692 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

JamesFaith wrote...

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.

Simply no. Your argument about scale should be maximally applied on Synthesis / Hélios but two other endings are too much different.

Complete anihillation of enemy is something totally different then forced change of civilisation and goverment structures.

And in Control /Illuminati are endings in fact opoosites to each other. In ME3 Shepard took direct control of Reapers when Denton refused to take direct control (Hélios) and choose to participate on indirect influencing of Illuminati. 

Really, ME3 synthesis is closer to Invisible War's JC Denton/Helios ending than the canon Helios ending of the first game.

Because before IW, only he merges with Helios, he doesn't yet merge everybody to it.

[txgoldrush]

EntropicAngel wrote...

iakus wrote...

Forced tragedy=/=nuanced story.

I'd intended, but clearly forgot, to put "Reaper portrayal." The Reaper portrayal in ME3 was indisputably more complex than "inneffable and unstoppable" that ME1&2 put out there.

 and what is lost on the BSN anti ender rabble is the twist that its the Reapers who do not understand organic life, not that life doesn't understand the Reapers....its a completely thematic fitting reversal.

[AlanC9]

mopotter wrote...
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.

Or Control. Anyway, their cooperation matters unless Shepard deliberately throws it away. "Didn't matter" isn't a sensible way to describe this.

 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.

Wait.... their cooperation makes you want to do synthesis less?

[JamesFaith]

txgoldrush wrote...

Really, ME3 synthesis is closer to Invisible War's JC Denton/Helios ending than the canon Helios ending of the first game.

Because before IW, only he merges with Helios, he doesn't yet merge everybody to it.

I partially agreed with this ( I just don't want to complicate it with others DEs) even when DE2 JC Denton ending is more combination of Control and Sythesis to me when first is applied through second.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

txgoldrush wrote...

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. 

No, I don't think you did.

Yes, I did get the ending. And I think it was bad. Or can you only think absolutely positive brilliant thoughts about BW if you 'get' the ending?

[txgoldrush]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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. 

No, I don't think you did.

Yes, I did get the ending. And I think it was bad. Or can you only think absolutely positive brilliant thoughts about BW if you 'get' the ending?

Then tell me what its really about? Let me see if you get it or not.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

I honestly do not know.  However, if by some miracle Bioware finds a way to continue the series in a way that allows those who dislike the endings to not have to further deal with them in followup games, it might bring the "closure" that has so eluded people.

Maybe, maybe not. But closure or no closure, I find it hard to believe that you guys are going anywhere. Maybe by the time ME5 ships...

[DoomsdayDevice]

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.

Sure, in some games the villains can turn out to be right. I just don't think it's the case in Mass Effect. Because the series beat us over the head with warnings about how the Reapers are manipulative, brainwashing, mindcontrolling overlords who let people believe fantastic things.

As for "You are trying to limit a story, telling it, "it cannot go there" when it can.", I could say the exact same thing about you. It's simply open to interpretation.

And I'm not even criticizing the ending, I'm simply explaining why I don't buy into the whole Reaper motivations story.

[dreamgazer]

txgoldrush wrote...

Then tell me what its really about? Let me see if you get it or not.

Oh! OH!

[MassivelyEffective0730]

txgoldrush wrote...
Then tell me what its really about? Let me see if you get it or not.

I'm not basing what my observations of the game off of your own very subjective ideas of what the theme of the series was about. Looking at the ending from your perspective doesn't change its effect on me. You're dictating whether or not anyone is correct based on your own idea of what the ending is. Your opinion and judgement is irrelevant and worthless to me. 

[AlanC9]

EntropicAngel wrote..

You're confusing two things. You're assuming that the Catalyst HAS to be right or HAS to be lying, when it's quite possible (and it's what I believe) that the Catalyst is sincere but wrong.

I don't believe that organics and synthetics MUST result in conflict. However, it is obvious that the Catalyst believes this. The Catalyst can believe this and be wrong, you know. There's no red herring.

