224 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

Isn't it possible to also have only Control?

[Excella Gionne]

This thread would have better arguments if the OP actually responded to our contribution.

[AndyAK79]

StreetMagic wrote...

Deverz wrote...

AndyAK79 wrote...

3. Wouldn't the ending be better if...

[/b]No, it wouldn't. I hate to break it to you but you are (in all probability) not an undiscovered literary genius. You are not (in all probability) the next Dickens/Dostoyevsky/J.K. Rowling. The vast majority of amateur writers are rubbish, and the statistics suggest that, whatever your literary aspirations, you are one of these (I am - thus far - a failed author myself, I feel your pain). The ending in your head is probably much, much worse than the one on screen.

What does this have to do with anything?

Nothing. He's stooping to the same tactics as David. Demeaning people in "real life" ways as a method of "convincing" them. "Because you're a such and such insignificant/powerless person who won't accomplish anything in life, you should listen to me instead."

No I'm not. I'm just pointing out the statistics are not on your side.

The principle problem with posts revolving around Mass Effect improving if some imagined element had been included is that it does not allow anyone else into the argument. I can't judge the amazing Mass Effect ending in someone's head as I cannot read minds (not over the internet anyway. And I don't like to show off), nor can I compare them to the existing endings.

I have argued for the quality of Bioware's ending in other forums. I welcome anyone who disagrees with me (at least anyone who uses an argument to do so, rather than insulting my intelligence/taste/personal hygene for having a different opinion) but cannot compare an actual piece of work to an imagined one. The evidence of Bioware's talent is evident in their work, and posts that argue much better their particular idea is are asking us to compare the qualified and the unqualified (the idea, not the person making it).

My comment about peoples literary ability likely being rubbish was intended to be taken with a sense of irony, but you can't argue with the statistical probability of its truth.

If I'm wrong about your future greatness, I will come to your huge mansion and apologise in person and offer my life in personal service. Then I'll steel all your expensive cutlery and run away.

[AndyAK79]

essarr71 wrote...

People say the Crucible is the DEM. They're wrong there, too. The true DEM isn't any plot device or character, it's the reason for the conflict. You claim the game requires an explanation, but the explanation does not add up to what the plot has shown us to this point.

Yes, but only if you completely change the definition of deus ex machina.

You grouped Dickens and Dostoyevsky with JK Rowling. And we should listen to your authority on this because? Here's a thought.. How do you know any better?

I was aware I did this, and was not entirely serious when I did so. Besides, whats wrong with Harry Potter?

For the record I'm not claiming that I know any better, merely that we can only judge the ending we actually have, not the one in people's heads.

If I had written the ending Shepard would have woken up on Eden Prime to discover IT WAS ALL A DREAM!!!

[AndyAK79]

johnnythao89 wrote...

This thread would have better arguments if the OP actually responded to our contribution.

Regretably I am unable to respond to every post, because I have a home, family and life to maintain.

[MrCorvin]

You are forgetting the last ending.

Reapers win. Period.

[Iakus]

JamesFaith wrote...

But because you are despiting EMS system, which is partially influenced by previous decisions (Decisions weren't reflected in way you wanted) and didn't get your precious Shepard-live-happyend (You didn't get result you desires), you are sticking with your extremist claims "no decisions reflection in ME3".

Side with the krogan, side with the salarians

How do Destroy, Dontrol, or Synthesis change?

[KaiserShep]

In what other ways should those endings change depending on which side you go with? As it is, if you don't side with the krogan, they pretty much die off and their world is a barren wasteland, either overrun with rachni or just left bare. I was pretty sure that synthesis is the only one in which they don't regardless, but as I will never pick that choice, I was never really certain. So maybe the actual fate of the species doesn't matter to you, but this choice is reflected in the ending just the same.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 28 septembre 2013 - 06:41 .

[essarr71]

AndyAK79 wrote...

For the record I'm not claiming that I know any better, merely that we can only judge the ending we actually have, not the one in people's heads.

Actually, you were claiming everyone here doesn't know any better than Bioware.  If that's what you were trying to say perhaps something along the lines of, "I'm sure many people here could think of an ending they'd enjoy more, but it's moot to discuss it."

Keep banging the drum, I suppose.  I find it funny you'd challenge our vision of an ending to great literary artists - even if that umbrella also stretched to simply commercial ones - yet hand wave the disaster of loose ends Bioware wrote itself into 'well, you couldn't think of anything better anyway'. 

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

But because you are despiting EMS system, which is partially influenced by previous decisions (Decisions weren't reflected in way you wanted) and didn't get your precious Shepard-live-happyend (You didn't get result you desires), you are sticking with your extremist claims "no decisions reflection in ME3".

