718 réponses à ce sujet

[Dantriges]

Honestly you are expecting WAY WAY too much.  Every single Sci-Fi ever written or movie made has things that don't make sense.  And here's another thing.  Real life has way more things that don't make sense.

 

Lord of the Rings why not have the Eagles fly Frodo and the ring to Mt. Doom?

 

Independence Day (movie) something that big in orbit would impact the rotation of the Earth and cause massive tides.

 

Tell you what.  Why don't you list your favorite Sci-Fi or fantasy game, movie or book and I guarantee I can shred it to bits.

 

Bottom line is there are problems because it is IMPOSSIBLE not to have problems in Sci-Fi or fantasy.

 

I am pretty aware that every sci-fi movie or novel has things that don´t make sense.  I listed some of it as an argument that Mass Effect utilizes Hollywood style quite often. Of course there are reasons that we have Hollywood superhacking for example. No one would want to watch a session of RL hacking after all, especially if it´s not the focus and just there to move the plot.

 

Yes you are right. It´s rather hard to make a completely 100% consistent setting with zero amount of things that don´t make sense. It´s probably impossible. And yes there are tales in the real world you would never believe, if someone wrote them in a novel and tried to sell it as realistic. 

But I hope we can agree that there is only a certain amount of nonsense you can get away with before the audience drops willing suspension of disbelief. This is not binary, even if I made the impression by listing little stuff. I am actually quite ok with a bit of headcanoning stuff myself.

 

So well, we have the ending opening a whole can of worms about the plot of ME 1, which wasn´t adressed at all, twice. The story of ME 2 was gather a bunch of soldiers to carry the fight to the collectors which didn´t make sense at all until we found out, oh this actually works. Hm k.

ME 3 had the organisation we worked for, turn into a superpower with its own fleets, when the Normandy was a major investment in ME 2 and we were doing this super important mission alone. Yeah I get that secret organisation thingie and need to know basis but they totally revamped the organisation from 1 and 2 with little explanation and I mean the fleets, not the soldiers.  

 

So they made sacrifies to get this particular plot, more enemies to kill, more drama and they sacrificed so much IMO that they ripped me and probably a larger part of the fanbase out of suspension of disbelief.

 

Lord of the Rings: Ah well, the eagle issue. My personal headcanon is that Sauron would probably have spotted them quite easily and he is able to move quite fast. As servants of Manwe the eagles are probably quite active in this spirit world. No idea if it holds up to a closer look but well. Yeah it´s an unexplained issue.

 

Independence Day: Yes it would. I don´t think of Independence Day as a good movie.

 

Favorite game: Still Mass Effect, so feel free and go ahead. You are in the right forum for that. I like Babylon 5 too and yes I am aware that it has issues. Even if we exclude season 5 because it´s plot had to be rewritten after it lost important parts to season 4 (it was uncertain that it would be renewed for a fifth season).

[Goodmongo]

So... you basically dismissed all his arguments and opinions except the one that you personally liked. How were the other things not relevant? What makes the lack of boss battle the only acceptable and, according to you, truthful statement? Why do you dismiss all his other arguments as invalid? That seems like a pretty unfair way to have a discussion to me. From there, you proceed to draw an incorrect conclusion as you cherry picked the one thing that you liked and that was convenient for you in order to invalidate other people's arguments and opinions. While I appreciate you tried to have a discussion with your son about it and find it totally awesome, I don't think that's how you have a proper discussion and it's not a way to gather data objectively. Reread your post and realise you just said that you pushed him until you heard what you liked.

 

No I got to the root cause.  The rest are excuses.  If someone says I don't like the ending because there is an AI I will ask.  Then what do you want to see instead of the AI?  After finding out that even if the AI was replaced with X they still would not like it that tells me it's not the AI kid that is the root cause.

 

Try to be honest with yourself.  If there is something that you don't like then ask yourself if you would like the endings if that item was changed.  If not then guess what.  It's an excuse and not the real root cause of your issue.

 

In talking with my son I took each thing he felt that was wrong and changed it.  I said change it to whatever he wants.  It just didn't matter.  It came down to having to choose without having to fight.  Doesn't take a psychologist to get to the real reason people don't like something.  All it takes is their being honest with themselves.

