350 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Yes, I get it. It is Drew Karpyshyn's fault that Mass Effect 1 and 2 had crappy writing, which in turn forced Mac Walters to write a ridiculous ending for ME3, which that fans of course hated. It is completely irrelavant that the fans had no problem with the writing until ME3.

You're getting closer. It's not wrong or stupid for a fan to have simply put off thinking about the fundamental silliness of the ME plot until he'd played the final game; all of the information wasn't in yet. So, yes, not having a problem with the writing until ME3 was reasonable.

[Farangbaa]

No, I'm referring to the kind of ignorant groupie who would presume to tell the rest of the gaming world that their objections with regards the ****** poor work of Mac and Casey are moot.

 

Oh, you're one of those people who likes to point out all the flaws in ME3, but when told the same flaws are in ME2 you get upset.

[dreamgazer]

No, I'm referring to the kind of ignorant groupie who would presume to tell the rest of the gaming world that their objections with regards the ****** poor work of Mac and Casey are moot.

 

They're not "moot", just woefully misguided and clouded by nostalgia in relation to the rest of the series.  

 

ME3's writing has flaws overall? You betcha. So does ME1 and ME2, and some are asterisks-poor work as well.  There's also a lot of strength in all three.

[CronoDragoon]

I'm only saying that Mass Effect 1 and 2 are great and that Mass Effect 3 is a terrible game, because the writing is horrendous (the entire internet agrees). Therefore I think it is a bad idea that Mac Walters is still the lead writer for Mass Effect 4. Problem?All I am reading from you guys is that Mass Effect 1 and 2 had bad writing, that is why Mac Walters, as the new lead writer for ME3, was forced to create a terrible ending. It's all Drew Karpyshyn's fault, becuase he is a moron and f*cked up the writing in ME1 + ME2 - ridiculous. Please elaborate.

Do yourself a favor and go read the me3 review thread. Its amazing how many reviews have *two* reviews, since their opinion of the game until the ending was so different from their opinion of the ending. I agree with dreams characterization of the dominant bsn opinion of me3.

[CptFalconPunch]

The entire internet agrees.

 

The discussions are becoming very entertaining.

 

Even worse are those who fake indifference in continually trying to excuse the blatant failings of a game that prompted the biggest shitstorm I've witnessed in my 30 odd years as a gamer. Yeah, those guys suck.

 

If the games within themselves suck, people won't even bother. If the games are amazing, but the ending is painful its what sticks with you. It is what you think after the game ends, and the first thing that comes to mind when you remember the series.

[Farangbaa]

Not really Psychevore. Not really. That said, does the reception and reaction to the above mentioned games not offer some indication to you that you might want to wind your neck in here?

 

Then why are you in here being so upset people are critisizing ME2?

 

Oh that's right, we're only allowed to b*tch about ME3, not about that second game that shat all over the established lore, forgot about the main plot altogether, had my sole survivor Shepard say 'ok' when finding out he had to work with Cerberus (as opposed to, I dunno, shooting everone), and so on and so forth. And that's storywise... they didn't just do that, noooo. I can remember the first time I saw the level up screen. I was not amused.

[dreamgazer]

You'll get no argument from anyone here that the previous games had their problems dreamgazer. Or that ME3 had it's strengths. Thing is, to what degree should we let people like you tell us that the ending to ME3 wasn't as bad as we think?

 

No degree.  You should make up your own mind, as I've made up mine.  

 

I don't care for the ending's execution very much either, but I also acknowledge how much worse it could've been and the rickety nature of the series' storytelling to this point.  I certainly prefer dealing with what's ultimately there, now, to several other alternatives, namely those like the dark energy concept that doubled-down on the current ending's faults or others like conventional / military victory that completely disregard the lore and the presence of advanced civilizations in the past.

[CronoDragoon]

You'll get no argument from anyone here that the previous games had their problems dreamgazer. Or that ME3 had it's strengths. Thing is, to what degree should we listen to those who would presume to tell everybody else that the ending to ME3 wasn't as bad as they think?

but some of the issues in me3 are indeed caused my previous entries. Such as the suicide mission causing a lot of resources to be spent on permutations and alternate characters for missions. On the other hand, no, the ending was not as bad as the extremists say, but I really doubt the point was to change your opinion of the ending itself, rather than forcing one to ask why they are only now bitching about writing issues that have pretty much always existed.

