718 réponses à ce sujet

[Goodmongo]

If the platforms were part of the crucible, I would believe they would be raised before Shepard encounters the catalyst. They're only raised after talking with it so Shepard can choose an ending.

 

The other thing is how is the catalyst able to shut off the crucible if refuse is chosen? Or did it just shut off that part of the citadel that makes the crucible not work?

 

No Shepard was in the Citadel.  he took an elevator up.  Are you now saying the elevator went to the crucible?

 

He didn't shut anything off.  It went to black.  The refuse means Shepard never activates the crucible and the war continues.  Shepard was never in the crucible and neither was the catalyst.

[Rhaenyss]

 

The other thing is how is the catalyst able to shut off the crucible if refuse is chosen? Or did it just shut off that part of the citadel that makes the crucible not work?

 

I always assumed "refuse ending" is just Shepard not doing anything because she didn't choose, so the reapers destroy the crucible? Is that not the case?

 

 

I find it sort of logical to compare the Reapers and the Citadel to EDI and the Normandy. If EDI is able to control some physical aspects of the Normandy, like opening doors or activating thrusters, then the Catalyst should be able to lift the elevator or, IDK, let the Reapers out of dark space way before ME3

 

 

Well, you're assuming, just as I am. The fact is that we just don't know. I'd rather think he can't do anything, because it makes the ending better. I mean, why not? It's not like I have enough info to assume it's the other way around, idk. As for that signal, wasn't it confirmed that the Keepers evolved to be independent of outside control?

[themikefest]

No Shepard was in the Citadel.  he took an elevator up.  Are you now saying the elevator went to the crucible?

What are you talking about? I'm talking about the ramps/platforms that Shepard uses to get to control or destroy
 

He didn't shut anything off.  It went to black.

Then who/what turned off the beam?
 

The refuse means Shepard never activates the crucible and the war continues.

Really? I never knew that.
 

Shepard was never in the crucible and neither was the catalyst.

Can you explain where I said Shepard and the catalyst are in the crucible?

[Goodmongo]

What are you talking about? I'm talking about the ramps/platforms that Shepard uses to get to control or destroy
 

Which was still in the Citadel.  No one was in the crucible.

 

 

Really? I never knew that.

 

Here to help.

 

Can you explain where I said Shepard and the catalyst are in the crucible?

 

I just reread what you wrote and it is somewhat confusing.  "If the platforms were part of the crucible, I would believe they would be raised before Shepard encounters the catalyst. "

 

So ignore the part about the elevator as we both agree Shepard was in the Citadel only.

 

As for the keepers they did evolve and they also were reprogrammed by the Protheans.  In every previous cycle the catalyst needed the keepers to do the physical part of setting off the Citadel as  mass relay to allow the Reapers to come.

[Tim van Beek]

 I have no clue if my analysis applies to you or not.  If you say that having a HEA doesn't change your viewpoint then so be it.  It doesn't apply to you.  So if it doesn't apply why are you so defensive?  Just accept that it doesn't apply.

Gladly, I'll accept that  . It is possible to conclude (hint hint!) that your "analysis" (?) does not apply to me (and others), by reading this thread (hint hint!). 

[Dantriges]

Maybe he can do only limited stuff? Idk, lifting a platform seems pretty minor. I mean, if Citadel is his home, he was probably put there by its creators. Leviathans were arrogant, but hopefully not that stupid to give him full control. We don't know the whole truth of course, and it's also possible that he would bypass those limits given time, I'm just throwing some ideas.

 

As far as we know and everyone told us, the Citadel was built by the Reapers specifically to lure in organics to use it as a capzal because of its role as a central hub in the relay network.

[Shinrai]

This video explains why i have my issues with the ME3 endings (and other stuff in the ME 3 story narrative):

I stumbled on this recently and it was an eye opener for me. But it is just my personal opinion. I am ok, if others think otherwise

And yes, i love the Mass Effect series, Part 3, too. But i think with all the writer changes etc. there were a few things, that weren't quite good for the game development in the end storywise.

[Dantriges]

Uh, that game sin counter is a bit to nitpicky for my taste. And "hi commander a**hole Williams" *bing* +1 gaming sin. Just for appearing? Eh,really? Ok, you don´t have to like her but "this is wrong with the game?" Half of the stuff that get a *bing* seems to be "uh I don´t like this character."

[Batarian Master Race]

It's styled after CinemaSins, which intersperses massive nitpicks and jokes about disliking characters with actual plot and story issues.

