265 réponses à ce sujet

[Obadiah]

And that sort of reply is precisely why the ME3 defenders get so much flack. Those who don't like it argue their points, those who do mostly just sneer at those who don't.
...

Well that's just nonsense. Those that liked the ending argued their points. The reason ME3 defenders got flack is because they were standing in the way of that tsunami of "it sucked", and had little to nothing to do with how they treated/derided the critics.

[rapscallioness]

I'm all too aware of this. A truce is the only solution.

 

Unlike Kelly Chambers, Steve Cortez and Samantha Traynor almost feel like squad members to me. It's amazing how much they grew on me. 

 

I also like Dragon Age II. 

lol! yeah, i enjoy da2, too. *runs*

[SporkFu]

lol! yeah, i enjoy da2, too. *runs*

Not alone. I liked DA2, and I've been wanting to fit in another run before October, but I can't until Jenkins survives. 

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Well that's just nonsense. Those that liked the ending argued their points. The reason ME3 defenders got flack is because they were standing in the way of that tsunami of "it sucked", and had little to nothing to do with how they treated/derided the critics.

 

It was a two-way street. On the anti-ender side, you had people who thought everything about the endings was bad and that everyone that liked it was a moron, and on the pro-ender side, you had a lot of bio-drones who were out to attack anyone who criticized the masterpiece of their BW masters. Specifically, to this day we have a user named txgoldrush who constantly claimed people 'didn't get the ending'. His claim was that the ending was absolutely perfect, and anyone who had anything bad to say about it at all didn't understand it, nor did they have the capacity to understand it. And I won't lie, a lot more of the pro-ender/anti-anti-ender crowd tended to act a lot more condescending and snobbish towards the people who hated the endings. They certainly didn't sell their position very well. I don't dislike them for liking the ending. I dislike them because they acted a lot like general jerkholes about it (as well as in general, a lot of them were naturally unpleasant people.) My dislike for them often had little to do with the ending.

 

Personally, I can't see how anyone can logically defend the narrative or thematic inconsistencies raised by the ending, or the general execution of it (what I mean is the sequence of events, which was rather minimalist, and the abject violations of scientific principles.) I can appreciate the people who like the intent behind it and the ending themselves, but not of how it could be an ending for Mass Effect. It seemed tacked on and just poorly executed and thought out. The idea itself is alright, but it just doesn't work as far as build-up from the rest of the series. It's like a puzzle piece that's put on the wrong spot. It has it's place, and it might have even fit if there was another piece connecting it, but as it is, it's in the wrong place.

[KrrKs]

Well that's just nonsense. Those that liked the ending argued their points. The reason ME3 defenders got flack is because they were standing in the way of that tsunami of "it sucked", and had little to nothing to do with how they treated/derided the critics.

As I remember, there were awesome amounts of bullshit and insults flying around from either side, back then.

Which was the entire reason I didn't post here for more than a year after ME3 came out.

 

It was a two-way street. On the anti-ender side, you had people who thought everything about the endings was bad and that everyone that liked it was a moron, and on the pro-ender side, you had a lot of bio-drones who were out to attack anyone who criticized the masterpiece of their BW masters. Specifically, to this day we have a user named txgoldrush who constantly claimed people 'didn't get the ending'. His claim was that the ending was absolutely perfect, and anyone who had anything bad to say about it at all didn't understand it, nor did they have the capacity to understand it.

I remember that guy. The ending was "soo deeeeep"

ME2 quote (I guess) ahead: "So deep up their own back, that they can't even see their sheit anymore"

 

Also: Everyone who is of a different opinion than me is obviously a fool, and should be eaten.

But I opinion still is that the ME3 ending is bad and should feel bad for various reasons.

The biggest being, as my fore-poster said, that it is (the colour coded cloaka of Chaotica, that is) absolutely unfitting for the ME universe.

[CosmicGnosis]

I watched most of Arch's stream and it was very clear from the beginning that he wasn't gonna change his mind about anything (remember the reason for playing on super easy? "This game doesn't deseeeeerve me trying".) The story went in a different direction than he was expecting and the game will never compare to the What-Should-Have-Been version of ME3 he's got installed in his headcanon.

 

If understanding the Catalyst's side makes you a bad person then that makes two of us, heh. When he started with the whole "we make ourselves stronger by beating the fire" I was like noo the point, you're missing it! and then I died.

Yeah, it appears that he and many others don't want to accept the analogy that the galaxy is like a forest. The Catalyst is a forester who utilizes controlled burns in order to remove excessive "vegetation" and encourage the growth of new life, thus maintaining a balance that preserves the galaxy's "ecosystem".  There is no animosity involved. It was created to preserve the "forest" of life, so that is what it does. 