I think the correct answer as mentioned earlier is that the emotional reaction dictated the recognition of flaws for each game (and that's true for art in general). Emotional dissatisfaction will cause one to examine a story as if it were a geometrical proof or expert witness testimony, and thus its no surprise they aren't satisfied.

[Massa FX]

Mac Walters is the scapegoat of ME3... as is Casey Hudson. It takes an entire dev team to create, not just 2 people.

 

The endings and plotholes were seen and played daily by the entire team. The group effort it took to finish the game in the time allowed was horrendous.  Don't misunderstand me... I'm still butt hurt over the endings and all, but come ON peeps.

 

Let it go!

 

Mac isn't the devil.

[dreamgazer]

To say that ME3's ending could have been worse is to make a point so obvious as to make no point at all. In any case, enjoy your game by all means. Just don't presume to tell the rest of us that they overreacted to that shite.

 

I'll presume what I like, thank you, because the proof's in the pudding.  

[Farangbaa]

On the other hand, no, the ending was not as bad as the extremists say, but I really doubt the point was to change your opinion of the ending itself, rather than forcing one to ask why they are only now bitching about writing issues that have pretty much always existed.

 

This is the core problem I have with the persistent ME3 haters on here. They explain why ME3 sucks by examples with which the entire series is riddled. (someone give me a better word for riddled, it's wrong in this context... I think. English is not my native language )

[dreamgazer]

That's an excellent post CronoDragoon, but I've been involved in discussing that game long enough to know that people continue object to its ending for many different - entirely legitimate - reasons. Which kind of speaks to its quality no?

 

So long as the objections to previous entries and the potentially worse problems within other ME3 ending ideas also speak to their own quality. 

[CronoDragoon]

That's an excellent post CronoDragoon, but I've been involved in discussing that game long enough to know that people continue object to its ending for many different - entirely legitimate - reasons. Which kind of speaks to its quality no?

well, that will come down to whether the existence of flaws matters at all in art unless they disrupt the emotional experience. To me, if you hadn't been forced to kill all synthetics in destroy, no one would give a **** what the catalyst believed or asserted about the nature of organics and synthetics. I think that the emotional reaction either allows one to hand wave or obsess over logic. Thus I deem the primary flaw of me3s ending to be its failure to evoke the feeling it wanted to evoke in its players, since it is the catalyst (keke) forbthe recognition of other inconsistencies. Instead of bittersweet players felt despair, etc.

if you are an extremely logical person who analyzes all stories by their internal coherence, then yeah mass effect will give you issues. But I hardly think the series is unique in this regard.

[sveners]

but some of the issues in me3 are indeed caused my previous entries. Such as the suicide mission causing a lot of resources to be spent on permutations and alternate characters for missions. On the other hand, no, the ending was not as bad as the extremists say, but I really doubt the point was to change your opinion of the ending itself, rather than forcing one to ask why they are only now bitching about writing issues that have pretty much always existed.

I think the correct answer as mentioned earlier is that the emotional reaction dictated the recognition of flaws for each game (and that's true for art in general). Emotional dissatisfaction will cause one to examine a story as if it were a geometrical proof or expert witness testimony, and thus its no surprise they aren't satisfied.

 

I agree with most of this. Even though I think you're wrong about the ending not being as bad as "extremists" say. Thanks for that by the way.

[dreamgazer]

And you know best, eh? No, no I don't think so.

 

Opinions are opinions, and they're only based on the data we're presented with.  I have mine; you have yours. 

 

I do absolutely think an ending that transformed the Reapers into literal good guys and Shepard into their antagonist would, in fact, be worse, especially if hinged on a choice between either imminent extinction or the sacrifice of humanity because of "techno-science magic".

 

I also think an ending that scoffs at previous advanced civilization's technological, industrial, and military prowess for the sake of misguided power-fantasy over the mecha-Cthulhu would, in fact, be worse, especially since it's established that others were more advanced than this cycle and the Protheans'.  That's the corner ME2 (and, in ways, ME1) backed the narrative into.

