718 réponses à ce sujet

[angol fear]

Totally agree with you Fraggleblabla !
I'd like to add that for the writers themselves it's not an easy job. Writing takes a lot of time. No weed ends ! Writing in a project like Mass effect means working everyday. And players complains about details, saying that because this or that isn't perfect, it means that they didn't care about the writing.
But for the things that were scrapped, what I saw that was removed in the game was removed for good reasons I think.

[fraggle]

Mh, I think it's okay to say it's not perfect, I generally think games or movies etc are never perfect, they can't be, all of them have flaws when looking closer I bet.

In a game like Mass Effect, which is huge and has so many variables and text it's guaranteed to have errors, that's normal. Some people here point out a lot of mistakes, or things that don't make sense, and while I think it's good some people are more critical with it so the devs can maybe improve stuff in the next game, it all has to end at some point. And for me this is when we have the general story, and adding more details would've only been in there to still the player's desire for more information, when it can still live without that information. This is personal preference though, as we see here in this thread Which I still like because there a lot of good discussions going on.

 

I think with ME:A, the devs already got what's most important. More time.

I found an interesting entry on reddit just now:

https://www.reddit.c...3s_development/

 

I guess I would've liked to have seen some things, like more of our war assets There were lines recorded with Jack and I believe Zaeed, that would've been nice to see. But obviously I don't miss what I never saw or experienced in the game, so I'm good either way

[Vanilka]

I must admit that i didn't take it literally but my purpose was to pretend that I took it literally to make you understand some things. Then I will sum up what I was going to do.

- so yes, dantriges is right, we can't really talk about a job but a role or a fonction.

- just like I've said, the purpose isn't the role, which means that to enjoy isn't the role of the player but what he wants.

- the fact that you used "player" has to be analyzed too. The player is the one who plays. Mass Effect never forgot that : you play till the end (you don't have a lot of cinema unlike Kojima's work)

- the player is someone who plays video games and video game are not always narrative. So the player is someone who have pleasure with what? Actually it's with gameplay (that's the basis of a video game). Mass Effcet 3 make the player play till the end and i won't believe you if you say that the gameplay is not enjoyable(the run to the beam is immersive and impressive, you still have choices till the end, the choices are part of the gameplay).

- so you think that it's not the player who has to imagine the story, well... did you play Limbo, Dark souls, Bloodborne etc? All these game can be played without the player understanding the story. So the entertainment thing doesn't come from the story.

 

- now let's see the story. The player has to imagine the story? He has to to write? No, the story is made of events that are linked together. What you are talking about are just details. to tell a story is not tell explain everything. If you start to do that you are opening parenthesis, when you open parenthesis you are breaking the rythm established. Did you see that from Thessia till the end the game gives you a feeling of acceleration. You don't have the time you had before.

- The writing of the whole trilogy leads to that kind of ending. What makes it surprising is that it is never explicit. An example : why is there that discussion about the synthetics being or not alive? (discussion in the Normandy) It's to make you think, to prepare you to the choice at the end. Here we are in philosophical question too. When I insist on the "Essence" word in Mass Effect 2, it's to show that before Mass Effect 3 we are explicitly in a game that use philosophy.

- So there's too much themes and that's a problem? Not at all. Unlike Dragon Age : Origin, Heavy rain and many other game appreciated, Mass Effect has a lot of themes but but they are linked together. We can't say the same thing with DA:O, Heavy rain, Bioshock etc... there's in Mass Effect a logic that has to be understood to see the relation between the different themes. The ending is the clue, the ending is what make the whole trilogy coherent with the themes developed. But here it is implicit too. You have to analyze the whole trilogy with the clues given by the ending to understand the trilogy and the ending.

- so what makes Mass Effect be "your" story? It's the parts that you interpret that make the game be your story. If you have a game that explains everything, there's no place for the player as an active reader (if you don't analyze, if you don't interpret, you're a passive reader, reading always the same things, waiting for the same story to be told because you are not bored to eat the same meat again and again). But once again did Bioware made you write the story? No! It's not the story that you have to create, it's an interpretation of the details.

- the role play make the player be Shepard, be in the situation of Shepard. Shepard is not an intellectual, he never asked for anything technical. He only wants to know how to do, what he has to do. So blaming the ending because you don't know enough to choose is actually unfair because Shepard has never been someone who asked for details.

 

That's basically where I wanted to go.

 

I think that using the world "player" in the most literal sense is absolutely inaccurate and it strips games of whatever other important aspects they may consist of, because games are very often much more than just gameplay. Storytelling, characterisation, visuals, even music greatly contribute to what makes games what they are. To dismiss that is doing them huge injustice. Not to even mention that by doing that you also take all credit from those that had nothing to do with the gameplay, yet worked their asses off while making this game possible, including the writers that you've originally set out to defend.

 

Saying that flaws within a game's narrative are okay just because you still get to play it anyway... Well, let's say you're letting them get away with a murder. However, the most important thing is that gameplay and good storytelling aren't mutually exclusive. Plenty of games manage both, they manage to keep their storytelling and characterisation logical, consistent, and minimise the presence of plotholes. In ME3, that's often simply not the case. The fact you even have to fill so many holes yourself is most telling. You talk about how there was plenty of foreshadowing or something, but what happens in the game is essentially that the game keeps showing you how we can live and work together despite our differences, no matter whether you're an organic or synthetic, and then presents you with erasure of all that as its best outcome, completely stomping the notion to the ground. Even with the geth dead, it stomps the notion of overcoming the odds ourselves to the ground. I think it says a lot about the writer and it actually sends a really bad message - evil is in your DNA, guys, sorry, we can only truly overcome our differences if we completely erase them. Also, for a franchise that worked so hard to show us that we can live in peace with synthetics and that there's so much more to synthetics than we originally thought, despite their alien mindsets, for all that to be reduced in the end to mere "synthetics are evil, hate organic life, and will always kill you anyway," despite all we've seen, that is indeed inconsistent and it changes the focus of the conflict which has been on uniting everybody, organics and synthetics alike, against the Reapers and stopping the Reapers from doing what they're doing to nothing but the fact that all synthetics are bad and will kill all life in its last 10 minutes, that does come out of nowhere and it displays the writer's major and sad lack of understanding of what the game was about.

