333 réponses à ce sujet

[God]

All I see is, "blah, blah, blah, I'm right and you're not".

 

And you're trolling now. 

 

Good work man. Here I thought I'd help someone refine their arguments, but whatever.

[Ithurael]

I may end up converting because this God guy is making all sorts of sense...

 

Maybe I should have gone to church more...

[MrFob]

I never thought I'd say this but listen to the word of God as it is the truth and shall guide you on the path to enlightenment.

 

Ah, dam, ed by Ithurael

[God]

I blame my children for that. My word has always been truth;

 

And my word is... truth. Take it literally. Find truth. Learn truth. Absorb truth. Face truth.

 

So many people mistook that over the ages.

[Abraham_uk]

 

If you must keep this discussion alive, then here are two videos that you might enjoy.

 

[I Am Robot]

I'm just saying that they should have stuck up with their original plans. It'd have been much better than the current ending even if it wasn't perfect. I'm simply asking BioWare to explain the reapers' purpose thoroughly, And not to give some wacky explanations. As for my own suggestions, I can't really speak of that right now.

 

Not sure. I personally don't think the explanation was wacky or not deliberate. It clearly elaborated on the purpose of the reapers and their creation, especially if you include leviathan and the extended cut. The fact that  DLCs were required to adequately explain key components of the story can be referenced as a major flaw, however as long as we're discussing the story conceptually whether the content was part of a DLC or not is irrelevant. 

 

Further, embracing the dark energy approach as the motivating factor of the reapers would imply that astronomical events and eras occur on the scale of tens of thousands of years.... a severe shortcoming if you tend to view things scientifically like me. Explaining it through the interactions of organic and synthetic life allows for the explanation of the short time scale, relatively speaking.  

[Ithurael]

Let's put it this way; inductively, you're right. Technically speaking, a lot of people didn't like the ending because it wasn't the way they wanted it.

 

But that in itself is a subjective statement. WHY did people not find the ending to their liking? THAT'S The kicker statement.

 

Some people, like iakus, don't like the ending for reasons such as it not being 'morally happy' or 'ethically acceptable' since the ending scenario introduced an a new perspective that was much more alien and divorced from the rest of the franchise and addressed tangential themes that were divorced from the more conventional good/bad themes and presentation prevalent in the writing by BW (I suspect they want to change this, but too many people are too hung up on the idea of being a paladin/paragon and getting their power fantasy). They're more concerned with the outcomes and actions taken in the ending rather than the actual perspective and rationale presented by the Catalyst.

 

Those people, I feel, should not really be catered too.

 

 

While I am literally in love with every post you make...I have to cite something here. While Iakus always - and I mean always - advocates for a Happy ending or such I think, in reality, he is misstating his postion. I actually did talk with him, via PM, to find out what he did not like about the ending. And as it turns out his distaste for the ending is not that there is no happy ending. It is that there is no variation in the endings ranging from very very bad to happy.

 

Now...I know this sounds a bit silly but hold on. There is a difference between wanting to play out the paladin power fantasy good guy and wanting to get a happy ending but being upset when you don't get one vs playing the power fantasy good guy and not getting the happy ending because there isn't one to get.

 

This comes down to game design. And, after talking with Iakus, it seems that the problem was NOT just the lack of a happy ending. But the undiversified amounts of endings available. I think...though...I think Iakus can indefinitely clarify.

[Cheviot]

Dude, it's been flogged so much there isn't even a horse anymore.  I mean, it's basically a bunch of people cracking whips at a patch of ground that might have once had a dead horse on it, if you believe the legends passed down through generations.  Even pointing out that this thread is flogging a dead horse is itself flogging a dead horse.  In fact, we're getting close to a situation where pointing out that pointing out that is thread is flogging a dead horse is itself flogging a dead horse is itself flogging a dead horse.

[NM_Che56]

And you're trolling now. 

 

Good work man. Here I thought I'd help someone refine their arguments, but whatever.