 

This ending found a way of melding Sovereign's speech about "imposing order on the chaos of organic evolution" with the quarian's creation of synthetic rebels that led to a massive problem in the trilogy's first installment, and it tried to incorporate gray-area sci-fi themes in a final ending choice.  I'm no fan of the overall execution (and I'd never choose Synthesis or Refuse), but yes, I believe I know better in preferring this to the alternatives 

[dlux]

A few things:
 
Considering that the reapers were arriving anyway, it's a safer assumption that the purpose of the human reaper was simply to be, well, the human reaper. The Collectors were going to harvest enough people to build it, then the rest can simply be destroyed once the reapers finally arrive. Of course, this begs the question as to why the Collectors have to do this at all, since the reaper fleet is well capable of doing this themselves. The Citadel relay plan failed. It doesn't seem sensible to bother making this same desperate move again, risking the destruction of yet another reaper, particularly one fresh off the macabre showroom floor.

Creating a human reaper to open the Citadel relay is just one possible scenario, one that I thought might be likely. Who knows, maybe the Reapers thought a new (sneak?) attack on the citadel might be successful with the Collector's help? They were certainly a bit desperate to finally re-enter the galaxy as soon as possible, at least that is the feeling I had in ME1 + ME2.

The human Reaper could have also served another purpose, hard to say what it might be though, because it was not clear what the Reapers were planning to do with it. They left it up to the player to figure out what they might want with the human Reaper, the only thing that was clear is that a (new) Reaper is a dangerous weapon, which needs to be stopped, no matter what they might be planning to do with it.
 

Shepard's death and subsequent resurrection is pointless and stupid, because it's perfectly interchangeable with a 2 year long coma within the narrative. Hell, even the characters themselves seem to be pretty inconsistent in the way they talk about it. Shepard says "I died" then it's "I almost died" and Zaeed talks about his/her surviving the Normandy's destruction. The time away being nursed back to health in some secret facility while the leaders of the galaxy sit with their thumbs up their butt was sufficient to force the temporary Cerberus alignment. Maybe it was all an elaborate ploy to make a geth unit unique by sticking on some broken N7 armor. Killing a character off, then bringing them back should provide something unique to the story, but it doesn't. It's simply a Shepard and Normandy reset button.

Nobody other than Shepard recognized the Reaper threat. The leaders of the galaxy thought that Saren Arterius was the sole menace and therefore believed that his defeat freed the galaxy of any peril.
Don't forget that Shepard was indeed special (Cerberus knew this, that is why they resurrected him). Shepard touched that Prothean artifact at the beginning of Mass Effect 1, which in turn gave him the ability to recognize the Reaper threat.

I thought this story element was fine and really enjoyed the situation it put Shepard and the galaxy in. Anyway what is wrong with Shepard dying and then being resurrected? I don't think there is anything condemnable about it. They could have done something completely different, but why? It was pretty cool and also showed the player how powerful and technologically advanced Cerberus is.

Anyway, if anybody means that the ressurrection in itself is ridiculous:
Shepard's body was preserved on the icy planet (probably in methane or something, not water). In theory it might someday be possible to resurrect people who have been cryogenically frozen. Why not in a few hundred years when technology has drastically advanced?
The idea is certainly a bit far fetched, but so is space travel at light speed. Nobody can say if either technology might be possible someday or not, so suspend your disbelief and enjoy the SciFi fiction.
 

While ME1 does establish that the reapers are there to "impose order on the chaos of organic evolution", that seems rather incomplete. Why should they care? What's the point of imposing order? Are they simply galactic neat freaks that get off on making sapient life operate like clockwork? In all honesty, I wouldn't have cared one iota if they never answered these questions, because the ultimate goal behind their will to impose order was never really all that intriguing to me anyway. I would have been happy enough to just kill them without ever really knowing everything behind the curtain, because it satisfies the portion of my brain that's part lizard, part caveman.