 

Another thing is obviously stupid, forced moments like the Normandy's evac scene or lack thereof, Shepard's death in ME2, etc., that are simply badly executed or not executed at all, and it takes a giant pile of headcanon to fix it which should not be needed. You shouldn't have to fix stuff for the writers so that the content makes sense to you. It should be making sense by default. While I agree that not everything has to be clear and not everything has to be explained down to the smallest detail, the lack of good writing and care, the lack of any explanation whatsoever make certain events absolutely nonsensical. Take Cerberus presence on Sur'Kesh, for example. We never learn why they were there and what they wanted and why they had to get underfoot. Of course, the meta explanation is that the devs needed something for Shepard to do and shoot at, which is not a justification in a game that is very largely about story and characters. The same with Cerberus trying to take over the Citadel. We'll never find out what Cerberus' intentions were, despite Shepard stating "I'm going to find out," after the coup. On meta level, you know that the writers screwed up and the sequence of events got switched up and the Citadel attack was actually meant to happen after Thessia and not before it, originally. Yet another of ME3's mind-boggling mess-ups. Cerberus itself was reduced from a small secret organisation that while messing up a lot of times actually knew that information and careful operation was the way to get job done to nothing more than a bunch of endless cannon fodder that we end up fighting just as much, if not more than the Reapers, without any explanation how they suddenly became pretty much one of the largest and best armed forces in the galaxy speaks volumes. Headcanoning and interpreting stuff is fine as long as you are not forced to do it all the time to understand what's going on and why. Just because you're playing the game and being the player in its most literal sense, that does not make it good and well-written content and it shouldn't stop you from wanting good and well-written content because, as I said, there's so much more to games than just clicking choices on the dialogue wheel for the sake of clicking choices on the dialogue wheel and shooting through hordes of enemies.

 

Last thing I'd like to say is that just because you like something, it shouldn't stop you from acknowledging that it's not perfect. I love the games. I love them despite how flawed they are. Being critical of something doesn't mean you hate it or that it's all garbage, either.

[Vanilka]

And maybe all this is why I'm okay with not everything being explained or that there are mistakes and inconsistencies. When I see under how much pressure devs are I can forgive a lot. They're only human too after all. And many times we don't know the circumstances how things went down.

Rambling over

 

For the record, I do think that being overly critical and nitpicky is a bad thing. But I also think that not being critical at all is just as bad.

[angol fear]

Answer to the first part of your text : the ending never said that synthetics are evil. You are doing yourself the inconsistency. Your interpretation is wrong so you think that the game is not coherent. Sorry but you didn't understand the ending that's why it seems to you that there are problems.I'll develop later.

[Vanilka]

Answer to the first part of your text : the ending never said that synthetics are evil. You are doing yourself the inconsistency. Your interpretation is wrong so you think that the game is not coherent. Sorry but you didn't understand the ending that's why it seems to you that there are problems.I'll develop later.

 

You're just conveniently picking a small part of my wording apart and dismissing the whole thing on that basis. And that's not the first time I've seen you do that. Also, I see you use "You just don't understand it," a lot to everybody who happens to disagree with you and it doesn't really help your argument in any way or makes the other party even willing to participate in further discussion because no matter what we might have to say, we just "don't understand it". You may not mean it that way, but it sounds very dismissive.

 

The fact that the game shows us that synthetics very much aren't just killers or that we can deal with them on our own terms while the ending claims the exact opposite and moves the conflict there from somewhere else says pretty much everything that needs to be said on the matter of the consistency of the ending in comparison with the rest of the game.

[fraggle]

Take Cerberus presence on Sur'Kesh, for example. We never learn why they were there and what they wanted and why they had to get underfoot. Of course, the meta explanation is that the devs needed something for Shepard to do and shoot at, which is not a justification in a game that is very largely about story and characters. The same with Cerberus trying to take over the Citadel. We'll never find out what Cerberus' intentions were, despite Shepard stating "I'm going to find out," after the coup. On meta level, you know that the writers screwed up and the sequence of events got switched up and the Citadel attack was actually meant to happen after Thessia and not before it. Yet another of ME3's mind-boggling mess-ups. Cerberus itself was reduced from a small secret organisation that while messing up a lot of times actually knew that information and careful operation was the way to get job done to nothing more than a bunch of endless cannon fodder that we end up fighting just as much, if not more than the Reapers, without any explanation how they suddenly became pretty much one of the largest and best armed forces in the galaxy speaks volumes.

 

This is one of the things that has a theme throughout the game. I took it that way and I know some others on the forum here did too: TIM doesn't want Shepard to use the Crucible to destroy the Reapers, as he wants to control them. So he's doing everything he can to delay Shepard, to stop him/her from forming alliances for the Crucible effort (that's the actual reason why Cerberus was on Sur'Kesh, they wanted to kill Eve because then the turian-krogan alliance would've never worked out.). It's perfectly explainable with this and makes a lot of sense. Think about the bomb on Tuchanka, that's also tied in. Now of course TIM was also indoctrinated, but I firmly believe he thought until the end he was doing it out of his own accord, but of course it's more working towards the Reaper's goals (stop the Crucible from ever being built).

