33 réponses à ce sujet

[judgezee]

I mean, I understand the intent to escape the crucible's energy, but seriously though, why would they end up on a habitable planet in God-knows-where? To me it doesn't make sense, but looking for any input 

[fraggle]

Dunno, I took it as a symbol of hope, landing on this untouched, lush planet, when the Reapers just destroyed many others. I don't know if you played ME3 with the Extended Cut, but the original ending was a lot darker and bleaker, making this planet stand out even more.

It's also the joy of the Normandy crew to see another day. In High EMS, that is

In Low EMS, well. It could show that untouched planets still exist and life will still flourish.

[judgezee]

Dunno, I took it as a symbol of hope, landing on this untouched, lush planet, when the Reapers just destroyed many others. I don't know if you played ME3 with the Extended Cut, but the original ending was a lot darker and bleaker, making this planet stand out even more.

It's also the joy of the Normandy crew to see another day. In High EMS, that is

In Low EMS, well. It could show that untouched planets still exist and life will still flourish.

Right, I always thought that the planets significance as habitable as a sign that earth will always rebuild in one world or another, whether that be on Eden Prime, Virmire or even Sur'Kesh if needed   haha

[dorktainian]

I mean, I understand the intent to escape the crucible's energy, but seriously though, why would they end up on a habitable planet in God-knows-where? To me it doesn't make sense, but looking for any input 

IMO They're all dead.  Everyones dead.  The Normandy SR2 broke up in mid flight.  That's the reason it shows you them looking at the memoriam board because they should be on it.  When they hesitate to put Shepards name on the board (if you get high enough ems for the breath scene) it's because he's not dead.

[Monica21]

IMO They're all dead.  Everyones dead.  The Normandy SR2 broke up in mid flight.  That's the reason it shows you them looking at the memoriam board because they should be on it.  When they hesitate to put Shepards name on the board (if you get high enough ems for the breath scene) it's because he's not dead.

 

But they're not dead and the Normandy didn't break up mid-flight. That's not opinion, that's actual gameplay footage.

[themikefest]

If your ems is below 2600, the thrusters are seen being torn from the ship. As soon as it enters that planets atmosphere, the Normandy should be nose diving to the ground. It should be in pieces with everyone onboard dead. 

 

If ems is above 1750 and destroy is picked, the same number of ships are seen flying by the relay. Why couldn't one of those ships be the Normandy?

 

I would also like to know how they knew Anderson was dead to have his nameplate put on the wall. Its possible they received a message from whoever. I would also like to know how munch time has passed from the crucible firing to when the memorial wall scene takes place.

 

I don't see a reason for the whatever planet. The only purpose I see the planet is if ems is below 1750 and destroy is picked showing the Normandy's resting place. With the door not opening, its believe everyone onboard is dead.

[Monica21]

If your ems is below 2600, the thrusters are seen being torn from the ship. As soon as it enters that planets atmosphere, the Normandy should be nose diving to the ground. It should be in pieces with everyone onboard dead. 

 

If ems is above 1750 and destroy is picked, the same number of ships are seen flying by the relay. Why couldn't one of those ships be the Normandy?

 

With low ems is there no scene of the Normandy landing on the planet?

[Dantriges]

If your ems is below 2600, the thrusters are seen being torn from the ship. As soon as it enters that planets atmosphere, the Normandy should be nose diving to the ground. It should be in pieces with everyone onboard dead.

 

Probably used the Tantalus core "drive" only.

 

 

The Tantalus drive generates mass concentrations that the Normandy "falls into", allowing her to move without the use of heat-emitting thrusters.

[themikefest]

With low ems is there no scene of the Normandy landing on the planet?

There is. The door to the Normandy doesn't open if ems is below 1750 and destroy is picked

 

 

Probably used the Tantalus core "drive" only.

I would guess that only applies when in space and not within a planets atmosphere

[justafan]

My guess is that in the EC, the planet is just a holdover from the original endings, and a by-product of "Lot's of speculation for everyone".  I think the original intent was to give the player a little bit of hope that despite the galaxy shaking changes of whatever ending they chose, the squadmates you grew to care about might just be OK in a similar vein to the breath ending for Shepard.

 

Of course, then people started to point out the astronomical odds it would take for the Normandy to land on an inhabitable planet, the inevitable starvation of either Garrus and Tali or the rest of the crew, etc.  In the EC, we get the implication that this planet is the rendezvous point for the fleet, but I think the fact that in higher EMS endings the ship is quickly repaired and leaves is a sign that they wanted to change the tone of the endings (and retcon) while keeping as much from the original as possible.  Similar to the relays not being in nearly as bad shape, a lot of ambiguity was discarded in favor of a more straightforward cause and effect.  My guess is that had they not been so adamant about the EC not "changing the endings" they would have scrapped the planet scene entirely as not fitting the new tone they were going for.