[Goodmongo]

Gladly, I'll accept that  . It is possible to conclude (hint hint!) that your "analysis" (?) does not apply to me (and others), by reading this thread (hint hint!). 

 

80 - 20 rule.  It applies to probably around 80%.  Only the individual being completely honest with themselves knows for sure.

 

After all if people want to find issues there are some much larger ones that aren't even associated with the endings.  For example Reaper communications are instantaneous in the universe and harbinger has immediate control of collectors from inter-galactic space.  Is he quantum entangled with every collector and every other Reaper? 

 

My whole point is that we forgive lot's of space magic stuff all the time.  So why do people have such major issues when an ending has space magic?  And much of the endings space magic is forgiven provided the ending is slightly different.  If 90% is identical and 10% changed and the outcome changes then logic dictates that the 10% caused the change and the 90% was not a factor in the original position.  This is very simple and basic logic.

[MrFob]

80 - 20 rule.  It applies to probably around 80%.  Only the individual being completely honest with themselves knows for sure.

 

After all if people want to find issues there are some much larger ones that aren't even associated with the endings.  For example Reaper communications are instantaneous in the universe and harbinger has immediate control of collectors from inter-galactic space.  Is he quantum entangled with every collector and every other Reaper? 

 

My whole point is that we forgive lot's of space magic stuff all the time.  So why do people have such major issues when an ending has space magic?  And much of the endings space magic is forgiven provided the ending is slightly different.  If 90% is identical and 10% changed and the outcome changes then logic dictates that the 10% caused the change and the 90% was not a factor in the original position.  This is very simple and basic logic.

 

I think you have a point there but if you read my list from 2 pages ago, you will notice that nowhere does it say "space magic".

 

It's true, I do not like the space magic of the crucible very much and I do think the the space magic of something like synthesis is more severe than reaper communication (as you already provided one possible explanation for that in your post).

Of course, something like ME fields and eezo are already space magic. However, if we didn't accept that, we wouldn't have a franchise to talk about, since the existence of it is the underlying premise.*

In my mind, good scifi takes as few elements of space magic as possible to make the setting interesting and works within these specific abilities but also respects the restrictions that come with it. Most Mass Effect codex entries, especially the ones about technology, are very good at playing with the eezo magic while  also pointing out what is not possible. Out of that, you work with todays science as much as you can and maybe extrapolate a little from what we already know but you keep close to it.\

 

Usually, the stories get into trouble when miraculous events happen that do not link back to eezo like, say, the Lazarus Project in the beginning of ME2 and - yes - the Crucible.

That said, I still think that the endings could have worked with the space magic of the crucible if it were not for all the points I make in that list. I also think destroy is the least "magicy" because I have a point of reference in today's science for it. We can destroy technology with an EMP signal today so i can imagine a similar signal that is distributed through the relay network. How we would take Shepard's essence however, convert it into a signal and send it through the galaxy to alter all DNA, I can't even imagine.

So yes, I do think that there are different levels of space magic severity and the crucible is pretty high with synthesis at the top but it's certainly not the only offender in the series and the Lazarus Project comes close for example.

 

 

*) That's why I like the concept of the dark energy ending so much, because it links the reapers directly to the premise of the ME universe. I think if executed well, it could have bound the entire series together in a very nice and tight narrative circle. Alas, it was not supposed to be.

[Iakus]

 

After all if people want to find issues there are some much larger ones that aren't even associated with the endings.  For example Reaper communications are instantaneous in the universe and harbinger has immediate control of collectors from inter-galactic space.  Is he quantum entangled with every collector and every other Reaper? 

 

 

Do we know Reaper communication is instant?  We never seen them talking to each other.  In fact, they have spend most of the trilogy hanging out in dark space as a group.

 

Harbinger was, likely quantum entangled with the Collector General, at least, as he seemed to control the other Collectors through that one.

[Goodmongo]

@Mr.Fob  I used the term space magic as sort of a catchall and not to say that you or anyone specifically called "sequence X" space magic.  I basically defined it as anything that is not fully or logically explained by previous cannon (eezo) or physical laws.

 

Of course there are lesser and greater instances of this "space magic".  That said communications via quantum entanglement is a big space magic moment.  The reason is that the two quantum particles have to be close enough to be entangled in the first place.  So each time a new collector is born(?) it would have to be in contact with Harbinger to be entangled.

 

As for the destroy ending the "space magic" portions of targeting, firing and damage output/control still exist in all endings.  People have complained that how can it target Geth and not some VI or other stuff.  And there have been numerous complaints about the wave itself and how it travels.  All of these complaints still exist yet for some they are now simply ignored.  This begs the question if this was an issue in the first place.

