AlanC9 wrote...
iakus wrote...
It's going to continue until we know where Mass Effect is going. Until we know if those who wish to can simply ignore the endings and start fresh with the next game.
You think it won't go on past that?
EntropicAngel wrote...
And about Bioware games and stories--this is a fun one. Because like it or not (and obviously, many did not), ME3's ending was an attempt--allow me to say that five more times before people say "it failed!" (it doesn't matter if it "failed" or not)
Attempt
Attempt
Attempt
Attempt
Attempt
--at a more highbrow story that "RARWEKILLORGANICSBECUZWEEVULANDINNEFFABLE" that ME1 and ME2 were plugging. ME3 was an attempt at a more nuanced view of the Reapers.
THAT is not subjective. THAT is fact. Whether it was successful or not is subjective--but Bioware's portrayal of Reapers in ME3, and especially the ending, was indisputably, indisputably, intended to be more nuanced than ME1 or ME2.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
iakus wrote...
1) This is not the first time Bioware has done villains that were more than "Evil for the Lulz" though this was probably the most laughable attempt
2) That we're still discussing this nearly two years later pretty well demonstrates that it does matter if they failed or not. As it's casting a shadow over future products.
Modifié par EntropicAngel, 11 janvier 2014 - 08:27 .
sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
Roux72, here's the problem. The plot of the entire series is about stopping the reapers from killing everyone in the galaxy. It didn't matter what their motive was. Their motive didn't affect what you had to do in the end. If you stopped them you were the hero. If you failed you were the chump.
Granted the main plot may have not been that compelling because "the reapers" were not compelling villains. Quite honestly the sub plots were far more interesting. This sauteed cuttlefish I'm having for dinner is excellent. The characters in the sub-plots were far more interesting. We cared about them. That's why we bought the games. The majority of us didn't buy them because we wanted to see reaper ships. We wanted our characters to interact with these other characters and participate in the sub-plots.
Freed the werewolves in DAO? Did it make a difference? No. You could have killed them and the spirit of the forest and gotten the same result. Chose Bhelen over Harrowmount? Did it make a difference? No. You still got Dwarven support.
Do you get it now? In RPGs you get an illusion of choice unless you're playing a pen and paper game. That's the bottom line. You can't give open choice in a computer RPG. The writers have to bring everything back to a single point somewhere. At the end? They can do multiple choices. But if they continue the series, I've got new for you, they're going to have to minimalize the impact of those choices so much that it becomes effectively a single choice. There simply aren't enough resources in a game to do otherwise.
ArcherTactlenecks wrote...
sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
Roux72, here's the problem. The plot of the entire series is about stopping the reapers from killing everyone in the galaxy. It didn't matter what their motive was. Their motive didn't affect what you had to do in the end. If you stopped them you were the hero. If you failed you were the chump.
Granted the main plot may have not been that compelling because "the reapers" were not compelling villains. Quite honestly the sub plots were far more interesting. This sauteed cuttlefish I'm having for dinner is excellent. The characters in the sub-plots were far more interesting. We cared about them. That's why we bought the games. The majority of us didn't buy them because we wanted to see reaper ships. We wanted our characters to interact with these other characters and participate in the sub-plots.
Freed the werewolves in DAO? Did it make a difference? No. You could have killed them and the spirit of the forest and gotten the same result. Chose Bhelen over Harrowmount? Did it make a difference? No. You still got Dwarven support.
Do you get it now? In RPGs you get an illusion of choice unless you're playing a pen and paper game. That's the bottom line. You can't give open choice in a computer RPG. The writers have to bring everything back to a single point somewhere. At the end? They can do multiple choices. But if they continue the series, I've got new for you, they're going to have to minimalize the impact of those choices so much that it becomes effectively a single choice. There simply aren't enough resources in a game to do otherwise.
I'm not sure if people expect too much or just don't know how choices work in RPG games.
But what I've bolded from Julia's statement is what some people need to understand. The Bolded AND Undelined is extremely important so you should take that into account (whoever's going to read this).
The bolded is where it all comes down to, no matter what angle you look at the game. ME3 can't be too open-ended in that the pace of the story goes exactly how players want it to go. There's still the underlying story that has been planned.
People want to decide the destination, but truth is, that's really hard to do, too many things to take into account. You can only choose HOW you get to the end, not WHAT you get at the end.
Invisible Man wrote...
spirosz wrote...