We did not know the Reapers true motives until Mass Effect 3. The Reapers were so mysterious, I loved it and enjoyed this story element immensly... and then Mass Effect 3 happened. *facepalm*

It would have been much more satisfying to just completely wipe those suckers out without ever knowing their true motives. I dunno, maybe they maybe they are ancient robots created by an ancient race, that just went completely psycho for no apparent reason, kind of like HAL 9000 in 2001: A Space Odyssey (okay HAL 900 is just a computer) or Skynet in The Terminator. That would have made a better story than the BS that Mac Walters created in Mass Effect 3.

[Farangbaa]

Oh I see your problem now. You hate it that knowing the Reapers motivation might make your decision to destroy them the wrong one.

[dlux]

AI Research was banned in fear of developing an AI that destroyed all life. This is not a retcon, this has been in the game since ME1.

Yes. They were afraid that the AI might become autonomous (Geth anyone?). No direct connection to the ending of Mass Effect 3 though.
 

I'm waiting for this guy to start talking about his 4 nephews and his mates.

And i'm still waiting for you to stop trolling.

[CptFalconPunch]

Reaper is a dangerous weapon, which needs to be stopped, no matter what they might be planning to do with it.

Doesn't the game have to make you feel like you're in danger? If the game tells me they're going to attack earth, and find out the collectors are so weak, my immersion is broken.
In Mass Effect 1, after having the conversation with Sovereign scared the **** out of me.
In Mass Effect 2, we have... nothing. There are some attempts to make them feel dangerous, but they are so badly written you can't get engaged. Obvious trap of the collector ship, everyone conveniently leaves the normandy etc etc.

Nobody other than Shepard recognized the Reaper threat.
Shepard touched that Prothean artifact at the beginning of Mass Effect 1, which in turn gave him the ability to recognize the Reaper threat.

The artifact is irrelevant. Shepard's teammates know about the reapers. The worst thing in ME2 is that we take 0 steps forward in our fight against them. We're as ready for them at the end of ME2 and we are at the start. And after the hype and the fight in ME1, its contradicting. They're coming and I am not allowed to do anything about it!

I thought this story element was fine and really enjoyed the situation it put Shepard and the galaxy in. Anyway what is wrong with Shepard dying and then being resurrected? I don't think there is anything condemnable about it. They could have done something completely different, but why? It was pretty cool and also showed the player how powerful and technologically advanced Cerberus is.

The ressurection technology is kind of fine, but it removes the element of fear. If anyone can die, and get ressurected whats to be afraid of?
That aside, there is no way shepards body could have, well, even hit the ground of the planet after entering the atmosphere.
There would be no body to recover.

We did not know the Reapers true motives until Mass Effect 3. The Reapers were so mysterious, I loved it and enjoyed this story element immensly... and then Mass Effect 3 happened. *facepalm*

Damn, I agree so much with you, the lovecraftian approach of the reapers was so damn awesome. How far we've come, from mystical gods to ME2's arnold baby to ME3.

[dlux]

I guess it really comes down to the ending. People generally forgive flaws when they're satisfied with how a story concludes. If ME3 had an ending that gamers generally liked or loved, they'd be less inclined to pick apart the dumb stuff.

I've been saying that for two years.

I don't really agree. I though the entire game was a lot worse than ME1 + ME2. I would have forgiven that, but then came the terrible ending.

Oh I see your problem now. You hate it that knowing the Reapers motivation might make your decision to destroy them the wrong one.

Nope.

[Farangbaa]

Yes. They were afraid that the AI might become autonomous (Geth anyone?). No direct connection to the ending of Mass Effect 3 though.

 
That would mean they have no idea what an AI is. An AI is by definition autonomous. So no.
 
Besides, the ban on AI precedes the awakening of the Geth. That is one of the reasons the Quarians tried to kill them all in the first place, they were breaking the law.
 

Artificial intelligence is a key concern for the Citadel races, one that pre-dates the emergence of sentient geth, though the geth are seen as a perfect example of how organic and synthetic life would struggle to co-exist. Tali points out that synthetic races have no use whatsoever for organics—they don't have the same needs or drives as biological creatures, so they have no need to trade resources or information with them. That is why the geth have isolated themselves beyond the Perseus Veil. An AI gives the view from the other side of the fence when it tells Shepard that, from a synthetic point of view, "all organics must destroy or control synthetic life forms".

That is all ME1. Granted, the last bolded part is from an easily missed side quest.