 

Synergy is like transcendence and other Sci-Fi stuff.  Since it has never happened we can only use magic here.  But is this any different than Gandalf in LoTR?  Or your character in Planescape Torment?  Or even Yoda or the "Force" in Star Wars?  Your tolerance and my tolerance can and most likely will be different.  That is not what I'm even debating here.  What I'm really saying is very simple.

 

If ending A had sequence 1, 2 and 3 and a person hated it and specifically cited sequence 1 and 2 as the reason for hating it they themselves have given their reason.  Now come along ending B with sequence 1, 2 and 4 instead of 3.  They now claim they like this ending.  But logically their initial reason for hating A was not due to sequence 1 and 2 since that is still the same.  It was in fact sequence 3 that was the reason for not liking A and that was the variable that changed.

[Dantriges]

 

After all if people want to find issues there are some much larger ones that aren't even associated with the endings.  For example Reaper communications are instantaneous in the universe and harbinger has immediate control of collectors from inter-galactic space.  Is he quantum entangled with every collector and every other Reaper?

 

Well, this is a ending specific thread. If you want to talk about "stuff that doesn´t make sense," there is another thread for this in the Lore section of the forum. It´s not really surprising that the issues people have and talk about in an ending thread are the issues people have with the ending.

[Monica21]

As for the destroy ending the "space magic" portions of targeting, firing and damage output/control still exist in all endings.  People have complained that how can it target Geth and not some VI or other stuff.  And there have been numerous complaints about the wave itself and how it travels.  All of these complaints still exist yet for some they are now simply ignored.  This begs the question if this was an issue in the first place.

 

Synergy is like transcendence and other Sci-Fi stuff.  Since it has never happened we can only use magic here.  But is this any different than Gandalf in LoTR?  Or your character in Planescape Torment?  Or even Yoda or the "Force" in Star Wars?  Your tolerance and my tolerance can and most likely will be different.  That is not what I'm even debating here.  What I'm really saying is very simple.

 

I think, and many others think, that the fact that it targets Geth and no other technology is odd. I don't know how Destroy differentiates between types of technology. If it were to say, only destroy things that had Reaper-based code then it would make sense. But will it destroy my cybernetic implants? Will it affect the Quarians and the Volus who use cybernetics to interface with their suits? What exactly happens there? How does Destroy know the difference between EDI and Mira or Avina? I don't think anyone is ignoring those questions, but it's a lesser question.

 

And the reason Synthesis is different from Gandalf is because Gandalf exists in a world that has established magic. There are talking trees, an all-powerful ring, lesser rings that are commanded by the all-powerful ring, rings that turn their wearers into wraiths, and orbs that allow for talking over great distances. None of this is explained, it just exists. Gandalf does not need to be explained, but when you've created a world where things are explained then you need to stick to those rules. Otherwise the player is going to wonder why Bioware shot them like a cannon from a world filled with tech to a world with wizards. I'm not saying synthesis can't be accomplished. I'm saying that when you go to great lengths to explain how something like biotics can work, then you have to continue to maintain those rules and explain why it works.

[Batarian Master Race]

I think, and many others think, that the fact that it targets Geth and no other technology is odd. I don't know how Destroy differentiates between types of technology. If it were to say, only destroy things that had Reaper-based code then it would make sense. But will it destroy my cybernetic implants? Will it affect the Quarians and the Volus who use cybernetics to interface with their suits? What exactly happens there? How does Destroy know the difference between EDI and Mira or Avina? I don't think anyone is ignoring those questions, but it's a lesser question.

 

And the reason Synthesis is different from Gandalf is because Gandalf exists in a world that has established magic. There are talking trees, an all-powerful ring, lesser rings that are commanded by the all-powerful ring, rings that turn their wearers into wraiths, and orbs that allow for talking over great distances. None of this is explained, it just exists. Gandalf does not need to be explained, but when you've created a world where things are explained then you need to stick to those rules. Otherwise the player is going to wonder why Bioware shot them like a cannon from a world filled with tech to a world with wizards. I'm not saying synthesis can't be accomplished. I'm saying that when you go to great lengths to explain how something like biotics can work, then you have to continue to maintain those rules and explain why it works.

 

IIRC it DID target things with Reaper-based code. The Geth had Reaper upgrades, and EDI had the IFF system.

 

Of course, I still don't understand how the device would identify what is and isn't Reaper code.