 

So your comment that I dismissed him was way off base.  I dealt with each individual issue one by one.  Asked what should be changed.  Then asked if it was changed would you then accept the endings.

 

What I pushed him to do was to remove the noise and focus on what he wanted to happen.  Something everyone should do.

[Dantriges]

May I ask how old is your son?

[Goodmongo]

But I hope we can agree that there is only a certain amount of nonsense you can get away with before the audience drops willing suspension of disbelief. This is not binary, even if I made the impression by listing little stuff. I am actually quite ok with a bit of headcanoning stuff myself.

 

So well, we have the ending opening a whole can of worms about the plot of ME 1, which wasn´t adressed at all, twice. The story of ME 2 was gather a bunch of soldiers to carry the fight to the collectors which didn´t make sense at all until we found out, oh this actually works. Hm k.

ME 3 had the organisation we worked for, turn into a superpower with its own fleets, when the Normandy was a major investment in ME 2 and we were doing this super important mission alone. Yeah I get that secret organisation thingie and need to know basis but they totally revamped the organisation from 1 and 2 with little explanation and I mean the fleets, not the soldiers.  

 

 

Too much does spoil the movie/game and that we can agree on.  How much is too much is a matter of taste I think.  Some have a larger tolerance while some don't.  For me any Sci-Fi/Fantasy has way more room then a movie based on historical events.  But even that has to allow some leeway due to time constraints.

 

The did try to address ME1's story.  Not well but they did discuss it.  Not sure I follow your logic about ME2.  Are you saying that it didn't make sense to go after the collectors?  Are you saying it didn't make sense for there to be collectors?  Or what?

 

Cerberus was always huge.  And always had lot's of money even in ME1.  Your statement that just because the Normandy cost lots of money there shouldn't be a Cerberus fleet isn't logical.  BTW we weren't doing ME2 alone.  We were acting alone but the Alliance had numerous groups fighting and researching the collectors.  James even has his personal issue with it.  TIM and Cerberus were not working with the Alliance so why should they cooperate?  

 

In real life we have Blackwater doing their own thing in Iraq.  Sometimes it works with the US army and other times it didn't.  There are many private "security" firms doing quasi-military operations.  Cerberus is a Blackwater on steroids.  Many companies have larger security and quasi-military forces than most countries.  Why is Cerberus so hard to believe?

[Goodmongo]

May I ask how old is your son?

 

He is now 20 years old.  Played the games a couple of years ago and was big into the indoctrination theory stuff.  Knew way move and watched way more videos on it then I ever did.

 

Believe me when I say it wasn't Dad saying A and he had to accept it.  I accepted that he didn't like the endings but was curious as to why.

[Vanilka]

No I got to the root cause.  The rest are excuses.  If someone says I don't like the ending because there is an AI I will ask.  Then what do you want to see instead of the AI?  After finding out that even if the AI was replaced with X they still would not like it that tells me it's not the AI kid that is the root cause.

 

Try to be honest with yourself.  If there is something that you don't like then ask yourself if you would like the endings if that item was changed.  If not then guess what.  It's an excuse and not the real root cause of your issue.

 

In talking with my son I took each thing he felt that was wrong and changed it.  I said change it to whatever he wants.  It just didn't matter.  It came down to having to choose without having to fight.  Doesn't take a psychologist to get to the real reason people don't like something.  All it takes is their being honest with themselves.

 

So you comment that I dismissed was way off base.  I dealt with each individual issue one by one.  Asked what should be changed.  Then asked if it was changed would you then accept the endings.

 

What I pushed him to do was to remove the noise and focus on what he wanted to happen.  Something everyone should do.

 

Because by changing the problematic thing into something else, you're not removing the problem. I'm not suddenly going to start liking the Catalyst if it approaches me looking like a well-oiled stripper or a kitten. That's broken logic at best.

 

Dude, if somebody tells you they don't like a thing, they simply don't like the thing. There's no reason you should question their motives. Just the fact you dismiss everybody else's opinions, except yours, as excuses and as something stupid and incorrect, for no other reason than that you disagree with them instead of realising they're all, including yours, just that - opinions, is... well, frankly, it's not a nice thing to do.

