed and inappropriate. Priority: Earth should've been a true team effort with all the squad mates and allies you've recruited along the way. Every squad member should've been given an epic scene of glory, to really pay the characters the respect they deserved, for which the current endings still fail to do. I'm still disappointed with the weaksauce final goodbye I got with my Jack romance.

What we got was a contrived mess of bad ideas and a severely undercooked finale. Sure the EC/Citadel helped, but it doesn't change a fundamentally bad ending.

A happy ending would've saved this franchise.

[David7204]

With 20 squadmates, trying to give every single one an 'epic' moment is just going to be end as a very contrived mess.There's a point where things stop becoming awesome and start becoming predictable events clearly being checked off a list. And that point is about 17 squadmates ago.

Modifié par David7204, 28 septembre 2013 - 10:55 .

[Linkenski]

Before they fixed the ending, they should've fixed the entire game.

[Deverz]

David7204 wrote...

With 20 squadmates, trying to give every single one an 'epic' moment is just going to be end as a very contrived mess.There's a point where things stop becoming awesome and start becoming predictable events clearly being checked off a list. And that point is about 17 squadmates ago.

All I'm saying is they should've tied your squad mates into the retaking of Earth somehow. Like the cut dialogue suggests, seeing Jack with her students or Zaeed & Grunt fighting Reaper forces. I don't really think there should've been 20 seperate cutscenes for every character but there should've been something to signifiy that they're making a difference. Edit: The radio chat didn't really cut it for me.

And also the Rachni queen, Geth and Krogan etc. They are all missed opportunities.

Modifié par Deverz, 28 septembre 2013 - 11:06 .