145 réponses à ce sujet

[Monica]

[Cheviot]

So, to deal with the endings, they might advertise youtube channels?  Certainly an unusual approach.

[Monica]

So, to deal with the endings, they might advertise youtube channels?  Certainly an unusual approach.

Har. Har. Man, I am not advertising, ok, well, now that I think of it, I kind of am. But that is was not my porpuse. It just happens that I agree with this girl in the video, not completely, but at least she hasn't given up on Mass Effect, or on choice recognition, like so many people have. 

 

DON'T BE HOPELESS, GUYS!

[Linkenski]

It's very simple, they don't.

[Jay P]

Har. Har. Man, I am not advertising, ok, well, now that I think of it, I kind of am. But that is was not my porpuse. It just happens that I agree with this girl in the video, not completely, but at least she hasn't given up on Mass Effect, or on choice recognition, like so many people have.

DON'T BE HOPELESS, GUYS!

I haven't given up on mass effect or choice recognition.

I just think it would be incredibly limiting for them to honor the choices of endings in ME3.

The endings are mutually exclusive and polar opposites in terms of what happens to that part of the universe.

Rather then them contort the story around all life being wiped out or all life becoming synthetic or whatever, let's start the slate clean or almost completely clean.

Don't waste time creating all these branching plot threads that include wildly divergent states of existence.

Focus on the new game and the new story.

[Cheviot]

Har. Har. Man, I am not advertising, ok, well, now that I think of it, I kind of am. But that is was not my porpuse.

I'd be more inclined to believe that you're not the maker of the video if you gave a summary of what is said instead of just posting an embedded video.  In fact, I've seen another thread where you've done exactly the same thing.  It's starting to look a lot like spam.

[Nitrocuban]

The already dealt with the endings by nnouncing Mass Effect Andromeda.

/Thread

[dreamgazer]

It's very simple, they don't.

 

That took a whole lot quicker to explain than some 36-minute video. 

[AlanC9]

Yeah, no way I'm watching that. Anyone wanna take one for the team and summarize that vid?

How did these long video arguments get to be a thing, anyway? They're horribly inefficient.

[SpaceLobster]

Yeah, no way I'm watching that. Anyone wanna take one for the team and summarize that vid?

That. Just that.

[Cheviot]

How did these long video arguments get to be a thing, anyway? They're horribly inefficient.

The model is audio podcasts, which can last hours depending on the subject (and there is a podcast on everything).  However, unless you can get a company to buy ads, it makes precisely no money.  If you make your podcast into a youtube video, however, the google advertising system is more possible (as long as you spam places, of course). 

[dreamgazer]

Yeah, no way I'm watching that. Anyone wanna take one for the team and summarize that vid?

How did these long video arguments get to be a thing, anyway? They're horribly inefficient.

 

If I summarized it in a ten-minute video, would you watch it?

 

Spoiler

YOU KNOW I'M NOT ACTUALLY GONNA DO THAT, ALAN.

[Kabooooom]

Yeah, no way I'm watching that. Anyone wanna take one for the team and summarize that vid?

How did these long video arguments get to be a thing, anyway? They're horribly inefficient.

N7Jamaican started a thread about this yesterday and I posted a summary there.

Basically, she completely overlooks the obvious reason we are going to Andromeda...which actually allowed us to predict the change of setting to Andromeda long before the leak - namely, to avoid the endings.

Then, she makes a Venn diagram of what the endings have in common, erroneously includes Refusal even though it is a subsequent cycle that beats the Reapers and not ours, and proposes a homogenizing of the endings in which synthesis is inevitable eventually in the future of every ending.

Not a fan.

[Cheviot]

She makes a Venn diagram of what the endings have in common, erroneously includes Refusal even though it is a subsequent cycle that beats the Reapers and not ours, and proposes a homogenizing of the endings in which synthesis is inevitable eventually in the future of every ending.

Now if the OP had this instead of just a video, then I might've been more willing to engage with it.  Also, I'd guess (since I'll probably never watch the video) that Refusal is included because her homogenization of the endings is on such a large time scale that it would include the next cycle, and also to identify common features of each ending.

[Kabooooom]

Now if the OP had this instead of just a video, then I might've been more willing to engage with it. Also, I'd guess (since I'll probably never watch the video) that Refusal is included because her homogenization of the endings is on such a large time scale that it would include the next cycle, and also to identify common features of each ending.