Many Bio villains are wrong. Sarevok and Malak were wrong about their destinies. The Valsharess was wrong about her allies, and may have been wrong about her plan. Maugrim and Saren weren't sane. Loghain was wrong about several things. I'm not sure if Irenicus fits on this list; was his plan workable?

[DoomsdayDevice]

EntropicAngel wrote...

You're confusing two things. You're assuming that the Catalyst HAS to be right or HAS to be lying, when it's quite possible (and it's what I believe) that the Catalyst is sincere but wrong.

You think I haven't considered that? Of course I have. I simply don't trust him. He could even be telling a mix of lies and truth, maybe even 90% truth, but it doesn't even matter because I cannot afford to take the risk to listen to his suggestions, even if they didn't sound completely fishy to begin with. I came there to complete the most important mission of all time.

Everyone who ever wanted to control the Reapers or thought he could do so, turned out to be indoctrinated. Hell, it's the reason the Protheans didn't complete the Crucible. But Shepard can because she's special? Because she 'changed the variables'? Cool story Reaper bro. Can't take that gamble. Don't even get me started on synthesis.

Of course I pick destroy.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 11 janvier 2014 - 10:59 .

[Iakus]

EntropicAngel wrote...

iakus wrote...

Forced tragedy=/=nuanced story.

I'd intended, but clearly forgot, to put "Reaper portrayal." The Reaper portrayal in ME3 was indisputably more complex than "inneffable and unstoppable" that ME1&2 put out there.

Is a broken watch more complex than a functioning sundial?

[Iakus]

txgoldrush wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I got the ending just fine. And it sucked. 

No, I don't think you did.

::chug::

[AlanC9]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...
Sure, in some games the villains can turn out to be right. I just don't think it's the case in Mass Effect. Because the series beat us over the head with warnings about how the Reapers are manipulative, brainwashing, mindcontrolling overlords who let people believe fantastic things.

As for "You are trying to limit a story, telling it, "it cannot go there" when it can.", I could say the exact same thing about you. It's simply open to interpretation.

And I'm not even criticizing the ending, I'm simply explaining why I don't buy into the whole Reaper motivations story.

So you'll interpret the ME universe in a way that fits your preconceptions even though the authors have a different vision of that universe? Or are you going full IT here?

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Wait.... their cooperation makes you want to do synthesis less?

It certainly reinforces Synthesis as just so much nonsense

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote..

You're confusing two things. You're assuming that the Catalyst HAS to be right or HAS to be lying, when it's quite possible (and it's what I believe) that the Catalyst is sincere but wrong.

I don't believe that organics and synthetics MUST result in conflict. However, it is obvious that the Catalyst believes this. The Catalyst can believe this and be wrong, you know. There's no red herring.

Many Bio villains are wrong. Sarevok and Malak were wrong about their destinies. The Valsharess was wrong about her allies, and may have been wrong about her plan. Maugrim and Saren weren't sane. Loghain was wrong about several things. I'm not sure if Irenicus fits on this list; was his plan workable?

Sarevok wasn't necessarilly wrong.  There were numerous and contradictory prophecies about the Bhaalspawn.  He was simply trying to get the ones that applied to him to be the "true" ones.

Irenicus was trying to join the elven pantheon.  His pan was workable (pr at least his former colleagues seemed to think so), though catastrophically evil.

Melissan's plan very nearly worked.

As did Master Li's.  Only the fact that he underestimated the Water Dragon (slightly) gave the Spirit Monk the chance to defeat him.  

In fact, his initial plan did work.  The drought ended, after all 

Loghain was paranoid to the point of madness.  But it appears he's not entirely wrong about Orlais.  Only that the Wardens did in fact intend to honor their policy of neutrality.  In addition, the subplot of Cailin's plan to divorce Anora an possibly marry Empress Celene was largely cut.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
Sarevok wasn't necessarilly wrong.  There were numerous and contradictory prophecies about the Bhaalspawn.  He was simply trying to get the ones that applied to him to be the "true" ones.

My impression from the later games is that the prophecy he was following wasn't ever going to be true. He didn't get to test it, though.