[Goodmongo]

Dude, if somebody tells you they don't like a thing, they simply don't like the thing. There's no reason you should question their motives. Just the fact you dismiss everybody else's opinions, except yours, as excuses and as something stupid and incorrect, for no other reason than that you disagree with them instead of realising they're all, including yours, just that - opinions, says a lot about you. Frankly, it's not a nice thing to do.

 

See how little you want to understand.  I'm not dismissing anything.  I'm searching for their motive behind their opinion.  Maybe their motive makes so much sense that I have to reevaluate why I disagree.  It's simple.

 

If I ask someone if they like or dislike a movie and they tell me they dislike it "because" and nothing more that means their opinion is strictly personal and not based on any facts.  There is nothing they have given me to consider.  Would you want a movie critic to give a thumbs up/down with no explanation?  Would you trust that?

 

The more one has thought about their position, the more they understand it, the more they can explain it.  Only this level is worth consideration.  

 

You nailed one thing right at least.  We are all entitled to our own opinion.  We are not entitled to our facts.  What I'm doing is trying to figure out if its opinion based on taste or based on facts.  If its based on your taste then so be it.  It is what it is and we move on.  However, if it's based on facts then I as an open minded person want to know what I've missed or don't understand.  

 

See that might be the difference between us.  You want to dismiss anything you don't agree with as opinion or taste.  I on the other hand want to find out if I missed something, some fact.  I'm willing to change my position based on new or corrected data.  You sound like the person that will never change even if your opinion is based on false assumptions.  Only through detailed discussion can we know if the difference is fact based or opinion based.

[Dantriges]

I meant that the plan of Cerberus was that the Normandy and the squadmates you recruit go after the Collector threat. The dialogue even mentions the collector homeworld several times. So you go after the homeworld of a technologically superior species with 12 men and a frigate. it´s not recon and call in the Cerverus fleet or leak the intel to the Alliance so can do the heavy work. They always talk about that you will attempt end the Collector threat, even in the final talk between TIM and Shep. You only find out that yes you actually can end the threat when you are there.

 

And yes there are huge quasi-military forces today but are they fielding aircraft carriers? The construction of dreadnoughts is heavily controlled because of the Treaty of Farixen. I can accept refitted merchant vessels or smaller frigate type craft but cruisers and dreadnoughts (at least one). And well there is the talk from Miranda and EDi that the cost of bringing Shepard back, that the construction of the Normandy was taking a huge chunk out of Cerberus´s budget and the numbers EDi gave where you have to use serious headcanon to explain them. Can be done though. So the previous info didn´t add up, the possible timeframe doesn´t add up and oh my are the intelligence agencies of the Galax incompetent when they miss Cerberus building a huge fleet in six months. Monitoring the market for ship components alone would tip you off.

 

Perhaps a bit nitpicky but well you presented this organisation like this in the first two parts and oh wow how did this happen? Oh, just roll with it? Ok fine.

[Vanilka]

See how little you want to understand.  I'm not dismissing anything.  I'm searching for their motive behind their opinion.  Maybe their motive makes so much sense that I have to reevaluate why I disagree.  It's simple.
 
If I ask someone if they like or dislike a movie and they tell me they dislike it "because" and nothing more that means their opinion is strictly personal and not based on any facts.  There is nothing they have given me to consider.  Would you want a movie critic to give a thumbs up/down with no explanation?  Would you trust that?
 
The more one has thought about their position, the more they understand it, the more they can explain it.  Only this level is worth consideration.  
 
You nailed one thing right at least.  We are all entitled to our own opinion.  We are not entitled to our facts.  What I'm doing is trying to figure out if its opinion based on taste or based on facts.  If its based on your taste then so be it.  It is what it is and we move on.  However, if it's based on facts then I as an open minded person want to know what I've missed or don't understand.  
 
See that might be the difference between us.  You want to dismiss anything you don't agree with as opinion or taste.  I on the other hand want to find out if I missed something, some fact.  I'm willing to change my position based on new or corrected data.  You sound like the person that will never change even if your opinion is based on false assumptions.  Only through detailed discussion can we know if the difference is fact based or opinion based.