Side with the krogan, side with the salarians

How do Destroy, Dontrol, or Synthesis change?

And here we are again with purposed blindness.

Your decisions didn't implement tiny details in endings, but they are inluencing your EMS score (and events during game) and EMS determines  which one of seven different variations of ending choices will you get from Catalyst.

Different implementation of previous choices that iakus wanted  =/= no implementation of previous choices.

[txgoldrush]

The Catalyst not only isn't a deus ex machina, the ending actually INVERTS the classic Greek use of the Deus Ex Machina.

Too bad the dense fanbase can't figure that out.

[txgoldrush]

iakus wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

But because you are despiting EMS system, which is partially influenced by previous decisions (Decisions weren't reflected in way you wanted) and didn't get your precious Shepard-live-happyend (You didn't get result you desires), you are sticking with your extremist claims "no decisions reflection in ME3".

Side with the krogan, side with the salarians

How do Destroy, Dontrol, or Synthesis change?

The fate of the Krogan, as well as alignment, determine Shepard's views and actions in the Control ending.

[KaiserShep]

txgoldrush wrote...

The Catalyst not only isn't a deus ex machina, the ending actually INVERTS the classic Greek use of the Deus Ex Machina.

Too bad the dense fanbase can't figure that out.

There's no need to punctuate your statement with insults, as it undermines the point you were trying to make. Now why should people care how you feel about your opinion of the ending inverting any kind of tropes or classical use of whatever if you're going to call them dense? 

[txgoldrush]

KaiserShep wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

The Catalyst not only isn't a deus ex machina, the ending actually INVERTS the classic Greek use of the Deus Ex Machina.

Too bad the dense fanbase can't figure that out.

There's no need to punctuate your statement with insults, as it undermines the point you were trying to make. Now why should people care how you feel about your opinion of the ending inverting any kind of tropes or classical use of whatever if you're going to call them dense? 

Facts are facts...

What I have said about the trope being inverted is not an opinion, its a fact.

And a lot of BSNers and anti enders are dense. How do I know that someone is dense? By calling the ending a deus ex machina. Sorry but DEM does not mean "plot twist you don't like".

Modifié par txgoldrush, 28 septembre 2013 - 08:04 .

[TheProtheans]

txgoldrush wrote...

The Catalyst not only isn't a deus ex machina, the ending actually INVERTS the classic Greek use of the Deus Ex Machina.

Too bad the dense fanbase can't figure that out.

I hate it when people try to make a point by insulting others, it really doesn't make your opinion true.

[Iakus]

JamesFaith wrote...

And here we are again with purposed blindness.

Your decisions didn't implement tiny details in endings, but they are inluencing your EMS score (and events during game) and EMS determines  which one of seven different variations of ending choices will you get from Catalyst.

Different implementation of previous choices that iakus wanted  =/= no implementation of previous choices.

Well, you are right that Refuse deomstrated that Bioware is willing to give worse ending outcomes rather than better.

But you have still not demonstrated any difference the Tuchanka decision gave us that siding with the geth or quarians can bring.

Or digging up the Banner of the First Regiement
or the SSV Agincourt
or dextro food rations
Or sending the VS off to Hackett
Or stopping Samara from killing herself

It's all the same.  No matter what path you take, it leads to these outcomes and nothing else.

I can side with the krogan, make peace with the geth and quarians, talk down the VS and do all the DLC and not touch the multiplayer

You can fool the krogan, side with the geth, send the VS packing, not touch the DLC and promote a bunch of N7s

And we'll get the exact same choices from the Catalyst.

Edit:  And if one or more of the endings did have results I liked, sure maybe I wouldn't complain so much.  But that still doesn't make the overall story any less pointless.  plot points only ment to tie together the shooty bits.

Modifié par iakus, 28 septembre 2013 - 08:15 .

[TheProtheans]

txgoldrush wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

The Catalyst not only isn't a deus ex machina, the ending actually INVERTS the classic Greek use of the Deus Ex Machina.

Too bad the dense fanbase can't figure that out.

There's no need to punctuate your statement with insults, as it undermines the point you were trying to make. Now why should people care how you feel about your opinion of the ending inverting any kind of tropes or classical use of whatever if you're going to call them dense? 

Facts are facts...

What I have said about the trope being inverted is not an opinion, its a fact.

And a lot of BSNers and anti enders are dense. How do I know that someone is dense? By calling the ending a deus ex machina. Sorry but DEM does not mean "plot twist you don't like".

If anything you're being dense about why people think it is a DEM, among other things.
Your signature is dense too.

