192 réponses à ce sujet

[fraggle]

@fraggle the big flaw in your idea is that the catalyst helping sovereign makes the cycle happen. Who cares if the organics suddenly realise there is something going on? The reapers will be here and it's game over.

 

Why would the Catalyst not helping Sovereign be a flaw? We know it thinks they are way superior. Everything would've gone according to plan had not one VI, which we conveniently discover along the way, given us a chance with the data we get from it. The Catalyst did not misjudge the situation I think, but it did not, or even could not have anticipated that Shepard would prevent Sovereign to manually override the station at that point. I think? It was... an unfortunate event for the Catalyst. That is, if it even actually had the power to help Sovereign. I'm really quite 50/50 on this

[von uber]

Well the catalyst is controlling sovereign apparently.
So it is failing to help itself..

Argh this really makes no sense. This should be the subject of a course in how not to plot a series.

[Dantriges]

"The vast majority" isn't an argument because you never talk about the quality of the writing, you are talking about how people received it, that's not the same thing.
People dislike Bella Tarr's films, Godard's films, it doesn't change the fact that they are some of the greatest directors in the cinema history and their films are some of the best.

 
Vast majority of your customers is an argument, if you have to pay the bills that Bioware has to with the revenue of an AAA product. Doesn´t mean that you have to write to the lowest common denominator or just pop out some mindless game, which would take it too far in the opposite direction.
 
If we want to talk about the quality of writing: 
Mass Effect doesn´t deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as 2001 or Bladerunner. 2001 might be totally boring but you felt the (nearly) flawless craftmanship even if you didn´t get what the director wanted to say. ME is a haphazard mess, where the videos show one thing, the codex that explained what we should see, sounds like it was talking about something else. The gameplay is a shooter, where Shepard runs from victory to victory unless he totally doesn´t because of the cheapest way to make a scenario unwinnable. The story is about what exactly? Yeah eh Reapers and some AI stuff. And you can nearly grasp this feeling with your bare hands that the writers used literary tools they are unable to use properly to write something that tries to create the illusion of a masterpiece.    
 
What´s the message? If they wanted to criticise Hollywood writing by parodying the writing of AAA Hollywood blockbusters and games, they succeded in an admirable way.

[fraggle]

Well the catalyst is controlling sovereign apparently.
So it is failing to help itself..

Argh this really makes no sense. This should be the subject of a course in how not to plot a series.

 

Are we on the same page? Sorry for expressing myself poorly.

It was brought up here why Saren was needed, instead of the Catalyst helping Sovereign directly. 

So why would it help Sovereign if it has a plan which would also keep its existence still hidden? That Shepard managed to defeat Saren and corrupt the Citadel's controls were unfortunate for the Catalyst, but then that's what happens sometimes. Things you don't expect to happen.

Or maybe it was actually smart enough to think about the option of Sovereign failing (or it was afraid Sovereign would not make it without help of Saren's and the geth's distraction).

Had it intervened previously, it would've maybe been exposed. Maybe the Citadel folks would not be so sure then it's the best idea to stay on the Citadel until the Reapers arrival. Don't know.

 

But like I said, maybe it simply had no control over the station overall or the ability to change the signal. I think that would make it more plausible.

[Dantriges]

Why it would help Sovereign to open the relay? Well, because then Reapers appeared, Catalyst win, the end. Reapers win. There would be no need to keep its existence hidden then. The Citadel was intended as the prime ambush spot. It´s not much of an ambush if you stay hidden, it doesn´t make much sense to hide your leading intelligence in your honey pot if you do not intend to use it.

 

They introduced an NPC which opened several big cans of worms and a lot of questions. If you arrive at the point where you have to write an essay to explain the NPC to your audience, the people you actually ask to participate in this story (according to BW marketingspeak), it could be a good idea to drop the idea of that NPC. 

 

Yeah apparently it had no control over the Citadel until the Reapers arrived. The question "why" was never explained. So ME 3 was intended as the best place to start playing the trilogy? Hm ok, didn´t keep them from pulling NPCs from all over the franchise, comics, books and movies included into the game.