 
That's not what I'm arguing here. It's perfectly fine to discuss facts, it's perfectly fine to try and prove somebody wrong if you do believe they're wrong, but you said your son gave you reasons why he didn't like something and you didn't respect that, instead you decided to dissect it in, as far as I can tell from your post, not exactly a reasonable manner. But that may be my impression and my impression might be incorrect. I wasn't there. What bothers me, though, is that you dismiss most of it as nothing but excuses and consequently dismiss other people's opinion on that basis as, again, excuses. That's what I'm getting at. Moreover, if a large group of people has issues with the exact same thing, I believe it deserves some recognition at least, not just brushing it off and saying, "Meh, that's not their real problem anyway."
 
Funny that you say all that, yet I've never seen you change your standpoint anywhere here or consider anybody's opinions as remotely valid. It's you who points a finger at everybody saying they're making excuses, no matter how many people come with the exact same issue here. That's at the very least somewhat insulting, imho. If you ever read my posts at all, especially with certain posters here, you can see me admitting I was or could be wrong, that I missed something, or at least accepting people's differing views. I don't dismiss them. I accept them as something that differs from my own views if I realise we can't reach an agreement, unless the poster gives me a reason not to. That's not what dismissal looks like. Look back in this thread and you find a few of such posts. I'm definitely not perfect, but I'm yet to see you do any of that. (However, you can point me to something.) The fact I know very well that I can be an ignorant person sometimes and that I don't know everything prevents me from making generalising statements like "People just want their HEA ending," or "The rest is just excuses." Because there's no proof to back them up.
 
I didn't originally want to stir stuff, but saying that "All the rest is a cover or excuse for this," as you did, is seriously not a good way to go, imo. I agree that discussions are definitely good, but you end up suggesting that people are just lying, based on a conversation you had with somebody else. While this particular reason doesn't really get to be a part of my rants very often, I'm one of those who would totally like to see a final boss at the end of ME3 if possible, but that doesn't mean I'm making the rest of my complaints up to justify it or something. I hope it's clear why your statement makes me unhappy.

[Goodmongo]

@Vanilka let us discuss the following scenario.

 

A person says they don't like a story because the main character came from Texas and that ruined it for them.  So I ask them where should the character come from if not Texas and they say England.  I then ask if they would now like the story if the main character comes from England and they say no they wouldn't.

 

So is the location of the main character the issue?  Heck no.  It might be a part but clearly changing it doesn't change the result so it's an excuse and not the root cause of their dislike for the story.  It is a common human tactic known as deflection.

 

It doesn't matter if 99 out of 100 people say X is a problem when if you ask them if X was changed to what they want you find out that it doesn't change their position anyway.  Therefore anyone can logically conclude that X was either not the problem or was only a portion of the problem.

 

Some people do want a HEA and that is the only thing that will satisfy them.  Some want a big boss fight and that is the only thing that will satisfy those.  That's fine and dandy.  And it's great when they are honest about it.

[Goodmongo]

I meant that the plan of Cerberus was that the Normandy and the squadmates you recruit go after the Collector threat. The dialogue even mentions the collector homeworld several times. So you go after the homeworld of a technologically superior species with 12 men and a frigate. it´s not recon and call in the Cerverus fleet or leak the intel to the Alliance so can do the heavy work. They always talk about that you will attempt end the Collector threat, even in the final talk between TIM and Shep. You only find out that yes you actually can end the threat when you are there.

 

And yes there are huge quasi-military forces today but are they fielding aircraft carriers? The construction of dreadnoughts is heavily controlled because of the Treaty of Farixen. I can accept refitted merchant vessels or smaller frigate type craft but cruisers and dreadnoughts (at least one). And well there is the talk from Miranda and EDi that the cost of bringing Shepard back, that the construction of the Normandy was taking a huge chunk out of Cerberus´s budget and the numbers EDi gave where you have to use serious headcanon to explain them. Can be done though. So the previous info didn´t add up, the possible timeframe doesn´t add up and oh my are the intelligence agencies of the Galax incompetent when they miss Cerberus building a huge fleet in six months. Monitoring the market for ship components alone would tip you off.

 

 

 

Military history is filled with examples of small commando groups going after large targets.  Military history also shows small fleets taking on much larger fleets and winning.  Look up the naval battle of Salamis for just one example.

