Leviathan definitely should have been part of one of the main games, not least because it makes the whole series more thematically coherent.
There's something of a potential contradiction in Mass Effect, because on one hand you have themes of diversity and cross-cultural cooperation and reconcilliation between the different species. While it's possible to make choices that undermine this (zap the rachni, kill the Council, sabotage the genophage cure, deliberately let the geth or quarians die), you still end up with humanity developing closer ties with at least a few species by the time it's over. And I suspect most players didn't choose *all* of the more ruthless options.
On the other hand, you have an enemy that, for much of the series, behaves more like a walking, talking elemental force of destruction than a living being with motivations or goals that we can understand. As I've said before, this potentially leads us into some dangerous philosophical territory - viewing one side of a conflict as "just evil" can easily lead to overly aggressive responses. And the games actively encourage us *not* to view species like the geth, rachni, and krogan as "just evil" despite their involvement in past conflicts.
The Leviathans' role in the creation of the Catalyst and the Reapers reconciles this. The Leviathans did the same thing that countless other Mass Effect villains have done - they behaved selfishly, they manipulated and exploited other species, and they took ethical shortcuts in the pursuit of power. And just like what happened to Saren, the Illusive Man, the Noveria scientists, and others who made similar mistakes, it blew up in their faces.
You Know... (ME3 ending opinions)
Débuté par
SwobyJ
, janv. 05 2014 03:31
Retour en haut
#127
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Posté 08 janvier 2014 - 08:12
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Guest_StreetMagic_*
-
- Guests
Destroy never had the Catalyst saying anything about the cycle repeating itself. The Catalyst only said new synthetics will be rebuilt and people will have to deal with it. Big ****ing deal. That has nothing to do with cycles. Which is a Reaper/harvesting thing.
edit: Damnit, I should've quoted. Whatever.
edit: Damnit, I should've quoted. Whatever.
Modifié par StreetMagic, 08 janvier 2014 - 08:14 .
#128
Posté 08 janvier 2014 - 08:30
SwobyJ
-
- Members
- 7 373 messages
FlyingSquirrel, while I think ultimately (like all the DLCs actually) Leviathan DLC bolsters Destroy, it is STRONGLY and PRIMARILY Control themed and gives Controllers at least a good justification for picking Control and to take the Catalyst seriously about it.
Why? Because as far as we've been shown, even Renegade Shepard isn't nearly as selfish as any other entity that "manipulated and exploited other species, and they took ethical shortcuts in the pursuit of power". Shepard never seeks 'just power', and even in the rare cases he can exploit other species, we know it's purely for the war effort against the giant omnicide machines, not so he can make sure that he or humanity has power over everything and everyone.
So we can pick Control with the idea that Shepard truly is an anomaly that, while there even may be setbacks and backlashes, could do the impossible (like surviving Destroy on the other end) and at least strongly influence the Reapers enough that the Reaper CYCLE and Reaper immediate THREAT are over.
I personally don't view the EC slides as ...quite literal, but I think they're meant to be seen as literal by most people for now, and that they communicate an honest message overall. Shepard loses much of himself for the sake of ensuring a safety for all for an indeterminable period of time. You can do this too with Destroy, but with more danger and volatility, and Shepard really ought to be alive for it to make it more 'worth it' (overall; of course it depends on what player you are).
~~~
I'm not saying that things aren't going to blow up in our faces with Control. Heh, in fact, my personal ideas are that it WILL. However, I don't think it'll be as much of a disaster as the previous examples. I do think that Shepard is at least innately more ready do take control of the Reapers than anyone else before him. I just also think that the whole ending is a wee bit of a red herring for what's really happening, and that Control is more of a 'temptation that can be grasped' than a best thing in any way.
Why? Because as far as we've been shown, even Renegade Shepard isn't nearly as selfish as any other entity that "manipulated and exploited other species, and they took ethical shortcuts in the pursuit of power". Shepard never seeks 'just power', and even in the rare cases he can exploit other species, we know it's purely for the war effort against the giant omnicide machines, not so he can make sure that he or humanity has power over everything and everyone.
So we can pick Control with the idea that Shepard truly is an anomaly that, while there even may be setbacks and backlashes, could do the impossible (like surviving Destroy on the other end) and at least strongly influence the Reapers enough that the Reaper CYCLE and Reaper immediate THREAT are over.
I personally don't view the EC slides as ...quite literal, but I think they're meant to be seen as literal by most people for now, and that they communicate an honest message overall. Shepard loses much of himself for the sake of ensuring a safety for all for an indeterminable period of time. You can do this too with Destroy, but with more danger and volatility, and Shepard really ought to be alive for it to make it more 'worth it' (overall; of course it depends on what player you are).
~~~
I'm not saying that things aren't going to blow up in our faces with Control. Heh, in fact, my personal ideas are that it WILL. However, I don't think it'll be as much of a disaster as the previous examples. I do think that Shepard is at least innately more ready do take control of the Reapers than anyone else before him. I just also think that the whole ending is a wee bit of a red herring for what's really happening, and that Control is more of a 'temptation that can be grasped' than a best thing in any way.
Modifié par SwobyJ, 08 janvier 2014 - 08:31 .
#129
Posté 08 janvier 2014 - 09:12
SwobyJ
-
- Members
- 7 373 messages
I want to say something about Omega DLC, the red-headed step-child of the DLC gang. I'm going to go on about my 'colors' again, but I think colors are more important in ME3 than they ever were.
Red = Chaotic, Disorganized, Selfish, Organic, Destructive, Intimidating, Irritating, Truth, Domination, Executing, Individual actions with empathy, Emotion, Passion
Blue = Orderly, Organized, Co-operative, Synthetic, Controlling, Charming, Calming, Lying, Indoctrination, Sparing, Systematic actions without empathy, Logic, Serenity
(These are NOT hard rules. For example, organics are great at lying. The issue is that organics have better 'tells' about it, while in the MEU, synthetics are capable of lying without flinching, and the only examples of otherwise are of beings that are moving towards organic sympathy.
Each side also has pros and cons. For example the more serenity, which is still very good to have, that you personally feel, the less attachment you may have for free-will of others, in the name of 'greater goods'.)
I also want to note that my upcoming example is NOT perfect. It doesn't involve Synthesis much at all. It isn't really about it. It's more about the struggle between Destroy and Control, where Shepard stands on it earlier in the story (at least thematically), and where he's tempted to go.
~~~
There's an important scene when you are first trapped by Oleg Petrovsky with Nyreen and Aria.
youtu.be/legVrv0kEPU
-You're with Aria, the Red character with elements of Blue in her, who fights for Omega and its people, but primarily for her own power and 'rightful place' at the top
-You're with Nyreen, the Blue character with elements of Red in her, who primarily fights for Omega and its people, but still knows she needs a leadership role in order to achieve this
-You're trapped in a Red-lined arena space, with the Red as a barrier that seemingly cannot be breached
-Oleg appears as a Blue projection
-Mechs with Red eyes appear, aim to kill you
-You're automatically siding with Aria and to a point, so is Nyreen
-Aria has no compromise in her, and aims to kill Oleg no matter what (... we can see the results if we maintain Paragon with her though, later on)
-Nyreen seems to believe there's no way out
You have your options (in the story situation... but not in mechanics or Shepard's role, as imo Bioware is teaching the player an extra lesson):
Blue/Control --> Anything ranging from surrendering, to deciding Cerberus is right and joining them
Red/Destroy --> Saying "Screw it" and fighting even harder than before, and as Aria does, using all her power to breach the barrier and make it to the other end, or at least letting others out of the trap so they can save HER.
Refuse --> Shooting the mechs dispassionately regardless, but getting overwhelmed by them.
Synthesis --> The only thing to reflect this is if we sacrifice everyone to become Adjutants and yeah, that's a VERY imperfect solution in this example!
Alright. I know some may disagree, but I think this has great parallels to the ending situation we have in ME3, especially if we keep some form of Indoctrination/Deception/Other Theory in mind.