 

I love this idea. It gives the Reapers a "noble" purpose and puts us in the awkward position of analyzing ourselves in the context of this vast and ancient universe. It also forces us to consider that we might be at the mercy of beings far older and greater than us. It's very philosophical. Yet, it seems that there are people who just outright hate this idea. I don't understand it. Does it disturb them? Did they want the Reapers to be simple monsters? I'm truly baffled by this. I sympathize with hating the presentation, but not the concept itself.

[rapscallioness]

I was never really in the camp that disliked the Catalyst. I did not mind it being a part of the ending. My thing was when it was over I woulda loved to have seen my war assets do cool stuff. sigh.

 

But for me, I saw the Catalyst as more of a prime example of the problem w/AI. They don't get the subtle nuance of the matter. They're very literal in their interpretations of things which can cause serious problems.

 

Beyond that, I do take issue with the cutting down of a species under the assumption that they can never do better. They are not given the chance to grow and learn from their mistakes. And in the process, this cutting down, I think, actually adds to the problem of organics and synthetics because there is no line of past experience left to draw on after the reapers reap.

 

The organics have no memory or past knowledge to draw on. So, in a way it's the Reapers are dooming the organics to constantly repeat their past mistakes.

[CosmicGnosis]

I was never really in the camp that disliked the Catalyst. I did not mind it being a part of the ending. My thing was when it was over I woulda loved to have seen my war assets do cool stuff. sigh.

 

But for me, I saw the Catalyst as more of a prime example of the problem w/AI. They don't get the subtle nuance of the matter. They're very literal in their interpretations of things which can cause serious problems.

 

Beyond that, I do take issue with the cutting down of a species under the assumption that they can never do better. They are not given the chance to grow and learn from their mistakes. And in the process, this cutting down, I think, actually adds to the problem of organics and synthetics because there is no line of past experience left to draw on after the reapers reap.

 

The organics have no memory or past knowledge to draw on. So, in a way it's the Reapers are dooming the organics to constantly repeat their past mistakes.

And this is a legitimate counter-argument. You are supposed to disagree with the Catalyst's methods. That's why the original ending didn't allow the cycle to continue. Ironically, it was the EC that provided that option.

 

I think the writers intended for us to acknowledge the problem that the Catalyst was created to address, but also recognize that its methods were Renegade taken to an incredible extreme. And then we have to look at our available options, and decide which one we think is the most beneficial to all life. We are suddenly given the power of the Catalyst, the power of a "god", which allows us to move more than just mountains, planets, and stars: we can move an entire galaxy, and we are made to appreciate that overwhelming burden.

[AlanC9]

Personally, I can't see how anyone can logically defend the narrative or thematic inconsistencies raised by the ending, or the general execution of it (what I mean is the sequence of events, which was rather minimalist, and the abject violations of scientific principles.)

The standard response to the scientific principles argument is that ME was always about crappy science, isn't it?

[rapscallioness]

And this is a legitimate counter-argument. You are supposed to disagree with the Catalyst's methods. That's why the original ending didn't allow the cycle to continue. Ironically, it was the EC that provided that option.

 

I think the writers intended for us to acknowledge the problem that the Catalyst was created to address, but also recognize that its methods were Renegade taken to an incredible extreme. And then we have to look at our available options, and decide which one we think we can live with.

yeah. you know my first PT I didn't even think to "shhot the kid" or anything. It wasn't unti; the EC after I'd heard ppl talking abt doing it in the original. So, I thought for lulz! I'd shoot the kid...."SO BE IT!"

 

Me: "oh, shyte!" *cue Liara hologram.*

 

( i messed up all my endings. first time i got sucked into the synth beam--even tho i wanted destroy--cuz i got too close to the beam. i didn't know it was just snap into a cutscene. took sum of the umph out. i tell ya. then EC--well--shot the kid first time...sigh. lol!)

[ImaginaryMatter]

Yeah, it appears that he and many others don't want to accept the analogy that the galaxy is like a forest. The Catalyst is a forester who utilizes controlled burns in order to remove excessive "vegetation" and encourage the growth of new life, thus maintaining a balance that preserves the galaxy's "ecosystem".  There is no animosity involved. It was created to preserve the "forest" of life, so that is what it does. 

 

I love this idea. It gives the Reapers a "noble" purpose and puts us in the awkward position of analyzing ourselves in the context of this vast and ancient universe. It also forces us to consider that we might be at the mercy of beings far older and greater than us. It's very philosophical. Yet, it seems that there are people who just outright hate this idea. I don't understand it. Does it disturb them? Did they want the Reapers to be simple monsters? I'm truly baffled by this. I sympathize with hating the presentation, but not the concept itself.

