981 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Of course then there's this:

 

[ShadowLordXII]

There is never 'the theme' in any story.

I don't know why you seem to keep declaring things as if there is. Stories have many central themes, not just one.

You don't have to dig deep for 'synthetic vs organic' as a central theme. At all. It's just not the very biggest one. And that's okay. The final conversation is more about whether you'll comply with the Catalyst (whether its right or wrong) or reject it, and how you'll do so. For now, just do your best to enjoy the win.

 

But like I stated in the OP, that very conversation and the character which we're engaging is based on a contrivance that breaks the whole plot starting with ME1.

 

If you're going to spotlight a major theme, then at least do so in a way that doesn't cause the entire story to collapse in on itself.

 

I guess that would be my biggest problem with the endings. I'm not upset that I didn't get a happy ending or that the writer's threw us into a moral quandry (when done well, this adds complexity to the story). My biggest problem is that Star-Child is a walking plot-hole and shoehorning him into the story requires massive amounts of contrivance that ruin the story.

 

This also includes changing the central conflict dynamic from "Stop the Reapers" to "Resolve the philosophical and supposedly inevitable conflict between organic and synthetic life". Using a walking contrivance as the vehicle for such a twist only sours the idea upon arrival. Any further attempt to justify said walking contrivance is also simply wasting good writing to justify a terrible idea.

 

Yes, a story can have multiple themes with equal impact on the story and the development of the plot. The reason that Mass Effect was great with it's many story arcs was because of how they were conveyed to the player though squadmates and other personnel that Shepard can make personal bonds with.

 

I probably wouldn't have cared too much about the Krogan if I didn't hear Wrex's accounts of how the krogan were killing themselves in suicidal desperation long after the krogan wars were over. Mordin's further insight into why the genophage was used as well as his subtle and building regret over his involvement with propagating the genophage brought this conflict onto more of personal level.

 

The conflict was fleshed out with both sides having their equal merits and has two underlying themes: Consequences of uplifting an undeveloped species without ensuring that they are ready for their raised status; The Nature vs Nurture Dynamic on whether the Krogan can be trusted due to their inherent violent nature; and lastly, a Means vs Ends debate on whether it's right to commit pseudo-mass genocide on another species even if it is done to save the galaxy.

 

All of this is present in previous games and meets a logical end depending on Shepard's choices in previous games or in ME3. Shepard can decide to either give the krogan a chance for their future or can take away that hope with cold calculated logic and/or betrayal. Though the game hints that curing the krogan is the best option (And even pragmatically is if you're trying to get as many forces as possible), Sabotaging the cure can be just as valid under the right circumstances (If Wreav is in charge and Eve died, for instance).

 

After ME1, I would've been likely to wipe out all geth if I'd never met Legion. Legion provides a complex, yet fascinating angle to the Geth and their motivations. They're not evil machines hellbent on destroying meatbags, they're just a community of walking super-computers who just want to advance their own knowledge. In fact, the Morning War wasn't even started by them, they were just defending their own right to exist. And after winning, they let their creators escape instead of destroying them. The Geth that we fought in ME1 were actually just a small minority splinter group who revered Sovereign and the reapers as gods. In Legion's loyalty mission, Shepard has the option to rewrite or destroy these geth.

 

Yet, we still have Tali and the quarians as realistic reminders of the consequences of their exile. They're galactic pariahs who are scorned and discriminated against by the galactic community. They went to the council for aid, but the Council revoked their embassy as "punishment" for creating the geth. Now entire generations had to suffer for an offense that they did not commit. Some quarians hate the geth, some actually sympathize with the geth and others merely resent them as obstacles to their overall true goal, their homeworld. The quarians just want a home with an actual sky and an atmosphere where they don't have to wear suits all of the time.

 

Both angles come into conflict in ME3 to the point where neither believes that they can exist together. Shepard, again depending on past and present choices, can act as an arbiter in this conflict and bring the two races together. The obvious conflict is of course "organics vs synthetics", but it also has themes of: Fearing the Unknown; the Quest for a Home; Reconciliation and Redemption; The Definition of Life; and What is a Soul and who has one?

 

Cerberus is a pro-human terrorist organization implicated in many acts such as assassination, knowing endangerment of lives, espionage, sabotage, corruption, child abuse, abduction, extortion, illegal and unethical experimentation and much more than I care to list. In the first game, they were enemies of the Alliance and of Shepard. But in the second game, they become Shepard's allies against a common enemy. It turns out that not everyone working for Cerberus is actually evil, there are good people in the organization. Individuals who felt like the Council and the Alliance weren't doing enough for human interests or security in the face of the Collector abductions. The player is also free to either be cooperative with the Cerberus agents or confrontational and the game rewards you accordingly on either front.

