590 réponses à ce sujet

[Valmar]

As someone pointed out, people wanted the ending to be made their way. Well this ain't Burger King. You pay $60 to have it Bioware's way. Want it your way? You're looking at a $200+ game. Which very few would be willing to pay for.

 

Mass Effect:

$60.00

DLC $1.00

DLC2 $5.00

 

Total: $66.00

 

Mass Effect 2:

$60.00

DLC $7.00

DLC2 $7.00

DLC3 $10.00

DLC4 $7.00

 

Total: $91.00

 

Mass Effect 3:

$60.00

DLC $10.00

DLC2 $10.00

DLC3 $15.00

DLC4  $15.00

 

Total: $110

 

Complete Trilogy Total: $267

[angol fear]

The Sopranos ending was well-written and acted, had plenty of foreshadowing, and was not thematically inconsistent with the rest of the series. I'd have to disagree that Mass Effect 3's endings shared any of those traits.

 

Obviously you came to a different conclusion, and you are entitled to that opinion. But don't make the mistake of assuming that just because someone doesn't like same things you do, that they don't understand it. 

 

Lack of foreshadowing in Mass Effect? Mass Effect gave clues before the ending but these clues were not supposed to make the player understand before he reached the ending. The problem with most series is that they make the spectator used to basic writing. The spectator want the writing to tell him "hey that's how it will end!". No surprise, passive reading. Mass Effect has been written on implicit. If you only focuse on the basic events, sure you'll be disappointed. While most Hollywood writing is only linear and explicit, Mass Effect isn't linear and explicit, that's why people dislike it. It breaks with their habit of reading. And just because Hollywood make them used to that kind of writing (linear and explicit) they think that it's "good writing".

 

Thematically inconsistent? So in the trilogy there was no :

-sacrifice theme

-religion theme

-technology theme

-Organics /synthetics theme

-different point of view theme

etc...

If you disagree, then what the rest of the series was about?

[Madrict]

I liked the ending just fine......hard choice to make. Citadel was also great for the extra companion interaction, helped give closure. All up a brilliant series and I cant wait for the PS4 version!

[txgoldrush]

Lack of foreshadowing in Mass Effect? Mass Effect gave clues before the ending but these clues were not supposed to make the player understand before he reached the ending. The problem with most series is that they make the spectator used to basic writing. The spectator want the writing to tell him "hey that's how it will end!". No surprise, passive reading. Mass Effect has been written on implicit. If you only focuse on the basic events, sure you'll be disappointed. While most Hollywood writing is only linear and explicit, Mass Effect isn't linear and explicit, that's why people dislike it. It breaks with their habit of reading. And just because Hollywood make them used to that kind of writing (linear and explicit) they think that it's "good writing".

 

Thematically inconsistent? So in the trilogy there was no :

-sacrifice theme

-religion theme

-technology theme

-Organics /synthetics theme

-different point of view theme

etc...

If you disagree, then what the rest of the series was about?

Let me go ahead and tell people what the series was actually about.

 

It is about how decisions made by one (or a race, group, etc.) can alter the destinies of others and the tragedies and conflicts this can create. The series explores the morality of this concept; from when and if it is necessary and acceptable to alter and control the destinies of others while pursing your goals as well as about being mindful and not ignorant of the consequences. That is the root theme of the series. It fits the title MASS EFFECT.

[dorktainian]

Let me go ahead and tell people what the series was actually about.

 

It is about how decisions made by one (or a race, group, etc.) can alter the destinies of others and the tragedies and conflicts this can create. The series explores the morality of this concept; from when and if it is necessary and acceptable to alter and control the destinies of others while pursing your goals as well as about being mindful and not ignorant of the consequences. That is the root theme of the series. It fits the title MASS EFFECT.

and here's me thinking it was about an old bloke telling a historcal recollection of events that happened in the sol system around the time of the reaper invasion to a small child.

[Iakus]

Mass Effect:

$60.00

DLC $1.00

DLC2 $5.00

 

Total: $66.00

 

Mass Effect 2:

$60.00

DLC $7.00

DLC2 $7.00

DLC3 $10.00

DLC4 $7.00

 

Total: $91.00

 

Mass Effect 3:

$60.00

DLC $10.00

DLC2 $10.00

DLC3 $15.00

DLC4  $15.00

 

Total: $110

 

Complete Trilogy Total: $267

And for that kind of money, yeah I want an ending that's more "my way"

[Iakus]

Lack of foreshadowing in Mass Effect? Mass Effect gave clues before the ending but these clues were not supposed to make the player understand before he reached the ending. The problem with most series is that they make the spectator used to basic writing. The spectator want the writing to tell him "hey that's how it will end!". No surprise, passive reading. Mass Effect has been written on implicit. If you only focuse on the basic events, sure you'll be disappointed. While most Hollywood writing is only linear and explicit, Mass Effect isn't linear and explicit, that's why people dislike it. It breaks with their habit of reading. And just because Hollywood make them used to that kind of writing (linear and explicit) they think that it's "good writing".