 

One of my problems with the Catalyst is that it's motivation is undercut by the story itself. The treatment of AI in Mass Effect changed quite radically each game, so while the Catalyst might have made more sense at the end of ME1 by ME3, however, the AI characters are elevated to some of the most merciful and reasonable species in the galaxy who only engage in conflict after being pushed by organics or even by the Reapers themselves. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem except the game elevates this conflict to the fore front, elevating the antagonist's goals ahead of the protagonist, it's a jarring experience. Shepard doesn't even attempt to argue it by bringing up Rannoch or something (which I think it another problem, our story's microcosms of this conflict is completely irrelevant).

 

Sure, it's an interesting concept and maybe even one worth discussing, but this is a story. And in the context of that story this idea, this conflict, is so badly represented and mishandled that it doesn't really have any legitimacy being in there.

 

So, by the end I'm not thinking, "This is indeed a complicated issue that may desire such extremes," but rather, "Why are you saving me from the robots that love us?"

[congokong]

I figured from the title that this was about ME3's ending. Close enough. I loved ME3 myself. Overall I'd say it is my favorite of the trilogy. I also liked the ending and can't understand the backlash it has received. Still, do we need yet another ME3 ending thread?

[Obadiah]

It was a two-way street. On the anti-ender side, you had people who thought everything about the endings was bad and that everyone that liked it was a moron, and on the pro-ender side, you had a lot of bio-drones who were out to attack anyone who criticized the masterpiece of their BW masters. Specifically, to this day we have a user named txgoldrush
...

You know all you have to do is jump to the last page in this forum to look at the boatloads of threads of people actively criticizing the game and NOT being attacked, right?

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

The standard response to the scientific principles argument is that ME was always about crappy science, isn't it?

 

Not on the level presented in something like synthesis (which, among other violations, cuts the science and just delves straight into vitalism, which is mystic bullcrap proven false centuries ago with the 'organic essence' moment.)

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

You know all you have to do is jump to the last page in this forum to look at the boatloads of threads of people actively criticizing the game and NOT being attacked, right?

 

Yep. And that's fine that they aren't attacked. They aren't doing anything to warrant attacks. Criticizing the game is perfectly acceptable.

 

Most of the people who were truly vitriolic left ages ago. I can't think of any of the truly hardcore (and confrontational) bio-drones that are still on here, sans Txgoldrush (and I haven't seen him in a while). People like Yate, Brovikk Rasputin, Arial, and Auld Wulf (who was admittedly a caricature). They're all gone, for whatever reason. David slowly worked himself up to the level of a bio-drone, though he wouldn't hesitate to criticize them if they did something he didn't like.

[dreamgazer]

Not on the level presented in something like synthesis (which, among other violations, cuts the science and just delves straight into vitalism, which is mystic bullcrap proven false centuries ago with the 'organic essence' moment.)

 

The Prothean cipher, the Thorian, and Project Lazarus' capabilities with the human brain are quite arguably on that level, along with "absorb the essence of a species" at the end of ME2.

 

All of 'em cut the science, and the magical mental cipher introduces the idea of the "essence" of an organism or species, derived from literally absorbing Protheans. 

 

At least Synthesis has particle physics and nanotechnology going for it. 

[dreamgazer]

As an aside, gosh, do I miss Auld Wulf's insults and diatribes.  Very well done. 

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

The Prothean cipher, the Thorian, and Project Lazarus' capabilities with the human brain are quite arguably on that level, along with "absorb the essence of a species" at the end of ME2.

 

All of 'em cut the science, and the magical mental cipher introduces the idea of the "essence" of an organism or species, derived from literally absorbing Protheans. 

 

At least Synthesis has particle physics and nanotechnology going for it. 

 

I disagree completely. To be honest, Synthesis would have worked better if they hadn't bothered with the explanation behind the physics of it. At least for everything else, it's left unstated, and by 'absorb the essence of a species', it can easily be taken as harvesting genetic material (which it is shown to be doing).

 

The Thorian isn't something I've ever really found to be all the hard to believe. The Prothean Cipher is a plot tool, but not an altogether hugely detracting one. Lazarus Science was simply just unstated, which is irritating, but not something that pulls into a pseudo-mystic execution that a human soul is needed to power the Crucible to enact synthesis.

 

Synthesis is the pipe that irreconcilably breaks the scientific suspension of disbelief for me.

[AlanC9]

Not on the level presented in something like synthesis (which, among other violations, cuts the science and just delves straight into vitalism, which is mystic bullcrap proven false centuries ago with the 'organic essence' moment.)

I can understand not liking organic essences and so forth, but wasn't that stuff already in ME long before Synthesis came up?

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

I can understand not liking organic essences and so forth, but wasn't that stuff already in ME long before Synthesis came up?

 

Not quite to the same extent or effect as Synthesis, where it is literally brought in as the 'scientific' explanation for it. By the being that is representing the action no less.