This whole thing is one big troll.   I'm just keeping with the theme.

[I Am Robot]

^ ??? I'm not trolling... should I be? 

[Iakus]

Let's put it this way; inductively, you're right. Technically speaking, a lot of people didn't like the ending because it wasn't the way they wanted it.

 

But that in itself is a subjective statement. WHY did people not find the ending to their liking? THAT'S The kicker statement.

 

Some people, like iakus, don't like the ending for reasons such as it not being 'morally happy' or 'ethically acceptable' since the ending scenario introduced an a new perspective that was much more alien and divorced from the rest of the franchise and addressed tangential themes that were divorced from the more conventional good/bad themes and presentation prevalent in the writing by BW (I suspect they want to change this, but too many people are too hung up on the idea of being a paladin/paragon and getting their power fantasy). They're more concerned with the outcomes and actions taken in the ending rather than the actual perspective and rationale presented by the Catalyst.

 

Those people, I feel, should not really be catered too.

 

On the other hand, there is the issue of presentation and technical narrative. The ending to ME3 was very weak in that aspect. It was hamfisted writing that presented a limited ideology within the argument presented by the Catalyst. Narratively, it doesn't make sense. Which is a flaw. There is a lack of reflection and insight, compounded by a hamfisted and biased presentation of the beliefs that the writers themselves are beholden too, and they have essentially committing their final perspective on the issues presented by the ending as the paradigm argument. They offer no ability to have a reflection on the arguments presentation, logic, or reasoning, and (despite later statements) leave little room for interpretation on what they consider, nay, force to be the ultimate solution to the problem. It's biased writing. It's lazy writing, made evident by the lazy presed now ntation. As well, there was a lack of development time, and a lack of characterization of the final options. 

 

I agree with part of your statement. But it's a bit willfully ignorant to say that you're unable to be convinced that there were any flaws in the writing of the ending, and the blatant generalization that everyone who sees a flaw is a complainer who 'didn't have the story end the way they wanted it too'.

You know, if it weren't for the "Those people, I think should not really be catered to" I would have liked this post.

 

Because for the span of the trilogy, they were catered to.  Just as the more "get the job done, no matter the cost" were catered to.

 

I mean, I played the first Witcher game, and didn't really care for the story or its Crapack World or for Geralt.  No rancor towards those who do like.  And I admit it's a well-crafted game and story.  It just wasn't for me.  And I've decided not to continue with the franchise.  No hard feelings.

 

Not like Mass Effect, which sucked me in by letting me play a character I want to play, and who can fight for teh ideals I want him to have, only to suckler-punch me at the very end.  That stirs up a lot of resentment and anger.

 

But at any rate, good post.  And yes, it is more than "morally reprehensible"  That's part of it, but not the whole thing, no matter how reductio the arguments get.

[God]

While I am literally in love with every post you make...I have to cite something here. While Iakus always - and I mean always - advocates for a Happy ending or such I think, in reality, he is misstating his postion. I actually did talk with him, via PM, to find out what he did not like about the ending. And as it turns out his distaste for the ending is not that there is no happy ending. It is that there is no variation in the endings ranging from very very bad to happy.

 

Now...I know this sounds a bit silly but hold on. There is a difference between wanting to play out the paladin power fantasy good guy and wanting to get a happy ending but being upset when you don't get one vs playing the power fantasy good guy and not getting the happy ending because there isn't one to get.

 

This comes down to game design. And, after talking with Iakus, it seems that the problem was NOT just the lack of a happy ending. But the undiversified amounts of endings available. I think...though...I think Iakus can indefinitely clarify.

 

Simply put though, that's just not true. There actually is a diversity between the endings. High EMS endings all end in happy endings, so to speak. Now, debating the possible implications of the choice ramifications from the ending and what might constitute their reality is exists as well, but that's a different ending.

 

And again, I disagree. There really is a good ending; I think he's more upset over the means to get to the happy ending than the ending itself. He wants to have an ending where everybody lives and the bad guys are vanquished and good conquers all. It doesn't quite work that way, nor should it.