 

Later, it turns out that Cerberus has other plans for the reaper technology in the Collector base and it's up to Shepard to decide whether to destroy that technology or to preserve it. This and other actions in ME3 bring up the following themes: Can a tool be inherently bad or does this depend on the usage; Is a common enemy a valid reason to work with another enemy; Are good people justified for working for evil/shady organizations even if it's for the "greater good"; Is there a such thing as the Greater Good and Where do you draw the line?

 

Then we come to the Star-Child. Who, as noted again and again, is a walking contrivance.

 

Anything that he says or may actually be right about is invalidated because it's coming from an invalid vehicle. If he's actually meant to a central part of the story, then the events of ME1 should not have been able to happen without a contrivance or an audacious hand-wave. And if your entire trilogy is based on something that weak, then it all falls apart.

 

A story can have many themes, but said themes should arise naturally from the setting and events of the story through vehicles(usually characters) that have a logical place within that story and it's setting. You can't change the rules at the last minute and expect your story to remain as strong as it was.

[SwobyJ]

If you pay attention throughout ME3 (note: I'm not being sarcastic here), you'll see that there's actually a lot of hints that something hard and fast is going to hit you.
 
And yet, the dialogue (unless you're totally Paragon, and even then only kinda) keeps insisting that you push through. That you win over, and hopefully end up victorious against the Reapers.
 
We're not supposed to care about the Reapers.
 
We're. Not. Supposed. To. Care. About. Them.
 
Or what they think. Or what they want.
 
But that's the test. Will we end up caring? Will we stick to our guns? Will we think they're useful enough to keep around? Will we even go so far as to be dedicated to revenge, and screw anything that the Catalyst says?
 
We're given the choice here to do what we want. Yeah, Shepard himself is restricted, sure, but WE have choice in how we as people want to respond to all this. Hope, happiness, hate, fear, resentment, panic, determination, thoughtfulness, etc etc etc. I've seen the whole range from people, online and in-person. And Bioware at least knew that they were going to get at least some players upset (but I think they greatly underestimated it, haha).
 
Starchild is not the central part to things. I mean even with my pet theory that he's really Sovereign/Nazara hiding away in the Citadel, it doesn't matter. This is about Shepard.
 
 
But this is where I think I diverge from sooo many people. Where I see the Catalyst as the possible means into the next game (beyond Shepard's story), others see him only as the end... to the trilogy or even the series itself. And I can't really solidly back up my opinion since its basically still a guess at this point. Which makes me sad
 
 
I totally see the faults you see in the Catalyst. He is a contrivance, really. And an annoying one. And I can't help but feel that if ME3 had another several months+, Bioware might have decided on something else.
 
But I also think that we might end up seeing the Catalyst at least somewhat more positively than we do now. Yet as of now, that's still just a guess.
 

 
James: It’s… not right. It looks pretty. Calm and peaceful. But it’s not right. It’s all just an illusion.
James: They’d rather believe in this than face the truth.
Shepard: I can hardly believe it myself. Like everything on Earth was some kind of nightmare.
James: Yeah. That’s what I hate most. It’s like this place wants you to forget that.
 
That's the 'final boss'. Everyone can win with their choice, but only one choice leads to victory. This was also set up in the dialogue throughout ME3 (and even ME2).

[Mcfly616]

My biggest problem is that Star-Child is a walking plot-hole and shoehorning him into the story requires massive amounts of contrivance that ruin the story.

Could you explain?

This also includes changing the central conflict dynamic from "Stop the Reapers" to "Resolve the philosophical and supposedly inevitable conflict between organic and synthetic life".

Stopping a foe usually involves knowing what motivates it. We were trying to stop the Reapers, and consequently we found what makes them tick. You don't have to "resolve" anything if you don't want to.


I stood fast. Steeled myself. Stuck to my guns. Did what I came to do. I destroyed the Reapers. And I did it, knowing that I wasn't choosing 'the' solution to the organic/synthetic problem.

[AlanC9]

I stood fast. Steeled myself. Stuck to my guns. Did what I came to do. I destroyed the Reapers. And I did it, knowing that I wasn't choosing 'the' solution to the organic/synthetic problem.

 

Sure. A Shepard could also pick Control on the merits without particularly being concerned about an org/synth problem; several of mine have. I don't see a case for picking Synthesis if you don't think the problem needs to be solved, but what of it? Allowing the PC to decide that maybe the enemies were sort of right all along isn't a problem.