Loghain was paranoid to the point of madness.  But it appears he's not entirely wrong about Orlais.  Only that the Wardens did in fact intend to honor their policy of neutrality.  In addition, the subplot of Cailin's plan to divorce Anora an possibly marry Empress Celene was largely cut.

He was also either wrong about there being a Blight, or just being catastrophically rash by executing his plan in the face of the Blight. He also didn't know how to stop a Blight, but we can't blame him for not knowing something that the Grey Wardens keep secret.

Mephistopheles had a pretty good plan too.

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 janvier 2014 - 11:20 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

AlanC9 wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...
Sure, in some games the villains can turn out to be right. I just don't think it's the case in Mass Effect. Because the series beat us over the head with warnings about how the Reapers are manipulative, brainwashing, mindcontrolling overlords who let people believe fantastic things.

As for "You are trying to limit a story, telling it, "it cannot go there" when it can.", I could say the exact same thing about you. It's simply open to interpretation.

And I'm not even criticizing the ending, I'm simply explaining why I don't buy into the whole Reaper motivations story.

So you'll interpret the ME universe in a way that fits your preconceptions even though the authors have a different vision of that universe? Or are you going full IT here?

Not preconceptions... I've played these games over and over, it's the message I took from the themes and lore in the story. If there's one thing the ME3 ending proves, it's that there's a lot of ways to interpret the story. Why do you think people are still bickering about it?

And I would love to see some quotes about what exactly the vision of the authors is. I don't think we got anything beyond that it's open to interpretation, which is exactly what I'm saying.

And yes, I believe in IT. I'm not sure which part was a dream. It could be the entirety of everything after Harbinger's blast up until the breath scene (classic IT - meaning Shep wakes up in London), or it could simply be that Shepard actually made it to the Citadel and passed out after the confrontation with TIM, and only the decision chamber was an illusion, in which case Shepard may actually be in the rubble of the Citadel after it was attacked/destroyed by the Reapers. In any case, I believe all the endings were fake, including the destroy ending. It's all a Reaper simulation, the RGB colours of the original endings symbolized that. It was just a fabricated illusion with a few variables changed for the different endings. As for the explosion in the decision chamber that Shepard could never have survived, it only happened in the illusion. So I believe that if you picked destroy, nothing happened. Reapers weren't destroyed, nada. All you accomplished was resisting indoctrination, hence why you regain your mind and wake up.

Will Bioware ever follow up on it? **** if I know. With what we know, it's just as valid an interpretation as anyone else's.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 11 janvier 2014 - 11:21 .

[txgoldrush]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
Then tell me what its really about? Let me see if you get it or not.

I'm not basing what my observations of the game off of your own very subjective ideas of what the theme of the series was about. Looking at the ending from your perspective doesn't change its effect on me. You're dictating whether or not anyone is correct based on your own idea of what the ending is. Your opinion and judgement is irrelevant and worthless to me. 

No, they are not subjective....

Tie the theme of the antagonist's origins, the theme of the conflict between the protagonist and the antagonist, and the themes of the protagonist's resolutions to that conflict. Its simply storytelling 101. Hell, add the themes of the secondary antagonist as well.

The theme of the ending, as with not only the entire series, but the foundations of it, revolves around the ethics and morals, and many times, the consequences, of controlling the destiny of others to further ones goals and motives.

Then there is also the theme of victory through sacrifice, which is the main theme of ME3 specifically. And "victory through sacrifice" are not my words, they are Casey Hudson's.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 11 janvier 2014 - 11:21 .

[AlanC9]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Not preconceptions... I've played these games over and over, it's the message I took from the themes and lore in the story. If there's one thing the ME3 ending proves, it's that there's a lot of ways to interpret the story. Why do you think people are still bickering about it?

Well, I think we bicker over it because some people will go to any lengths to force the narrative into the shape they want. At least some of you IT guys are honest about it; the guys who pretend to be literalists while making up bad stuff about Control and Synthesis are far worse.