[angol fear]

@dantriges, mass effect doesn't deserve to be in the same sentence as 2001 and blade runner ? That is your opinion. You don't want it to have an intellectual aspect., that is your problem because the game has this ambition, no one can deny it.
Well about reception, did you see that Mc tiernan's predator and die hard criticized hollywood writing ? And Verhoeven has a message in his films and this message isn't seen by the vast majority.
So because it is AAA game it is supposed to be uninteresting hollywood writing. That's because of that mentality that studios like Fox decide to stop interesting ideas like Trank had for the fantastic four. Thanks to that mentality disney creates superheros for children. Thanks to that mentality all blockbusters are written the same way, it's like seeing the same film again and again. Thank you Dantriges.
Mass effect do not criticize hollywood writing, it uses it to take another path!
The problem still your reception, not the writing itself. The game gave its own clues to understand the writing.

Ps seriously when blade runner was in theatre you would be part of those who disliked the film. It's only because of time and reputation that you admit that blade runner is a masterpiece. And it's because of its influence on other films that can appreciate blade runner. It's because it's an established masterpiece that you consider it this way. Same for 2001. With your mentality it's obvious that you would not be able to appreciate them in 1968 and 1980.

[Obadiah]

...
ME is a haphazard mess, where the videos show one thing, the codex that explained what we should see, sounds like it was talking about something else.
...

Explain? Is this about the space combat? I kind of forgave them for deciding to just go the standard cinematic route because it was just more entertaining (also probably simpler to conceptualize and execute). That hardly makes the entire story "a mess".
 

...
The gameplay is a shooter, where Shepard runs from victory to victory unless he totally doesn´t because of the cheapest way to make a scenario unwinnable.
...

That's an odd criticism for game made up of winnable sub-missions (yeah... of course the player can win those). The story though essentially hinges on a response to outright massacres (ME1: Eden Prime; ME2: missing colonists; ME3: Reaper Invasion), so I'd hardly call them outright wins for the player.

...
The story is about what exactly?
...

It's primarily about Shepard, a pivotal figure instrumental in ending a billion year old Holocaust. Its a fairly straightforward mythical story of a great warrior leader granted an apocalyptic vision by ancient beings, by turns embraced and rejected by the major factions of his time, enemies and allies alike, who struggles to unite the lands against an impending threat, and in the end (usually) must sacrifice himself to attain victory. The basic structure is not that complicated, but like all good stories it has an interesting setting, interesting characters, twists and turns, etc...
 

...
What´s the message?
...

I think its about power, granted by authority or gained through influence, and the effects, limits, and dangers in using it.

As a Spectre in ME1 Shepard was granted an immense amount of authority which we players exercised for the entire game, up to the decision to sacrifice and replace the Council. Then that authority was lost, and Shepard was forced to use Cerberus' illegitimate power in ME2 to protect the colonists. Then in ME3, we saw the limits of that authority as Shepard, once again a Spectre, tried to find allies for Earth. In ME3 power through influence allowed Shepard to resolve several long running conflicts (Krogan Genophage and Geth/Quarian conflict), and the climax granted players so much power that players simply balked - some would rather not even use it.

I'm sure there are other messages you could come up with if you tried.
 

...
If they wanted to criticise Hollywood writing by parodying the writing of AAA Hollywood blockbusters and games, they succeeded in an admirable way.

I think the criticisms of the game are more a reflection of the players to be honest.

[von uber]

My point was that there is no need for sovereign apart from a deep space scout, if the catalyst can control the keepers or has control of the station.
For it to build itself a base as the main component of a trap it designed and then have no control over it whatsoever is beyond stupid.
To argue otherwise is to concede that this 'intelligence' isn't.

[Dantriges]

@dantriges, mass effect doesn't deserve to be in the same sentence as 2001 and blade runner ? That is your opinion. You don't want it to have an intellectual aspect., that is your problem because the game has this ambition, no one can deny it.
Well about reception, did you see that Mc tiernan's predator and die hard criticized hollywood writing ? And Verhoeven has a message in his films and this message isn't seen by the vast majority.
So because it is AAA game it is supposed to be uninteresting hollywood writing. That's because of that mentality that studios like Fox decide to stop interesting ideas like Trank had for the fantastic four. Thanks to that mentality disney creates superheros for children. Thanks to that mentality all blockbusters are written the same way, it's like seeing the same film again and again. Thank you Dantriges.
Mass effect do not criticize hollywood writing, it uses it to take another path!
The problem still your reception, not the writing itself. The game gave its own clues to understand the writing.