Because, well, believe it or not, Shepard becomes a freaking Reaper in at least Control, in some way. A Reaper. You choose to become a Reaper. "The Illusive Man was right after all..."
So we have something almost indisputingly pro-Destroy here.
But then we go to the control panel, after escaping through Aria's breach.
Oleg returns again and starts making his whispers into your ear. And he's telling the truth. With Aria in charge, everyone in Omega still has to settle for her, because a purely Renegade Aria still does whatever she needs to in order for people to fear her.
It's at this point we can temper the Red in us, move away from our allies/assets fighting off the mechs (emotionally), and focus on saving the most people possible instead. Or we can keep pushing down the Red and let them die neednessly. It is, like everything Blue, more of a gamble (speaking from outside the narrative here).
"Your soft heart almost cost us everything."
"Quiet, Aria. It worked. Shepard saved us without sacrificing innocent lives. I applaud her."
It WORKED.
What does this tell us?
1)If we want to survive (physically, at least), we need to break the barriers we're trapped in. This involves the Red, but in ways it can involve the Blue too (both Paragons and Renegades can just as well pick Destroy as this is the main goal they've been down for this long anyway..).
2)Yet, if our goal isn't exactly us/our alllies/our assets surviving above all else, we CAN take a gamble and hope that an action to more securely save as many other people will pull off and work. And in the cases we're given, it will. Just sometimes at a cost (whether that be the gamble itself, or yourself dying, or whatever else).
This, along with other stuff (but I'm using this specific scene for an example), shows me that yes, Shepard's trilogy is VERY much about Destroy. However, his character journey CAN be VERY much about Control. We can take caution to the wind, consider the 'bigger stuff' more than the immediate danger, spin the wheel in the casino (...) and hope it all works out. And because so much was done til the point of decision, it probably will work out.
So you can take Control and it'll probably be okay. Well, besides Shepard clearly dying (whether in the literal, symbolic, or otherwise story). Lol. But yeah, at the same time, the net benefit may be better, just like pretty much ALL Paragon paths.
As Shepard's Story is over, it's not like we 'need' him. Our goodbyes on London seemed specifically worded to allow Shepard's death and for that to be OK. But I also don't think that he 'needs' to die.
~~~
In this, I think Bioware probably has a pretty balanced view of Blue/Red in the context of the series.
-We have a Red character
-Who can be more Blue over time, and have an initial crew that has a more Blue story (ME2's is more Red overall though, besides Legion our later Judas, lol)
-And eventually go full Blue, purified of his 'organic sins/chaos' and made Reaper (which may not be AS evil as more often portrayed so far)
-And be introduced to Green, a whole other matter
What do I think could happen in the future game(s)?
-We have a Blue character
-Who can be more Red or Green over time, and have an initial crew that has a more Red or Green story (not sure)
-And eventually go full Red or Green, though like Shepard with Destroy, the protagonist may have a more core Blue path regardless
-I also think that there may be other colors involved (Yellow almost for sure..., ahem), and new ones introduced more. I like to think Purple/Magena will be big, as with the Cyan only seen in certain DLCs so far..
I don't think it's as clear as 'Destroy = only way!'. However, I just consider Shepard's, SPECIFIC 'core story', is more Destroy than anything else. Control is a path that works very well enough in the ME2-ME2 Shepard story, especially as Bioware became aware of just how popular Paragon became!, and Synthesis is an introduction to the future, that starts more in ME3. Moral choice, etc.
Red = Chaotic, Disorganized, Selfish, Organic, Destructive, Intimidating, Irritating, Truth, Domination, Executing, Individual actions with empathy, Emotion, Passion
Blue = Orderly, Organized, Co-operative, Synthetic, Controlling, Charming, Calming, Lying, Indoctrination, Sparing, Systematic actions without empathy, Logic, Serenity
(These are NOT hard rules. For example, organics are great at lying. The issue is that organics have better 'tells' about it, while in the MEU, synthetics are capable of lying without flinching, and the only examples of otherwise are of beings that are moving towards organic sympathy.
Each side also has pros and cons. For example the more serenity, which is still very good to have, that you personally feel, the less attachment you may have for free-will of others, in the name of 'greater goods'.)
I also want to note that my upcoming example is NOT perfect. It doesn't involve Synthesis much at all. It isn't really about it. It's more about the struggle between Destroy and Control, where Shepard stands on it earlier in the story (at least thematically), and where he's tempted to go.
~~~
There's an important scene when you are first trapped by Oleg Petrovsky with Nyreen and Aria.
youtu.be/legVrv0kEPU
-You're with Aria, the Red character with elements of Blue in her, who fights for Omega and its people, but primarily for her own power and 'rightful place' at the top
-You're with Nyreen, the Blue character with elements of Red in her, who primarily fights for Omega and its people, but still knows she needs a leadership role in order to achieve this
-You're trapped in a Red-lined arena space, with the Red as a barrier that seemingly cannot be breached
-Oleg appears as a Blue projection
-Mechs with Red eyes appear, aim to kill you
-You're automatically siding with Aria and to a point, so is Nyreen
-Aria has no compromise in her, and aims to kill Oleg no matter what (... we can see the results if we maintain Paragon with her though, later on)
-Nyreen seems to believe there's no way out
You have your options (in the story situation... but not in mechanics or Shepard's role, as imo Bioware is teaching the player an extra lesson):
Blue/Control --> Anything ranging from surrendering, to deciding Cerberus is right and joining them
Red/Destroy --> Saying "Screw it" and fighting even harder than before, and as Aria does, using all her power to breach the barrier and make it to the other end, or at least letting others out of the trap so they can save HER.
Refuse --> Shooting the mechs dispassionately regardless, but getting overwhelmed by them.
Synthesis --> The only thing to reflect this is if we sacrifice everyone to become Adjutants and yeah, that's a VERY imperfect solution in this example!
Alright. I know some may disagree, but I think this has great parallels to the ending situation we have in ME3, especially if we keep some form of Indoctrination/Deception/Other Theory in mind.
Because, well, believe it or not, Shepard becomes a freaking Reaper in at least Control, in some way. A Reaper. You choose to become a Reaper. "The Illusive Man was right after all..."
So we have something almost indisputingly pro-Destroy here.
But then we go to the control panel, after escaping through Aria's breach.
Oleg returns again and starts making his whispers into your ear. And he's telling the truth. With Aria in charge, everyone in Omega still has to settle for her, because a purely Renegade Aria still does whatever she needs to in order for people to fear her.
It's at this point we can temper the Red in us, move away from our allies/assets fighting off the mechs (emotionally), and focus on saving the most people possible instead. Or we can keep pushing down the Red and let them die neednessly. It is, like everything Blue, more of a gamble (speaking from outside the narrative here).
"Your soft heart almost cost us everything."
"Quiet, Aria. It worked. Shepard saved us without sacrificing innocent lives. I applaud her."
It WORKED.
What does this tell us?
1)If we want to survive (physically, at least), we need to break the barriers we're trapped in. This involves the Red, but in ways it can involve the Blue too (both Paragons and Renegades can just as well pick Destroy as this is the main goal they've been down for this long anyway..).
2)Yet, if our goal isn't exactly us/our alllies/our assets surviving above all else, we CAN take a gamble and hope that an action to more securely save as many other people will pull off and work. And in the cases we're given, it will. Just sometimes at a cost (whether that be the gamble itself, or yourself dying, or whatever else).
This, along with other stuff (but I'm using this specific scene for an example), shows me that yes, Shepard's trilogy is VERY much about Destroy. However, his character journey CAN be VERY much about Control. We can take caution to the wind, consider the 'bigger stuff' more than the immediate danger, spin the wheel in the casino (...) and hope it all works out. And because so much was done til the point of decision, it probably will work out.
So you can take Control and it'll probably be okay. Well, besides Shepard clearly dying (whether in the literal, symbolic, or otherwise story). Lol. But yeah, at the same time, the net benefit may be better, just like pretty much ALL Paragon paths.
As Shepard's Story is over, it's not like we 'need' him. Our goodbyes on London seemed specifically worded to allow Shepard's death and for that to be OK. But I also don't think that he 'needs' to die.