[Monica21]

IIRC it DID target things with Reaper-based code. The Geth had Reaper upgrades, and EDI had the IFF system.

 

Of course, I still don't understand how the device would identify what is and isn't Reaper code.

 

I mean, yeah, technically it did, but the Geth get wiped out whether they have the Reaper upgrade or not, right? (Unless they get the Reaper upgrade regardless of the decision you make in ME2.) But yeah, the problem I have is how it knows what an AI is and what is just a laptop.

[MrFob]

Yea, absolutely, destroy is still space magic that remains unexplained. something like MEHEM doesn't change that either. My point was more that I can relate to it a little better personally than to synthesis but hey, it's still pretty far up the ladder.

 

Also, of course Gandalf uses magic, he is a frigging wizard!

I use different criteria for Fantasy than SciFi. The underlying premise of fantasy is kind of "What if magic existed?".

 

 

If ending A had sequence 1, 2 and 3 and a person hated it and specifically cited sequence 1 and 2 as the reason for hating it they themselves have given their reason.  Now come along ending B with sequence 1, 2 and 4 instead of 3.  They now claim they like this ending.  But logically their initial reason for hating A was not due to sequence 1 and 2 since that is still the same.  It was in fact sequence 3 that was the reason for not liking A and that was the variable that changed.

 

Probably, not sure what that has to do with anything though. In keeping with your numbering system, we have been arguing mostly about sequence 0.5, which is the catalyst conversation and happens before 1,2,3 and 4 and about some elements that happen in all sequences like the Normandy crash. So all in all, I think you are presenting a new scenario here.

[Batarian Master Race]

I mean, yeah, technically it did, but the Geth get wiped out whether they have the Reaper upgrade or not, right? (Unless they get the Reaper upgrade regardless of the decision you make in ME2.) But yeah, the problem I have is how it knows what an AI is and what is just a laptop.

 

Wasn't Legion's entire thing in ME3 that it wanted to upload reaper code to all Geth, giving them all AI-level intelligence?

[Goodmongo]

Remember the Geth already had at least some Reaper improvements.  They went to the old machines when the Quarians attacked.  Legion was giving a newer upgrade that changed them from a collective to individuals.

 

As for magic, fantasy has its type of magic and Sci_Fi has theirs.  But it's still magic.  There should be no way you can go FTL so they create magic to allow it.  Instant communications may have a small link to quantum mechanics but it's still magic.  The big difference in fantasy vs Sci_Fi is that somethings we think are magic may in fact be possible with future discoveries.  But that might apply to a wizard using telekinesis.  Star Wars has it's force which is big space magic but maybe someday we can contact the dead and get power from them.

 

My point is very simple.  Sci-Fi by definition must have space magic.  In many 4x space games you can win a victory with transcendence where humans evolve into a super being overnight.  Sort of like humans in Star Trek becoming Q.  The whole synergy thing is not new to ME and it's a vehicle used in many books, movies and previous games.  

[Vanilka]

IIRC it DID target things with Reaper-based code. The Geth had Reaper upgrades, and EDI had the IFF system.

 

Of course, I still don't understand how the device would identify what is and isn't Reaper code.

 

The thing is, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Catalyst talks about all synthetics. Never has it specified which synthetics. Which makes you wonder how the hell it really works. If it truly is all synthetics, then the Reaper code theory doesn't work. And the thing with Reaper code is, as far as I know, something we assume because it makes most sense, but it is never stated, is it?

[Reorte]

 

My whole point is that we forgive lot's of space magic stuff all the time.  So why do people have such major issues when an ending has space magic?  And much of the endings space magic is forgiven provided the ending is slightly different.  If 90% is identical and 10% changed and the outcome changes then logic dictates that the 10% caused the change and the 90% was not a factor in the original position.  This is very simple and basic logic.

It's a major issue when key points of the story rely on it. If it's not so significant it gets a roll of the eyes at most. Doesn't mean it's exactly forgiven, just not as annoying.

 

Again it's not forgiven if the final result is something someone likes, but the combination of lack of logic but a desirable outcome is preferable to a lack of logic and undesirable outcome, so it gets fewer complains. Trying to add up numbers really doesn't help; it's not unreasonable that small changes can have big impacts on how something is received (get a very small number of notes wrong in a piece of music and it can change it from a brilliant to a lousy performance).