Ps seriously when blade runner was in theatre you would be part of those who disliked the film. It's only because of time and reputation that you admit that blade runner is a masterpiece. And it's because of its influence on other films that can appreciate blade runner. It's because it's an established masterpiece that you consider it this way. Same for 2001. With your mentality it's obvious that you would not be able to appreciate them in 1968 and 1980.

Doorbell rang, time ran out for today. I think I pull the very popular "read again, you didn´t get it" card for today.

[Iakus]

Well the catalyst is controlling sovereign apparently.
So it is failing to help itself..

Argh this really makes no sense. This should be the subject of a course in how not to plot a series.

"We are each a nation, independent, free of all weakness"

 

Or not

[txgoldrush]

IT'ers and such are overthinking it, yes. But even though the ending is simple it ultimately seems forced and doesn't make enough sense, plus it retroactively (but unintentionally) breaks the logic of ME1's plot.

 

Implicitly the entire plot of ME3 breaks ME1 but it's not until the ending that it explicitly confirms that ME1's plot doesn't fit in with what happens in ME3. (namely The Reaper's strategy and plan to take the Citadel and cripple the galaxy and opening the arms, which for some reason the Catalyst can't do even though he "is part of the Citadel")

 

In a stretch I can honestly accept some of the stuff with the Catalyst himself, but the thing that ruins it for me from a logical and rational standpoint is Synthesis being impossible at least in how BIoware presented it through the dialogue.

 

Artistically I'm 100% against everything at the ending because thematically it just doesn't gel enough and doesn't conclude the trilogy with any substance -- you know this, I've said it a hundred times and I don't wanna sound like a broken record yet again.

 

EDIT:

@fraggleblabla: Soverign is a threat in the sense that if his plan was succesful he'd have begun the Reaper invasion we see in ME3 earlier... which is where ME2's plot problems come into fruition because it made the Galaxy remain unaware, thus there was basically no difference as to whether it was Sovereign who got the Reaper's back or if they just entered slowly by themselves.

 

But ME3 could've made it work if the Collector Base meant something. I sometimes wonder if the harshest ME2 critics like some in here and/or Smudboy's analysis videos made Bioware hesitate on integrating the Collector-base-choice properly in ME3.

 

Potentially some kind of reverse engineering on Collector tech could've led to more preparation against Reapers and the "war" would've actually seemed like war and not just slaughter or big feet steping on ants.

What is the logic of the ME1 plot?

 

If there wasn't something else on the Citadel, what explains the Keepers and how they operate in an orderly way? Wouldn't something else run and create them? Nevermind that they no longer hear the Reaper signal, they still answer to the Citadel.

 

And why do Reapers all agree on the same thing, the cycle, in ME1 and ME2? If they were so independant and each a nation, why no dissent?

 

ME1 did not explain everything...it too has holes to fill.

 

And I am telling everyone again this...the problem with ME1 is that is plot was mostly told, not shown. Bioware had more leeway to contradict plot points that are just told to be true by characters. Because characters can once again, be wrong.

[fraggle]

Why it would help Sovereign to open the relay? Well, because then Reapers appeared, Catalyst win, the end. Reapers win. There would be no need to keep its existence hidden then. The Citadel was intended as the prime ambush spot. It´s not much of an ambush if you stay hidden, it doesn´t make much sense to hide your leading intelligence in your honey pot if you do not intend to use it.

 

But we know from the Prothean cycle that the Catalyst does stay hidden even when the harvest already started. No one knows it's not really the Citadel itself.

So I took it it would not jeopardize that. If it was revealed, some people might actually try to leave behind a warning on it for the next cycle.

To me, it gains nothing to help Sovereign and revealing itself in the process, but it still has the Reapers' numbers after that and thinks it will still be able to complete the harvest with plan B.

Everything points to the Catalyst being more in the observer role for me.

Anyway, yeah, I see it now more as a it couldn't do sh*t about the changed signal. It makes more sense.

 

So ME 3 was intended as the best place to start playing the trilogy? Hm ok, didn´t keep them from pulling NPCs from all over the franchise, comics, books and movies included into the game.

 

Oh come on, that's only PR sh*t to get new people to buy the game anyway Though it still works imo.

And you also don't necessarily need the books or comics. It adds more depth, but that's about it. And movies? Are there more than Paragon Lost? I think not, and this was released after ME3.

