95 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

Not knowing what the Crucible does is, at worst, a tertiary problem. There are far great concerns. Complaining about tells me right off the bat you're not aware of what the problem is.

Modifié par David7204, 09 décembre 2013 - 05:52 .

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

Not knowing what the Crucible does is, at worst, a tertiary problem. There are far great concerns. Complaining about tells me right off the bat you're not aware of what the problem is.

And what's the primary problem, professor?

(Still waiting on that ME3-isolated alternative).

[David7204]

The secondary problem, of course, is the Crucible's incredibly contrived and poorly written introduction. It's a mess. It's a total mess. The idiocy of nobody bothering to look through the archives for decades is deplorable writing, only very slightly softened by a datapad making references to a second cache of data recently found.

This is generally the part where droves of people suggest that the Crucible would have been fine or even good if it had been found earlier. No. Do that, and pretty much all the drama of the Reaper conflict, all the build up for Mass Effect 3 evaporates. As I've said many times, the question is no longer "How the hell are we going to do this?" It's "How is this magic weapon going to solve our problem (because we all know good and well it will.) And that's assuming the best case scenario, where the Crucible turns out to be more complex or problematic than a brainless instant win button, as countless people have demanded. Usually it's thinly disguised as an EMP or super virus or somesuch nonsense. It makes no difference. It's an instant win button.

Would it have been better than what we got? It could have been. It could been upgraded from 'crap' to 'utterly mediocre.' But that's still a tragically low bar for any developer who claims to care about narrative. Even more so for people on the BSN who have time and hindsight on their side. It's not an acceptable option.

But I digress. As to your question.

The primary problem with the Crucible is far more subtle, far more pervasive, and perhaps far more damaging. A problem consistantly failed to be recognized, let alone addressed on the BSN.

A bunch of things happening is not a story. It's a bunch of things happening. That is the reason why all the very many suggestions of the Reapers being defeated by a bajillion Klendagon guns, or a bajillion dreadnoughts, or some magic Cerberus tech, or some magic tactic are all ridiculous, even if they were logistically and scientifically viable (which they never are) and were foreshadowed. Solving a conflict is not good enough. It needs to be solved in a meaningful way.

Combat is very popular in fiction because in inherently carries a very meaningful theme to conflict resolution - courage. There can be other themes alongside it, but combat always involves courage. Physical items can carry themes as well. The Ring from Lord of the Ring carries very strong themes of corruption and power, (and in fact could be argued to be the true antagonist of the series.) The Deathly Hallows in Harry Potter carry themes of...well...death.

Conflict is not solved by weapons. It's solved by themes. By hope. By courage. By love. By friendship. By determination. By skill. Or alternively, by ruthlessness. By luck. By anger. By betrayal. By hatred. By fear. Without those themes, the great conflicts of fiction are nothing more than animals fighting. In fact, less than animals. Animals can still be thought of as noble or brave or stupid or whatever.

The Crucible carries nothing. Nothing. It exists to solve the conflict of the story in the cheapest, crudest, easiest way possible and brings nothing else. Zero merit. Zero themes. Zero meaning. No courage is involved. No unity. No friendship. No intelligence. No anything. Magically built off screen, magically discovered off screen, magically transported off screen. It exists as nothing but a shell.

That is the primary problem.

Modifié par David7204, 09 décembre 2013 - 10:03 .

[Linkenski]

Well while I really hate the Crucible idea myself and all that it does still exist as a symbol of hope for the galaxy, blind hope mind you, but you can see the Crucible as a device to bring hope and by that bring courage to everyone in the galaxy to hold back the Reapers for as long as possible to build and activate it.

If the Crucible had a more plausible introduction and they very quickly figured it could destroy all Reapers with the use of the Catalyst and whatnot, the conflict would still be solved by themes in the end, because assembling the Crucible and docking it would take the whole galaxy to unite for the same cause.