[Monica21]

There is. The door to the Normandy doesn't open if ems is below 1750 and destroy is picked

 

Leading to the assumption that the crew is dead, I guess?

[themikefest]

Leading to the assumption that the crew is dead, I guess?

yes

[Dantriges]

 

I would guess that only applies when in space and not within a planets atmosphere

 

We don´t really know but IIRC the Normandy uses his mass effect fields in an atmosphere. Could be that they used it on a low setting. It´s a possible explanation why they were still able to land on a planet. But yeah I thought the same when I saw the Normandy breaking in mid flight.

 

The whole scene doesn´t make much sense especially after the extended cut. It looked rather superfluous afterwards.

[Seboist]

Jungle planet ties into my view that the endings in their original state were meant to "wipe the slate clean" and begin anew with ME4 set in the far future without much connection to the trilogy. Hence the vagueness of the endings, the implication of a galactic dark age with the relays destroyed and the epilogue sequence with Buzz Aldrin talking about details of Shepard having largely faded into history.

[Linkenski]

I mean, I understand the intent to escape the crucible's energy, but seriously though, why would they end up on a habitable planet in God-knows-where? To me it doesn't make sense, but looking for any input 

The significance was that before the Extended Cut you landed there because the Normandy got half destroyed and they just happened to land on a planet that could symbolize a new beginning "If you chose synthesis, and otherwise it was like, "whuuuh?"" but after Extended Cut, it was just kept to not directly violate "artistic integrity" (which was violated the second they wrote the ending in the first place and way before that anyway) so basically all you need to know is, they fucked up, that's why.

[angol fear]

but after Extended Cut, it was just kept to not directly violate "artistic integrity" (which was violated the second they wrote the ending in the first place and way before that anyway) so basically all you need to know is, they fucked up, that's why.

 

"Artistic integrity" is/means "their vision of the game". What you said just show you don't know what your talking about. Your answer doesn't make sense if we understand what "artistic integrity" means. You actually write that they violated their own vision of the game the second they wrote the ending. Ridiculous, isn't it?

 

And for the meaning of the scene, it was a new beginning ("you have hope, more than you think"), a new Eden. It's the moment that shows that the cycle is broken and now we're free from it. It also creates an echo with the beginning of Mass Effect on Eden Prime (from an one Eden to a new Eden).

So they Fucked up? It's totally justified by the structure and its meaning. But you should teach them how to write, no?

[Linkenski]

"Artistic integrity" is/means "their vision of the game". What you said just show you don't know what your talking about. Your answer doesn't make sense if we understand what "artistic integrity" means. You actually write that they violated their own vision of the game the second they wrote the ending. Ridiculous, isn't it?

 

And for the meaning of the scene, it was a new beginning ("you have hope, more than you think"), a new Eden. It's the moment that shows that the cycle is broken and now we're free from it. It also creates an echo with the beginning of Mass Effect on Eden Prime (from an one Eden to a new Eden).

So they Fucked up? It's totally justified by the structure and its meaning. But you should teach them how to write, no?

I can point to several indicators that whatever vision "Bioware" had was violated at some point throughout either ME2 or ME3.

Actually, their integrity was probably lost the second they decided to break their own lore with Jack running around in hazardous areas during ME2. I'm sure not everyone on their team thought that was very nice, or, you know, when the lead writer left? ME3 doesn't even follow the same vision as ME1 or ME2 because it's a different guy who made the plot. So much for the artistic vision of a team, no?

 

 

Back on the topic of the jungle planet though, I do think you're right with the new eden interpretation, that we've finally come up for air after the world is cleansed from the Reapers, but you have to admit the scene lost some of its punch after EC, because it felt like a lot of its implications were lost from its original state in which Joker and co. had to be there for quite some time, which was clearly how it was supposed to be since they showed us the Normandy running away and getting half blown up by the Crucible blast and all the damage on the vessel as the camera panned across it.

 

On high-ems you land on it, to step out and get the original ending scene, to only then get the epilogue and see them fly off again. I think the part about Eden Prime parallels to New Eden is an astute observation but ultimately shallow and high-falutin, though.

 

You can say whatever you want, but I think most of us know the scene was only kept to not actively remove anything thus violating the artistic integrity, which in this case was about Bioware not having to change their own art because of the demand from fans. It is not to be taken out of context with my earlier argument which is more about having artistic integrity as a team, under a publisher like EA and having many cooks in the kitchen who probably don't all agree on the same "vision".