~~~
In this, I think Bioware probably has a pretty balanced view of Blue/Red in the context of the series.
-We have a Red character
-Who can be more Blue over time, and have an initial crew that has a more Blue story (ME2's is more Red overall though, besides Legion our later Judas, lol)
-And eventually go full Blue, purified of his 'organic sins/chaos' and made Reaper (which may not be AS evil as more often portrayed so far)
-And be introduced to Green, a whole other matter
What do I think could happen in the future game(s)?
-We have a Blue character
-Who can be more Red or Green over time, and have an initial crew that has a more Red or Green story (not sure)
-And eventually go full Red or Green, though like Shepard with Destroy, the protagonist may have a more core Blue path regardless
-I also think that there may be other colors involved (Yellow almost for sure..., ahem), and new ones introduced more. I like to think Purple/Magena will be big, as with the Cyan only seen in certain DLCs so far..
I don't think it's as clear as 'Destroy = only way!'. However, I just consider Shepard's, SPECIFIC 'core story', is more Destroy than anything else. Control is a path that works very well enough in the ME2-ME2 Shepard story, especially as Bioware became aware of just how popular Paragon became!, and Synthesis is an introduction to the future, that starts more in ME3. Moral choice, etc.
Modifié par SwobyJ, 08 janvier 2014 - 09:16 .
#130
Posté 08 janvier 2014 - 09:42
FlyingSquirrel
-
- Members
- 2 105 messages
The endings are still problematic with or without Leviathan, certainly. I'm just saying that the overall narrative is greatly improved with Leviathan included, especially from a Paragon or multilateralist perspective.
Without Leviathan, the themes of interspecies cooperation and reconciliation are significantly weakened, because the Reapers are still left as a largely incomprehensible enigma even though they do occasionally speak to Shepard and other characters directly. We have the Catalyst telling us that it created the Reapers to prevent an eventual genocide of all organics by synthetics, but we don't know where the Catalyst came from or why, and it's also focused exclusively on organic-synthetic conflict as opposed to the bigger picture of interspecies conflict and exploitation.
While the Leviathans did create the Catalyst in response to organic-synthetic conflict, their fundamental error really has little to do with the organic-synthetic issue per se. Rather, they went wrong in trying to exert so much control over the rest of the galaxy and in doing so for selfish reasons. It feels more of a piece with what we've seen throughout the series than if we only get the Catalyst's explanation.
If Leviathan bolsters any ending, I would tend to think it's probably Synthesis rather than Control, because it further suggests that the Reapers aren't inherently malevolent if they aren't forced to act upon the Catalyst's (IMO, deeply flawed) logic. It also suggests that the Leviathans might well try to control the entire galaxy again if they thought they could get away with it, which means that keeping the Reapers around might actually be a necessary deterrent.
If you interpret the Paragon Control ending as meaning that AI-Shepard will *lead* the Reapers but not control their every thought and action, and that they won't meddle in daily life for the rest of the galaxy, then it's more of an open question which might be better in light of the Leviathan revelations. But if you see AI-Shepard as a potential threat and/or a sort of slavemaster, then Synthesis may be better because it distributes power more evenly - it's not entirely clear from EDI's EC narration or the original version, but my assumption is that each Reaper is operating independently of the Catalyst in Synthesis.
Without Leviathan, the themes of interspecies cooperation and reconciliation are significantly weakened, because the Reapers are still left as a largely incomprehensible enigma even though they do occasionally speak to Shepard and other characters directly. We have the Catalyst telling us that it created the Reapers to prevent an eventual genocide of all organics by synthetics, but we don't know where the Catalyst came from or why, and it's also focused exclusively on organic-synthetic conflict as opposed to the bigger picture of interspecies conflict and exploitation.
While the Leviathans did create the Catalyst in response to organic-synthetic conflict, their fundamental error really has little to do with the organic-synthetic issue per se. Rather, they went wrong in trying to exert so much control over the rest of the galaxy and in doing so for selfish reasons. It feels more of a piece with what we've seen throughout the series than if we only get the Catalyst's explanation.
If Leviathan bolsters any ending, I would tend to think it's probably Synthesis rather than Control, because it further suggests that the Reapers aren't inherently malevolent if they aren't forced to act upon the Catalyst's (IMO, deeply flawed) logic. It also suggests that the Leviathans might well try to control the entire galaxy again if they thought they could get away with it, which means that keeping the Reapers around might actually be a necessary deterrent.
If you interpret the Paragon Control ending as meaning that AI-Shepard will *lead* the Reapers but not control their every thought and action, and that they won't meddle in daily life for the rest of the galaxy, then it's more of an open question which might be better in light of the Leviathan revelations. But if you see AI-Shepard as a potential threat and/or a sort of slavemaster, then Synthesis may be better because it distributes power more evenly - it's not entirely clear from EDI's EC narration or the original version, but my assumption is that each Reaper is operating independently of the Catalyst in Synthesis.
#131
Posté 08 janvier 2014 - 09:52
SwobyJ
-
- Members
- 7 373 messages
I wasn't really in contention FlyingSquirrel, I'm sorry if I made my post out that way! 
I does bolster both Synthesis/Green and Control/Blue in the overt story. It does "stupid apex organic!" while still having us recruit them, automatically, for the greater good, whatever that may be. It even declares wishing to enslave the Reapers and Shepard doesn't bat a mental eye.
In fact, it's the one that most bolsters those two options.
Omega is the Blue/Red one but the Blue isn't really there to convince you except to give a few, again, temptations.
BTW the Leviathan are Cyan (their eyes, the colors used in the last mission of DLC) for a reason imo. Cyan is the mix of Green and Blue. Leviathans may be organic (Red), but they are quite fine with utilizing Blue for the sake of Green. They're just not masters of it, leading to I guess the backstabbing that happened
.
~~~
"If Leviathan bolsters any ending, I would tend to think it's probably Synthesis rather than Control, because it further suggests that the Reapers aren't inherently malevolent if they aren't forced to act upon the Catalyst's (IMO, deeply flawed) logic."
YES. This is the big one. It more clearly (if we take things at their face/word), shows that the Reapers follow a plan, either because they're forced to or because they're made to believe in it innately, but that they do not necessarily neeeeeed to follow it. That they have their own opinions on it, but the Intelligence simply leads them in a greater purpose than just being large machines.
It suggests that they could have a role in a galaxy, instead of just as enemies to destroy every one of. If we go for it.
~~~
I still assert that the trilogy/ME3's content overall is more Destroy focused, involving, and suggesting, but getting, for example, Leviathan and maybe Citadel, while forgoing Omega and maybe From Ashes, does change the playthrough tone to a more balanced level, at least for ME3 in itself (forgetting ME1-ME2).
Extended Cut itself also promotes Control and Synth more than before, by showing them as seemingly perfectly well-ending choices
.
*note that in the following list, I have certain more personal ideas on why some parts are what they are (like Citadel being Synthesis...). I'm also talking more about symbolism and themes, than direct propositions (because nothing really proposes SHEPARD to merge with or control the Reapers.. that all happens only at the END)
From Ashes: 1 Destroy
Extended Cut: 1 Destroy, 1 Control, 1 Synthesis, 1 Refuse
Leviathan: 1 Destroy, 2 Control, 1 Synthesis
Omega: 2 Destroy, 1 Control
Citadel: 1 Destroy, 1 Control, 1 Synthesis, 1 Refuse (in a way that you refuse to finish the game again, lol)
= 6 Destroy, 5 Control, 3 Synthesis, 2 Refuse
Which to me, in my view, makes this game with all DLC still promote Destroy more than before, but gives Control more credence and good feels, Synthesis a BIT more credence and a BIT more good feels, and introduces Refuse as a thing, at least player-psychologically.
I does bolster both Synthesis/Green and Control/Blue in the overt story. It does "stupid apex organic!" while still having us recruit them, automatically, for the greater good, whatever that may be. It even declares wishing to enslave the Reapers and Shepard doesn't bat a mental eye.
