567 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

That's the thing, ME2 ends with the Reapers at the galactic gates, with the galaxy no better prepared than they were at the end of ME1 or without any means of stopping the reapers discovered(more so if the collector base is destroyed). It's because of this, that if ME3 actually followed the lore, it would last two hours tops with a reaper victory after they took over the citadel and the relay network. That's why we ended up with the crucible and the reapers having plot induced stupidity.

 

Only way ME3 wouldn't have been botched from the start is if they had completely ignored ME2 or if ME2 had simply been a spin off about the adventures of Shepard and friends.

 

As Kaiser says, you could just have ME3 be about Dark Space - stopping the invasion before it starts, like with ME1. In fact, that's where a suicide mission makes sense. Trap the reapers in some in-between form of transit while using a mass relay or something - still totally psuedoscience nonsense, but less of a funny "OFF" button, and it gives you room for a far off in the future sequel where you can do your conventional war without Shepard.

[Jay P]

Vega is your new playable character.. there is Vega, Fem Vega and Jersey Vega

Best post in the thread.

[prosthetic soul]

I never believed in the IT theory.  Then again, anything could replace the craptacular turd we got for an ending and it would be just as valid.  That is how terrible the endings are.  They're so unbelievably bad that they are not valid

[AlanC9]

Replace "good guys" with "necessary evil" and you've described what's so terrible about the endings when taken at face value. Absolutely no one who experienced what Shepherd did would buy the argument that the Reapers were a necessary evil. And absolutely no one - including those who picked the synthesis ending - would actually pick synthesis if they had experienced all that Shepherd did.

But where is the actual problem? If Shepard doesn't believe that the Catalyst is right about stuff, he's got no real reason to pick Synthesis. So he doesn't pick Synthesis and... everything works out just fine. Based on the epilogue and Stargazer scene, I'd say the best fit is that the Catalyst really is wrong about everything.

Though I suppose it's likely that Bio would have wimped out with the Dark Energy plot if they'd actually started to implement it.

[Dantriges]

The dark energy idea doesn´t really sound like a good idea. Probably has as many holes as the endings we got but hard to say, it was rather vague before they scrapped it.

[CamlTowPetttingZoo]

While my Shepard woke up at the end of ME3, I acknowledge that I'll probably never know what she did afterward.

[Jay P]

The Dark Energy idea he actually had was bad. Believing that he would have later had some completely different good idea and calling that other ending Dark Energy is an exercise in pure fantasy, but if it makes you happy to believe that, there's no point arguing about it.

Edit: "bad" above only applies if you think that the problem with the real endings is that the Reapers turn out to be the good guys and Shepard ends up having to cooperate with them if he doesn't want to let the universe be destroyed. (Most IT fans seem to believe this; avoiding this is kind of the point of IT.) I don't think those things are true in the existing endings myself, but they really were going to be true in the DE plot.

What is this dark energy idea?

[Heimerdinger]

What is this dark energy idea?

 

An early ME3 ending concept by former lead writer Drew Karpyshyn. He left Bioware after ME2.

 

http://www.pcgamer.c...l-ending-ideas/

[WillieStyle]

But where is the actual problem? If Shepard doesn't believe that the Catalyst is right about stuff, he's got no real reason to pick Synthesis. So he doesn't pick Synthesis and... everything works out just fine. Based on the epilogue and Stargazer scene, I'd say the best fit is that the Catalyst really is wrong about everything.

Though I suppose it's likely that Bio would have wimped out with the Dark Energy plot if they'd actually started to implement it.

The problem is two fold:
1) even if you pick destroy, you have the war criminal to end all war criminals dictating the context within which you win. No real person would take seriously the words of a being that thinks turning billions of people into purée so they can be "stored in Reaper form" is a swell idea.
2) this is more a meta criticism. Having "control" and "synthesis" as developer-approved endings when the rest of the game (including the scene right before the end) has been spent telling us that the promise of control is a lie and synthesis = banshees, is terrible writing.

[WillieStyle]

I feel compelled to say that I LOVED ME:3. If my copy had crashed right after Priority: Tuchanka, it would still have been worth the money.

[Ashevajak]

Listen to yourselves!  You're indoctrinated!

[Heimerdinger]

Mass Effect is built on scientific illiteracy. Everything about the setting set down in ME1 ranges from complete nonsense to just plain incorrect.