It is, but that doesn't actually work because humans, Asari, Krogan, everything would be extinct. So it actually has NO commonality with the other endings, except for superficial commonality like "synthesis is inevitable".

It's like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. The endings are so broken that you just can't address them. And so Bioware chose not to, and to run away to Andromeda. Which is a decision I support, by the way, since I was one of the people that predicted it. I dont think it is a bad decision. Much more preferable to homogenizing or canonizing, I would say.

[dreamgazer]

Even without the "broken" endings, BioWare would have a metric ton of variables they'd have to continue dealing with in a direct sequel.

[Cheviot]

The endings are so broken that you just can't address them. And so Bioware chose not to, and to run away to Andromeda.

The endings aren't broken, and the problem isn't that you can't address them, it's that you'd need three separate games in one to reflect the different universes they entail.  This is probably why Bioware has shyed away from doing so. 

[Kabooooom]

Even without the "broken" endings, BioWare would have a metric ton of variables they'd have to continue dealing with in a direct sequel.

Yes, and they probably would homogenize some choices too. And they probably still will. Like the genophage. A non-cured Krogan populace couldn't colonize Andromeda. My guess is, it will go something like this: Shepard chose not to cure the genophage, but the Council decided to cure the Krogan colonists that boarded the ark because for them - out of sight, out of mind. And what you have is a homogenized choice.

[Kabooooom]

The endings aren't broken, and the problem isn't that you can't address them, it's that you'd need three separate games in one to reflect the different universes they entail. This is probably why Bioware has shyed away from doing so.

This is the very definition of broken to me. If you CANT address them with creative writing without creating three wildly divergent stories, then the endings do not work with the story you are wanting to tell. If they dont work, they are broken.

And beyond that, synthesis literally breaks the lore, pretty much.

[dreamgazer]

This is the very definition of broken to me. If you CANT address them with creative writing without creating three wildly divergent stories, then the endings do not work with the story you are wanting to tell. If they dont work, they are broken.

Having divergent outcomes that can't be resolved without homogenization or canonization doesn't mean they're broken, though.

That just means they're actually divergent.

[Jay P]

This is the very definition of broken to me. If you CANT address them with creative writing without creating three wildly divergent stories, then the endings do not work with the story you are wanting to tell. If they dont work, they are broken.

And beyond that, synthesis literally breaks the lore, pretty much.

I don't know if broken is the correct word.

it was an ending of the story of the first trilogy.

They just aren't expandable to the second trilogy.

I'm not sure that makes them broken. It just makes them a true "ending."

[Monica]

I'd be more inclined to believe that you're not the maker of the video if you gave a summary of what is said instead of just posting an embedded video.  In fact, I've seen another thread where you've done exactly the same thing.  It's starting to look a lot like spam.

 I had just seen the video, and I was happy that at least someone agreed with me in the matter, so I thought, "this is the best way to share that same idea, with the video." So, I thought, maybe I could put it to initiate a conversation. And in that other conversation I initited, someone said "What would you rather they do?"It just happened to be that the video fit perfectly. And because I am lazy, I did not put a description.

I cannot prove I do not own the vidoe, I don't know how to. But I can say that if the video was mine, it would be much easier for me to say so. 

 

That's that. 

[Quarian Master Race]

How Biower will deal with the ending

[Jay P]

Yes, and they probably would homogenize some choices too. And they probably still will. Like the genophage. A non-cured Krogan populace couldn't colonize Andromeda. My guess is, it will go something like this: Shepard chose not to cure the genophage, but the Council decided to cure the Krogan colonists that boarded the ark because for them - out of sight, out of mind. And what you have is a homogenized choice.

This would be ... disappointing, but probably inevitable.

Kudos for the creative solution to a divergent plot point.

[AlanC9]

I had just seen the video, and I was happy that at least someone agreed with me in the matter, so I thought, "this is the best way to share that same idea, with the video." So, I thought, maybe I could put it to initiate a conversation. And in that other conversation I initited, someone said "What would you rather they do?"It just happened to be that the video fit perfectly. And because I am lazy, I did not put a description.

This strategy doesn't tend to work well here, with one exception. People want to engage with ideas, and a video, in addition to always being an overly long way to present ideas, is a black box. You can't talk about the ideas with an author who isn't here, and the person who posted the vid is often either too lazy to do so, or in the worst case isn't even competent to do so.

The only time where this sort of works is with IT. This is the exception that proves the rule, because the point of posting an IT vid isn't to discuss the ideas, but to recruit people to other sites; those ideas are so hated here that discussion is counterproductive.