Yes, the post on reddit I linked talks about the Thessia/Citadel switch, and they explained why they had to switch it. No time to implement as they would've liked. That's so sad. I'm not mad about that, but I feel sorry because it didn't work out, because they had to sacrifice their really cool idea and find a "compromise" in order to keep their deadlines, and they had to accept it.

And you can still explain the attack, though it's not as good as what they originally wanted. TIM wanted to shatter the Council, to even further delay Shepard, spread chaos etc.

 

For the record, I do think that being overly critical and nitpicky is a bad thing. But I also think that not being critical at all is just as bad.

 

I'm not saying I'm not critical at all, you guys pointed out a lot of good stuff as I said, but I can deal with these things much easier since I know what it's like in gaming development. I'm sure they would have wanted to add tons more stuff, but they couldn't. So I'm not sweating it, haha. I think they know it could've been so much better if they had been given even more time.

[Vanilka]

This is one of the things that has a theme throughout the game. I took it that way and I know some others on the forum here did too: TIM doesn't want Shepard to use the Crucible to destroy the Reapers, as he wants to control them. So he's doing everything he can to delay Shepard, to stop him/her from forming alliances for the Crucible effort (that's the actual reason why Cerberus was on Sur'Kesh, they wanted to kill Eve because then the turian-krogan alliance would've never worked out.). It's perfectly explainable with this and makes a lot of sense. Think about the bomb on Tuchanka, that's also tied in. Now of course TIM was also indoctrinated, but I firmly believe he thought until the end he was doing it out of his own accord, but of course it's more working towards the Reaper's goals (stop the Crucible from ever being built).
Yes, the post on reddit I linked talks about the Thessia/Citadel switch, and they explained why they had to switch it. No time to implement as they would've liked. That's so sad. I'm not mad about that, but I feel sorry because it didn't work out, because they had to sacrifice their really cool idea and find a "compromise" in order to keep their deadlines, and they had to accept it.
And you can still explain the attack, though it's not as good as what they originally wanted. TIM wanted to shatter the Council, to even further delay Shepard, spread chaos etc.

 

Yeah, but see? We don't know from the game at all and we have to guess. Completely guess and theorise. Cerberus attacks Sur'Kesh FOR SOME REASON. Cerberus attacks the Citadel FOR SOME REASON. Cerberus fiddles with the bomb on Tuchanka FOR SOME REASON. That's what the game gives us. I think finding out would actually be very interesting and it may well create a completely new mission. But it's what it is.

 

I do feel bad for the team, though, because as far as I know, they were very rushed to finish and it sadly shows at times. The leaks of what could've been are especially painful. I can only imagine what that must feel like.

 

As far as possible explanations go, I personally like to go similar route. I like to imagine TIM was indoctrinated and was slowly losing it and starting to turn destructive, struggling to achieve his own personal goals at the same time, because that's the best I can come up with. It's the only way I can explain to myself that the Cerberus turned into a largely destructive force and an obstacle wherever we go.
 

I'm not saying I'm not critical at all, you guys pointed out a lot of good stuff as I said, but I can deal with these things much easier since I know what it's like in gaming development. I'm sure they would have wanted to add tons more stuff, but they couldn't. So I'm not sweating it, haha. I think they know it could've been so much better if they had been given even more time.

 

Sorry, that was not really aimed at you, but more in general direction. Sometimes I see people either totally blindly hating on the game (Especially with the ending, people can get very, very irrational and unnecessarily emotional.) or totally blindly defending the game and each part of the game. I don't think you belong to either.

 

I think your attitude is great in the sense that while you have your own opinion and you may disagree with a lot said here, you're not acting like the game is perfect just because you like it and you're not trying to blindly defend it against all criticism. The fact that you're willing to see or at least consider our point, even if you disagree with it and don't mind that particular thing yourself, speaks great of you and I'd call that a healthy attitude. At the end of the day, it's always more pleasant to read "Well, I don't think so, but you're entitled to your opinion," rather than "You're wrong and just don't understand it."

[Dantriges]

You know, with that last sentence you kinda described how I feel about the Catalyst

It's so full of itself, it thinks it's super smart, it still thinks it can actually win until the Crucible docks. It thought the design of the Crucible had been eradicated when it clearly wasn't, so they weren't as thorough, huh.

To me, the Catalyst's thinking of how all races are inferior to it is what beats it in the end, it underestimated organics. The Catalyst was right for a lot of years, his strategy and Reaper numbers/strength proved right, but this time, it's different. Something the Catalyst had not anticipated.

 

 

Yeah, pretty much, same as the Leviathans. It´s very likely that it´s just an arrogant AI and isn´t so smart as it thinks it is. It´s really its makers brainchild. I just dislike the idea that "Nono, he is really the all knowing superintelligence" and that we had to go along with it to reach a new level of understanding or stuff like that. I mean what we got is a pretty good setup for the classic "Villian has reasons and thinks he knows better."

 

Well I think that quite a lot of fans get that game development isn´t as fun as it sounds with hard deadlines, publishers breathing down on your neck (who need the money to pay the bills after all), that they are only humans who can make mistakes and you know better in hindsight.