The Mods really need to start a new thread where people can still complain about the endings. All these long posts, yet you will still get the new game!
I probably will, though I've never clamed me3 to be a bad game, just the ending. (though the me3 ending was almost bad enough to spoil the game, to me)
mopotter wrote...
Invisible Man wrote...
spirosz wrote...
The Mods really need to start a new thread where people can still complain about the endings. All these long posts, yet you will still get the new game!
I probably will, though I've never clamed me3 to be a bad game, just the ending. (though the me3 ending was almost bad enough to spoil the game, to me)
I won't be buying it automatically like I did with the NWN series and I won't pre-order the next few games, which I've done sinced KOTOR, including ME3. Buying their next game is now something I will have to think about. I'll have to hear from other people, I trust, how the game story is, or I'll have to look at sites that give the walk through information so I can see for myself what they have done.
I worked hard towards destroying the reapers, I also worked hard in a couple of games to have Tali and Legion co-operate and was extremely irritated when that didn't matter. One or the other group died unless you picked synthesis. If I hadn't gotten them to co-operate, I would have picked synthesis a few times, but on the games where I got them working togehter, i should have been able to destroy the reapers with their help and the ones who made it through the final battle should have been able to work together to rebuild their world if my ems total was as high as I could get it.
For me there are just too many things like that and those, added to the ending with a charred body as the "good" ending, that destroyed any thought I had of pre ordering DA:I even though it's a different group working on it or pre-ordering any other game no matter how good it looks. And DAI looks very good to me, but I no longer trustt BW's vision.
EntropicAngel wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
You think it won't go on past that?
Eh. You know this place: as soon as the next one comes out, the previous one becomes twice as good as it used to be in comparison.
EntropicAngel wrote...
And the fact that the ME3 portrayal was more nuanced than ME1 or ME2 says that Bioware games are just as story-heavy (probably moreso, actually, to where one might argue it gets in the way of roleplaying or world exploration) as they used to be, as well.
EntropicAngel wrote...
And about Bioware games and stories--this is a fun one. Because like it or not (and obviously, many did not), ME3's ending was an attempt (...) at a more highbrow story that "RARWEKILLORGANICSBECUZWEEVULANDINNEFFABLE" that ME1 and ME2 were plugging. ME3 was an attempt at a more nuanced view of the Reapers.
THAT is not subjective. THAT is fact. Whether it was successful or not is subjective--but Bioware's portrayal of Reapers in ME3, and especially the ending, was indisputably, indisputably, intended to be more nuanced than ME1 or ME2.
Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 11 janvier 2014 - 09:47 .
Roux72 wrote...
If we can say anything objective here... Its that copying and sealing someone else idea is a bad thing. So copying and pasting Deus Ex 1's ending into Mass Effect 3 and then defending it as nuanced or deep, is not right.
Modifié par JamesFaith, 11 janvier 2014 - 10:11 .
iakus wrote...
EntropicAngel wrote...
And the fact that the ME3 portrayal was more nuanced than ME1 or ME2 says that Bioware games are just as story-heavy (probably moreso, actually, to where one might argue it gets in the way of roleplaying or world exploration) as they used to be, as well.
Forced tragedy=/=nuanced story.
JamesFaith wrote...
Roux72 wrote...
If we can say anything objective here... Its that copying and sealing someone else idea is a bad thing. So copying and pasting Deus Ex 1's ending into Mass Effect 3 and then defending it as nuanced or deep, is not right.
This again?
Only similarity of these endings was that 1) Something was destroyed 2) Something was contolled by someone 3) Something was merged.
But its quite difference between destroing enemy army and destroying major net server, between controlling enemy and secret influencing of the word and between one man merged with AI and whole galaxy changed to synthetic/organic hybrid.
DoomsdayDevice wrote...
EntropicAngel wrote...
And about Bioware games and stories--this is a fun one. Because like it or not (and obviously, many did not), ME3's ending was an attempt (...) at a more highbrow story that "RARWEKILLORGANICSBECUZWEEVULANDINNEFFABLE" that ME1 and ME2 were plugging. ME3 was an attempt at a more nuanced view of the Reapers.
THAT is not subjective. THAT is fact. Whether it was successful or not is subjective--but Bioware's portrayal of Reapers in ME3, and especially the ending, was indisputably, indisputably, intended to be more nuanced than ME1 or ME2.
Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with this. There's more than one way to interpret the 'Reaper plot' in ME3, and in my opinion that take is not a fact, but absolutely subjective.
The way I experienced the story ever since I first played ME3 is that the whole 'nuance' / 'unveiling' of the Reaper motivations is one huge, bloated lie. Yes, the Reaper motivations are revealed to us, but it is up to the player to decide whether you think this information is reliable or not. I for one was shaking my head when the 'collective intelligence of the Reapers' gave me the run down and explained my options. When control was explained, I was
just laughing out loud at the screen, because the whole thing was so obviously an indoctrination attempt to me. And 'organics will be perfected by integration with synthetic technology' to me simply sounded like a euphemism for 'ascending' and 'embracing perfection'. Synthesis is the final evolution of life? Who were those guys again who considered themselves the 'pinnacle of evolution'? Oh, right. So yeah, synthesis just sounded to me like volunteering to become a Reaper, or something like the Collectors.
I think in reality, the Reapers are simply doing what they do to stay in power and for reproduction. They're the top dogs in the galaxy, and they want it to stay that way, so they harvest everyone before they become a real threat. At the same time, they determine the prime genetic material in the galaxy and harvest it, just like we harvest plants with unique qualities for medicinal or whatever purposes. In doing so, they harness the unique genetic abilites of the race they allow to 'ascend', and so, every cycle, a Reaper with unique abilities is created.
I'm well aware this is just as subjective as any other take, but that doesn't matter. I see the "intelligence" as an unreliable narrator, and not like some silly Bond villain who narcistically exposes the entirety of his master plan to the mere mortal. There might be some truth to what it says somewhere, but we've seen too many examples throughout the games where the Reapers fooled everyone and everything into compliance and submission.
As for that whole story that Leviathan unfolds? Let's just say I felt these fellows were just as reliable as the Reaper intelligence, which is to say not at all. We have no idea what their agenda could be, but we have a -very- good idea of how extremely manipulative these two apex races are.
So the claim that 'Bioware tried to nuance the Reapers' is a fact, is extremely disputable because there's just as much (or maybe even more) to suggest that the whole Reaper motivations/ origins story is just pulling the wool over our eyes.
What's extremely important is to remember that this 'revelation' changes the whole premise of the story. Think about it. For 99% of the trilogy, our single goal was to stop/destroy the Reapers. Then in the last five minutes of the game, right before we do what we came to do, we meet someone who changes our objective from 'destroying the Reapers' to 'finding a solution to the unavoidable and everlasting conflict between synthetics and organics'.
It's a red herring if ever I saw one. I didn't come there to solve that conflict at all. I came to rid us of the Reapers. But if I take this guy's word for it, hey guess what? The Reapers are actually a solution to this so called everlasting conflict! It's much better to use them! For good! Or become like them! Not destroy them, because ONOZ the chaos will return!
I'll never be able to see it any other way. Unless of course future games will shed more light on the mystery.
Modifié par txgoldrush, 11 janvier 2014 - 10:13 .
mopotter wrote...
Invisible Man wrote...
spirosz wrote...
The Mods really need to start a new thread where people can still complain about the endings. All these long posts, yet you will still get the new game!
I probably will, though I've never clamed me3 to be a bad game, just the ending. (though the me3 ending was almost bad enough to spoil the game, to me)
I won't be buying it automatically like I did with the NWN series and I won't pre-order the next few games, which I've done sinced KOTOR, including ME3. Buying their next game is now something I will have to think about. I'll have to hear from other people, I trust, how the game story is, or I'll have to look at sites that give the walk through information so I can see for myself what they have done.
I worked hard towards destroying the reapers, I also worked hard in a couple of games to have Tali and Legion co-operate and was extremely irritated when that didn't matter. One or the other group died unless you picked synthesis. If I hadn't gotten them to co-operate, I would have picked synthesis a few times, but on the games where I got them working togehter, i should have been able to destroy the reapers with their help and the ones who made it through the final battle should have been able to work together to rebuild their world if my ems total was as high as I could get it.
For me there are just too many things like that and those, added to the ending with a charred body as the "good" ending, that destroyed any thought I had of pre ordering DA:I even though it's a different group working on it or pre-ordering any other game no matter how good it looks. And DAI looks very good to me, but I no longer trustt BW's vision.
txgoldrush wrote...
DoomsdayDevice wrote...
EntropicAngel wrote...