 

Not entirely. They accounted for and explained star-ship heat management, light lag, projectile speed and range, solar system characteristics and many more. It's one of the few sci-fi worlds that does. Mind you, some of these were ignored in the sequels or not built upon any further but still, the lore was solid and stood up to scrutiny. As much as these science fictions universes can anyway.

[Spacepunk01]

How could you be worried about the future of Mass Effect if your concern is scientific literacy? Mass Effect is built on scientific illiteracy. Everything about the setting set down in ME1 ranges from complete nonsense to just plain incorrect.

 

I've touched upon this before. Mass Effect is science fiction and I would never expect - nor want BioWare to restrict themselves by adhering to hard scientific data. 

 

You are wrong when you say that Mass Effect is built on scientific illiteracy. The Universe of Mass Effect is actually built on the basis of actual scientific principles and ideas. This is not to say that what they do in ME is real science (obviously), but they build the fiction from the ground up, starting with actual scientific principles and ideas - then they extrapolate.

 

This is how science fiction is done. 

 

You couldn't do a Reaper invasion, but an invasion would always be incredibly stupid, since you'd either have to come up with an "OFF" button if they're not nerfed or you'd have to nerf them to give the galaxy a chance.

 

I agree. The more we learn about the Reapers through ME1 & ME2, the more we realize that BioWare created an unsolvable problem. The solution was to introduce a classic Deus Ex Machina. This obviously made people angry, but they should've seen it coming.

 

Not entirely. They accounted for and explained star-ship heat management, light lag, projectile speed and range, solar system characteristics and many more. It's one of the few sci-fi worlds that does. Mind you, some of these were ignored in the sequels or not built upon any further but still, the lore was solid and stood up to scrutiny. As much as these science fictions universes can anyway.

 

You are correct. I wish more people recognized this fact; maybe they would be a little more appreciative.

[Sartoz]

                                                                          <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

Why is this thread still alive?

[Spacepunk01]

                                                                          <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

Why is this thread still alive?

 

This thread is controlled by Indoctrinated forces.

[In Exile]

Not entirely. They accounted for and explained star-ship heat management, light lag, projectile speed and range, solar system characteristics and many more. It's one of the few sci-fi worlds that does. Mind you, some of these were ignored in the sequels or not built upon any further but still, the lore was solid and stood up to scrutiny. As much as these science fictions universes can anyway.

No, they based it on complete nonsense. They've got outright mind-reading magic - see the asari - magical space altering super neutrons (otherwise known as element zero), completely impossible immunology (see: the Qurians, which in ME1 has the side benefit of also totally misunderstanding evolution and mutation), a completely bass-ackwards understanding of chemistry (and chirality), and that's just the basic stuff. Then we get into alien species, AI (ME1s understanding of machine learning and artificial intelligence is terrifyingly ignorant), universal translators...

 

And that's not even touching on the nonsense they invent to get their plot rolling, like the Cypher.

 

There's some very, very basic physics technobable that they sort of address, but a little bit of astronomy and non-math-y introductory physics isn't "science". ME1 is complete gibberish from start to finish on its science.

 

 

I've touched upon this before. Mass Effect is science fiction and I would never expect - nor want BioWare to restrict themselves by adhering to hard scientific data. 

 

You are wrong when you say that Mass Effect is built on scientific illiteracy. The Universe of Mass Effect is actually built on the basis of actual scientific principles and ideas. This is not to say that what they do in ME is real science (obviously), but they build the fiction from the ground up, starting with actual scientific principles and ideas - then they extrapolate.

 

This is how science fiction is done. 

 

ME is built on ignorance. I'm not talking about the nonsense they have to invent to justify FTL travel - you have to accept they're going to come up with gibberish for that one, and even for the fact that there are alien spieces. But this isn't one of those sci-fi properties where the FTL is even mildly IRL plausible. They just chalk it up to magical space neutrons and then throw on some labels (like dark energy) they clearly don't understand.

 

But their physics nonsense is just the icing on the ignorant of science cake. When we get to things like biology, oh boy, all bets are off. And that's ignoring how everyone has force powers biotic powers, can read minds, and otherwise kicks evolution, biochemistry and immunology in the shins. 

