1483 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

A 'realist' Shepard would know at that point in time (regardless of whether he trusts the Catalyst or not), that he really doesn't have any other options. Play the cards you're dealt or fold and die. That's not a hard choice to make.

[Iakus]

It's not poor storytelling: It's brilliant storytelling. The scene makes you feel weak and helpless, bitter and disappointed (with the circumstances). But you swallow it and finish the job.

 

 

 

       

 

Railroading the player is not "brilliant storytelling"

 

And I think we've all seen the results of making the fanbase feel "bitter and disappointed"

[rekn2]

You said it. Not me. I'm not saying a word about iakus' statement. Don't ascribe a point to me, and don't ascribe an opinion to me. I never said anything about what is a fact (beyond the subjective nature of these opinions and interpretations). All I've said about opinions is that they aren't facts. Me not making an argument against iakus statement does not invalidate my argument against you. Leave iakus out of it. I said nothing about iakus. Why are you talking about him? That's a red herring fallacy.

 

And why shouldn't they have any kind of effect? Why shouldn't say, bridging the gap between Geth and Quarian societies be brought up in the ending discussion? Why shouldn't I have more information or context on the Catalyst, his solutions, his perspective, and his mandate? Why is the journey so disconnected from the climax and ending? There's little connecting them. Why is that the case? I think that's absolutely rubbish storytelling.

why cant he ascribe an opinion to you? you have 7k posts, most of which you state your opinion plainly. its to a point where i know what youre going respond with before i even read it. that aside, this topic has been brought up multiple times and youve had the same opinion each time...

 

 

for the 2nd line -it doesnt invalidate your argument. it makes you an ass for playing favorites. if youre going to nit pick other peoples posts then keep your groupies in line as well.

[Ieldra]

Why shouldn't say, bridging the gap between Geth and Quarian societies be brought up in the ending discussion? Why shouldn't I have more information or context on the Catalyst, his solutions, his perspective, and his mandate? Why is the journey so disconnected from the climax and ending? There's little connecting them. Why is that the case? I think that's absolutely rubbish storytelling.

Indeed this. If you play a story that ends in a big decision, I'd expect the story to influence the perspective from which you're going to make that decision. Being unable to interpret the big decision in the light of what came before, which might clarify your perspective and make you go into the decision with a clearer picture of what you're doing, I can't see that as anything but highly desirable. 

[Obadiah]

Everything I see people wishing they could bring up in the Decision Chamber conversation with the Catalyst seems largely irrelevant - and mostly a request for feels... or MORE feels.

[Mordokai]

Everything I see people wishing they could bring up in the Decision Chamber conversation with the Catalyst seems largely irrelevant - and mostly a request for feels... or MORE feels.

 

You say it like that's a bad thing.

 

Why would that be a bad thing?

[jtav]

Not irrelevant. This is a story, and the problem the Catalyst is trying to solve is represented to us previously via the quarians and geth. We can solve their issues, and even perform a minor Synthesis. EDI has less drama with Joker than I do with my chosen LI. The author has failed to make a credible case that organic vs. synthetic is potentially cataclysmic in a way other conflicts we see aren't. I have counter-evidence that isn't rebutted.

[Farangbaa]

I guess I don't have that much problems with the Catalyst conversation because I can see the problem it postulates happen in real life. and it seems very valid to me.  

[Obadiah]

The problem the Catalyst was presenting was not "solved" by the Quarian and Geth alliance. That is a blip in time. It only happens because of the Reapers' appearance. It is an alliance that is almost insignificant when compared to the implications of the AI destroying weapon we've created to defeat the Reapers, or the pattern of behavior that results in conflict between the Organics and Synthetics. This answer is pretty obvious, that's why it was not really necessary to have it in the game.

Besides, if that response was in the Catalyst conversation it wouldn't matter. The people that are asking for this option would just move on to some other "it's not compelling enough" position.

[Iakus]

why cant he ascribe an opinion to you? you have 7k posts, most of which you state your opinion plainly. its to a point where i know what youre going respond with before i even read it. that aside, this topic has been brought up multiple times and youve had the same opinion each time...

 

 

for the 2nd line -it doesnt invalidate your argument. it makes you an ass for playing favorites. if youre going to nit pick other peoples posts then keep your groupies in line as well.