And about Bioware games and stories--this is a fun one. Because like it or not (and obviously, many did not), ME3's ending was an attempt (...) at a more highbrow story that "RARWEKILLORGANICSBECUZWEEVULANDINNEFFABLE" that ME1 and ME2 were plugging. ME3 was an attempt at a more nuanced view of the Reapers.
THAT is not subjective. THAT is fact. Whether it was successful or not is subjective--but Bioware's portrayal of Reapers in ME3, and especially the ending, was indisputably, indisputably, intended to be more nuanced than ME1 or ME2.
Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with this. There's more than one way to interpret the 'Reaper plot' in ME3, and in my opinion that take is not a fact, but absolutely subjective.
The way I experienced the story ever since I first played ME3 is that the whole 'nuance' / 'unveiling' of the Reaper motivations is one huge, bloated lie. Yes, the Reaper motivations are revealed to us, but it is up to the player to decide whether you think this information is reliable or not. I for one was shaking my head when the 'collective intelligence of the Reapers' gave me the run down and explained my options. When control was explained, I was
just laughing out loud at the screen, because the whole thing was so obviously an indoctrination attempt to me. And 'organics will be perfected by integration with synthetic technology' to me simply sounded like a euphemism for 'ascending' and 'embracing perfection'. Synthesis is the final evolution of life? Who were those guys again who considered themselves the 'pinnacle of evolution'? Oh, right. So yeah, synthesis just sounded to me like volunteering to become a Reaper, or something like the Collectors.
I think in reality, the Reapers are simply doing what they do to stay in power and for reproduction. They're the top dogs in the galaxy, and they want it to stay that way, so they harvest everyone before they become a real threat. At the same time, they determine the prime genetic material in the galaxy and harvest it, just like we harvest plants with unique qualities for medicinal or whatever purposes. In doing so, they harness the unique genetic abilites of the race they allow to 'ascend', and so, every cycle, a Reaper with unique abilities is created.
I'm well aware this is just as subjective as any other take, but that doesn't matter. I see the "intelligence" as an unreliable narrator, and not like some silly Bond villain who narcistically exposes the entirety of his master plan to the mere mortal. There might be some truth to what it says somewhere, but we've seen too many examples throughout the games where the Reapers fooled everyone and everything into compliance and submission.
As for that whole story that Leviathan unfolds? Let's just say I felt these fellows were just as reliable as the Reaper intelligence, which is to say not at all. We have no idea what their agenda could be, but we have a -very- good idea of how extremely manipulative these two apex races are.
So the claim that 'Bioware tried to nuance the Reapers' is a fact, is extremely disputable because there's just as much (or maybe even more) to suggest that the whole Reaper motivations/ origins story is just pulling the wool over our eyes.
What's extremely important is to remember that this 'revelation' changes the whole premise of the story. Think about it. For 99% of the trilogy, our single goal was to stop/destroy the Reapers. Then in the last five minutes of the game, right before we do what we came to do, we meet someone who changes our objective from 'destroying the Reapers' to 'finding a solution to the unavoidable and everlasting conflict between synthetics and organics'.
It's a red herring if ever I saw one. I didn't come there to solve that conflict at all. I came to rid us of the Reapers. But if I take this guy's word for it, hey guess what? The Reapers are actually a solution to this so called everlasting conflict! It's much better to use them! For good! Or become like them! Not destroy them, because ONOZ the chaos will return!
I'll never be able to see it any other way. Unless of course future games will shed more light on the mystery.
so the villains can't be right despite their atrocious methods? so the protagonists can't be wrong even if they fight for the right reasons?
You are trying to limit a story, telling it, "it cannot go there" when it can.
And stop trying to criticize the ending with theories the ending does not support.
Roux72 wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
DoomsdayDevice wrote...
EntropicAngel wrote...
And about Bioware games and stories--this is a fun one. Because like it or not (and obviously, many did not), ME3's ending was an attempt (...) at a more highbrow story that "RARWEKILLORGANICSBECUZWEEVULANDINNEFFABLE" that ME1 and ME2 were plugging. ME3 was an attempt at a more nuanced view of the Reapers.
THAT is not subjective. THAT is fact. Whether it was successful or not is subjective--but Bioware's portrayal of Reapers in ME3, and especially the ending, was indisputably, indisputably, intended to be more nuanced than ME1 or ME2.
Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with this. There's more than one way to interpret the 'Reaper plot' in ME3, and in my opinion that take is not a fact, but absolutely subjective.