[Spacepunk01]

ME is built on ignorance. I'm not talking about the nonsense they have to invent to justify FTL travel - you have to accept they're going to come up with gibberish for that one, and even for the fact that there are alien spieces. But this isn't one of those sci-fi properties where the FTL is even mildly IRL plausible. They just chalk it up to magical space neutrons and then throw on some labels (like dark energy) they clearly don't understand.

 

But their physics nonsense is just the icing on the ignorant of science cake. When we get to things like biology, oh boy, all bets are off. And that's ignoring how everyone has force powers biotic powers, can read minds, and otherwise kicks evolution, biochemistry and immunology in the shins. 

 

It makes no sense to say that it's built on ignorance. BioWare had a vision for Mass Effect and they did whatever they did to achieve it. They did consult real scientists, but they never intended for Mass Effect to be as close to reality as possible; however, they wanted some realism.

 

Science fiction. All the information you need is in those two words. Fiction derived from science. I don't think we have that much of a disagreement here. I just don't think it makes any sense to throw around words like nonsense and magic, when we know that we're dealing with a fictional Universe. We all know that it isn't real science. I just want you to acknowledge that there wouldn't be a Mass Effect without science.

[AlanC9]

The problem is two fold:
1) even if you pick destroy, you have the war criminal to end all war criminals dictating the context within which you win. No real person would take seriously the words of a being that thinks turning billions of people into purée so they can be "stored in Reaper form" is a swell idea.

Hmm... do you mean that any real person would Refuse? If you don't believe anything the Catalyst is saying, that's where you end up.

2) this is more a meta criticism. Having "control" and "synthesis" as developer-approved endings when the rest of the game (including the scene right before the end) has been spent telling us that the promise of control is a lie and synthesis = banshees, is terrible writing.

I didn't get those messages myself. The problem with Saren's vision wasn't that it was bad, the problem was that it was a lie.

[WillieStyle]

I didn't get those messages myself. The problem with Saren's vision wasn't that it was bad, the problem was that it was a lie.

You didn't get the message that the promise of control was a lie that the Reapers used to undermine organic resistance? Because it's something of an ide fix of the series. Hell in the last game alone we have both Vendetta and the Illusive man remind us of this fact.

Or do you mean synthesis? Because every single time the Reapers merged synthetic and organic life the results where abominations like the Collectors, or banshees, or whatever that thing was that Saren turns into. We see people respond (rightfully) with disgust whenever the Reapers mess with organic life. Up until the end of course when we're supposed to be cool with them messing with the DNA of every single lifeform in the galaxy.

And no, saying it all works out isn't exculpatory. Shepherd doesn't know she is the protagonist of a video game. At the time when she has to make the decision, she doesn't know what the final monologue of the extended cut ending will reveal. All she knows is what she's learned from three years of fighting the Reapers. And EVERYTHING she learned up to that point would tell a sane person that "control" is a lie and "synthesis" is an abomination.

[WillieStyle]

Oh by the way, it isn't about believing that the Catalyst is lying. Even if you believe that the Catalyst is being sincere in everything it says, the sane response is still to shoot it in the head as it is an extremely dangerous, criminally insane sociopath.

[WillieStyle]

Hmm... do you mean that any real person would Refuse? If you don't believe anything the Catalyst is saying, that's where you end up.

No. I mean creating an ending where the only sane responses are to:
1) shoot a tube based on the word of an insane genocidal AI
2) do nothing
is terrible writing.

Oh, and don't even get me started on the hilariously unsubtle thumb the writers have on the scales:
"If you pick the sane option, then EDI and the Geth all die."

There isn't an eyeroll emoticon big enough for that nonsense.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

The problem is two fold:
1) even if you pick destroy, you have the war criminal to end all war criminals dictating the context within which you win. No real person would take seriously the words of a being that thinks turning billions of people into purée so they can be "stored in Reaper form" is a swell idea.
2) this is more a meta criticism. Having "control" and "synthesis" as developer-approved endings when the rest of the game (including the scene right before the end) has been spent telling us that the promise of control is a lie and synthesis = banshees, is terrible writing.

 

You are just about 100% wrong.

[God]

You are just about 100% wrong.

 

Nah, it's total.

[Xen]

Still all this crying 3 years later. If biower wants to find a non lore-breaking way for the arc to make its trip, they simply need to find a way to power or cool FTL engines with the tears of people who didn't like the endings.