 

I hope you're not assigning me as a "groupie" of massively.  We both agree that the endings were absolutely awful, but we disagree on far more things.

 

The thing is:  we generally don't insult each other when we do disagree.  And (I hope) respsect each others' opinions.

 

Shocking, I know.

[Ieldra]

The problem the Catalyst was presenting was not "solved" by the Quarian and Geth alliance. That is a blip in time. It only happens because of the Reapers' appearance. It is an alliance that is almost insignificant when compared to the implications of the AI destroying weapon we've created to defeat the Reapers, or the pattern of behavior that results in conflict between the Organics and Synthetics. This answer is pretty obvious, that's why it was not really necessary to have it in the game.

Besides, if that response was in the Catalyst conversation it wouldn't matter. The people that are asking for this option would just move on to some other "it's not compelling enough" position.

The problem is that geth/quarian peace is narratively significant evidence against the Catalyst's claim. It isn't conclusive evidence, no, but since it's the only direct evidence we have for OR against its claim it is very significant. It implicitly asks the question "why can't things work out the same way in the larger conflict", and that is exactly the question you should've been able to ask.

You know that I'm ok with the big picture outcomes. I'm even ok with the rationale, in principle. I also think the EC endings are quite acceptable, in some aspects even fascinating. I do, however, take issue with the implementation and the story leading up to them. Or rather, not leading up to them.

[AlanC9]

The author has failed to make a credible case that organic vs. synthetic is potentially cataclysmic in a way other conflicts we see aren't. I have counter-evidence that isn't rebutted.

Was the author actually trying to make the case that the Catalyst was right? If anything, the game suggests the opposite. The cycles were simply a mistake. I suppose one could argue that Destroy will lead to total disaster down the road, but that's neither seen nor even implied.

[Iakus]

Was the author actually trying to make the case that the Catalyst was right? If anything, the game suggests the opposite. The cycles were simply a mistake. I suppose one could argue that Destroy will lead to total disaster down the road, but that's neither seen nor even implied.

 

And yet Synthesis is portrayed, before, after, and metagaming the decision as the "perfect" solution with no downsides

[AlanC9]

The problem is that geth/quarian peace is narratively significant evidence against the Catalyst's claim. It isn't conclusive evidence, no, but since it's the only direct evidence we have for OR against its claim it is very significant. It implicitly asks the question "why can't things work out the same way in the larger conflict", and that is exactly the question you should've been able to ask.You know that I'm ok with the big picture outcomes. I'm even ok with the rationale, in principle. I also think the EC endings are quite acceptable, in some aspects even fascinating. I do, however, take issue with the implementation and the story leading up to them. Or rather, not leading up to them.

As a matter of RP, sure. Arguing with the Catalyst strikes me as about as useful as arguing with Meredith, but it's something that ought to have been in there.

[AlanC9]

And yet Synthesis is portrayed, before, after, and metagaming the decision as teh "perfect" solution with no downsides

Yep. Synthesis is good. Synthesis being good doesn't mean that non-synthesis = disaster, though. All non-Refuse endings are good, in their own ways.

[VikingDream]

 @ the OP i felt this way after i got ME3 on pre order and finished it in a few days, i wait for the ME3 extended cut ending and that just left a bad taste in my mouth it seamed none of the choices i'd made in the game mattered at all and it was all about the MES score. 

 

Simple answer I found was not play the game again apart from the MP which was fun for a few months at least, this year i hit the nexus forums to look for an ending mod and was happy to say there are now loads to pick from downloaded a few and tried them out with my save game from the before meeting TIM the last time and found the mass effect happy ending mod (MEHEM) it felt more like the ending you should have gotten when you had the best possible ending in game.

 

There are a lot of ending mods to pick from and i found one that made it so i could at least replay the game and even consider getting the DLC.  

[Iakus]

Yep. Synthesis is good. Synthesis being good doesn't mean that non-synthesis = disaster, though. All non-Refuse endings are good, in their own ways.

 

Yeah Bioware went to laughable extremes to make all the endings look "good"(insert "lipstick on a pig" joke here).  But Synthesis goes beyond good.  Synthesis is perfect.  Synthesis has absolutely no downside, to the point where it looks like they're hiding something.