 

I'd say that again, I think iakus might have misstated his opinion, but I think more likely that he has... taken a stance that is relatively deflated in lieu of the evidence presenting to the contrary.

[Abraham_uk]

Dude, it's been flogged so much there isn't even a horse anymore.  I mean, it's basically a bunch of people cracking whips at a patch of ground that might have once had a dead horse on it, if you believe the legends passed down through generations.  Even pointing out that this thread is flogging a dead horse is itself flogging a dead horse.  In fact, we're getting close to a situation where pointing out that pointing out that is thread is flogging a dead horse is itself flogging a dead horse is itself flogging a dead horse.

True.

 

The ship for the ME 3 ending response has sailed, picked up an Extended Cut, went around the world a few times, delivered the Extended Cut, carried some angry passengers and then returned back to docks. It's 2015 not 2012.

[God]

You know, if it weren't for the "Those people, I think should not really be catered to" I would have liked this post.

 

Because for the span of the trilogy, they were catered to.  Just as the more "get the job done, no matter the cost" were catered to.

 

I mean, I played the first Witcher game, and didn't really care for the story or its Crapack World or for Geralt.  No rancor towards those who do like.  And I admit it's a well-crafted game and story.  It just wasn't for me.  And I've decided not to continue with the franchise.  No hard feelings.

 

Not like Mass Effect, which sucked me in by letting me play a character I want to play, and who can fight for teh ideals I want him to have, only to suckler-punch me at the very end.  That stirs up a lot of resentment and anger.

 

But at any rate, good post.  And yes, it is more than "morally reprehensible"  That's part of it, but not the whole thing, no matter how reductio the arguments get.

 

As I've said before, the game takes a turn for realism with the ending, where you finally get to see that the character and his ideals that you support is out of touch against an enemy for which that style of playing is simply irreconcilable. It doesn't matter how much you believe in your ideals - the Reapers aren't going to be beaten by them. You're finally seeing how far the maximum effective range moral righteousness goes against a genocidal machine race larger than skyscrapers. 

 

As I've also said before, if that is what stirs the resentment and anger, then you're out of luck. I'm saying that the people, who want to keep the games at fantasy level of morality, and are upset when reality ensues (due to the simple incompatibility of your ideals against beings like the Reapers, who are, to be frank, too powerful for your ideology to apply rationally) ought not be reliable sources of feedback when they get upset when the story starts to take a turn for the worse in this aspect. The writers, on this issue, made a conscious decision to reflect this in the ending. It's one of the things that I think actually works, since the Reapers are clearly an enemy that is going to require some kind of trade-off that is very dear. In this case, for you, it's your principles.

 

Beyond my standard argument of you saying that you have your principles invested in something that isn't useful to fighting, killing, and beating Reapers, I'll say that trying to argue over this is counter to what BW wanted to establish about beating the Reapers. This kind of ending, where you have to do this, was clearly part of the overall intent. 

[Ithurael]

Ehhh. Fair enough God.

 

Personally I have no issue with the whole Happy/Sad idea of the ending. I just wish they demonstrated the "it will take a LOT of bodies to win" more throughly in the third game. I mean outside what? Mordin & Legion dying the game really did show like it was going to fulfill the paragon power fantasy of Happy Endings for all. If I was making the game...I would have constantly reinforced the themes of loss and mass sacrifice throught the game and the game play.

 

Maybe if that happened in the game less people would have been surprised by the whole 'shep dies no matter what' issue and more concerned with the technical, narrative, and other inconsistancies/errors/plotholes/etc littered throught the ending and the game.

[Iakus]

Simply put though, that's just not true. There actually is a diversity between the endings. High EMS endings all end in happy endings, so to speak. Now, debating the possible implications of the choice ramifications from the ending and what might constitute their reality is exists as well, but that's a different ending.