 

No, there was no foreshadowing in Mass Effect, given at the time they didn't HAVE A FREAKING CLUE how the trilogy was going to end.  Heck they didn't even have  a motivation for the Reapers at the time@

 

You're seeing what you want to see.

 

 

 

Thematically inconsistent? So in the trilogy there was no :
-sacrifice theme
-religion theme
-technology theme
-Organics /synthetics theme
-different point of view theme
etc...
If you disagree, then what the rest of the series was about?

 

-Not a central theme

-Not until SPace Jesus came along

-Umm, wat?

-Peripheral at best

-Huh?

 

The series was about cooperation vs independence.  About breaking cycles and creating your own destiny.  Balancing complacency vs forging ahead, and which is more dangerous.  

[Vazgen]

 

The series was about cooperation vs independence.  About breaking cycles and creating your own destiny.  Balancing complacency vs forging ahead, and which is more dangerous.  

All of which were addressed.

Cooperation vs independence - united galaxy facing the Reapers, separate batarians biting the dust

Breaking cycles and creating your own destiny - the cycle is broken regardless of your choice. Choosing your own destiny - pick your ending

Complacency vs forging ahead - lack of preparation for Reaper arrival and loss of life because of it

 

And I disagree, these are not what the series were about at all. They were, as you mentioned, peripheral, except, maybe, the second. If there is anything that gets a lot of screen time in all three games it's interspecies cooperation in the face of the bigger threat and beating the odds due to that cooperation. Which is addressed with the united galactic fleets managing to dock the Crucible.

[themikefest]

Bring all your surviving team members together, fight Harbinger, defeat Harbinger, big freaking beam of light comes from Harbinger destroying all the Reapers and their minions, the sky opens up, the sunshines, the day is won, the end, role credits. SIMPLE SIMPLE SIMPLE, EASY. May not be the best idea but it is better closure than what we got people.

I wouldn't have a problem with having a boss fight with Harbinger. If it wasn't for the catalyst, would destroying Harbinger be enough for the reapers to stop harvesting with their leader destroyed? Probably not.

 

Another way to fight Harbinger is have Shepard tell Joker to fire on him with the thannix cannon from behind to distract Harbinger long enough for Shepard to get to the beam. Harbinger would have to turn around to see who or what is firing at him. For that to happen, the Normandy would need to have the thannix cannon which is only available in ME2 as an upgrade. 

 

r

[Iakus]

 

 

All of which were addressed.

Cooperation vs independence - united galaxy facing the Reapers, separate batarians biting the dust

Breaking cycles and creating your own destiny - the cycle is broken regardless of your choice. Choosing your own destiny - pick your ending

Complacency vs forging ahead - lack of preparation for Reaper arrival and loss of life because of it

 

And I disagree, these are not what the series were about at all. They were, as you mentioned, peripheral, except, maybe, the second. If there is anything that gets a lot of screen time in all three games it's interspecies cooperation in the face of the bigger threat and beating the odds due to that cooperation. Which is addressed with the united galactic fleets managing to dock the Crucible.

 

Except the vs stuff I mentioned weren't supposed to have a clear answer.

 

Coooperation means you're collectively stronger, when when cut off from others you're weaker.  Is it better to stand strong and independent on your own without needing the help of others?  That was kind of the Renegade thing in ME1.  Not (necessarily) "Evil for the Lulz"

 

breaking the cycles:  Yeah, regardless of your choice.  Only to set up potential new cycles.  Everyone you choose to synthesize or is now under the thumb of the Shepalyst, or the synthetics you slaughter sure didn't get to forge their own destinies.

 

Complacency vs forging ahead:  there are supposed to be dangers to that.  Compare the Council (complacent) vs Cerberus (forging ahead)  Again, there are supposed to be good and bad mixed in these things.

 

But ME3 stopped asking questions and simply started reciting answers.  "This is good"  "This is bad" It stopped giving us questions to think about and instead just told us what to think.  And if we disagreed, we were just "confused"

[angol fear]

No, there was no foreshadowing in Mass Effect, given at the time they didn't HAVE A FREAKING CLUE how the trilogy was going to end.  Heck they didn't even have  a motivation for the Reapers at the time@

 

You're seeing what you want to see.

 

Sure you know better than writers how to write a story. You know how they have written it more than themself.