 

My point was that there is no need for sovereign apart from a deep space scout, if the catalyst can control the keepers or has control of the station.
For it to build itself a base as the main component of a trap it designed and then have no control over it whatsoever is beyond stupid.
To argue otherwise is to concede that this 'intelligence' isn't.

 

Okay, in case of the "it has control but wants to stay hidden" I responded to Dantriges about that.

 

But then I see it now as more likely it didn't have the power to change the signal. Maybe it didn't even know it was changed. Maybe it was really dormant to wake up and find the signal was changed and couldn't just change it back.

 

For the last point, like I said. Countless cycles prove it worked. It may not be smart from your view point, but to me it's a good idea of a trap. No one sees it coming. Maybe that's why it didn't see the need to have more control over it. But then also its programming could've prevented it. I would hope Leviathans weren't stupid enough to create an unshackled AI.

Maybe it wanted a "safe place" for itself. A home. The idea of the Citadel is perfect for it. The Catalyst lies right within the very station that the species the Reapers harvest would never ever attack. I think that's a pretty smart move.

 

Anyway, yeah, it's a lot of maybe's but I still think it can work for ME1.

[aoibhealfae]

Not another ending thread but I kinda agree about the overthinking ending part. I think a lot of folks haven't been replaying the game ever since their major disappointment while playing in 2012 without the Leviathan and Extended Cut DLC. Which is kinda sad since I don't think I would give up on Shepard that easily because of poorly done ending... I love Shepard more than I care about the story anyway.

 

As for me, I just think that Catalyst is lying and is Harbinger who is trying to manipulate Shepard into choosing the Synthesis future. It made sense why it tried to deviate Shepard away from destroy and why the decision scene was timed. Harbinger original body was at London and it need time to reach Citadel so why not delay Shepard with a tonnage of exposition. And I am still satisfied with "Destroy" even without the Shepard is alive scene. Killing the kid always took priority.

 

And Blade Runner is a rather poor adaptation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. But I certainly wouldn't call either of them flawless either. And I don't think I've ever read/watch a flawless ending to any scifi series. The Princess of Mars series is quite campy. Dune series get overblown to bits, look at what happened to Leto (oh hey, Control ending!). Star Wars EU get rekt by Disney. Star Trek TOS get rebooted into another series of movies and we got white Khan and the explanation by the comics was laughable. Terminator series suffered another retcon. Doctor Who is always in the state of limbo and look at what happened to Torchwood. Two prequels couldn't even save Battlestar Galactica. And Lost, Heroes, Fringe, Almost Human... mmmm..... wait... Mass Effect Andromeda was another retcon to ME3. Damn, we've suffered enough. 

[GalacticWolf5]

 They altered the signal, not the Keepers.

 

Oh right, sorry about that. But anyways, my point still stands. The Keepers won't respond to that signal, so the Relay has to be opened manually. Why can't the Intelligence do it? Nobody knows. My theory is that it doesn't directly control the Citadel because otherwise people could find it. If it sends signals to the Keepers so that they maintain the Citadel, open it's arms, etc, then we think that only the Keepers are controlling the Citadel (but we don't know why). You know what I mean? Like, the Intelligence wants be sure that it won't be found, so it uses the Keepers. Now because the Protheans changed the signal, the Intelligence has to make Saren/Sovereign open the Relay.

[Tim van Beek]

@dantriges, mass effect doesn't deserve to be in the same sentence as 2001 and blade runner ? That is your opinion. You don't want it to have an intellectual aspect., that is your problem because the game has this ambition, no one can deny it.
Well about reception, did you see that Mc tiernan's predator and die hard criticized hollywood writing ? And Verhoeven has a message in his films and this message isn't seen by the vast majority.
...

A bit of advice: Telling people "it's all just obvious, you are just too dumb to understand it..." does not really improve your standing, and it certainly won't help people understand your point  .

 

The best proof that you truly understand something (a mathematical theorem, a poem, knitting, whatever) is that you can explain it. If you cannot explain it, you don't understand it. Don't believe me? Go to any university and talk to the professors about it.

 

Let's take Robocop as an example, Here is an explanation of the violent and dark comedy aspects of the film (the author was concerned that those would be lost in the remake, which I haven't watched yet, so can't say much about it):

 

http://whatculture.c...3-is-insane.php

 

So, please assume that your readers on this forum are able to follow this kind of explanation and understand that Verhoeven's Robocop is much more than a sci-fi western with a robot. 