 

For me I think I get what they wanted to acheve there but the execution was handled poorly. It´s pretty hard to design a worthy ending for such a big trilogy after all but the foundation wasn´t there for this. Ah well fans can be little annoying armchair developers sometimes.

 

The outrage afterwards was handled poorly. I get rushjobs and stuff had to be scrapped and so on, I don´t know if it would have been better if they simply said, we thought its done, of course we could have added some more polish, you can do this always but sometimes the product actually turns out worse after adding more stuff and well the product had to be shipped. Ah well, probably EA would have gotten all the vitriol thrown at them instead.

[AlanC9]

Yeah, but see? We don't know from the game at all and we have to guess. Completely guess and theorise. Cerberus attacks Sur'Kesh FOR SOME REASON. Cerberus attacks the Citadel FOR SOME REASON. Cerberus fiddles with the bomb on Tuchanka FOR SOME REASON. That's what the game gives us. I think finding out would actually be very interesting and it may well create a completely new mission.

But didn't TIM tell you his reasons for what he's doing way back on Mars? He thinks the Reapers can be controlled, and thinks that destroying them would be a huge mistake. The Citadel war effort is dedicated to using the Crucible to destroy the Reapers. There's nothing to learn.

[The_Dead]

My problem with Shepard dying it's because you play through the whole trilogy just to watch the man die in the end.

 

Okay, it's worth the sacrifice, but at least the perfect ending could be a bit more "complete".

 

Try to update the Extended Cut to show at least what happenned between Shepard and the Romance Choice after the final mission.

 

An extra little cutscene or maybe even a photo. Anything that could clarify what happened after Shepard's return.

 

Maybe you wanted to end this story to begin a new one, but some fans don't want an end, at least not with a sacrifice.

 

If you really want to put an end, try to make the best, to everyone.

 

You can still keep the idea of the sacrifice in other endings, but at least do something for the fans that don't want this way.

 

I usually read what people comment about the endings around the web, and there are more fans that think like this.

 

So please, consider doing this update.

 

Thanks for your time.

[fraggle]

Yeah, but see? We don't know from the game at all and we have to guess. Completely guess and theorise. Cerberus attacks Sur'Kesh FOR SOME REASON. Cerberus attacks the Citadel FOR SOME REASON. Cerberus fiddles with the bomb on Tuchanka FOR SOME REASON. That's what the game gives us. I think finding out would actually be very interesting and it may well create a completely new mission. But it's what it is.

 

Maybe it's just me, but the reason always seemed to fit. Just as Alan already pointed out, TIM is pretty clear what his goals are when you talk to him on Mars. Acting against the fraction that wants to destroy the Reapers when he can control them is just natural. And on Sur'Kesh you can actually hear one of the Cerberus goons say to a squad to take out the female krogan (it seems a lot of players missed this though, since there also came up a thread recently about exactly this topic). So here we have the reason they're here, and the player just has to put 2 and 2 together. Same with the bomb. Imagine a turian bomb going off on Tuchanka (there is even talk about this in the game). Another reason for no alliance between those two races.

For me it's not about guessing, it's about interpreting. Following the clues and putting them together.

 

As far as possible explanations go, I personally like to go similar route. I like to imagine TIM was indoctrinated and was slowly losing it and starting to turn destructive, struggling to achieve his own personal goals at the same time, because that's the best I can come up with. It's the only way I can explain to myself that the Cerberus turned into a largely destructive force and an obstacle wherever we go.

 

Yeah, and also it was actually confirmed he's been indoctrinated for quite some time in the ME comics, but it seems to me he was still his own man in ME2 and only started loosing it during ME3. In a way he was a lot like Saren, it's even similar in the end, when you can make him see that he's indeed indoctrinated.

 

Yeah, pretty much, same as the Leviathans. It´s very likely that it´s just an arrogant AI and isn´t so smart as it thinks it is. It´s really its makers brainchild. I just dislike the idea that "Nono, he is really the all knowing superintelligence" and that we had to go along with it to reach a new level of understanding or stuff like that. I mean what we got is a pretty good setup for the classic "Villian has reasons and thinks he knows better."

 

Exactly, haha.

I just never saw it as a villain, not even the Reapers. ME to me has no villain

[angol fear]

You're just conveniently picking a small part of my wording apart and dismissing the whole thing on that basis. And that's not the first time I've seen you do that. Also, I see you use "You just don't understand it," a lot to everybody who happens to disagree with you and it doesn't really help your argument in any way or makes the other party even willing to participate in further discussion because no matter what we might have to say, we just "don't understand it". You may not mean it that way, but it sounds very dismissive.

 

The fact that the game shows us that synthetics very much aren't just killers or that we can deal with them on our own terms while the ending claims the exact opposite and moves the conflict there from somewhere else says pretty much everything that needs to be said on the matter of the consistency of the ending in comparison with the rest of the game.

 

So you didn't write this :

Also, for a franchise that worked so hard to show us that we can live in peace with synthetics and that there's so much more to synthetics than we originally thought, despite their alien mindsets, for all that to be reduced in the end to mere "synthetics are evil, hate organic life, and will always kill you anyway," despite all we've seen, that is indeed inconsistent and it changes the focus of the conflict which has been on uniting everybody, organics and synthetics alike, against the Reapers and stopping the Reapers from doing what they're doing to nothing but the fact that all synthetics are bad and will kill all life in its last 10 minutes, that does come out of nowhere and it displays the writer's major and sad lack of understanding of what the game was about.

 

or that :

The fact that the game shows us that synthetics very much aren't just killers or that we can deal with them on our own terms while the ending claims the exact opposite.