In fact, it's the one that most bolsters those two options.
Omega is the Blue/Red one but the Blue isn't really there to convince you except to give a few, again, temptations.
BTW the Leviathan are Cyan (their eyes, the colors used in the last mission of DLC) for a reason imo. Cyan is the mix of Green and Blue. Leviathans may be organic (Red), but they are quite fine with utilizing Blue for the sake of Green. They're just not masters of it, leading to I guess the backstabbing that happened
.~~~
"If Leviathan bolsters any ending, I would tend to think it's probably Synthesis rather than Control, because it further suggests that the Reapers aren't inherently malevolent if they aren't forced to act upon the Catalyst's (IMO, deeply flawed) logic."
YES. This is the big one. It more clearly (if we take things at their face/word), shows that the Reapers follow a plan, either because they're forced to or because they're made to believe in it innately, but that they do not necessarily neeeeeed to follow it. That they have their own opinions on it, but the Intelligence simply leads them in a greater purpose than just being large machines.
It suggests that they could have a role in a galaxy, instead of just as enemies to destroy every one of. If we go for it.
~~~
I still assert that the trilogy/ME3's content overall is more Destroy focused, involving, and suggesting, but getting, for example, Leviathan and maybe Citadel, while forgoing Omega and maybe From Ashes, does change the playthrough tone to a more balanced level, at least for ME3 in itself (forgetting ME1-ME2).
Extended Cut itself also promotes Control and Synth more than before, by showing them as seemingly perfectly well-ending choices
.*note that in the following list, I have certain more personal ideas on why some parts are what they are (like Citadel being Synthesis...). I'm also talking more about symbolism and themes, than direct propositions (because nothing really proposes SHEPARD to merge with or control the Reapers.. that all happens only at the END)
From Ashes: 1 Destroy
Extended Cut: 1 Destroy, 1 Control, 1 Synthesis, 1 Refuse
Leviathan: 1 Destroy, 2 Control, 1 Synthesis
Omega: 2 Destroy, 1 Control
Citadel: 1 Destroy, 1 Control, 1 Synthesis, 1 Refuse (in a way that you refuse to finish the game again, lol)
= 6 Destroy, 5 Control, 3 Synthesis, 2 Refuse
Which to me, in my view, makes this game with all DLC still promote Destroy more than before, but gives Control more credence and good feels, Synthesis a BIT more credence and a BIT more good feels, and introduces Refuse as a thing, at least player-psychologically.
Modifié par SwobyJ, 08 janvier 2014 - 09:58 .
#132
Posté 08 janvier 2014 - 11:09
GimmeDaGun
-
- Members
- 1 998 messages
At first I found it poorly directed and executed, but I was not enraged by it the way many fans were. I liked the idea and concept behind it, but wasn't pleased with the presentation (which is an understatement).
After the release of the EC and Leviathan I started to like it. The EC was needed. Period. Even if it did not fix all the flaws of the vanila version, it was a huge improvement which made the ending and the game much better and lot more enjoyable. With it the ending feels more like an actual ending and less of a rushed wrapping up of the ME-saga and universe. Leviathan gave it a bit more context, which I enjoyed much, it made the game much better, a lot more balnced and complete, plus it was one hell of a dlc (my personal favourit). The funny thing is that I actually had interpreted the ending and the whole concept of the Catalys pretty similarly as it was presented in that dlc, way before its relase (and the release of the EC). So I was quite pleased with it.
I understand those who felt angry or dissappointed about the ending when the game was released, but I found the desperately furious rage and some of the nitpicking debates concerning the lore of the ending a "bit" over the top. Some of the fans were clearly overreacting. I aslo get why there are people out there who still don't like the whole concept of the ending, but it is what it is. Even if it is not what many expected or content with, it is - in its current form - an ending which suits the saga well enough and feels like an actual well thought out and produced ending despite and with its flaws (as opposed to the one we had first), which gives enough closure to the player to keep him or her interested in the trilogy and the ME franchise.
Yep, this is my personal opinion. There's no need to flame me to death for it.
After the release of the EC and Leviathan I started to like it. The EC was needed. Period. Even if it did not fix all the flaws of the vanila version, it was a huge improvement which made the ending and the game much better and lot more enjoyable. With it the ending feels more like an actual ending and less of a rushed wrapping up of the ME-saga and universe. Leviathan gave it a bit more context, which I enjoyed much, it made the game much better, a lot more balnced and complete, plus it was one hell of a dlc (my personal favourit). The funny thing is that I actually had interpreted the ending and the whole concept of the Catalys pretty similarly as it was presented in that dlc, way before its relase (and the release of the EC). So I was quite pleased with it.
I understand those who felt angry or dissappointed about the ending when the game was released, but I found the desperately furious rage and some of the nitpicking debates concerning the lore of the ending a "bit" over the top. Some of the fans were clearly overreacting. I aslo get why there are people out there who still don't like the whole concept of the ending, but it is what it is. Even if it is not what many expected or content with, it is - in its current form - an ending which suits the saga well enough and feels like an actual well thought out and produced ending despite and with its flaws (as opposed to the one we had first), which gives enough closure to the player to keep him or her interested in the trilogy and the ME franchise.
Yep, this is my personal opinion. There's no need to flame me to death for it.
#133
Posté 08 janvier 2014 - 11:25
pebiowarenis
-
- Members
- 4 messages
von uber wrote...
pebiowarenis wrote...
Destroy is not consistent with the paragon ideology reflected throughout the trilogy. Destroy requires you to kill off EDI, the Geth, and the reapers (sapient life). Additionally, it's strongly implied (but not definitely, granted) that the cycle will repeat itself. Destroy certainly is the hollywood ending, although, perhaps it is unfair to reduce it to simply that. It is jingoistic and self-serving, though. If you feel strongly regarding the forcible change aspect, then I assume you let the Geth die, as that is directly analogous.
Also, I'm not sure why you think the other choices don't end the reaper 'threat'. Only one tangibly destroys the reapers, but all of them factually stop the reaper invasion; this is simply indisputable, unless you're talking about IT. If you feel strongly that destroy was the 'correct' choice, then it was what you felt was right and reflected your choices, but it does not transmogrify other endings.
I'll give you EDI, but not the Geth. It is not clear whether thye are affected or not. The Geth also choose to be changed, which is different from being forced as you are in Synthesis. They reach a consensus to be individuals (and thus lose everything interesting about them, hey ho) and I always broker peace to let the Quarians and Geth work it out between themselves and BOTH aid the war effort. They choose what to do, no forcible change.
Synthesis ends the invasion but no the Reaper threat, neither does Control. There is nothing to suggest that the cycles will not continue. Destroy removes the reapers entirely out of the equation; the future is now detemeined by each race rather than the Reapers. I would say ME1 was a hollywood ending; not ME3.
But you are correct, each believes the choice they made was the best
I went to double check the scene where Legion uploads the code, incase I'd misunderstood or misremembered something. Legion states each Geth is independent, that uploading the code would retain their independence, and alludes to them having a soul. Furthermore, he does not specify whether they'd reached concensus, or if he's even made the collective aware of his decision. If you'll recall from Legion's loyalty mission, it takes time for the collective to reach concensus on large matters, hence him leaving Shepard to play god.
As for the Geth surviving the destroy ending, once again, it is stated very explicitly that all synthetic life forms will die. If you want to pretend that they survive, then you're superimposing your own ideas onto the plot that are explicitly stated as being otherwise. That being said, if destroy becomes canon in the 4th game (and likely will, for numerous ones), I'm sure Bioware will have lore amnesia and include the Geth.
As for the reaper threat continuing in the synthesis and control ending, all 3 endings clearly infer that the galaxy is safe for the immediate future. However, let's assume the reapers will eventually betray you in anything but the destroy ending. According to the game, over millions of years, all species repeatedly created AI that became cognizant and eventually rebelled. It is inevitable that they will be created and conflict with their creators. This is evident even among the most advanced race in the series, as well as in this cycle with the Quarians. It takes a "brave new world" mentality to think that no organic race will ever build a rebellious AI ever again.