[Reorte]

The thing is, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Catalyst talks about all synthetics. Never has it specified which synthetics. Which makes you wonder how the hell it really works. If it truly is all synthetics, then the Reaper code theory doesn't work. And the thing with Reaper code is, as far as I know, something we assume because it makes most sense, but it is never stated, is it?

It comes from trying to figure out what everything has in common that gets fried by Destroy. "All synthetics" is far too vague and implausible (although I have my doubts about whether the writers realised or cared). Does an single geth platform without the Reaper code count? A single geth runtime? Anything electronic? Any machine, down to and including wheels? The problem is that there's no real meaningful identifier for "synthetic life" beyond observing what is really a very complex system and deciding (potentially with a degree of subjectivity) that its behaviour merits such a label. So we're left with "Reaper code" as a way of avoiding all of that. It's still stretching things rather a lot, although not quite as much.

[Tim van Beek]

As for magic, fantasy has its type of magic and Sci_Fi has theirs.  But it's still magic.  There should be no way you can go FTL so they create magic to allow it.  Instant communications may have a small link to quantum mechanics but it's still magic.  The big difference in fantasy vs Sci_Fi is that somethings we think are magic may in fact be possible with future discoveries.  But that might apply to a wizard using telekinesis.  Star Wars has it's force which is big space magic but maybe someday we can contact the dead and get power from them.

 

My point is very simple.  Sci-Fi by definition must have space magic.  In many 4x space games you can win a victory with transcendence where humans evolve into a super being overnight.  Sort of like humans in Star Trek becoming Q.  The whole synergy thing is not new to ME and it's a vehicle used in many books, movies and previous games.  

True. For examlpe, of course the part with "quantum entanglement communicators" directly contradicts quantum field theory, which unifies quantum mechanics with special relativity to account for the speed of light as the maximum speed at which information can be transported. That's not the problem. The problem is, that once the world is in place, you should not break your own rules, especially not in the ending, and especially not to achieve resolution to your main conflict. That's what the ME:3 ending does.

 

From a storytelling perspective, I think your comparison to the "Lord of the Rings" is apt. Two thoughts:

 

Death of the protagonist:

If the writer made Frodo die on Mount Doom, would people hate the ending for it? I wouldn't, if there is a good reason for it. Telling the audience "See, I don't do simple servile wish fullfillment aka HEA", does not count as one. There is a point in letting him live: We see him suffer, traumatized, unable to reintegrate into society, which is contrasted by Sam. This connects to a deeper human theme that many of Tolkien's readers who lived through WWII could connect to (we can, too, I think). That is why it is a better idea to let him survive instead of killing him of.

 

Magic:

Gandalf could fly to Mount Doom, defeat Sauron and destroy the ring by his magic. That's what the ME:3 ending does, to a certain extend. Tolkien has very carefully established that this is not possible, without giving away much about what Gandalf really is, and what he can do. Tolkien also gets away with resurrecting Gandalf because that is not used to resolve the central conflict at the end of the story. Magic actually has a very minor role in the plot, it certainly is not used much to solve the problems that the story throws at the protagonists.  

 

 

80 - 20 rule.  It applies to probably around 80%.  Only the individual being completely honest with themselves knows for sure.

The 80 - 20 rule may or may not be true (how do you know?), but this thread is obviously a discussion between individuals who are not a representative random sample from all ME:3 players. Judging by their contributions to this thread, they all belong to your 20% quantile.

 

I think we get the most interesting discussion by responding to what people actually say, not by responding to what we think they would say if they were completely honest with themselves. A remote diagnosis in the realm of depth psychology is bound to fail on many levels, even if one has mastered quantum entangled communication. 

[dorktainian]

My point is very simple.  Sci-Fi by definition must have space magic.  

 

Science Fiction must be based on science, or theoretical science.  That's the point.  Star Trek is partially based on theoretical science.  Other Science Fiction Shows have done it the right way based on the current understanding of the laws of physics.  Apply that thinking to the ending and the shark has well and truly been jumped.

 

Science Fiction accepts the laws of Gravity.  Mass Effect 3 seems to just throw it to the sharks.  Where Shepard is allegedly stood when he encounters star jar should be a zero to low gravity area, as should the presidium tower.  He'd just float off into space (if he were on the citadel that is).  How can the Citadel support an Atmosphere when it is exposed to space, for that matter how can Omega support an atmosphere when exposed to space?  When the arms open on the citadel, gravity would have been lost.  Think of it as putting a marble on a spinning plate.  There would have been no gravitational pull to keep anyone on the wards at all, instead the gravity would be replaced by inertia, resulting in everyone on the arms been thrown into space in every ending.