I think in big strokes Bioware's idea for ME3's plot was to bring the galaxy together and unite to fight the Reapers. To begin with everyone is fighting the Reapers but are only concentrated on their own homeworld because that's what matters most to each of the species, so I think I kinda understand the idea of the Crucible, that it's a device to bring all species together for the same cause, and that's the concept of Priority: Earth. I still wish the final struggle would've been on the Citadel or something because it's the symbol of galactic species in unity, but nevermind, all different races fight alongside each other on Earth in the end, for the sake of bringing in the Crucible, which they've helped each other build.

Still not saying I think the Crucible was a good solution writing wise. I think if the plot focused more on the galaxy revealing secrets, like the Asari councilor did with the Vendetta VI, that the plot could've been more consisting of finding all sorts of possibilities to find the Reapers' weakness or something, heck it could've been completely different than what we got, but I think the Crucible to some extent, does rely on themes to solve the conflict, only they are completely muddled because of the atrocious endings.

Modifié par Linkenski, 09 décembre 2013 - 01:41 .

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

The secondary problem, of course, is the Crucible's incredibly contrived and poorly written introduction. It's a mess. It's a total mess. The idiocy of nobody bothering to look through the archives for decades is deplorable writing, only very slightly softened by a datapad making references to a second cache of data recently found.

This is generally the part where droves of people suggest that the Crucible would have been fine or even good if it had been found earlier. No. Do that, and pretty much all the drama of the Reaper conflict, all the build up for Mass Effect 3 evaporates. As I've said many times, the question is no longer "How the hell are we going to do this?" It's "How is this magic weapon going to solve our problem (because we all know good and well it will.) And that's assuming the best case scenario, where the Crucible turns out to be more complex or problematic than a brainless instant win button, as countless people have demanded. Usually it's thinly disguised as an EMP or super virus or somesuch nonsense. It makes no difference. It's an instant win button.

Would it have been better than what we got? It could have been. It could been upgraded from 'crap' to 'utterly mediocre.' But that's still a tragically low bar for any developer who claims to care about narrative. Even more so for people on the BSN who have time and hindsight on their side. It's not an acceptable option.

Still waiting on this magical alternative that's better than "utterly mediocre".

Despite that, I agree with you about the entry method, completely.  Instead of plans wedged in the cushions of the archives, it should have been devised in one way or another, with its functions more openly discussed and debated. As it stands, I disagree with the assertion that it's "crap" because of the above; it's a frustrating but tolerable introduction of a necessary device. And yes, in this scenario, it's entirely necessary.

Once you get on the topic of the green option, however, my defense completely stops. 

But I digress. As to your question.

The primary problem with the Crucible is far more subtle, far more pervasive, and perhaps far more damaging. A problem consistantly failed to be recognized, let alone addressed on the BSN.

A bunch of things happening is not a story. It's a bunch of things happening. That is the reason why all the very many suggestions of the Reapers being defeated by a bajillion Klendagon guns, or a bajillion dreadnoughts, or some magic Cerberus tech, or some magic tactic are all ridiculous, even if they were logistically and scientifically viable (which they never are) and were foreshadowed. Solving a conflict is not good enough. It needs to be solved in a meaningful way.

Combat is very popular in fiction because in inherently carries a very meaningful theme to conflict resolution - courage. There can be other themes alongside it, but combat always involves courage. Physical items can carry themes as well. The Ring from Lord of the Ring carries very strong themes of corruption and power, (and in fact could be argued to be the true antagonist of the series.) The Deathly Hallows in Harry Potter carry themes of...well...death.

Conflict is not solved by weapons. It's solved by themes. By hope. By courage. By love. By friendship. By determination. By skill. Or alternively, by ruthlessness. By luck. By anger. By betrayal. By hatred. By fear. Without those themes, the great conflicts of fiction are nothing more than animals fighting. In fact, less than animals. Animals can still be thought of as noble or brave or stupid or whatever.