#134
Posté 09 janvier 2014 - 12:01
von uber
-
- Members
- 5 521 messages
pebiowarenis wrote...
I went to double check the scene where Legion uploads the code, incase I'd misunderstood or misremembered something. Legion states each Geth is independent, that uploading the code would retain their independence, and alludes to them having a soul. Furthermore, he does not specify whether they'd reached concensus, or if he's even made the collective aware of his decision. If you'll recall from Legion's loyalty mission, it takes time for the collective to reach concensus on large matters, hence him leaving Shepard to play god.
Ha, you could be right - I'll take your word for it. So ny your reckoning the Geth are forced to upload the reaper code by Legion / Shepard? Interesting. Not considered it in that way before. But isn't it in that case the Reaper code basically just being an a.i processing upgrade and not something which actually changes them as individuals? I always thought the code made them individuals as opposed to a collective (that snazzy holo presentation Legion gives).
pebiowarenis wrote...
As for the Geth surviving the destroy ending, once again, it is stated very explicitly that all synthetic life forms will die. If you want to pretend that they survive, then you're superimposing your own ideas onto the plot that are explicitly stated as being otherwise. That being said, if destroy becomes canon in the 4th game (and likely will, for numerous ones), I'm sure Bioware will have lore amnesia and include the Geth.
But the Geth are code and exist on servers. not really synthetic life form. But I suppose the same could be argued for EDI. Anyway, regardless. i think that the loss of EDI and the Geth are acceptable. As garrus says, the problem with Humans is that they want to try and save everybody. The whole ruthless calculus of war. But YMMV.
pebiowarenis wrote...
As for the reaper threat continuing in the synthesis and control ending, all 3 endings clearly infer that the galaxy is safe for the immediate future. However, let's assume the reapers will eventually betray you in anything but the destroy ending. According to the game, over millions of years, all species repeatedly created AI that became cognizant and eventually rebelled. It is inevitable that they will be created and conflict with their creators. This is evident even among the most advanced race in the series, as well as in this cycle with the Quarians. It takes a "brave new world" mentality to think that no organic race will ever build a rebellious AI ever again.
The difference is that they would be free to debelop and confront that threat on their own terms and have them as their own mistakes (if it turned out to be the case). Not having a solution imposed on them.
#135
Posté 09 janvier 2014 - 12:41
kalerab
-
- Members
- 166 messages
This whole discussion is largely meaningless when you are trying to get ME3 ending into coherence with ME1 and ME2 storylines. Accept the fact that this was made by someone else who disrespected the basic tenants of the story.
ME1 and ME2 writers team was under lead of Drew Karpyshyn who shadowed in ME2 the reason for Reapers existence, why were Collectors building Reaper from humans and what they meant. His whole artistic vision, that BioWare likes to defend itself with, was thrown out of the window by both Crucible and Catalyst. They are both alien to the series and are nothing more and nothing less than Deus ex machina.
For those who don´t know or don´t remember, originally Karpyshyn had in mind the simple thing - Reapers are created as Collectors shown us in ME2. The reason for their existence and existence of Cycles is prevention of spreading of dark energy within the celestial bodies in the galaxy. This dark energy spreading is fueled by usage of eezo - biotics, mass effects et cetera. Reapers are hence reaping races for two purposes 1, slow down spreading because of 2, finding the optimal race which would have genetical code or other mumbo-jumbo able to stop this expansion towards Big Crunch and reverse it. The asari and Proheans were close to this final goal, but not fully there. Humans were.
Instead we got a Deus Ex ending with 3 "choices" presented to us by last-minute antagonist which throws out the 120 hours of story-telling out of the window. The complete change-over of Shepard personality and forced feeling of some spiritualism that simply does not work as this ending, this story "twist", did not occur naturally from the previous story-telling but was shoved down without any regards. Instead of finishing nice and easy, instead of bringing the choices we made during the series to conclusion, completely new game was added in last 5 minutes with new antagonist and, in my honest opinion, new protagonist. Why new protagonist? Shepard wasn´t in control after the liftly thing brought him on top of the Citadel. Shepard became an observer, willing to do any command that Catalyst gave him. Perhaps why Indoctrination theory made more sense from story-telling point of view than what actually happened.
Perhaps you like it. Perhaps you buy it. If so, I do not understand how and why. I read the arguments proponents of ending use. I understood none of them. Perhaps its my mistake and perhaps it isn´t. However, even though I could accept Crucible as it was on the scene whole 3rd game (despite broken promises about no super-weapon and instead brute war which will be decided upon how much allies can you get on your side), I cannot say that inclusion of Catalyst was ok. It is, it was and it will be my main problem with the game and the series. And its a shame, incredible shame because I love the series. I just think they screwed up at the end.
And before someone re-starts the sad argument. Legion death was sad. I loved it. Remarque All Quite on Western front ending was sad. One of my most favourite books. I don´t care about sad, nor about Shepard survival. I care about coherence and genre. That was abandoned.
As for the original exploration of meaning behind the RGB endings, I really do think that writer(s) had in mind something like this. If it wouldn´t be forced perhaps I would accept it. The problem lies also within how they done it. Fe in Destroy Shepard just randomly stands up and starts maniacly shooting into the tube? Why would the destruction of super-weapon component trigger a chain-reaction leading to destruction of all synthetic intelligent life in the galaxy? There is no reasonal rationale behind it. It is "spiritual". This is how it was ment. And that is not how its done. Given that Shepard is not in a dream-world, the laws of the virtual world that BioWare presented us for all 3 games applies. Or at least should. The spirituality belongs into something mystical, some dream-realm. ME meanwhile presented rational world where things do have logical explanation, where 1 + 1 always equals 2. Hence the abandonment of genra.
And thus comes into conclusion the 1,586,351st post about these greviances. Fortunatelly mod which cuts out the Catalyst compeltely exists.
ME1 and ME2 writers team was under lead of Drew Karpyshyn who shadowed in ME2 the reason for Reapers existence, why were Collectors building Reaper from humans and what they meant. His whole artistic vision, that BioWare likes to defend itself with, was thrown out of the window by both Crucible and Catalyst. They are both alien to the series and are nothing more and nothing less than Deus ex machina.
For those who don´t know or don´t remember, originally Karpyshyn had in mind the simple thing - Reapers are created as Collectors shown us in ME2. The reason for their existence and existence of Cycles is prevention of spreading of dark energy within the celestial bodies in the galaxy. This dark energy spreading is fueled by usage of eezo - biotics, mass effects et cetera. Reapers are hence reaping races for two purposes 1, slow down spreading because of 2, finding the optimal race which would have genetical code or other mumbo-jumbo able to stop this expansion towards Big Crunch and reverse it. The asari and Proheans were close to this final goal, but not fully there. Humans were.
Instead we got a Deus Ex ending with 3 "choices" presented to us by last-minute antagonist which throws out the 120 hours of story-telling out of the window. The complete change-over of Shepard personality and forced feeling of some spiritualism that simply does not work as this ending, this story "twist", did not occur naturally from the previous story-telling but was shoved down without any regards. Instead of finishing nice and easy, instead of bringing the choices we made during the series to conclusion, completely new game was added in last 5 minutes with new antagonist and, in my honest opinion, new protagonist. Why new protagonist? Shepard wasn´t in control after the liftly thing brought him on top of the Citadel. Shepard became an observer, willing to do any command that Catalyst gave him. Perhaps why Indoctrination theory made more sense from story-telling point of view than what actually happened.
Perhaps you like it. Perhaps you buy it. If so, I do not understand how and why. I read the arguments proponents of ending use. I understood none of them. Perhaps its my mistake and perhaps it isn´t. However, even though I could accept Crucible as it was on the scene whole 3rd game (despite broken promises about no super-weapon and instead brute war which will be decided upon how much allies can you get on your side), I cannot say that inclusion of Catalyst was ok. It is, it was and it will be my main problem with the game and the series. And its a shame, incredible shame because I love the series. I just think they screwed up at the end.