 

take it as you want to you actually fail to understand the ending. The ending doesn't contradict anything said before. It seems to be, but it doesn't. Or you have to show me that they are evil. is it that : The created will always rebel against their creators ? Someone who rebels isn't by definition evil! It's you that put "evil" somewhere there's no evil. There's no hate for organic life, you invent it too.

If you listen the catalyst carefully, there's only order and chaos (Sovereign talked about it in Mass Effect 1). So you dislike the fact that I'm saying that you didn't get the ending when you create an interpretation that goes against the writing of the ending. And you dislike the ending because of your interpretation, not because of the game.

You actually didn't understand that the ending doesn't give you the solution, it gives you a clue to understand the writing of the trilogy.

You actually face implicit and paradox, but you couldn't overpass it. You have to interpret the writing, the ending but the way it was written. You can't interpret the wrong way and claim that it is bad.

 

There is no villain, if you don't understand it, you didn't get the ending.

[Vanilka]

But didn't TIM tell you his reasons for what he's doing way back on Mars? He thinks the Reapers can be controlled, and thinks that destroying them would be a huge mistake. The Citadel war effort is dedicated to using the Crucible to destroy the Reapers. There's nothing to learn.

 

I beg to differ. Just the fact they somehow magically know that Shepard is even on Sur'Kesh is weird, imho. And if it were so clear, why does Shepard ask the same question of the dying Cerberus soldier in the first place? The game tries to touch the topic, then never returns to it again. Same after the Citadel coup. Shepard says she'll find out why that happened, but that doesn't happen. And at that point, the Cerberus don't know about the Catalyst, so attacking the Citadel makes little sense. (As was mentioned, this part was meant to be after Thessia and that's why it doesn't exactly work.) Another thing is that while they might want to control the Reapers, they'd better be smart enough to at least survive long enough to be able to do that. By hijacking the Citadel, yes, they would be crippling the war effort. But they would also decrease the chance of survival for the whole galaxy while the way to control the Reapers is still nowhere in sight. The viable possibility of controlling the Reapers only appears after Thessia. If up until then, they're hindering the war effort and risking the whole galaxy because the Reapers might be controlled, then they're dumber than I thought. There are thousands of Reaper ships out there. They really need every single one of them?

 

Some things sure can be explained by what you say, I agree, but I don't think it can be universally applied to everything. But that's just me anyway. TIM's behaviour is sometimes kind of dumb, which is further proven by the video with Kai Leng in the Cerberus HQ. He can't decide throughout the game whether he wants Shepard alive distracting the Reapers or dead so that she doesn't kill them or alive because he can use her... for reasons... and he changes his mind about it all the time. If he really wanted to strike a big blow to the war effort, he would at least make attempts to assassinate Shepard, Hackett's "tip of the spear". There are whole fleets blowing holes in the Reapers and taking capital ships down, but somehow you don't meet Cerberus there. My point is, this explanation is very nice and convenient and it does work a lot of time, but Cerberus is still acting inconsistently, needlessly dumb and destructive, and it would really be worth going into, imho.

[Vanilka]

So you didn't write this :

Also, for a franchise that worked so hard to show us that we can live in peace with synthetics and that there's so much more to synthetics than we originally thought, despite their alien mindsets, for all that to be reduced in the end to mere "synthetics are evil, hate organic life, and will always kill you anyway," despite all we've seen, that is indeed inconsistent and it changes the focus of the conflict which has been on uniting everybody, organics and synthetics alike, against the Reapers and stopping the Reapers from doing what they're doing to nothing but the fact that all synthetics are bad and will kill all life in its last 10 minutes, that does come out of nowhere and it displays the writer's major and sad lack of understanding of what the game was about.

 

or that :

The fact that the game shows us that synthetics very much aren't just killers or that we can deal with them on our own terms while the ending claims the exact opposite.

 

take it as you want to you actually fail to understand the ending. The ending doesn't contradict anything said before. It seems to be, but it doesn't. Or you have to show me that they are evil. is it that : The created will always rebel against their creators ? Someone who rebels isn't by definition evil! It's you that put "evil" somewhere there's no evil. There's no hate for organic life, you invent it too.

If you listen the catalyst carefully, there's only order and chaos (Sovereign talked about it in Mass Effect 1). So you dislike the fact that I'm saying that you didn't get the ending when you create an interpretation that goes against the writing of the ending. And you dislike the ending because of your interpretation, not because of the game.

You actually didn't understand that the ending doesn't give you the solution, it gives you a clue to understand the writing of the trilogy.

You actually face implicit and paradox, but you couldn't overpass it. You have to interpret the writing, the ending but the way it was written. You can't interpret the wrong way and claim that it is bad.

 

There is no villain, if you don't understand it, you didn't get the ending.

 

No, that's the theme of the game. The game does not follow this theme only in its last minutes. It focuses on stopping the Reapers the entire time and at the end it suddenly switches to solving the organics vs synthetics conflict. It focuses on cooperation and unity despite diversity the entire time, and then breaks this theme also.

 

Again with your "You fail to understand it." You suffer from the same thing I've seen many literature teachers develop: They make up an interpretation for "art" in their head and they won't allow you to think anything different and if you disagree with them, you're wrong and you just didn't get it. They won't even allow it to pass as an opinion. No, you just didn't get it. And I sincerely feel like that makes this discussion utterly pointless. I'm open to discussion. I'm open to admitting something is my opinion. I'm open to respecting other people's opinion. But not when you dismiss everything I say, what everybody says, as us not understanding.