[AlanC9]

Anything that he says or may actually be right about is invalidated because it's coming from an invalid vehicle. If he's actually meant to a central part of the story, then the events of ME1 should not have been able to happen without a contrivance or an audacious hand-wave. And if your entire trilogy is based on something that weak, then it all falls apart.

 

You mean like Tali's magic voice recording? That kind of contrivance?

[ShadowLordXII]

Stopping a foe usually involves knowing what motivates it. We were trying to stop the Reapers, and consequently we found what makes them tick. You don't have to "resolve" anything if you don't want to.


I stood fast. Steeled myself. Stuck to my guns. Did what I came to do. I destroyed the Reapers. And I did it, knowing that I wasn't choosing 'the' solution to the organic/synthetic problem.

 

Okay, I also picked Destroy before the MEHEM mod was made along the same thought process.

 

But even if you try to rationalize that you're still fighting the reapers when you pick Destroy, that's not what's happening. Due to the re-contextualization that the Star-Child brings with him, all of the ending choices are inherently designed to deal with the Organic-Synthetic problem with the reapers no longer being as important as they initially were. Instead, they're merely the "tools" of the Star-Child's will and if you don't want rocks fall and everyone to die, you have to let the Star-Child win in some way.

 

Destroy-All synthetics die: Conflict inevitable, kill one so that the other can flourish. Mass Genocide.

Control-Take the Catalyst's place: Domination and Force are the only ways to maintain peace. Mass Slavery.

Synthesis-Merge all organic/synthetic life: The only way to resolve conflict is to eliminate differences. Mass Molestation.

 

As far as understanding the reapers were concerned, we already knew everything that we could/would need to know about their motivations and intentions. They see any non-reaper, both organic and synthetic, as beneath them and have no qualms in killing/controlling them in horrific ways. They also take the defeated, dead or alive, and convert them into liquid paste to make them "ascend" to reaper form. In short, the reapers were a deadly and ominous force who wiped out civilizations because they could and every new reaper born is also in essence a "sentient trophy". What more could we want to know?

 

The Emperor in Star Wars didn't have a complex motivation. He was just an evil manipulative Sith Lord who wanted power and loved bringing misery and suffering on others. You could give him a backstory, but for the purposes of the main plot, he doesn't need one.

 

Sauron in LOTR didn't have a complicated backstory. He was an evil Maia (angelic being) who made an evil ring to amplify his power so that he could take over the world. Then he lost the ring and he wants it back. Hence why the ring has to be destroyed.

 

Granted, the leviathan dlc was a great adventure and it honestly would've been better if it just said that the leviathans created harbinger as part of a war with another galactic power and then harbinger turned against them and killed them before starting the cycles. If you want to give the reapers a backstory, then go ahead. But do so in a way that doesn't make the current conflict irrelevant or break the whole plot altogether.

 

Needless to say. They didn't.

[ShadowLordXII]

You mean like Tali's magic voice recording? That kind of contrivance?

 

She got that log from the memory banks of a geth that she disabled. And it's not like she showed up out of nowhere, Shepard and crew had to save her from Fist and a few of Saren's men. 

 

I'm not saying that previous games were perfect either. But a nitpick=major plot-breaking contrivance.

 

Stop Reaching.

[Mcfly616]

Sure. A Shepard could also pick Control on the merits without particularly being concerned about an org/synth problem; several of mine have. I don't see a case for picking Synthesis if you don't think the problem needs to be solved, but what of it? Allowing the PC to decide that maybe the enemies were sort of right all along isn't a problem.

never said it was. What are you getting at? He said BW changed the focus from stopping them to solving the organic/synthetic conflict. Hence my response that they don't force you to resolve anything.

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

For now, just do your best to enjoy the win.

Ah you see, exactly. The problem is, I cannot conceive of any way in which any of the endings could be considered a victory. They all feel like failure, even with the EC installed. Starchild lets you win. For some unknown reason, arriving on this weirdly looking level of the Citadel makes the Starchild allow Shepard to do... something. We have three choices, each radically different, each mortifyingly confusing. And whichever we pick, the result is just more confusion.

There were plot holes in ME2, even in ME1. But in the end, playing these games was such an amazing experience that you ended up forgiving them all their faults.

The problem with ME3 is that for many, it was a dreadful experience at the end. So bad in fact, that in my mind it deserves to be nitpicked, mocked and eventually written out of existence. And everyone who thinks this way has the power to do that.

[Mcfly616]

Okay, I also picked Destroy before the MEHEM mod was made along the same thought process.