The Crucible carries nothing. Nothing. It exists to solve the conflict of the story in the cheapest, crudest, easiest way possible and brings nothing else. Zero merit. Zero themes. Zero meaning. No courage is involved. No unity. No friendship. No intelligence. No anything. Magically built off screen, magically discovered off screen, magically transported off screen. It exists as nothing but a shell.

That is the primary problem.

It communicates themes, but it's easy not to like them because they detract from traditional heroism and the notion that the galaxy can, and will, overcome anything and everything on their own steam. The themes include: unprepared desperation in the face of a villain far more powerful; struggling with the decision to use technology one doesn't completely understand in order to defeat said enemy; the persuasion of others to believe in you and unite even when the solution isn't clear; and, finally, whether you trust the galaxy to learn from its prior mistakes or make significant changes to facilitate compliance.  These operate around themes more aligned with something resembling science-fiction than the list of rudimentary "universal" themes you've listed. 

You need to get over the conventional victory mantra if you can't deliver a viable alternative beyond "muscles flex, bombs explode, rocks fall, enemy dies, hero succeeds".  Themes won't get you beyond the Reapers' prowess. 

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

It communicates themes, but it's easy not to like them because they detract from traditional heroism and the notion that the galaxy can, and will, overcome anything and everything on their own steam. The themes include: unprepared desperation in the face of a villain far more powerful; struggling with the decision to use technology one doesn't completely understand in order to defeat said enemy; the persuasion of others to believe in you and unite even when the solution isn't clear; and, finally, whether you trust the galaxy to learn from its prior mistakes or make significant changes to facilitate compliance.  These operate around themes more aligned with something resembling science-fiction than the list of rudimentary "universal" themes you've listed. 

Except the rest of the trilogy actively encourages "traditional heroism" be it paragon or renegade.  Through cooperation or individuality, we can overcome anything. 

Not to mention the importance of understanding technology before you go poking at it.  a fair number of side missions and DLCs were the result of tampering with tech that's not properly understood.  Yet ME3 not only embraces, but starts making out with the idea of blind trust in Sufficiently Advanced technology will save us all.

You need to get over the conventional victory mantra if you can't deliver a viable alternative beyond "muscles flex, bombs explode, rocks fall, enemy dies, hero succeeds".  Themes won't get you beyond the Reapers' prowess. 

Why is everything not involving the Crucible considered "conventional"?

[AlanC9]

dreamgazer wrote...
Despite that, I agree with you about the entry method, completely.  Instead of plans wedged in the cushions of the archives, it should have been devised in one way or another, with its functions more openly discussed and debated. As it stands, I disagree with the assertion that it's "crap" because of the above; it's a frustrating but tolerable introduction of a necessary device. And yes, in this scenario, it's entirely necessary.

But wouldn't such an open discussion and debate have been carried out above Shepard? Of course, the game could still have left the choice in his hands no matter what his orders were.

[Steelcan]

I don't see how you can say that ME3 embraces the use of unknown technology. The only group that is actually studying the Reapers is Cerberus and they are painted as villains because they have ambition, drive to understand, etc...

This is partly why the ending fails, it doesn't match up the story that came before. The whole of ME3 has been essentially, we need to fight the Reapers conventionally. The war is waged as a a guerrilla campaign largely to buy time for the Crucible. But since the Crucible is almost entirely absent from the story itself after being discovered its for intents and purposes a "conventional" war being fought by grunts in the trenches.

ME3 needed more Ideas on how to defeat the Reapers rather than the singular focus on the Crucible. have the Alliance working on their project, Cerberus on theirs, throw in another from say the Council. Then Shepard chooses which one to deploy.

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

It communicates themes, but it's easy not to like them because they detract from traditional heroism and the notion that the galaxy can, and will, overcome anything and everything on their own steam. The themes include: unprepared desperation in the face of a villain far more powerful; struggling with the decision to use technology one doesn't completely understand in order to defeat said enemy; the persuasion of others to believe in you and unite even when the solution isn't clear; and, finally, whether you trust the galaxy to learn from its prior mistakes or make significant changes to facilitate compliance.  These operate around themes more aligned with something resembling science-fiction than the list of rudimentary "universal" themes you've listed. 