 

The "evil" thing was never my main point, that's just a matter of wording, but you're ready to dismiss my whole post based on one word because it's convenient for you.

 

Also, sorry, but saying that there's no villain in a franchise full of extragalactic murder machines just makes me wonder which game you've played. The Catalyst may not think so and you don't have to think so, of course, but the game clearly presents them as such - they're the enemy and the inhabitants of the galaxy are presented as victims. The Catalyst does say that the synthetics will always kill all organics, just in fancier words, so talking about killing on my part isn't wrong, if you really want to dissect the language I use.

 

And no, frankly, I didn't like the ending because I think it's mostly bullshit. And that's my subjective opinion. But my objective reasons are what I have already stated several times - plotholes, inconsistencies, poor context, no climax, the writer not having proper understanding of what they're talking about, ending an action RPG trilogy with nothing but two long dialogues because otherwise it would be too "videogamey". I'm really glad they didn't try to avoid making the whole game too "videogamey". I have gone great lengths to explain that in many of my previous posts here and I sure as hell am not going to repeat myself and rant about it all over again because I think this thread has seen quite enough of me already. The posts are there. (Not to even mention that there are countless reviews out there made by people who are far more well-versed in literature, philosophy, and science than I, if you really did care to understand what some people's problem with the ending is.)

[Vanilka]

Maybe it's just me, but the reason always seemed to fit. Just as Alan already pointed out, TIM is pretty clear what his goals are when you talk to him on Mars. Acting against the fraction that wants to destroy the Reapers when he can control them is just natural. And on Sur'Kesh you can actually hear one of the Cerberus goons say to a squad to take out the female krogan (it seems a lot of players missed this though, since there also came up a thread recently about exactly this topic). So here we have the reason they're here, and the player just has to put 2 and 2 together. Same with the bomb. Imagine a turian bomb going off on Tuchanka (there is even talk about this in the game). Another reason for no alliance between those two races.
For me it's not about guessing, it's about interpreting. Following the clues and putting them together.

 
I do admit I missed that if there's any talk about killing the female because Cerberus looks like they don't exactly try to kill her, but maybe that's Cerberus failing so hard again. If that is the case, then I stand corrected. Thanks.

 

I still have trouble to believe this "They're just trying to prevent damage to the Reapers because they want to control them," though. Like, the motive is there, clearly, there's no arguing about that, of course. You're right. But as I said in my previous post, Cerberus threaten the whole galaxy and Earth and humans along with it by doing it the way they're doing it and it just comes across as not very smart. But perhaps that's just me.
 

Yeah, and also it was actually confirmed he's been indoctrinated for quite some time in the ME comics, but it seems to me he was still his own man in ME2 and only started loosing it during ME3. In a way he was a lot like Saren, it's even similar in the end, when you can make him see that he's indeed indoctrinated.

 

Yes, I saw a big argument about it in some thread, actually. About whether he was the Reaper's sleeper agent for a long time or not and such. It's interesting to think about. To me that's probably the only thing that redeems his behaviour for me in ME3. I'm not saying none of his actions make sense, but it's better not to think about many others. I don't know about ME2, honestly. He has those eyes and everything. But for somebody indoctrinated, I can't imagine the Reapers would allow him to work on destroying the Collectors... ALTHOUGH... he wasn't originally planning to destroy everything... Interesting to ponder.

[fraggle]

 I do admit I missed that if there's any talk about killing the female because Cerberus looks like they don't exactly try to kill her, but maybe that's Cerberus failing so hard again. If that is the case, then I stand corrected. Thanks.

 

I still have trouble to believe this "They're just trying to prevent damage to the Reapers because they want to control them," though. Like, the motive is there, clearly, there's no arguing about that, of course. You're right. But as I said in my previous post, Cerberus threaten the whole galaxy and Earth and humans along with it by doing it the way they're doing it and it just comes across as not very smart. But perhaps that's just me.

 

But they also constantly try to destroy the containment shield, it's of course gameplay related, but if you take to long to take out the troops they succeed and it's game over

The thing with TIM is, at least to me, he's fascinated by this stuff, always was, but he really becomes... yeah, obsessed. I like that one scene between Shepard and Kaidan after Gellix where this comes up as well. Cerberus is too far gone, I mean, the husk-like soldiers already at Mars, disgusting, and what goes on at Sanctuary is just sick. Good we're here to take care of 'em baddies

 

Yes, I saw a big argument about it in some thread, actually. About whether he was the Reaper's sleeper agent for a long time or not and such. It's interesting to think about. To me that's probably the only thing that redeems his behaviour for me in ME3. I'm not saying none of his actions make sense, but it's better not to think about many others. I don't know about ME2, honestly. He has those eyes and everything. But for somebody indoctrinated, I can't imagine the Reapers would allow him to work on destroying the Collectors... ALTHOUGH... he wasn't originally planning to destroy everything... Interesting to ponder.

 

I don't really buy that the Reapers already heavily influenced him for all of ME2 (since he's the one wanting to stop the Collectors, like you said) and a large portion of ME3, but he's definitely getting worse. Though to be fair, he could've been fully indoctrinated from ME3 on and this whole stopping Shepard thing is the Reapers trying to stop Shepard by using TIM, but there's no proof. I think it could be both.

Yeah, TIM always represented Control, but I'm not sure why he then would've brought the fight to the Collector Base at all if he was fully indoctrinated.

One of the guys here had a theory I really liked. TIM was only exposed to an artifact in the comics, he didn't even touch it afaik, so maybe since he was never under constant influence of that artifact it kinda stopped the process and it took longer for him or only started again in ME3 due to being more exposed to Reaper tech since ME2. He did salvage the Human Reaper after all and brought it to his base.