I'm the one seeing what I want to see. Aren't you the one you said that about Drew Karpyskyn  : 

"He has never publicly commented on the endings as shown. Positively or negatively"

 and totally ignored the evidence you were wrong. I'm seeing what I want to see and you're ignoring what you don't want to see.

 

PS : And for the sacrifice theme, listen to Casey Hudson :

We always intended that the scale of the conflict and the underlying theme of sacrifice would lead to a bittersweet ending

I was answering to "thematically inconsistent", this theme is important, you're the one who try to find a way to criticize by creating the "central theme" discussion. I never talked about central theme.

[Vazgen]

Except the vs stuff I mentioned weren't supposed to have a clear answer.

 

Coooperation means you're collectively stronger, when when cut off from others you're weaker.  Is it better to stand strong and independent on your own without needing the help of others?  That was kind of the Renegade thing in ME1.  Not (necessarily) "Evil for the Lulz"

 

breaking the cycles:  Yeah, regardless of your choice.  Only to set up potential new cycles.  Everyone you choose to synthesize or is now under the thumb of the Shepalyst, or the synthetics you slaughter sure didn't get to forge their own destinies.

 

Complacency vs forging ahead:  there are supposed to be dangers to that.  Compare the Council (complacent) vs Cerberus (forging ahead)  Again, there are supposed to be good and bad mixed in these things.

 

But ME3 stopped asking questions and simply started reciting answers.  "This is good"  "This is bad" It stopped giving us questions to think about and instead just told us what to think.  And if we disagreed, we were just "confused"

Standing independently was never a viable option. Even in ME1 you had to recruit aliens and without their help you would've never succeeded. Then comes the Dirty Dozen of ME2 which is the epitome of "we need to stand together". ME3 simply continued with this.

 

That's your perception. The endings do not hint on possible new cycles (except, maybe, Renegade Control which is more from "you get what you asked for" department). And the games were never about other races forging their own destiny. They were about Shepard doing it. Curing the genophage, peace on Rannoch, destroy/rewrite heretics - Shepard makes the decision on those issues, not the races themselves. The endings are no different.

 

Council. Complacent. Not indoctrinated. Wasted time for preparation. Cerberus. Forging ahead. Indoctrinated. Found a way to control Reaper troops. Both paths get results. Forging ahead is more dangerous but more rewarding. 

 

ME3 was supposed to give answers, not ask new questions. It was the end of the trilogy, the final chapter. Yet even considering that, we still argue whether to cure or sabotage the genophage, whether to destroy or save the geth, what ending to choose... There are more than enough questions.

[Vazgen]

In most cases, yeah. Unfortunately. The Salarians have always tried to do things themselves though (while at the same time, controlling the destiny of others).

It's even more apparent with Tolan around to spell it out.

It's not really "standing independently" when you use others, isn't it? Also, note that Salarians still join the war effort, even if you cure the genophage. I'd say that Asari tried to stand alone. We saw how that turned out.

[Iakus]

 

 

ME3 was supposed to give answers, not ask new questions. It was the end of the trilogy, the final chapter. Yet even considering that, we still argue whether to cure or sabotage the genophage, whether to destroy or save the geth, what ending to choose... There are more than enough questions.

ME3 tells us "Synthesis is good.  Synthesis is ideal" that synthetics and organics cannot get along, that synthetics will always get lose and kill all our guys.  That putting your faith in technology so advanced you have no idea what you're building or how it works is a good idea, despite multiple examples of that blowing up in people's faces in ME1 and ME2

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 The series was about different things to different people.

[dreamgazer]

That putting your faith in technology so advanced you have no idea what you're building or how it works is a good idea, despite multiple examples of that blowing up in people's faces in ME1 and ME2

 

I'd like to see a version of ME1 where we don't put our faith in Prothean technology we don't understand. 

[SimJom]

I've played a couple games that didn't have a boss fight at the end. Was still an enjoyable game.

It can happen, sure ; but in a third-person action game / RPG ? It's pretty rare. Any example?

 

And for the record, I don't think a literal, face to face confrontation with Harbinger would be a good idea. This isn't Shadow of the Colossus.

[Vazgen]

ME3 tells us "Synthesis is good.  Synthesis is ideal" that synthetics and organics cannot get along, that synthetics will always get lose and kill all our guys.  That putting your faith in technology so advanced you have no idea what you're building or how it works is a good idea, despite multiple examples of that blowing up in people's faces in ME1 and ME2

Well it did sorta blew in your face, didn't it? I'm pretty sure nobody expected the Crucible to act the way it did.

ME3 tells us that the Catalyst thinks that Synthesis is good, Synthesis is ideal. "Synthetics and organics cannot get along" comes from ME1. Synthetics will always get loose and kill organics is reinforced throughout the games.