Except the rest of the trilogy actively encourages "traditional heroism" be it paragon or renegade.  Through cooperation or individuality, we can overcome anything.  

Disagreed. Traditional heroism does not get you beyond certain sacrifices, starting in ME1.

Not to mention the importance of understanding technology before you go poking at it.  a fair number of side missions and DLCs were the result of tampering with tech that's not properly understood.  Yet ME3 not only embraces, but starts making out with the idea of blind trust in Sufficiently Advanced technology will save us all.

The entire trilogy, its setting, hinges on using discovered technology that we didn't understand at first: the relays.  And let's not forget the Conduit. The series takes both stances and creates a murky gray area; desperation pushes them, once again, into the realm of uncertainty.  Hence why the theme has some weight. 

You need to get over the conventional victory mantra if you can't deliver a viable alternative beyond "muscles flex, bombs explode, rocks fall, enemy dies, hero succeeds".  Themes won't get you beyond the Reapers' prowess. 

Why is everything not involving the Crucible considered "conventional"?

Who said it was?  I was addressing David's assertion there. 

[dreamgazer]

Steelcan wrote...

I don't see how you can say that ME3 embraces the use of unknown technology. The only group that is actually studying the Reapers is Cerberus and they are painted as villains because they have ambition, drive to understand, etc...

Meh.  They also didn't understand their boundaries.  "Embrace" is a strong word to describe what ME3 asserts about unknown technology; it's a mix of cautionary tales and success stories.  I appreciate that element of the narrative. 

[Steelcan]

dreamgazer wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

I don't see how you can say that ME3 embraces the use of unknown technology. The only group that is actually studying the Reapers is Cerberus and they are painted as villains because they have ambition, drive to understand, etc...

Meh.  They also didn't understand their boundaries.  "Embrace" is a strong word to describe what ME3 asserts about unknown technology; it's a mix of cautionary tales and success stories.  I appreciate that element of the narrative. 

What success stories?

I can't really think of an instance where a group sat down to figure out how to use Reaper tech and it didn't horribly backfire.  (Thanix doesn't count it happened offscreen, between games, and wasn't really reaper "tech")

[dreamgazer]

Steelcan wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

I don't see how you can say that ME3 embraces the use of unknown technology. The only group that is actually studying the Reapers is Cerberus and they are painted as villains because they have ambition, drive to understand, etc...

Meh.  They also didn't understand their boundaries.  "Embrace" is a strong word to describe what ME3 asserts about unknown technology; it's a mix of cautionary tales and success stories.  I appreciate that element of the narrative. 

What success stories?

I can't really think of an instance where a group sat down to figure out how to use Reaper tech and it didn't horribly backfire.  (Thanix doesn't count it happened offscreen, between games, and wasn't really reaper "tech")

Wasn't referring to Reaper technology there.  The warning signs are there that tinkering with that tech is dangerous, but other missions and side-missions take a neutral, sometimes encouraging stance on venturing into the unknown. 

Modifié par dreamgazer, 09 décembre 2013 - 04:13 .

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

Disagreed. Traditional heroism does not get you beyond certain sacrifices, starting in ME1.

Certain sacrifices sure.  But how is losing one squadmate (whom you can choose between two) at all comparable to what Shepard has to sacrifice in ME@?

The entire trilogy, its setting, hinges on using discovered technology that we didn't understand at first: the relays.  And let's not forget the Conduit. The series takes both stances and creates a murky gray area; desperation pushes them, once again, into the realm of uncertainty.  Hence why the theme has some weight. 

The relays were a Reaper trap that caused the galaxy to unwittingly follow the lines of development the Reapers desired.  The Conduit nearly let Saren and Sovereign start the next cycle.  Let's not forget:

Exo Geni's experiments on the thorian
Binary Helix playing around with rachni
Project Overlord
Object Rho
Paul Grayson

Need I continue?

[dreamgazer]

[quote]iakus wrote...