[KaiserShep]

txgoldrush wrote...

Facts are facts...

What I have said about the trope being inverted is not an opinion, its a fact.

And a lot of BSNers and anti enders are dense. How do I know that someone is dense? By calling the ending a deus ex machina. Sorry but DEM does not mean "plot twist you don't like".

One of the main reasons why people refer to it as a deus ex machina is because the presence of the Catalyst is not just an exposition-dump character. At the very last minute, it pulls Shepard out of what seems to be a pretty hopeless case. When the Crucible docks, it doesn't do anything. Anderson dies, and Shepard passes out. Now, we have a situation in which the protagonist is beaten and broken with no hope of doing anything on his/her own, the only other protagonist present is dead, and the very thing you spend the entire game building is not working. This seems eerily similar to the end of The Matrix Revolutions, in which the Logos is destroyed, Trinity is dead, and a now blinded Neo wanders about the machine city by himself, at the mercy of a machine, which funnily enough, is also called the Deus Ex Machina, at which point it's suddenly clear that the resolution is peace between machines and mankind, by allowing Neo to enter the Matrix to rid it of the Smith virus, and the machine just so happens to have a neural plug lying around so he can do just that right then and there.

But I suppose it doesn't matter, because you prefer to be bitter and insult people.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 28 septembre 2013 - 08:29 .

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...


It's all the same.  No matter what path you take, it leads to these outcomes and nothing else.

I can side with the krogan, make peace with the geth and quarians, talk down the VS and do all the DLC and not touch the multiplayer

You can fool the krogan, side with the geth, send the VS packing, not touch the DLC and promote a bunch of N7s

And we'll get the exact same choices from the Catalyst.

And if I betrayed Krogan and they retreat from fight (Wrex decision - cca. 150 less EMS then Cure), anihilated Geth (decisions from ME2 prevent peace - 300 EMS less then peace), save cloned Rachni queen (Rachni decision from ME1, reult  -150 EMS), don't touch DLCs and don't play MP, will I automatically get same options Breathing Scene Destroy, Good Control and Synthesis?

Because by your no-impact-of-decisions logic there have to be all these options too.

Modifié par JamesFaith, 28 septembre 2013 - 08:45 .

[AlexMBrennan]

1. Every decision I made isn't reflected in the ending.

It can't be. The EC reflected a few key decisions and it was almost 2 gigabytes. An ending with an in-depth reflection on every decision over three games would be inconcievably huge, involve thousands of Bioware staff, and cost enough to bankrupt every software company in the world. It would also be of truly bum-numbing length and would likely bore you to tears.

So what? If it is impossible then Bioware should not have promised it; it was their choice to promise those things when they either did not know they would be able to deliver or knew that they wouldn't be able to.

In defence, the structure of the ending needs the game to explain the potential consequences of Shepards actions, and no existing character in the game could convincingly do that.

Liara, EDI or Hacket - the people who have been delivering exposition on the Crucible doomsday weapon could easily have delivered his lines in the form of "Our scientists have figured out what this magical protheans doomsday device actually does - they think that it can be used to do one of up to three things".

There was no need to completely invalidate all of Shepard's achievements by having the head Reaper let Shepard win.

3. Wouldn't the ending be better if...

No, it wouldn't.

Actually, yes. I may not be a brilliant author, but I an ending that avoids objectively bad things (such as the big bad letting us win for absolutely no reason, Shepard just taking the big bad's word for him actually being good, etc) is by definition better than an ending with these mistakes.

Of course, that is cheating to an extent because I didn't actually specify what the ending should be but rather what it should avoid.

4. It's different than Mass Effect 1/Mass Effect 2

Yes, it is. If you don't want a game that's different from Mass Effect 1 or Mass Effect 2, then play either Mass Effect 1 or Mass Effect 2.

OK, that's just stupid. Customers can expect a certain amount of consistency in a video game trilogy, and people wanting more of the same stuff they liked (e.g. you'd probably want another season of your favourite TV show more than you would enjoy watching one episode over and over again) isn't that big a leap.

[Ieldra]

AndyAK79 wrote...
1. Every decision I made isn't reflected in the ending.

Of course not - in that I agree with your response. I don't know who criticized the EC for that, but really that criticism was rightly leveled at the original ending and the EC rectified that.

2. The catalyst is an obvious deus ex machina plot device.

The catalyst is not, stricty speaking, a deus ex machina (it is major part of the plot of the game throughout) but the criticism is not entirely unfair.

In defence, the structure of the ending needs the game to explain the potential consequences of Shepards actions, and no existing character in the game could convincingly do that. It may not be entirely believable, but it is perhaps an acceptable compromise given the dramatic function of the catalyst.