[Monica21]

Also, sorry, but saying that there's no villain in a franchise full of extragalactic murder machines just makes me wonder which game you've played.

 

Actual LOL at this.

[Vanilka]

Actual LOL at this.

 

That's... that's all Kaidan's fault!

 

Spoiler

 

Well, okay, maybe he didn't say "murder" precisely... ahem... 

[Vanilka]

But they also constantly try to destroy the containment shield, it's of course gameplay related, but if you take to long to take out the troops they succeed and it's game over
The thing with TIM is, at least to me, he's fascinated by this stuff, always was, but he really becomes... yeah, obsessed. I like that one scene between Shepard and Kaidan after Gellix where this comes up as well. Cerberus is too far gone, I mean, the husk-like soldiers already at Mars, disgusting, and what goes on at Sanctuary is just sick. Good we're here to take care of 'em baddies

 
Yeah, it is indeed true that they were trying to break (or break into?) the pod. To me it was truly not clear whether their intent was to kill her or just get her at all costs. But if they do wish to hinder the war effort, killing her makes more sense.

I love that dialogue and, yeah, I guess it shows how much TIM's changed. It's actually a sad development in a way because TIM appears to be a very resourceful and intelligent man, sort of an anti-hero, almost. He's the character I love to hate. I feel like his being indoctrinated is really tragic in a way. I can't say I didn't like this development, though. It made a lot of sense. And I guess it gives me space to make sense of what's happening sometimes.
 

I don't really buy that the Reapers already heavily influenced him for all of ME2 (since he's the one wanting to stop the Collectors, like you said) and a large portion of ME3, but he's definitely getting worse. Though to be fair, he could've been fully indoctrinated from ME3 on and this whole stopping Shepard thing is the Reapers trying to stop Shepard by using TIM, but there's no proof. I think it could be both.
Yeah, TIM always represented Control, but I'm not sure why he then would've brought the fight to the Collector Base at all if he was fully indoctrinated.
One of the guys here had a theory I really liked. TIM was only exposed to an artifact in the comics, he didn't even touch it afaik, so maybe since he was never under constant influence of that artifact it kinda stopped the process and it took longer for him or only started again in ME3 due to being more exposed to Reaper tech since ME2. He did salvage the Human Reaper after all and brought it to his base.

 

Yeah, I don't think it makes much sense, either. However, from what I've read, he did have hallucinations and hear whispers and such. Maybe he was a little cracked, but as we've learnt of indoctrination, it's a very gradual process that may take years if you want to keep the victim truly useful. I like to think that there perhaps was a little something there in ME2, but that he was strong enough to resist it and knowing what was coming, that might have been one of the reasons he was so dedicated to stopping the Reapers in ME2. I imagine that self-preservation would add an interesting twist to it.

 

I agree the Human Reaper was probably his last mistake, so to speak. It's one of the reasons my canon Shepard destroyed the base. I had a huge dilemma the first time around because I could totally see TIM's point, but I suspected something like this might happen.

[Rhaenyss]

I'm just jumping in with a teeny comment -- I don't think the eyes have anything to do with indoctrination (I've seen quite a few times that people think it's a sign of indoctrination). I think they're just straight up bionic implants, as we see with Shepard during ME2 and her tissue degradation if she takes the renegade path. It would only make sense if you subscribe to the Indoctrination Theory, which would mean Shepard was indoctrinated as soon as ME2. I saw that someone mentioned it was proof for IT (because in Control ending, you see the blue TIM eyes, at least for paragon Shepard when she starts to disintegrate). They're just implants, she's 30% synthetic after all & I somehow think improved vision is an upgrade one would make before all else. 

 

Also, one little comment for Vanilka -- I think that players that don't want to choose Destroy don't have the same problem with the ending as you do. For example, I feel like my Shepard has solved the problem quite good with choosing the Control ending, and all without compromising her integrity (pun not intended) and accepting that synthetics aren't necessarily murder machines that murder because they always will. I said it before, I personally think that the best paragon ending is Control, and for renegade the best is Destroy, because paragons will always second guess destruction, but renegades don't have that doubts. Also, Control is worse for renegades, because it's reckless in renegade's hands.

 

There are a lot of problems with endings, but I think the general theme was never in question, just the details (and that can be dissected as much as anyone would want, because it could be better).

[Vanilka]

I'm just jumping in with a teeny comment -- I don't think the eyes have anything to do with indoctrination (I've seen quite a few times that people think it's a sign of indoctrination). I think they're just straight up bionic implants, as we see with Shepard during ME2 and her tissue degradation if she takes the renegade path. It would only make sense if you subscribe to the Indoctrination Theory, which would mean Shepard was indoctrinated as soon as ME2. I saw that someone mentioned it was proof for IT (because in Control ending, you see the blue TIM eyes, at least for paragon Shepard when she starts to disintegrate). They're just implants, she's 30% synthetic after all & I somehow think improved vision is an upgrade one would make before all else.

 

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I think in the comic he actually gets those eyes after coming to contact with a reaper artefact...?
 

Also, one little comment for Vanilka -- I think that players that don't want to choose Destroy don't have the same problem with the ending as you do. For example, I feel like my Shepard has solved the problem quite good with choosing the Control ending, and all without compromising her integrity (pun not intended) and accepting that synthetics aren't necessarily murder machines that murder because they always will. I said it before, I personally think that the best paragon ending is Control, and for renegade the best is Destroy, because paragons will always second guess destruction, but renegades don't have that doubts. Also, Control is worse for renegades, because it's reckless in renegade's hands.
 