 

And again, I disagree. There really is a good ending; I think he's more upset over the means to get to the happy ending than the ending itself. He wants to have an ending where everybody lives and the bad guys are vanquished and good conquers all. It doesn't quite work that way, nor should it.

 

I'd say that again, I think iakus might have misstated his opinion, but I think more likely that he has... taken a stance that is relatively deflated in lieu of the evidence presenting to the contrary.

Ithureal speaks correctly.

 

If I come across as wanting purely  "good" endings, for want of a better term, it's because wanting more dark endings seems, to me, redunant.  Not that I am opposed to more dark endings.  But they should also come with more "good" outcomes as well. 

 

Saying I want an ending where "everybody lives and good vanquishes all" is a gross overstatement of what I wanted.  As I've said before (to the scorn and derision of others) I'd rather see the relay network be rended permantently nonfunctional and plunge the galaxy into the dark age Mac Walters originally envisioned than have Shepard be forced to pick genocide, slavery or eugenics for the galaxy.  The dark age, at least, was a consequence that would have made sense given the circumstance.

 

So in a sense, yes, I'm upset at the means used to achieve this "victory" given these methods come out of nowhere and strike me as thematically dissonant with the entire series.  At least the the way I've been playing, and have been encouraged to play it.

[prosthetic soul]

Simply put though, that's just not true. There actually is a diversity between the endings. High EMS endings all end in happy endings, so to speak. Now, debating the possible implications of the choice ramifications from the ending and what might constitute their reality is exists as well, but that's a different ending.

 

And again, I disagree. There really is a good ending; I think he's more upset over the means to get to the happy ending than the ending itself. He wants to have an ending where everybody lives and the bad guys are vanquished and good conquers all. It doesn't quite work that way, nor should it.

 

I'd say that again, I think iakus might have misstated his opinion, but I think more likely that he has... taken a stance that is relatively deflated in lieu of the evidence presenting to the contrary.

This is patently untrue.  Also, can you please explain how an ending in which everybody lives and the bad guys are vanquished and good conquers all doesn't work and shouldn't?    Please tell me how that would NEVER work.  EVER.  This should be hilarious for you try and explain.  I am all ears on this one. 

 

Endings that are supper realistic and/or depressing aren't necessarily good.  Just as saccharine endings aren't necessarily bad.  Or Vice versa or anything in between.  Cut it out with the arbitrary narrative rules.  

[MrFob]

Ok, first of all, I think Iakus should speak for himself and not have other poster put words into his mouth (and if I know him, he will speak for himself ). EDIT: Ah, see he already has.

Second: The point of the diversity of the endings in the face of the diversity of the trilogy itself is something I can complete put myself behind as well. In fact, I made 1 or 2 rather lengthy posts about this very subject a few pages back.

Third: While God is correct (and let's face it how could he not be ) about the fact that at least post EC, we get a bunch of happy endings, the problem is more that they don't really fit the choice that we have to make IMO. The choice itself is actually intriguing in and of itself but the potential consequences in both, their good and bad aspects are not at all illuminated by the epilogue. That's why I think the EC as in a way inferior to the original endings. For all their "speculation", at least we could headcannon that our grim choice has appropriately grim consequences. Not a great place to be but at least more consistent in itself than the further thematic shift that took place with the EC.

 

So I hope that goes to show that the failures of these endings have a lot of layers to them (and I haven't even started on the logical fallacies) and can not be easily dismissed as "people didn't get what they wanted".

[Iakus]

As I've said before, the game takes a turn for realism with the ending, where you finally get to see that the character and his ideals that you support is out of touch against an enemy for which that style of playing is simply irreconcilable. It doesn't matter how much you believe in your ideals - the Reapers aren't going to be beaten by them. You're finally seeing how far the maximum effective range moral righteousness goes against a genocidal machine race larger than skyscrapers. 