[quote]dreamgazer wrote...

Disagreed. Traditional heroism does not get you beyond certain sacrifices, starting in ME1.[/quote]

Certain sacrifices sure.  But how is losing one squadmate (whom you can choose between two) at all comparable to what Shepard has to sacrifice in ME@?[/quote][/quote]

You know I'm not just referring to Virmire there, but it's still a significant hit that proves you can't will past every single situation.

[quote][quote]
The entire trilogy, its setting, hinges on using discovered technology that we didn't understand at first: the relays.  And let's not forget the Conduit. The series takes both stances and creates a murky gray area; desperation pushes them, once again, into the realm of uncertainty.  Hence why the theme has some weight. [/quote]

The relays were a Reaper trap that caused the galaxy to unwittingly follow the lines of development the Reapers desired.  The Conduit nearly let Saren and Sovereign start the next cycle.  Let's not forget:

Exo Geni's experiments on the thorian
Binary Helix playing around with rachni
Project Overlord
Object Rho
Paul Grayson

Need I continue?[/quote]

The relays also expanded the universe's exploration and relations, and trusting Vigil with the information about the conduit's functions (and the Reapers' history) ultimately saved the galaxy.   The conduit's construction and purpose itself, however, was entirely neutral. 

And yes, please continue, but try not to leave out the positive examples, too, such as Lazarus, tracking down the Reaper IFF, entering the geth consensus, and other upgrades and side-missions that offer assistance through experimental, foreign technology. 

Modifié par dreamgazer, 09 décembre 2013 - 04:54 .

[Steelcan]

The difference is how they are portrayed, Lazarus, Reaper IFF, etc... aren't depicted as things better left untouched. They are taken as is and that's it, there is no underlying thematic weight behind Lazarus, Shepard does not struggle with his resurrection.

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...


You know I'm not just referring to Virmire there, but it's still a significant hit that proves you can't will past every single situation.

yet you specifically cited Virmire.

The relays also expanded the universe's exploration and relations, and trusting Vigil with the information about the conduit's functions (and the Reapers' history) ultimately saved the galaxy. The conduit's construction and purpose itself, however, was entirely neutral. 

the relays made the galaxy dependant on them rather than letting the races build their own networks

The Conduit was constructed by protheans, who (presumably) understood what they were building.  And Saren still used it for his own purposes.  Shepard & Co only followed after Saren.

And yes, please continue, but try not to leave out the positive examples, too, such as Lazarus, tracking down the Reaper IFF, entering the geth consensus, and other upgrades and side-missions that offer assistance through experimental, foreign technology. 

Ah, yes, the Reaper IFF.  Where improper precautions/understanding got an entire Cerberus team indoctrinated & huskified.  Also, Shepard's idiotic road trip as the IFF was being tested nearly got the Normandy destroyed and could potentially get some/all of hte crew killed save Joker.

The geth consensus was geth technology, which Legion understood, even if Shepard didn't

Lazarus is actually an example of experimental technology which paid off.  Even if there were only two survivors.
Let's see, what else do we have:

Uplifting the krogan (and the subsequent genophage)
Switching on dormant relays when you don't know what's on the other side
Leviathan of Dis
Adjutants
Sanctuary
Arguably the creation of the geth (at the very least, the reaction to it)

Modifié par iakus, 09 décembre 2013 - 05:12 .

[dreamgazer]

Steelcan wrote...

The difference is how they are portrayed, Lazarus, Reaper IFF, etc... aren't depicted as things better left untouched. They are taken as is and that's it, there is no underlying thematic weight behind Lazarus, Shepard does not struggle with his resurrection.

I disagree, somewhat. While Shepard didn't do any deep soul-searching about his resurrection (one of the series' faults), there's still skepticism about his existence, authenticity, and allegiance, which strengthens as ME3 progresses. And the entire experience of going through the derelict Reaper itself was a cautionary tale of what happens when you screw around with the technology the crew are going after.  That reminds me: let's not forget about Legion himself. 