 

I'm not away of any Cerberus dreadnoughts.  I am away of cruiser class ships and smaller.  Pirates were basically independent groups and they fielded naval vessels equivalent to the big boys during their day.  Your aircraft example is not the same because outside of the US no country has made a big CV.  And only a few have even made smaller CV's.  It isn't a matter of cost but construction technology.  The USSR was willing to spend the money but couldn't get over the technological hurdles.

 

Cerberus on the other hand was more technologically advance than most cultures.  This is a plot point that we can shake our head to but there are examples even today where companies are more technologically advanced in certain areas than any government is.

[Vanilka]

@Vanilka let us discuss the following scenario.

 

A person says they don't like a story because the main character came from Texas and that ruined it for them.  So I ask them where should the character come from if not Texas and they say England.  I then ask if they would now like the story if the main character comes from England and they say no they wouldn't.

 

So is the location of the main character the issue?  Heck no.  It might be a part but clearly changing it doesn't change the result so it's an excuse and not the root cause of their dislike for the story.  It is a common human tactic known as deflection.

 

It doesn't matter if 99 out of 100 people say X is a problem when if you ask them if X was changed to what they want you find out that it doesn't change their position anyway.  Therefore anyone can logically conclude that X was either not the problem or was only a portion of the problem.

 

Some people do want a HEA and that is the only thing that will satisfy them.  Some want a big boss fight and that is the only thing that will satisfy those.  That's fine and dandy.  And it's great when they are honest about it.

 

I totally agree that it's for the best when people are honest about their opinions and from what I've seen in this thread, they mostly seem to be. If there's anything I've learnt from following this thread, it's the fact that people can have very different ideas of what makes a good ending, what's wrong or right with ME3's ending, etc. I just think this is too sensitive a topic to make general statements. The problem with doing that is that people who do not identify with such a statement get thrown onto the same pile. Given the fact that the HEA statement is very often used to imply that some people are simply too emotional and irrational to appreciate anything but an ending with rainbows and unicorns, of course that people who do not belong to this category get offended by this. Same with people who want a final boss. I'm sorry if you didn't mean it that way and if I misunderstood, but saying that people who might want a final boss are just using all their other arguments as excuses is a pretty damning accusation. It paints those people as liars or at least as dishonest when it's very likely that's not true. Speaking for myself, I indeed do not like that. You can have more than one problem with the ending. The same way as you can like more than one thing about the ending. Restricting it to "some people" like you did now is definitely better. Although I really don't know why jump in and claim those things at all, but maybe that's just me being weird.

 

As for changing stuff, I get what you mean with the England or Texas. I can see how that could uncover some problems, namely stuff like double standards and such. However, I don't think it's always a matter of changing stuff. That logic sure can work to an extent, but just because I can't think of anything else to switch the Catalyst with, it doesn't mean it's not the Catalyst that's my problem. (I've always thought that Shepard's LI, friend, or Anderson would be a much better candidate for that hologram than the kid, but changing the model wouldn't make it much better for me.) Personally, I just want the Catalyst gone. Now I'm speaking just for myself: When I install a mod that cuts the Catalyst out completely and it skips from the scene with Anderson right to the red wave, the ending feels much more satisfying and so much less frustrating to me. It not only removes the annoying character but also the absurd conversation that changes the main conflict of the game. Etc. It all starts and ends with stopping the Reapers, which is what I came to do there all along. I think that says a lot, at least in my particular case. Switching stuff would do nothing for me. Removing stuff does, in this case. I would still totally enjoy a boss battle and suicide mission 2.0, but for what it's worth, I wouldn't mind it if the original ending was just like this. I mean, sure, there are still some smaller things, but with EC they're generally not nearly as upsetting as the Catalyst and the conversation with it to me.

[Dantriges]

Yes. It still wasn´t 12 men against a homeworld, the greeks at Salamis had a fleet, home advantage, chose the battlefield and a bunch of other stuff but that´s going too far. The greeks had a fleet even if it was outnumbered. They didn´t send 12 hardcore hoplites to Persia to defeat the persians.