And before someone re-starts the sad argument. Legion death was sad. I loved it. Remarque All Quite on Western front ending was sad. One of my most favourite books. I don´t care about sad, nor about Shepard survival. I care about coherence and genre. That was abandoned.
As for the original exploration of meaning behind the RGB endings, I really do think that writer(s) had in mind something like this. If it wouldn´t be forced perhaps I would accept it. The problem lies also within how they done it. Fe in Destroy Shepard just randomly stands up and starts maniacly shooting into the tube? Why would the destruction of super-weapon component trigger a chain-reaction leading to destruction of all synthetic intelligent life in the galaxy? There is no reasonal rationale behind it. It is "spiritual". This is how it was ment. And that is not how its done. Given that Shepard is not in a dream-world, the laws of the virtual world that BioWare presented us for all 3 games applies. Or at least should. The spirituality belongs into something mystical, some dream-realm. ME meanwhile presented rational world where things do have logical explanation, where 1 + 1 always equals 2. Hence the abandonment of genra.
And thus comes into conclusion the 1,586,351st post about these greviances. Fortunatelly mod which cuts out the Catalyst compeltely exists.
Modifié par kalerab, 09 janvier 2014 - 12:56 .
#136
Posté 09 janvier 2014 - 01:19
SwobyJ
-
- Members
- 7 373 messages
GimmeDaGun wrote...
At first I found it poorly directed and executed, but I was not enraged by it the way many fans were. I liked the idea and concept behind it, but wasn't pleased with the presentation (which is an understatement).
After the release of the EC and Leviathan I started to like it. The EC was needed. Period. Even if it did not fix all the flaws of the vanila version, it was a huge improvement which made the ending and the game much better and lot more enjoyable. With it the ending feels more like an actual ending and less of a rushed wrapping up of the ME-saga and universe. Leviathan gave it a bit more context, which I enjoyed much, it made the game much better, a lot more balnced and complete, plus it was one hell of a dlc (my personal favourit). The funny thing is that I actually had interpreted the ending and the whole concept of the Catalys pretty similarly as it was presented in that dlc, way before its relase (and the release of the EC). So I was quite pleased with it.
I understand those who felt angry or dissappointed about the ending when the game was released, but I found the desperately furious rage and some of the nitpicking debates concerning the lore of the ending a "bit" over the top. Some of the fans were clearly overreacting. I aslo get why there are people out there who still don't like the whole concept of the ending, but it is what it is. Even if it is not what many expected or content with, it is - in its current form - an ending which suits the saga well enough and feels like an actual well thought out and produced ending despite and with its flaws (as opposed to the one we had first), which gives enough closure to the player to keep him or her interested in the trilogy and the ME franchise.
Yep, this is my personal opinion. There's no need to flame me to death for it.
Nah, totally agreed.
On my part though, I did heavily sympathize with Retake Mass Effect for maybe... a couple weeks tops, but that quickly turned into "they can do whatever ending they want, just understand that it may have negative consequences". I also considered the original ending without any DLC (even From Ashes, in this case) to be terrible. It does its bare job of what I consider now to be more sociological/psychological experiment, but doesn't at all provide the resolution people, you know, paid for.
Extended Cut turned a terrible case into a mediocre case. Leviathan turned it into a meh case. Omega didn't do much at all when it came down to it (though as I put in a previous post, I personally value a lot in it, if only for thematic reasons). Citadel turned it all into a 'good at best'. And I can deal with 'good at best', because I don't consider video games to be my absolute life and my interests *entirely* catered to.
So as it is, ME2 is still my favorite overall, with ME1 having the best plot. ME3 MAY become my favorite Mass Effect, but that's only if certain things turn out to be the case (and to clarify, I'm not talkin' Indoctrination Theory itself) in retrospect.
#137
Posté 09 janvier 2014 - 01:21
FlyingSquirrel
-
- Members
- 2 105 messages
SwobyJ wrote...
I wasn't really in contention FlyingSquirrel, I'm sorry if I made my post out that way!
Not at all. And I don't mind a little friendly debate anyway.
#138
Posté 09 janvier 2014 - 01:34
SwobyJ
-
- Members
- 7 373 messages
Re:kal
Karpyshyn has had to repeat time and time again that they never pinned down what the Reapers were and what exactly their aim was, and the dark energy deal was simply one of the leading possibilities.
You can say he's just covering for Bioware, but that would be guessing.
~~~
"If it wouldn´t be forced perhaps I would accept it."
Yeah, that was a problem with a lot of aspects of Mass Effect 3
. Everything feels a little forced, even while a lot feels held back. Compared to ME1's fresh upstartness and ME2's fun confidence, ME3 is hesitant while lurching forward into the unknown. It's supposed to be a 'war story', yet really, when we look past the surface, it's a mind**** that yes, is probably pretty far away from Drew's path (imo it's not as far as it seems, but its still away from it).
In itself, as a gameplay and storytelling thing, I don't like it. Still don't. Too much 'forcing' for anything claiming to be RPG. Gimmie my Shepard!
The only thing that makes it better to me (of the new things) personally is that Green seems to represent the ultimate of trans-humanism (or as said elsewhere on the forum, post-humanism). Futurists seem to predict that we will gradually put more tech and virtuality in our lives (even with some moving much faster into it than the norm, or some rejecting it even entirely), until the 'singularity' just hits us all with a sudden shock. At that point, it'll be about whether we are ready for it or not, not whether it was ready to happen period.
Green/Synthesis really fits that, symbolically at least. It, more than any other path in the series, comes with nearly sudden shock and bizarreness. We term it space magic. It seems unreal. Heck, without it, the most crazy theories (those that go beyond Indoctrination itself) would probably not exist or at least be encouraged so much.
So I think it's totally fine to say it ruined the progress and coherency of the trilogy. It kindaaaa really does. At the same time, it at least imo stays true to what it seems to represent.
~~~
I know you're mostly talking about the Crucible and Catalyst though... If I was a part of the writing decision-making, yes, I'd change those. Not because I hate them, but because I don't think they fit enough for now.
The Crucible needed more than a couple lines in Shadow Broker for foreshadowing. By far.
The Catalyst either needed totally different presentation and lead-up, or to be replaced by something else. TBH even the old name of The Guardian in the script may have made it even slightly better.
I think I get where the devs are going with their concepts (and if I'm right, we're not done with referencing of either yet..), but it's too much, too fast, and too awkwardly shown. The Catalyst especially. The dreams don't cut it.
My hypothesis is that the Catalyst is actually Sovereign/Nazara, and the Sovereign-Reaper (as a fully synthetic 'Reaper') was actually just an extension of the Intelligence after it is locked out by the Prothian Scientists. It would make everything come full-circle really.
Dunno if I'm right, but I like the idea.
Karpyshyn has had to repeat time and time again that they never pinned down what the Reapers were and what exactly their aim was, and the dark energy deal was simply one of the leading possibilities.
You can say he's just covering for Bioware, but that would be guessing.
~~~
"If it wouldn´t be forced perhaps I would accept it."
Yeah, that was a problem with a lot of aspects of Mass Effect 3
. Everything feels a little forced, even while a lot feels held back. Compared to ME1's fresh upstartness and ME2's fun confidence, ME3 is hesitant while lurching forward into the unknown. It's supposed to be a 'war story', yet really, when we look past the surface, it's a mind**** that yes, is probably pretty far away from Drew's path (imo it's not as far as it seems, but its still away from it).In itself, as a gameplay and storytelling thing, I don't like it. Still don't. Too much 'forcing' for anything claiming to be RPG. Gimmie my Shepard!
The only thing that makes it better to me (of the new things) personally is that Green seems to represent the ultimate of trans-humanism (or as said elsewhere on the forum, post-humanism). Futurists seem to predict that we will gradually put more tech and virtuality in our lives (even with some moving much faster into it than the norm, or some rejecting it even entirely), until the 'singularity' just hits us all with a sudden shock. At that point, it'll be about whether we are ready for it or not, not whether it was ready to happen period.