 

As I've also said before, if that is what stirs the resentment and anger, then you're out of luck. I'm saying that the people, who want to keep the games at fantasy level of morality, and are upset when reality ensues due to the simple incompatibility of your ideals against beings like the Reapers, who are, to be frank, too powerful for your ideology to apply rationally.

This is essentially a space fantasy.  With what is effectively a "Light Side/Dark Side" morality meter.  THis wasn't a Game of Thrones setting.  Or BSG: the RPG.  Is it wrong to call them out on abandoning such themes in teh name of "realism" (or to be more accurate "dark and grittiness"?

[prosthetic soul]

This is essentially a space fantasy.  With what is effectively a "Light Side/Dark Side" morality meter.  THis wasn't a Game of Thrones setting.  Or BSG: the RPG.  Is it wrong to call them out on abandoning such themes in teh name of "realism" (or to be more accurate "dark and grittiness"?

This is the crux of the matter.  We went from Star Wars to Game of Thrones in the last 15 minutes of the game.  The entire series changed its thematic elements.  I suppose you could say the ending was....THEMATICALLY REVOLTING.  Also, I believe people who wanted a happy ending SHOULD be catered to, just as people who wanted a bittersweet or sad ending should be catered to.  That's where the multiple endings should come into play.  Seeing as how Casey Hudson lied through his teeth on that part though....

[Iakus]

This is the crux of the matter.  We went from Star Wars to Game of Thrones in the last 15 minutes of the game.  The entire series changed its thematic elements.  I suppose you could say the ending was....THEMATICALLY REVOLTING.  Also, I believe people who wanted a happy ending SHOULD be catered to, just as people who wanted a bittersweet or sad ending should be catered to.  That's where the multiple endings should come into play.  Seeing as how Casey Hudson lied through his teeth on that part though....

Bolded for truth.

 

ANd that's why DAO did it right, and ME3 did it all wrong

[Cheviot]

This is patently false. 

Not at all.  In low EMS endings, the galaxy is saved, but the inhabitants of Earth can all be killed by the Crucible (in Destroy) and things don't look good for the future.  In high EMS, the galaxy is saved, the population of the Earth does not get wiped out (even in Destroy), and the future looks markedly better for everyone else.  In that respect, high EMS endings count as happy.

[God]

This is essentially a space fantasy.  With what is effectively a "Light Side/Dark Side" morality meter.  THis wasn't a Game of Thrones setting.  Or BSG: the RPG.  Is it wrong to call them out on abandoning such themes in teh name of "realism" (or to be more accurate "dark and grittiness"?

 

Yes. Yes it is. 

 

Because, at the core of the franchise, you're facing an opponent for which the light/dark side morality meter doesn't apply. 

 

You're trying to apply that morality to the Reapers, and coming up wanting when it doesn't work.

 

The core antagonist of the franchise (and thus, the conflict), really does boil down to a setting that is in line with GoT. Or BSG.

 

On that note, I wouldn't characterize the morality system of Mass Effect in terms of light/dark or black/white.

 

So while I was about to say that maybe it's intentional that BW put the black/white system in place against an opponent running on blue/orange (or making it unintentional out of inconsistent writing), I'll say it's on your end.

 

Thus, simply put, it's not a light/dark morality meter. It's a space fantasy with heavy realistic elements as far as morality goes. In this, the core of the universe is dark and gritty realism in this aspect.

[DeathScepter]

The Token, we have to listen to ourselves, we are indoctrinated post.

 

 

Hey Guys, we have to listen to ourselves, we are indoctrinated thru the 4th wall.

[I Am Robot]

 We went from Star Wars to Game of Thrones in the last 15 minutes of the game. 

 

Yeah I kinda have to agree there. I think mass effective is about "If you've got everybody on board and a high enough paragon reputation, you can save everyone", just gotta be careful that it doesn't get cheesy. In synthesis (my favorite ending) you do save everyone, but you're enforcing something on them, it's a really great thing, but you're still enforcing it on them. So yeah I have to agree that the game took a thematic turn in the last few minutes, and one that wasn't to my liking.