 

Synthesis is the point where the usually relatively well-maintained if somewhat fundamentally flawed fountain of space magic is unscrewed into a full drainage leak.

[dreamgazer]

I disagree completely. To be honest, Synthesis would have worked better if they hadn't bothered with the explanation behind the physics of it. At least for everything else, it's left unstated, and by 'absorb the essence of a species', it can easily be taken as harvesting genetic material (which it is shown to be doing).

 

The Thorian isn't something I've ever really found to be all the hard to believe. The Prothean Cipher is a plot tool, but not an altogether hugely detracting one. Lazarus Science was simply just unstated, which is irritating, but not something that pulls into a pseudo-mystic execution that a human soul is needed to power the Crucible to enact synthesis.

 

Synthesis is the pipe that irreconcilably breaks the scientific suspension of disbelief for me.

 

Sorry, but I don't buy "unstated" as a suitable counter-argument when those things directly violate the laws of science, namely physiology. 

 

And I'd actually suggest that it's not the human soul, but the merger between man and machine inside Shepard that's the blueprint for Synthesis' enactment, the "biosynthetic fusion" from ME2.  I certainly don't care for anything about Synthesis, but at least it's got certain principles working in its favor.  Everything in bold is simply hand-waved. 

[KaiserShep]

Essence is such a weird word to use. It's not like the reapers are turning everyone into some sort of cosmic fragrance brand. I don't buy essence of vanilla from the supermarket to flavor a cake.

 

Of course, there's also that line "add your energy to the Crucible's". Energy? Like...what kind of energy, and how does it make a lick of difference compared to the massive dark energy device that is pouring a beam of light into a gigantic mass relay?

 

It almost makes me wish that it simply turned everyone into Commander Shepard.

[dreamgazer]

I dunno, but Shepard's been walking around with the "essence" of the Prothean race in his/her bod since ME1.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Sorry, but I don't buy "unstated" as a suitable counter-argument when those things directly violate the laws of science, namely physiology. 

 

And I'd actually suggest that it's not the human soul, but the merger between man and machine inside Shepard that's the blueprint for Synthesis' enactment, the "biosynthetic fusion" from ME2.  I certainly don't care for anything about Synthesis, but at least it's got certain principles working in its favor.  Everything in bold is simply hand-waved. 

 

That depends on what your idea of a hand-waive is. And I never heard anything from the Catalyst about it being a fusion of man-and-machine. The only thing that came up on that topic was when the Catalyst was describing the 'importance' of synthetics in every day life (as well as the comment in Destory, but that's neither here nor there). That sounds like a hand-waive to me on your part on the bio-synthetic fusion; the Catalyst doesn't say anything about the execution of Synthesis, beyond 'add your energy to the Crucible,' and when asked to elaborate, responds with 'your organic energy, the essence of who and what you are.'

 

Doesn't sound like bio-synthetic fusion (at least, not the execution part; in unrelated matters, that does sound like an explanation for Lazarus though!) to me. I'll leave that for you to decide whether it's a good enough explanation or not, but to me, it's a hand-waive to call it that. I'll stick with official hand-waives for the most part, up to and including no explanation at all if the alternative is something like the official explanation and execution of Synthesis.

 

What laws of physiology does the Thorian break? Or Prothean physiology? Or the Cipher? Or even Lazarus? I wasn't aware that, due to the ever-changing and evolving characteristics of biology (as well as speculative xeno-biology and future technology) that there were any scientific laws concerning biology and physiology.

 

Scientific Law, another of those words that's thrown around casually, like Mary-Sue or Artistic Integrity. The thing about it is, there are very, very, exceedingly few actual laws in science. You'd be best to call it a theory, which you have data and information for, and a solid ability to predict, but no means to say that it would happen every single time. As I said, it's speculative xeno-biology. You can't say what or how life might exist somewhere else in the universe.

[Obadiah]

Yep. And that's fine that they aren't attacked. They aren't doing anything to warrant attacks. Criticizing the game is perfectly acceptable.
 
Most of the people who were truly vitriolic left ages ago. I can't think of any of the truly hardcore (and confrontational) bio-drones that are still on here, sans Txgoldrush (and I haven't seen him in a while). People like Yate, Brovikk Rasputin, Arial, and Auld Wulf (who was admittedly a caricature). They're all gone, for whatever reason. David slowly worked himself up to the level of a bio-drone, though he wouldn't hesitate to criticize them if they did something he didn't like.

The point is, you could criticize this game and not be "attacked", in fact you would be barely contradicted. I know you couldn't defend this game and not be attacked (or have the thread get filled up negative spam replies), because every time I posted anything positive about this game that is what happened. The equivalency in behavior that is being drawn between the two sides is not true at all. It was not a two-way street.