 

By default, I'd say that artistic integrity is a huge logical fallacy when talking about big 100-team developers in the first place, unless we're talking about true auteurs like Kojima, Swery65 or any other company with a creative lead who doesn't have to juggle around with 8 other writers and producers who want to force their ideas down on the project.

 

If you're still not convinced, at least know I'm not the only one who sees it this way. (really good read, and on the point. If you dismiss it without reading it, I think you're either ignorant or in denial like all those hack journalists of Kotaku, IGN and Gamespot, etc. etc.) https://strongstylef...ty-is-bullshit/

[angol fear]

Seriously ?
You actually don't know how writing and creating work in teamjob and you don't know how Bioware worked. Kojima worked in the same conditions. That the same conditions for everyone working in teamjobs. And it's not because you're famous that the producers let you do whatever you want. You're dreaming, in real life it doesn't work this way. You should listen to what the "authors" say, you will see the gap between what you think it is to work in a team and what it is in reality.
So I am ignorant though I have been working as writer for many years, I have been working as a literature teacher for many years and I have been working as cinema critic for many years. I took a look at what you want me to read, sorry the guy who wrote is an ignorant (take a look at the stupid things he says about Hitchcock) . If you don't see that...

[Dantriges]

Argument from authority, claiming to be an authority on an internet forum and you think that flies? Even if you are what you claim to be, who says that you are actually good in your job.

[Linkenski]

Seriously ?
You actually don't know how writing and creating work in teamjob and you don't know how Bioware worked. Kojima worked in the same conditions. That the same conditions for everyone working in teamjobs. And it's not because you're famous that the producers let you do whatever you want. You're dreaming, in real life it doesn't work this way. You should listen to what the "authors" say, you will see the gap between what you think it is to work in a team and what it is in reality.
So I am ignorant though I have been working as writer for many years, I have been working as a literature teacher for many years and I have been working as cinema critic for many years. I took a look at what you want me to read, sorry the guy who wrote is an ignorant (take a look at the stupid things he says about Hitchcock) . If you don't see that...

I'm well aware that team-writing is a norm especially in this industry, but Bioware is at 8+ writers now for every game and with ME3 and DA:I, not to mention the role of lead writer is a huuge difference. I think it shows they simply have too many cooks in the kitchen with chonologic inconsistencies (Liara mentions Crucible by name before hackett reveals it if you talk to her enough, in DA:I they talk about the Breach after it's closed, they can't decide whether Earth is the most doomed planet or just one of them etc.) And yeah, like guy above me says, you're speaking from authority "I came from this profession, therefore my argument is more credible"

 

Doesn't fly, it doesn't. I take your arguments for what they are, not based on what kind of person you are.

[angol fear]

You don't see the difference between details and artistic integrity which means you don't know what artistic integrity is. Just like Dantriges who failed twice at understanding what I wrote when it was not hard to understand, you failed at understanding a concept.
So I am ignorant of writing when working in writing or denial when I have made analysis that explain the writing. If you two don't see how ridiculous it is...

[Dantriges]

I said that you are telling us that you are as a writer, cinema critic and literature teacher with nothing to back up your claims. This is rather silly in an online medium where people communicate "anonymously" using pseudonyms. I don´t know if what you claim is true and you don´t know what I do in RL at all.

 

What you write here and how you write it, is relevant in debates on this particular forum, your forum reputation, not what you are in RL.

[Linkenski]

I said that you are telling us that you are as a writer, cinema critic and literature teacher with nothing to back up your claims. This is rather silly in an online medium where people communicate "anonymously" using pseudonyms. I don´t know if what you claim is true and you don´t know what I do in RL at all.

 

What you write here and how you write it, is relevant in debates on this particular forum, your forum reputation, not what you are in RL.

It has no relevance whether it's true or not. What matters is that it's an authoritative argument that in no way makes the point he was trying to make any more credible. If someone tells you "the earth isn't actually heliocentric" and you say "Well, yeah it is" and the person responds by saying "I'm a scientist who went to science-school and took a degree in science, and I've had two years as a tutor!" then who cares about that? Earth is heliocentric and that other guy is wrong regardless of whether he's studied science.

 

Therefore, it has no relevance to me if angol fear studied or tutored in anything. If he has an argument he wants to prove with facts, then use some proper facts and not logical fallacies.

[Monica21]

Guys, that's not really how an argument from authority works. It should only be disregarded or considered unreasonable if you have empirical evidence to back it up or have the same kind of experience. You don't just toss it and say, "invalid" because you disagree.

 

Speaking of disagreeing, that's all it is.

[Linkenski]

Yeah, you're probably right, and we should've agreed to disagree sooner