Green/Synthesis really fits that, symbolically at least. It, more than any other path in the series, comes with nearly sudden shock and bizarreness. We term it space magic. It seems unreal. Heck, without it, the most crazy theories (those that go beyond Indoctrination itself) would probably not exist or at least be encouraged so much.
So I think it's totally fine to say it ruined the progress and coherency of the trilogy. It kindaaaa really does. At the same time, it at least imo stays true to what it seems to represent.
~~~
I know you're mostly talking about the Crucible and Catalyst though... If I was a part of the writing decision-making, yes, I'd change those. Not because I hate them, but because I don't think they fit enough for now.
The Crucible needed more than a couple lines in Shadow Broker for foreshadowing. By far.
The Catalyst either needed totally different presentation and lead-up, or to be replaced by something else. TBH even the old name of The Guardian in the script may have made it even slightly better.
I think I get where the devs are going with their concepts (and if I'm right, we're not done with referencing of either yet..), but it's too much, too fast, and too awkwardly shown. The Catalyst especially. The dreams don't cut it.
My hypothesis is that the Catalyst is actually Sovereign/Nazara, and the Sovereign-Reaper (as a fully synthetic 'Reaper') was actually just an extension of the Intelligence after it is locked out by the Prothian Scientists. It would make everything come full-circle really.
Dunno if I'm right, but I like the idea.
Modifié par SwobyJ, 09 janvier 2014 - 01:40 .
#139
Posté 09 janvier 2014 - 01:54
Shuidizi
-
- Members
- 78 messages
My first playthrough was last December, where I got all DLCs to begin with. And surprise or not I was actually extremely satisfied in the end. I got my expectations very low because I was aware of all the controversies. But in the end I really cannot complain much.
To be honest towards the end the only thing I was going for was a Shepard that could live on his/her live. Personally I agree with destroy much more than the other options, but I would happily pick those if Shepard survive those ones. I was only worried by picking destroy there would be many negative consequences and it would make my Shepard seem selfish, but the narrative is much more positive than I imagined. I feel very awarded for playing through the trilogy, my Shepard found happiness and peace, the damned reapers are wiped off existence, there were many emotional goodbyes and a hell of a party (Citadel dlc).
All in all I guess what I want to say is I was afraid the ending would spoil the trilogy for me like a lot claimed, but it really didn't, it's not a perfectly happy ending but most of my main expectations are met. When the last camera focused on Shepard and he/she drew that breath, there was only thrill and joy left in my mind. I knew from then this is a trilogy I will play many times over and over again.
To be honest towards the end the only thing I was going for was a Shepard that could live on his/her live. Personally I agree with destroy much more than the other options, but I would happily pick those if Shepard survive those ones. I was only worried by picking destroy there would be many negative consequences and it would make my Shepard seem selfish, but the narrative is much more positive than I imagined. I feel very awarded for playing through the trilogy, my Shepard found happiness and peace, the damned reapers are wiped off existence, there were many emotional goodbyes and a hell of a party (Citadel dlc).
All in all I guess what I want to say is I was afraid the ending would spoil the trilogy for me like a lot claimed, but it really didn't, it's not a perfectly happy ending but most of my main expectations are met. When the last camera focused on Shepard and he/she drew that breath, there was only thrill and joy left in my mind. I knew from then this is a trilogy I will play many times over and over again.
Modifié par Shuidizi, 09 janvier 2014 - 01:55 .
#140
Posté 09 janvier 2014 - 02:02
SwobyJ
-
- Members
- 7 373 messages
"where I got all DLCs to begin with"
Mhmmm.
Mhmmm.
#141
Posté 09 janvier 2014 - 02:05
Shuidizi
-
- Members
- 78 messages
SwobyJ wrote...
"where I got all DLCs to begin with"
Mhmmm.
Yeah I know. I sometimes want to say "I can imagine it must be very difficult to play first without them", but to be honest I can't imagine. Which is why nowadays I don't play anything untill the last DLC is out.
#142
Posté 09 janvier 2014 - 02:06
MrMrPendragon
-
- Members
- 1 445 messages
I'm fine with the ending - with the EC.
(EC is really a "need" for ME3)
Although I hated the arrogance of the Reapers and the Catalyst. All throughout the series they were so smug and condescending in that they didn't even deem the organics deserving for an explanation for their motivations.
But then you actually find out in ME3 that their motivations are nothing more than flawed logic programmed into them by the Leviathans.
Any "organic" who thought hard enough would know that the catalysts' goal of "absolute order" can NEVER happen. There can never be "zero chaos" in the world, thus making the Reapers' solution a flawed one. And yet, here they are saying we cannot comprehend their intentions. It's like they were programmed to have that smug sense of superiority.
EDIT: Citadel DLC eased the pain a little bit.
I wish ME3 ended in a "Citadel DLC" fashion, just because of how important the supporting characters are in the trilogy.
(EC is really a "need" for ME3)
Although I hated the arrogance of the Reapers and the Catalyst. All throughout the series they were so smug and condescending in that they didn't even deem the organics deserving for an explanation for their motivations.
But then you actually find out in ME3 that their motivations are nothing more than flawed logic programmed into them by the Leviathans.
Any "organic" who thought hard enough would know that the catalysts' goal of "absolute order" can NEVER happen. There can never be "zero chaos" in the world, thus making the Reapers' solution a flawed one. And yet, here they are saying we cannot comprehend their intentions. It's like they were programmed to have that smug sense of superiority.
EDIT: Citadel DLC eased the pain a little bit.
I wish ME3 ended in a "Citadel DLC" fashion, just because of how important the supporting characters are in the trilogy.
Modifié par ArcherTactlenecks, 09 janvier 2014 - 02:12 .
#143
Posté 09 janvier 2014 - 02:08
SwobyJ
-
- Members
- 7 373 messages
Re:Shu
Ha! I might have to do so with the next Mass Effect game... nah, I'd be in a rush to play.
Honestly, in my interpretation, Bioware guys are right that the base games gives 'all you need to know'. However, as a lore addict and someone who wanted a bit more balance and context (even like I said before, thematic context), all DLCs help.
Even Citadel DLC. Which does wreck the tone, but I think they did exactly what they needed to with that DLC. After investigating it, I at least feel I have all *I* wanted to know. I'm-a put on my tin foil hat now
Ha! I might have to do so with the next Mass Effect game... nah, I'd be in a rush to play.
Honestly, in my interpretation, Bioware guys are right that the base games gives 'all you need to know'. However, as a lore addict and someone who wanted a bit more balance and context (even like I said before, thematic context), all DLCs help.
Even Citadel DLC. Which does wreck the tone, but I think they did exactly what they needed to with that DLC. After investigating it, I at least feel I have all *I* wanted to know. I'm-a put on my tin foil hat now
Modifié par SwobyJ, 09 janvier 2014 - 02:08 .
#144
Posté 09 janvier 2014 - 02:11
SwobyJ
-
- Members
- 7 373 messages
What if in the next game we're put into the place of a protagonist who 'knows best' for the galaxy that is being torn apart by 'chaos' and doesn't even *remotely* trust him, even to the point of treating him as their enemy?
I'd like to see how people squirm in that position and stuck with how to treat other characters. No more relying on being in the Alliance, Spectre status, Cerberus backup, or War Effort alliances...
I'd like to see how people squirm in that position and stuck with how to treat other characters. No more relying on being in the Alliance, Spectre status, Cerberus backup, or War Effort alliances...
#145
Posté 09 janvier 2014 - 07:18
Farangbaa
-
- Members
- 6 757 messages
ElSuperGecko wrote...
Psychevore wrote...
I would like to hear exactly what it doesn't understand.
Maybe you should re-watch the Catalyst conversation then, and pay attention this time?
No. I want YOU to explain what it does not understand.
Modifié par Psychevore, 09 janvier 2014 - 07:19 .
#146
Posté 09 janvier 2014 - 07:37
SwobyJ
-
- Members
- 7 373 messages
Whoh now, do you two need to take this outside?