But even if you try to rationalize that you're still fighting the reapers when you pick Destroy, that's not what's happening. Due to the re-contextualization that the Star-Child brings with him, all of the ending choices are inherently designed to deal with the Organic-Synthetic problem with the reapers no longer being as important as they initially were. Instead, they're merely the "tools" of the Star-Child's will and if you don't want rocks fall and everyone to die, you have to let the Star-Child win in some way.

Destroy-All synthetics die: Conflict inevitable, kill one so that the other can flourish. Mass Genocide.
Control-Take the Catalyst's place: Domination and Force are the only ways to maintain peace. Mass Slavery.
Synthesis-Merge all organic/synthetic life: The only way to resolve conflict is to eliminate differences. Mass Molestation.

As far as understanding the reapers were concerned, we already knew everything that we could/would need to know about their motivations and intentions. They see any non-reaper, both organic and synthetic, as beneath them and have no qualms in killing/controlling them in horrific ways. They also take the defeated, dead or alive, and convert them into liquid paste to make them "ascend" to reaper form. In short, the reapers were a deadly and ominous force who wiped out civilizations because they could and every new reaper born is also in essence a "sentient trophy". What more could we want to know?

The Emperor in Star Wars didn't have a complex motivation. He was just an evil manipulative Sith Lord who wanted power and loved bringing misery and suffering on others. You could give him a backstory, but for the purposes of the main plot, he doesn't need one.

Sauron in LOTR didn't have a complicated backstory. He was an evil Maia (angelic being) who made an evil ring to amplify his power so that he could take over the world. Then he lost the ring and he wants it back. Hence why the ring has to be destroyed.

Granted, the leviathan dlc was a great adventure and it honestly would've been better if it just said that the leviathans created harbinger as part of a war with another galactic power and then harbinger turned against them and killed them before starting the cycles. If you want to give the reapers a backstory, then go ahead. But do so in a way that doesn't make the current conflict irrelevant or break the whole plot altogether.

Needless to say. They didn't.

You didn't explain how the Catalyst is "a walking plot hole". All you did was just extensively explain why you disliked it and how you would've preferred it to happen.

We knew very very little about their ultimate motivations/origins. To say that we "knew everything we could/would need" before they were eventually revealed, is quite ridiculous.

"They're not as important" because they have a purpose? A purpose in which they are an integral part? The Catalyst is a bit helpless without the use of its "tools". It's fair to say they're as important as ever.


The Emperor was brought to life by a great theatrical actor. Sauron was as plain as they get. It's funny you bring up Sauron. His minions seemed quite important to his overall goals as well. Though, he was a lame villain.

You wanted a simple, straightforward bad guy without any motivation other than killing the good guys and spreading darkness over the land. Got it. Only, I didn't ask what you wanted or what you like. I asked you to explain how the Catalyst is a walking plot hole, as you said.

[AlexMBrennan]

She got that log from the memory banks of a geth that she disabled

Don't you think it's awfully convenient that a randomly picked geth (among billions) happened to one of the maybe half-dozen to witness the conversation?

She was also working extremely fast - in the ten hours it took Shepard to reach the Citadel, Tali disabled the geth, found the memory, travelled to the Citadel, got shot, went into hiding for a week and tried to sell the recording via Fist to the SB who dispatched Wrex to deal with the betrayl.

[Ryriena]

Not really she was in the right place at the right time. It's an after though of her actions so a cause and effect type of writing.

[Farangbaa]

Don't you think it's awfully convenient that a randomly picked geth (among billions) happened to one of the maybe half-dozen to witness the conversation?

She was also working extremely fast - in the ten hours it took Shepard to reach the Citadel, Tali disabled the geth, found the memory, travelled to the Citadel, got shot, went into hiding for a week and tried to sell the recording via Fist to the SB who dispatched Wrex to deal with the betrayl.

 

Don't tell these people ME1 is full of plotholes too, it'll scar them for life.

[CronoDragoon]

Okay, I also picked Destroy before the MEHEM mod was made along the same thought process.

 

But even if you try to rationalize that you're still fighting the reapers when you pick Destroy, that's not what's happening. Due to the re-contextualization that the Star-Child brings with him, all of the ending choices are inherently designed to deal with the Organic-Synthetic problem with the reapers no longer being as important as they initially were.

 

I never interpreted Destroy that way, but I can follow why people would be especially upset if they indeed got this impression.

[AlanC9]

Don't you think it's awfully convenient that a randomly picked geth (among billions) happened to one of the maybe half-dozen to witness the conversation?
She was also working extremely fast - in the ten hours it took Shepard to reach the Citadel, Tali disabled the geth, found the memory, travelled to the Citadel, got shot, went into hiding for a week and tried to sell the recording via Fist to the SB who dispatched Wrex to deal with the betrayl.