There are a lot of problems with endings, but I think the general theme was never in question, just the details (and that can be dissected as much as anyone would want, because it could be better).

 

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. And that's fine. As I said before, I'm cool with people who are okay with the endings or who like the endings. Just don't tell me I hate it and my opinions are completely invalid because I'm "wrong and don't get it", and we're all good. But I really can't agree that there was no change in the main themes. I just don't see it.

 

Also, I don't think it's that our unhappiness stems from the Destroy ending. I think that picking Destroy for some people is in part due to them being unhappy with the ending and what it presents us with. So we refuse it by making as much damage to the Reapers as possible. Simply put, I've decided to kill the b*tch and all its minions. And I still see it as the best, most reasonable option, even without the emotional baggage. And that's just my personal, subjective opinion. Personally, I see Control, on the other hand, as something that doesn't solve the problem permanently and I don't believe anybody should have that kind of power. Especially with renegade Shepard ending, it feels like the galaxy is entering the state of dictatorship. With paragon Shep, it's ominous supervision at the very least. So while I respect your choice and I'm sure you have very good reasons for it, speaking for myself: No, thank you. For the record, I think the concept of control was a good idea for the ending, though. I just think the execution is poor. Again, that's me.

[Rhaenyss]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I think in the comic he actually gets those eyes after coming to contact with a reaper artefact...?

 

I have no idea about the comics, since I've only played the three games. I still think it's a bit awkward for the eyes to mean indoctrination, since our Shepard has them? How would one explain that, then? I always just thought they were super fancy expensive implants, that's why TIM has them (and they look cool on important characters, I guess). Even if it is reaper tech, it stills brings out the question "Is Shepard indoctrinated then?", and I'd rather not go there.

 

As for the ending, I absolutely respect anyone's opinion and views of the ending and I feel for you because I'm sad your experience was bad. I also feel sometimes a bit bad because Destroy is always toted as the perfect ending, while I'm quite happy with mine, thank you very much.

[Vanilka]

I have no idea about the comics, since I've only played the three games. I still think it's a bit awkward for the eyes to mean indoctrination, since our Shepard has them? How would one explain that, then? I always just thought they were super fancy expensive implants, that's why TIM has them (and they look cool on important characters, I guess). Even if it is reaper tech, it stills brings out the question "Is Shepard indoctrinated then?", and I'd rather not go there.

 

As for the ending, I absolutely respect anyone's opinion and views of the ending and I feel for you because I'm sad your experience was bad. I also feel sometimes a bit bad because Destroy is always toted as the perfect ending, while I'm quite happy with mine, thank you very much.

 

It's really hard to say. I admit I haven't read the comic, just the forum about TIM's possible indoctrination. I do believe that TIM's eyes and Shepard's eyes are different, personally. Shepard definitely has implants. As for TIM? I don't know. You might be right. Or it really might be due to him being a little bit indoctrinated. I think that thread absolutely exploded with speculations on the matter, somebody even posted the comic where he gets those eyes after coming close to the artefact, but I don't think they came to an agreement about what exactly happened. Not while I was there, at least.

 

Hey, I might not like the ending, but I still greatly enjoy the game, for what it's worth. So I just finish with Destroy and replay the Citadel DLC to make myself feel better. (The Citadel DLC feels like a big after-war party to me anyway being all light-hearted and focused on Shepard's free time and all.) I've already come to terms with the fact that the ending is what it is. Sometimes I just use a mod to skip the Catalyst because that's my main problem with it. Lol, it might not seem like it from my posts, but I'm so much less angry than I first was when I got the ending for the first time. I'm just unable to take the ending seriously now, but I'm past my hissy fit phase. Either way, it's cool not everybody was disappointed. It shows how different people simply like different things.

 

For what it's worth, Destroy is definitely not the perfect ending, imho. You're committing genocide in more than one way. If you saved the geth, you're killing your allies and slowing down quarians in adapting to suitless life, you're killing EDI, etc. I wouldn't be bothered by people saying that if I were you because that's no more than an opinion. It's a video game and all the endings can be justified. They all have their pros and cons. I like to say that Destroy is my personal preference. Do I believe it's the best option from what we've got? Hell, yeah. But that doesn't make me right. And I don't think it fits everybody's game and everybody's Shepard. That's what RPGs are all about anyway.

[fraggle]

I love that dialogue and, yeah, I guess it shows how much TIM's changed. It's actually a sad development in a way because TIM appears to be a very resourceful and intelligent man, sort of an anti-hero, almost. He's the character I love to hate. I feel like his being indoctrinated is really tragic in a way. I can't say I didn't like this development, though. It made a lot of sense. And I guess it gives me space to make sense of what's happening sometimes.

 

I feel exactly the same. He's an awesome character, very interesting and intriguing from the start. But he played with fire and it got to him

 

I agree the Human Reaper was probably his last mistake, so to speak. It's one of the reasons my canon Shepard destroyed the base. I had a huge dilemma the first time around because I could totally see TIM's point, but I suspected something like this might happen.

 

I admit I have yet to play a Shepard that would be in favor of keeping the base. I can't bring myself to do it somehow, haha. It always was too dangerous in my eyes, and I never trusted TIM with any of my Shepards. Maybe someday though

 

 

On a side note, for anyone interested, today I found this article about branching narrative again I had put in my favourites a while ago, it's quite interesting and informative imo

http://blogs.mercury...580230712890625