 

If someone send in 12 crack commando type soldiers into the US and they miraculously manage to blow up Washington and sink an aircraft carrier, the US isn´t defeated, it´s just really angry. That´s the scope or rather even more. You aren´t sending in special forces like combat divers to prepare for an amphibous assault, SEALS to capture somone important or whatever else, the mission was defeat the Collectors on their homeworld which could be as populated as Earth or perhaps they colonized a whole solar system. That´s something Harbinger and 12 of his buddies could do. It´s nothing Shepard could do unless he read the friggin script, which TIM apparently did and know it´s just a base. But assaulting a homeworld isn´t a suicide mission, it´s more or less pointless. Get intel and get out.

 

Shepard started collecting squadmates before he knew what was behind the Omega 4 Relay, a single base, an asteroid or a whole solar system with hundred´s of ships and a billion ground troops. At the point where you are close to or already finished recruiting, you find out it could be a base because it´s in the middle of the galaxy.

 

Pirates eh? A few perhaps who managed to capture a naval vessel or people who got a shiny ship from good ol´Elisabeth and a letter of marque. I´m not so familiar with pirates of the caribbean.

Ok different example, battleships before WW2 with the treaty of Washington in place fits better anyways.

But ok, if pumping up Cerberus to a major military power is ok for you, fine. I am not familiar with current day firepower of mercenaries but hm the East India Company was a really big company with a military. OTOH it didn´t operate in secret.

 

Oh forgot

 

The did try to address ME1's story.  Not well but they did discuss it.

 

What do you mean? The catalyst explained why he didn´t do anything while Sovereign was dryhumping the tower?

[Vanilka]

What do you mean? The catalyst explained why he didn´t do anything while Sovereign was dryhumping the tower?

 

Damn you for putting this image in my head. 

[Tim van Beek]

Why it doesn't work on the literal level ?

I meant "economically". I know of gamers who played ME1 and ME2, but did not buy ME3 because they got word of the ending controversy. You don't want this to happen with a piece of media that is primarily a product that has to sell well. And then there was the election of EA as the "worst company of the year" etc.etc.

In this sense, the ending did and does not work well.

[Tim van Beek]

"The climax is the scene or sequence in which the main tensions of the story are brought to their most intense point and the dramatic question answered, leaving the protagonist and other characters with a new sense of who they really are."

 

yeah like that happened in the ending..  

 

nah.. still like IT.  It works on every level when you look at everything from Shepard waking up from his last dream before Cronos Station.

 

But it wasn't Shepard who got himself indoctrinated.... It was any player who sided with the reapers and didn't blow their squiddy asses to kingdom come.  Yes you the player who chose Control or Synthesis.  You are indoctrinated.

Right, IT needs less effort than any other explanations I know of, but of course you do know that the writers themselves have dismissed it and tried to make this clear in the EC, don't you  .

 

I think it would be appropriate to analyze the story from the point of view of a Hollywood story analyzer, because ME3 is and wants to be a blockbuster movie, interspersed with interactive gameplay parts, of course. And one can say a lot about why the ending is problematic from that POV. But, to be fair, one has to take a step back from the "hero's journey" schematic that is popular in Hollywood, because Shepard is a projection screen for the player, with a character frame rather than a fully developed character, and therefore without a character arc. Did anybody expect Shepard to painfully learn a truth about him/herself that leads to a personal change that enables her/him to solve the central conflict? I did not. So, there goes a central aspect of the climax  . (This is, of course, also a strong point against IT, albeit unnecessary as that already has been debunked by the writers themselves).

 

But of course it is still possible to get Shepard to behave completely "out of character", as the ME3 ending proves. 

 

(And obviously I could continue my ironic rant that the writers obviously understood the "new sense of who the protagonist really is" too literally by killing Shepard or turning him into the next catalyst AI etc.  But honestly: I do wonder if the "crucible" and the "catalyst" are inside jokes from a writer's seminar that Mac and Casey went to together...)

[Dantriges]

 

... ME3 is and wants to be a blockbuster movie, interspersed with interactive gameplay parts, of course. And one can say a lot about why the ending is problematic from that POV. But, to be fair, one has to take a step back from the "hero's journey" schematic that is popular in Hollywood, because Shepard is a projection screen for the player, with a character frame rather than a fully developed character, and therefore without a character arc.