Yep. Don't forget that in that ten hours the geth also had to leave Sovereign and land on the planet where Tali disabled it. But I guess that can't make this any worse than it already is.

[AlanC9]

never said it was. What are you getting at? He said BW changed the focus from stopping them to solving the organic/synthetic conflict. Hence my response that they don't force you to resolve anything.

I'm agreeing with you; just pointing out that the rationale works for both Destroy and Control. I suppose Refuse could also be a case where Shepard doesn't believe the Catalyst is right about the org/synth problem .

[Iakus]

 

But even if you try to rationalize that you're still fighting the reapers when you pick Destroy, that's not what's happening. Due to the re-contextualization that the Star-Child brings with him, all of the ending choices are inherently designed to deal with the Organic-Synthetic problem with the reapers no longer being as important as they initially were. Instead, they're merely the "tools" of the Star-Child's will and if you don't want rocks fall and everyone to die, you have to let the Star-Child win in some way.

 

Destroy-All synthetics die: Conflict inevitable, kill one so that the other can flourish. Mass Genocide.

Control-Take the Catalyst's place: Domination and Force are the only ways to maintain peace. Mass Slavery.

Synthesis-Merge all organic/synthetic life: The only way to resolve conflict is to eliminate differences. Mass Molestation.

 

Thisthisthisthisthisthisthisthisthis!

[Kel Riever]

Don't tell these people ME1 is full of plotholes too, it'll scar them for life.

 

Look at you trying to be funny.  You have a point, though.  Here are a few problems.

 

*ME1 is the first in a series.  The expectation is that as time goes on the series improves, not declines in quality.

 

*ME1 is not the last in the series.  In other words, not only should you make sure your final entry into a series is better, but you should REALLY make sure it is better if you aren't going to end it.

 

*ME1's plotholes are still about a thousand million infinity times better than being given a Glowjob.  You literally could have ended ME3 just before Glowjob shows up, and role the credits, and this wouldn't be true.  But it is.  Thanks nonsense child.

 

So, sure, come down on ME1.  It still doesn't hold a candle to the 'fecal maelstrom' that ME3 was.

[CronoDragoon]

*ME1 is the first in a series.  The expectation is that as time goes on the series improves, not declines in quality.

 

This expectation doesn't seem to be based on how series work in practice though.

[Farangbaa]

Look at you trying to be funny.  You have a point, though.  Here are a few problems.

 

*ME1 is the first in a series.  The expectation is that as time goes on the series improves, not declines in quality.

 

*ME1 is not the last in the series.  In other words, not only should you make sure your final entry into a series is better, but you should REALLY make sure it is better if you aren't going to end it.

 

*ME1's plotholes are still about a thousand million infinity times better than being given a Glowjob.  You literally could have ended ME3 just before Glowjob shows up, and role the credits, and this wouldn't be true.  But it is.  Thanks nonsense child.

 

So, sure, come down on ME1.  It still doesn't hold a candle to the 'fecal maelstrom' that ME3 was.

 

Ofcourse the plotholes are bigger in the final episode of a series than in the first. In the first you have nothing to worry about except the the reference frame created by/in the initial episode (and even within that, as shown by the Tali example, plotholes are possible). By the end you have to worry about that same reference frame, and everything else that happened since.

 

This expectation doesn't seem to be based on how series work in practice though.

 

Is a direct result of that.

[AlanC9]

 
*ME1's plotholes are still about a thousand million infinity times better than being given a Glowjob.  You literally could have ended ME3 just before Glowjob shows up, and role the credits, and this wouldn't be true.  But it is.  Thanks nonsense child.
 

Meaning that you would have liked the Reapers better if Bio just threw up their hands and left them making no sense? I don't see how that's better, but this is a taste thing.

[Ryriena]

Don't tell these people ME1 is full of plotholes too, it'll scar them for life.

To be fair, I can understand Me1 plotholes. I mean it's the first in the series that puts The lore down and plus I can supened my disbelief a bit with ME1. ME3 has many which breaks my suppression of disbelieve.

[Farangbaa]

To be fair, I can understand Me1 plotholes. I mean it's the first in the series that puts The lore down and plus I can supened my disbelief a bit with ME1. ME3 has many which breaks my suppression of disbelieve.

 

Are you for real, man? If any part of a series has the possibility of being plothole free, it's the first.

[Iakus]

This expectation doesn't seem to be based on how series work in practice though.

Which is why later installments hurt he earlier ones.  The answers we figured we'd get either weren't forthcoming, or turned out to be stupid.