#147
Posté 09 janvier 2014 - 07:58
Farangbaa
-
- Members
- 6 757 messages
SwobyJ wrote...
Whoh now, do you two need to take this outside?
Nah. I'm just getting the feeling that the Catalyst's 'not understanding' has no deeper level than 'not understanding'. I want an explanation of what it does not understand. If one can't explain what exactly it doesn't understand, I doubt this person himself understands, or that there simply isn't something that it doesn't understand.
Though I'm also getting the feeling that the answer is going to be that "Organics are clearly more resourceful than I thought", which would be disappointing.
#148
Posté 09 janvier 2014 - 10:14
Lord Watson
-
- Members
- 60 messages
I will be in the minority, but I had no problem with the endings of the game post EC.
Pre EC, I was less than happy...we got a flash of r-g-b light, and the Normandy speeding away, then roll credits. In this day and age, that **** doesn't fly. Especially a flagship AAA title from a character centric rpg studio. It's no surprise people were so livid, the game was severly hyped(I know I was, anyhow). I didn't have an issue with the choices, just the lack of any closure (free from headcanon of course).
Post EC(and Leviathan), I'm fine with it. A lot of the story revolved around the definition of life, and the subject of control/freedom. It's no surprise those themes were all over the ending.
I'm not going to write a dissertation evaluating the ending/s. It'd be easier to just describe the current playthroughs and in character thought processes.
1st-Paragon Control Shep
This Shep had let the Geth be destroyed. He had chose the Quarians, even after they started the war. He would feel guilt over it. His perception of what defines life has been altered through his adventure. Before the Catalyst, the idea of controlling the Reapers was absurd. TIM was certainly not the right one to pitch the idea. As far as trusting the Catalyst, if the Catalyst wanted their demise it would have just left him to bleed out and not raised the platform. The majority of all the fleets in the galaxy where there, it would have been perfect to wipe out everyone in hours. It sought a solution, and apparently it believed Shepard to be the right person to make the call. Control stopped the Reapers without killing anyone else. He would become the ultimate galactic Paladin.
2nd Paragade Destroy Shep
This Shep had forged an alliance with the Geth/Quarians. He was also fond of EDI. That said, he did not believe the Geth or EDI were alive in the same way as he. Even with his synthetic bits, he was a man. He did not think twice about destroying the Geth and EDI along with the Reapers. He was a marine, and sacrifices had to be made. He was not a God, he did not want the responsibility of controlling the Reapers, and he certainly wasn't going to combine organics with synthetics.
3rd Renegade Synthesis Shep
This Shep in addition to nearly sending the Batarians to extinction, had also doomed the Krogan. That is a lot to weigh on someone. Then there's his experience being with Tali and the Quarians. The Geth post Rannoch were doing a lot for the Quarians. Tali could now be with him without Mordin's antibiotic cocktails. EDI was more than a computer to him now, too. He was given a chance to not only stop the harvest without killing anyone-he could help those he loved become more. He saw the option as beautiful, even if extreme. He didn't have time to take a poll, but assumed the galaxy would rather become partially synthetic than extinct. You can't please everyone though, If they'd rather perish that is their business, and they are free to kill themselves later.
I've read the arguments against the endings a million times, but I don't understand the bitterness surrounding it. I never will, I've read so many posts about it and just can't relate. If your Shep wouldn't choose anything but destroy...then choose destroy. If you don't gather enough resources for the fight though then the epilogue is different(even if only slightly). It's certainly better than what we originally got.
Pre EC, I was less than happy...we got a flash of r-g-b light, and the Normandy speeding away, then roll credits. In this day and age, that **** doesn't fly. Especially a flagship AAA title from a character centric rpg studio. It's no surprise people were so livid, the game was severly hyped(I know I was, anyhow). I didn't have an issue with the choices, just the lack of any closure (free from headcanon of course).
Post EC(and Leviathan), I'm fine with it. A lot of the story revolved around the definition of life, and the subject of control/freedom. It's no surprise those themes were all over the ending.
I'm not going to write a dissertation evaluating the ending/s. It'd be easier to just describe the current playthroughs and in character thought processes.
1st-Paragon Control Shep
This Shep had let the Geth be destroyed. He had chose the Quarians, even after they started the war. He would feel guilt over it. His perception of what defines life has been altered through his adventure. Before the Catalyst, the idea of controlling the Reapers was absurd. TIM was certainly not the right one to pitch the idea. As far as trusting the Catalyst, if the Catalyst wanted their demise it would have just left him to bleed out and not raised the platform. The majority of all the fleets in the galaxy where there, it would have been perfect to wipe out everyone in hours. It sought a solution, and apparently it believed Shepard to be the right person to make the call. Control stopped the Reapers without killing anyone else. He would become the ultimate galactic Paladin.
2nd Paragade Destroy Shep
This Shep had forged an alliance with the Geth/Quarians. He was also fond of EDI. That said, he did not believe the Geth or EDI were alive in the same way as he. Even with his synthetic bits, he was a man. He did not think twice about destroying the Geth and EDI along with the Reapers. He was a marine, and sacrifices had to be made. He was not a God, he did not want the responsibility of controlling the Reapers, and he certainly wasn't going to combine organics with synthetics.
3rd Renegade Synthesis Shep
This Shep in addition to nearly sending the Batarians to extinction, had also doomed the Krogan. That is a lot to weigh on someone. Then there's his experience being with Tali and the Quarians. The Geth post Rannoch were doing a lot for the Quarians. Tali could now be with him without Mordin's antibiotic cocktails. EDI was more than a computer to him now, too. He was given a chance to not only stop the harvest without killing anyone-he could help those he loved become more. He saw the option as beautiful, even if extreme. He didn't have time to take a poll, but assumed the galaxy would rather become partially synthetic than extinct. You can't please everyone though, If they'd rather perish that is their business, and they are free to kill themselves later.
I've read the arguments against the endings a million times, but I don't understand the bitterness surrounding it. I never will, I've read so many posts about it and just can't relate. If your Shep wouldn't choose anything but destroy...then choose destroy. If you don't gather enough resources for the fight though then the epilogue is different(even if only slightly). It's certainly better than what we originally got.
#149
Posté 09 janvier 2014 - 04:24
Yggdrasil
-
- Members
- 659 messages
I wrote a short explanation of what I thought the Catalyst didn't "get" about organic life:Psychevore wrote...
ElSuperGecko wrote...
Psychevore wrote...
I would like to hear exactly what it doesn't understand.
Maybe you should re-watch the Catalyst conversation then, and pay attention this time?
No. I want YOU to explain what it does not understand.
MichaelStJohn90068 wrote...
I don't believe that the function and purpose of all life is the furtherance of some singular goal. The Catalyst presumes that everyone deemed worthy by the harvesting process would want to "ascend" and be preserved as a Reaper, so it forces that will on all organic life. I personally have no desire to live forever. I believe we create our own meaning within the context of our finite existences. Achieving complete stasis where everyone is the same so that there is no growth and no change may appeal to the reasoning of a constructed intelligence, but I don't believe organics would see the imposition of an outside, orderly will as a viable means to achieve peace.
These our the subtleties about organic life I feel the Catalyst doesn't understand.
#150
Posté 09 janvier 2014 - 04:52
CronoDragoon
-
- Members
- 10 411 messages
SwobyJ wrote...
Honestly, in my interpretation, Bioware guys are right that the base games gives 'all you need to know'.
I'd disagree there. Besides the relay destruction retcon and showing the Normandy flying away from the jungle planet, the biggest difference to me was the rework of the Catalyst conversation in the EC. In the vanilla game I had no idea what was going on, why he was there, etc. They reworked the dialogue to be a lot clearer and added some more details about the Catalyst that situated the ending for me ("oh, he was created to keep peace between organics and synthetics and concluded the cycles were the only answer." This is information not given in the OEs. It's All vague metaphyisical BS). The reworked EC dialogue is so much better, in fact, that the Leviathan reveal feels partially redundant after experiencing the EC first (obviously people playing through the first time might believe the converse).