 

Uh yes, felt like Bioware ripped the keyboard and mouse out of my hand during their long cutscene sequences and told me "hey look, awesome movie we made. Aren´t you happy that you have no input at all. "

[AlanC9]

 
But of course it is still possible to get Shepard to behave completely "out of character", as the ME3 ending proves. 
 

Depending upon the Shepard, that is. Most of mine saw no purpose in getting into a pointless argument with the Catalyst, for instance.

[Pee Jae]

I thought I was going to get the option to shut down the reapers and the catalyst. If I were Shepard, I'd be looking for that console.

Catalyst: It is in your power to des...
Shepard: Yeah, hang on a minute...

Catalyst: ... you could instead use the energy of the crucible to seize con...

Shepard: Just hold on...

Catalyst: There is another solution... Syn..

Shepard: Shut up for 10 seconds, will ya!
Catalyst: ...
Shepard: Ah, here it is. *radios Normandy* Hey, Garrus? You want to come down and push this button or should I do it?
Garrus: ... No, that's ... okay. I'm in the middle of some calibrations.

[Tim van Beek]

Depending upon the Shepard, that is. Most of mine saw no purpose in getting into a pointless argument with the Catalyst, for instance.

Right  . Nothing wrong with that. I'm just guessing, but probably a lot of players did not think much about the ending at all, or did enjoy it in some way. Why shouldn't they?

 

However, objectively, Shepards reaction to the catalyst shows an unmotivated lack of inquiry and/or agression etc. I'm pretty sure that people that make a living by evaluating scripts for big movie studios would overwhelmingly BS that scene for this reason alone. For example, if your Shepard decides that any discussion with the catalyst is pointless, Shepard would need to be able to express this explicitly via a dialog option (which is not there AFAIK), to stay coherent with the established narrative mechanics.

 

But of course there is no reason why people can't enjoy stuff that is badly made by the standards of the craft. I really enjoy stupid kitschy love songs from time to time.

[AlanC9]

However, objectively, Shepards reaction to the catalyst shows an unmotivated lack of inquiry and/or agression etc. I'm pretty sure that people that make a living by evaluating scripts for big movie studios would overwhelmingly BS that scene for this reason alone. For example, if your Shepard decides that any discussion with the catalyst is pointless, Shepard would need to be able to express this explicitly via a dialog option (which is not there AFAIK), to stay coherent with the established narrative mechanics.

I can see the inconsistency. The scene didn't bother me because I wasn't a fan of some of the established stuff in the first place. For instance, I hated Shepard's dialogue in the Sovereign scene.

[Rhaenyss]

I can see the inconsistency. The scene didn't bother me because I wasn't a fan of some of the established stuff in the first place. For instance, I hated Shepard's dialogue in the Sovereign scene.

 

Yeah, I hated the Sovereign speech as well, because it was too confident, but at the same time she didn't really want to know more. Basically, just overconfident threats, I would've liked something else.

 

The scene at the end didn't bother me as much too, because I just thought it goes well with how run down and desperate she is, at the brink of death, without her mission being completed. It's basically one last try to end this and you don't have the luxury of being overly confident and confrontational, especially when you know you're going to die very soon & that it might just all be for nothing. That's why I really can't understand the refuse ending, it's just too much of a f*uck you after all this sacrifice.

[CronoDragoon]

I rather like the Control ending now. It's a nice extrapolation and exaggeration of how seemingly the whole galaxy relied on Shepard to solve its problems the entire trilogy.

I'm also a big Dune fan, which helps.

[Rhaenyss]

I rather like the Control ending now. It's a nice extrapolation and exaggeration of how seemingly the whole galaxy relied on Shepard to solve its problems the entire trilogy.

I'm also a big Dune fan, which helps.

 

Yeah I partially like if for these reasons too. Also, it's incredibly interesting to me that the ending makes her the very thing she fought against (albeit without the murderous intent, since I also headcanon it as such, my paragon will never revert in her AI form to old reaper ways), but she chose to "live" with it anyways.

[aoibhealfae]

gah.. Dune ended with The Children of Dune.... I refuse to read the the rest of the series... I guess Control fit the God Emperor narrative... mwahaha