The conventions of storytelling in visual media required that the final choice is explained to you by some character, but making the Big Bad that character was not required. Even if you don't use another primary source, all we needed was a confirmation by an independent or friendly source that the Catalyst's solutions are correctly described. If the Crucible can do all those things, a hint of what it can do might have been discovered by the scientists working on it, for instance.

3. Wouldn't the ending be better if...

No, it wouldn't. I hate to break it to you but you are (in all probability) not an undiscovered literary genius.

I hate to break it to you but there are quite a few people here used to make plots for roleplaying games, and an (admittedly small) number of fanfic writers whose stories I would buy if they published them in print. For myself, I do claim that the ending would've been better had there been no mysticism and less blatant religious symbolism in it, and had Synthesis been rationalized in terms of reasonable science-fictional logic. That's not what its writers wanted though, and yes, I do claim that what they wanted is worse than what I could've made of it. If you're interested, I'll give you an outline.

You are not (in all probability) the next Dickens/Dostoyevsky/J.K. Rowling. The vast majority of amateur writers are rubbish, and the statistics suggest that, whatever your literary aspirations, you are one of these (I am - thus far - a failed author myself, I feel your pain). The ending in your head is probably much, much worse than the one on screen.

In my experience, coming up with working scenarios for an ending is indeed hard, but it doesn't require you to be adept at writing. I have seen a handful of very good alternative scenarios. Putting them on-screen would require a professional, yes, but that's not what this criticism was about. 

Even if you are an undiscovered genius, it would be prudent to respect the artisistic integrity of others, as I'm sure you would want them to do to you. Analyse the endings you've got by all means, but don't re-write them in your head to suit your expectations.

Why not? I can actually see what Mac and Casey wanted to do with the original ending, and it's the antithesis of everything I wanted from the story (details I'll give if you express interest). I've played the ME games for years, and I really hate it it my protagonist, over whom I had a limited level of control in the earlier games, is used to carry messages I detest in the end. The first two games gave me that level of control over my protagonist, and at least the mind of them remained my own. If the writers do not respect the player's vision of their protagonist which came out of playing the earlier games, then I find no reason to respect their artistic integrity.

4. It's different than Mass Effect 1/Mass Effect 2

Yes, it is. If you don't want a game that's different from Mass Effect 1 or Mass Effect 2, then play either Mass Effect 1 or Mass Effect 2.

I think it is a reasonable expectation that one story told through three games remains consistent in elements like the level of player agency. If you give the player significant agency in the earlier parts and then take it away, that comes across as a betrayal.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 28 septembre 2013 - 09:26 .

[txgoldrush]

KaiserShep wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Facts are facts...

What I have said about the trope being inverted is not an opinion, its a fact.

And a lot of BSNers and anti enders are dense. How do I know that someone is dense? By calling the ending a deus ex machina. Sorry but DEM does not mean "plot twist you don't like".

One of the main reasons why people refer to it as a deus ex machina is because the presence of the Catalyst is not just an exposition-dump character. At the very last minute, it pulls Shepard out of what seems to be a pretty hopeless case. When the Crucible docks, it doesn't do anything. Anderson dies, and Shepard passes out. Now, we have a situation in which the protagonist is beaten and broken with no hope of doing anything on his/her own, the only other protagonist present is dead, and the very thing you spend the entire game building is not working. This seems eerily similar to the end of The Matrix Revolutions, in which the Logos is destroyed, Trinity is dead, and a now blinded Neo wanders about the machine city by himself, at the mercy of a machine, which funnily enough, is also called the Deus Ex Machina, at which point it's suddenly clear that the resolution is peace between machines and mankind, by allowing Neo to enter the Matrix to rid it of the Smith virus, and the machine just so happens to have a neural plug lying around so he can do just that right then and there.

But I suppose it doesn't matter, because you prefer to be bitter and insult people.

No, people call the ending Deus Ex Machina simply because they didn't like it and they didn't get the foreshadowing, while idiotically thinking the Catalyst solves the problem when he really doesn't, and not only that CAN'T solve the problem.

It just another ignorant and stupid criticism of the ending.

[txgoldrush]

The ONE line that ABSOLUTELY destroys any notion that the ending is Deus Ex Machina.

"You have altered the variables, the Crucible changed me, created new possibilities, but I can't make them happen".

[Steelcan]

The Catalyst is a Deus ex Machina in both the definition, he shows up out of the blue to solve a problem with a handwave, and the literal latin translation also works, he is a god-analogue coming from a machine.