The Crucible is portrayed in a way that fits in between the two side of Mass Effect's technology portrayals: skepticism and desperation-born necessity.  I find that at least mildly interesting, though the entry method and exposition around its functions leave plenty to be desired. 

[Steelcan]

dreamgazer wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

The difference is how they are portrayed, Lazarus, Reaper IFF, etc... aren't depicted as things better left untouched. They are taken as is and that's it, there is no underlying thematic weight behind Lazarus, Shepard does not struggle with his resurrection.

I disagree, somewhat. While Shepard didn't do any deep soul-searching about his resurrection (one of the series' faults), there's still skepticism about his existence, authenticity, and allegiance, which strengthens as ME3 progresses. And the entire experience of going through the derelict Reaper itself was a cautionary tale of what happens when you screw around with the technology the crew are going after.  That reminds me: let's not forget about Legion himself. 

The Crucible is portrayed in a way that fits in between the two side of Mass Effect's technology portrayals: skepticism and desperation-born necessity.  I find that at least mildly interesting, though the entry method and exposition around its functions leave plenty to be desired. 

There's questioning of his allegiance by the VS and thats about it.  There is no debate over his allegiances by anyone else, everyone else is begging him to take charge.

There was one dialogue option iirc that somewhat brought this back on Chronos, but it is quickly brushed off by a squadmate and never touched again.  he does not struggle with identity allegiance, none of it, its all very clear cut, Shepard bleeds Alliance blue and it PISSED ME OFF. (but lets not go there)

And the Derelict Reaper seemed like a flat out condemnation of studying Reaper technology, the stuff gets you even when its dead, it needs to be left alone and purged.

[dreamgazer]

Steelcan wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

The difference is how they are portrayed, Lazarus, Reaper IFF, etc... aren't depicted as things better left untouched. They are taken as is and that's it, there is no underlying thematic weight behind Lazarus, Shepard does not struggle with his resurrection.

I disagree, somewhat. While Shepard didn't do any deep soul-searching about his resurrection (one of the series' faults), there's still skepticism about his existence, authenticity, and allegiance, which strengthens as ME3 progresses. And the entire experience of going through the derelict Reaper itself was a cautionary tale of what happens when you screw around with the technology the crew are going after.  That reminds me: let's not forget about Legion himself. 

The Crucible is portrayed in a way that fits in between the two side of Mass Effect's technology portrayals: skepticism and desperation-born necessity.  I find that at least mildly interesting, though the entry method and exposition around its functions leave plenty to be desired. 

There's questioning of his allegiance by the VS and thats about it.  There is no debate over his allegiances by anyone else, everyone else is begging him to take charge.

Correct, because the galaxy was being destroyed.  That changes things. One of Shepard's closest squadmates still being skeptical drives the point home, unless you really, really wanted the story to allow you to side with Cerberus.  Which is a thing, I understand.   The "through ME3" mostly refers to his existence an authenticity, which surprisingly does come back up throughout ME3 and on Chronos (the video logs). 

There was one dialogue option iirc that somewhat brought this back on Chronos, but it is quickly brushed off by a squadmate and never touched again.  he does not struggle with identity allegiance, none of it, its all very clear cut, Shepard bleeds Alliance blue and it PISSED ME OFF. (but lets not go there)

Meh.  I don't have a problem with Shepard realizing that Cerberus isn't a viable option after Mars, and there are bigger fish to fry than his/her personal struggle with allegiance.  Though, again, I understand why Cerberus loyalists had a problem with this, but, hell, they were playing with fire they knew to be white hot. 

And the Derelict Reaper seemed like a flat out condemnation of studying Reaper technology, the stuff gets you even when its dead, it needs to be left alone and purged.

But without the Reaper IFF and the balls to go through the Omega relay, we'd still be dealing with the Collectors. 

[Steelcan]

The Reaper IFF which then bites you in  the ass and is only made safe after massive sacrifice of crew

Modifié par Steelcan, 09 décembre 2013 - 06:01 .