The way I experienced the story ever since I first played ME3 is that the whole 'nuance' / 'unveiling' of the Reaper motivations is one huge, bloated lie. Yes, the Reaper motivations are revealed to us, but it is up to the player to decide whether you think this information is reliable or not. I for one was shaking my head when the 'collective intelligence of the Reapers' gave me the run down and explained my options. When control was explained, I was
just laughing out loud at the screen, because the whole thing was so obviously an indoctrination attempt to me. And 'organics will be perfected by integration with synthetic technology' to me simply sounded like a euphemism for 'ascending' and 'embracing perfection'. Synthesis is the final evolution of life? Who were those guys again who considered themselves the 'pinnacle of evolution'? Oh, right. So yeah, synthesis just sounded to me like volunteering to become a Reaper, or something like the Collectors.
I think in reality, the Reapers are simply doing what they do to stay in power and for reproduction. They're the top dogs in the galaxy, and they want it to stay that way, so they harvest everyone before they become a real threat. At the same time, they determine the prime genetic material in the galaxy and harvest it, just like we harvest plants with unique qualities for medicinal or whatever purposes. In doing so, they harness the unique genetic abilites of the race they allow to 'ascend', and so, every cycle, a Reaper with unique abilities is created.
I'm well aware this is just as subjective as any other take, but that doesn't matter. I see the "intelligence" as an unreliable narrator, and not like some silly Bond villain who narcistically exposes the entirety of his master plan to the mere mortal. There might be some truth to what it says somewhere, but we've seen too many examples throughout the games where the Reapers fooled everyone and everything into compliance and submission.
As for that whole story that Leviathan unfolds? Let's just say I felt these fellows were just as reliable as the Reaper intelligence, which is to say not at all. We have no idea what their agenda could be, but we have a -very- good idea of how extremely manipulative these two apex races are.
So the claim that 'Bioware tried to nuance the Reapers' is a fact, is extremely disputable because there's just as much (or maybe even more) to suggest that the whole Reaper motivations/ origins story is just pulling the wool over our eyes.
What's extremely important is to remember that this 'revelation' changes the whole premise of the story. Think about it. For 99% of the trilogy, our single goal was to stop/destroy the Reapers. Then in the last five minutes of the game, right before we do what we came to do, we meet someone who changes our objective from 'destroying the Reapers' to 'finding a solution to the unavoidable and everlasting conflict between synthetics and organics'.
It's a red herring if ever I saw one. I didn't come there to solve that conflict at all. I came to rid us of the Reapers. But if I take this guy's word for it, hey guess what? The Reapers are actually a solution to this so called everlasting conflict! It's much better to use them! For good! Or become like them! Not destroy them, because ONOZ the chaos will return!
I'll never be able to see it any other way. Unless of course future games will shed more light on the mystery.
so the villains can't be right despite their atrocious methods? so the protagonists can't be wrong even if they fight for the right reasons?
You are trying to limit a story, telling it, "it cannot go there" when it can.
And stop trying to criticize the ending with theories the ending does not support.
No nuance is fine. Protagonists are perfect and right about everything are boring. This series isn't about who's right and who's wrong though, its a fight for survival. That also doesn't change the fact that a "quasi-philosophical circle-jerk" plot line was introduced in the last ten minutes and gave us god-like powers to fix this new and sudden dilemma. Not only did it not fit, it wasn't Mass Effect-y, if I may be so bold as to use such a technical term.
And yes it is pretty freaking similar to Deus Ex, its no stretching an argument. Yes, Mass Effect was on a muhc larger scale. But putting scale aside, its a very clean cut and paste.
txgoldrush wrote...
Wrong
iakus wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
Wrong
::does a shot::
Roux72 wrote...
And yes it is pretty freaking similar to Deus Ex, its no stretching an argument. Yes, Mass Effect was on a muhc larger scale. But putting scale aside, its a very clean cut and paste.
txgoldrush wrote...
iakus wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
Wrong
::does a shot::
and if I took a shot for every post where it shows you didn't get the ending, I would have long since died of alcohol poisoning.
Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 11 janvier 2014 - 10:36 .
MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
iakus wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
Wrong
::does a shot::
and if I took a shot for every post where it shows you didn't get the ending, I would have long since died of alcohol poisoning.
At least the people here wouldn't have to worry about being told 'that we just don't get it' anymore.
I got the ending just fine. And it sucked.
Retour en haut