[VaLkyR_Anubis]

Mass Effect 3...ehrm no, it should be called "Cerberus Effect" or "Troll Effect", but nothing else. I played this game so much, ,mostly paragon and this already me the crap out of me, so I wasn't interested in seeing other possibilities. The visual quality, atmosphere, level design, charcters, storyline, etc... just boring. In the end, I went back to Mass Effect, because this game is awesome. Just explain me one little thing: what's the point of the fucked up music in Shepard's cabin on the Normandy? Where is the fabulous music like in Mass Effect or Mass Effect 2. Damn I love the music of Ilos, just as an example.

[AlanC9]

@ iakus: I'd get into this, but I don't feel like participating in another one of these silly derails today. (My fault for responding to you at all.)

The point is that there's not much evidence that the Catalyst was ever right about his problem. If anything, the game makes him look wrong. I believe you're not disagreeing with that, correct?

[AlanC9]

Just explain me one little thing: what's the point of the fucked up music in Shepard's cabin on the Normandy? Where is the fabulous music like in Mass Effect or Mass Effect 2. Damn I love the music of Ilos, just as an example.

There was no music in Shepard's cabin in ME1. I agree that the ME3 cabin music wasn't as good as the ME2 cabin music, but I wasn't a huge fan of either.

As for the game scores, I think ME3's is better.

[Iakus]

The point is that there's not much evidence that the Catalyst was ever right about his problem. If anything, the game makes him look wrong. I believe you're not disagreeing with that, correct?

 

On that count, yes.  There is no problem.  Yet we have to enforce a "solution" anyway.

 

This is wrong.  It's pointless. It's bad storytelling.  It's railroading of the worst kind.

[Han Shot First]

Yeah Bioware went to laughable extremes to make all the endings look "good"(insert "lipstick on a pig" joke here).  But Synthesis goes beyond good.  Synthesis is perfect.  Synthesis has absolutely no downside, to the point where it looks like they're hiding something.

 

It was quite obvious that Synthesis was the writers' darling. Or perhaps more accurately, the darling of the lead writers. Unlike Destroy it doesn't come packaged with a downside (death of EDI and the Geth) and it is presented as the ideal choice by the Catalyst, and the EC narration has it result in the creation of eutopia where even death has been eliminated.

 

Players in large part rejected it however (after Refuse its the least popular ending) because it destroys diversity, robs every sapient being in the galaxy of their free will, and requires holding hands and singing kumbaya with the Reapers.

[jtav]

Objection: It neither destroys diversity nor free will. It is, however, a thematic disaster on that it suggests organics and synthetics are either fundamentally flawed or not alive without it. If we take it to its logical conclusion, we should feel no guilt in exterminating synthetics who can only ape true life.

[Mordokai]

It was quite obvious that Synthesis was the writers' darling. Or perhaps more accurately, the darling of the lead writers. Unlike Destroy it doesn't come packaged with a downside (death of EDI and the Geth) and it is presented as the ideal choice by the Catalyst, and the EC narration has it result in the creation of eutopia where even death has been eliminated.

 

Players in large part rejected it however (after Refuse its the least popular ending) because it destroys diversity, robs every sapient being in the galaxy of their free will, and requires holding hands and singing kumbaya with the Reapers.

 

There is also an obvious change in the tone of Catalyst. With Destroy and Control it's kinda "meh, yeah, you could do that..". But with Synthesis, it's like "OMG, so kewl, you should totally do that". And I was like, yeah... how about no and blew his sorry ass away.

[Han Shot First]

Objection: It neither destroys diversity nor free will. It is, however, a thematic disaster on that it suggests organics and synthetics are either fundamentally flawed or not alive without it. If we take it to its logical conclusion, we should feel no guilt in exterminating synthetics who can only ape true life.

 

I think it does both. It destroys diversity by transforming every sapient being in the galaxy into a cyborg. The species as we knew them prior to ME3 no longer exist post-Synthesis, they've all gone extinct and been replaced by cybernetic organisms. It also denies these people their free will by having this cybernetic future imposed on them by one man or woman and his new synthetic pal. Shepard and the Catalyst in effect, deny every space faring civilization its right to self-determination.