 

Why don't you try to prove your understanding of the ME series and explain it to us in a similar way?

[v0rt3x22]

 

 

Stop overthinking the ending.

 

Then tell BioWare to be more clear with their endings and not include scenes like "Shepard lives"

[angol fear]

@tim you will notice that there's nothing about what I said about Robocop in your link. And this article was done lately.
Anyway, what you said isn't pertinent it would be if you could show me that the vast majority did understand Robocop when it was in theatre, not more than 20 years after on a paper written by one guy (or the vast majority is this guy ?).

[themikefest]

Robocop? I remember when the movie came out in 1987.  My favorite part was the gun the robo had.

 

Too bad robo wasn't a squadmate instead of the hologram turned platform in ME3

[Tim van Beek]

@tim you will notice that there's nothing about what I said about Robocop in your link. And this article was done lately.
Anyway, what you said isn't pertinent it would be if you could show me that the vast majority did understand Robocop when it was in theatre, not more than 20 years after on a paper written by one guy (or the vast majority is this guy ?).

All you have said is that there is a deeper meaning to ME, that we don't comprehend it, that ME is on a simliar artistic level as masterpiece XY, and that we don't get that either. We can keep that up until you run out of "masterpieces" and will keep going around this circle unless you start to explain your viewpoint. 

Is your artistic comprehension so deep that it is beyond words? If so, I'll keep my fingers crossed for you that you'll find your soulmate somehow, but since we already know that it is not me, continuing this conversation does not make much sense, does it? 

[Obadiah]

All you have said is that there is a deeper meaning to ME, that we don't comprehend it, that ME is on a simliar artistic level as masterpiece XY, and that we don't get that either.
...

Well... the ending is extremely philosophical for one thing. There is clear expression of the Consequentialism vs Deontology in the way the Catalyst has sought to solve the problem of Organic annihilation (which is a simple Trolley Problem taken to a somewhat extreme level), and then seeks Shepard's input such that we players are suddenly forced to evaluate a solution, with a gun to our heads no less. Additionally, there was the assertion of Determinism (the Catalyst's prediction) which obviously directly conflicts with our innate notions Libertarianism (we determine our fate) - which I think REALLY drove some players crazy with a sudden existential crisis.

The choice itself breaks down nicely into a version of Game Theory's Prisoner's Dilemma, where Destroy and Control are options that maximize a desired result for different players (maximize enemy destruction or lives saved), but the true solution for both sides is Synthesis were both sides cooperate and the player/Shepard must trust their enemy the Catalyst after a metaphorical leap of faith into the beam.

There's the whole issue of racism. In the two main mission we're essentially forced the judge 3 races and decide their fate, based on their collective behavior, how they can benefit us, and/or if we even believe any action that could destroy them is something we should take - only to reach the ending and discover someone has done the same to us a billion years ago because of a similar judgement. Pretty much every argument against the Krogan, the Geth, and the Quarians I've read on this forum I could easily hear coming out of the Catalyst about advanced civilizations if that Decision Room conversation was to go on any longer.

There's the rather elegant paradox that the Catalyst presents the problem as: in seeking to perfect ourselves, we will bring about our own annihilation, thus some (advanced civilization) are killed to save the many (the rest of Organic life). Many players obviously still don't understand that because they still post that "Yo Dawg" meme as if it is a legitimate criticism.

The Hulk posted a pretty good article that I agree with describing why the decision worked so well.
http://birthmoviesde...f-mass-effect-3

I thought the ending was beautiful. Flaws and all, I think it's a masterpiece.

Modifié par Obadiah, 18 septembre 2015 - 10:54 .

[Tim van Beek]

...

Beautiful   And oh so fitting for this thread  .

 

I know I must still hone my non-overthinking skill, I ... just ... can't ... help...myself...doh:

 

 

 

The choice itself breaks down nicely into a version of Game Theory's Prisoner's Dilemma, where Destroy and Control are options that maximize a desired result for different players (maximize enemy destruction or lives saved), but the true solution for both sides is Synthesis were both sides cooperate and the player/Shepard must trust their enemy the Catalyst after a metaphorical leap of faith into the beam.

 

Game theory in general and the prisoner's dilemma in particular are about:

 

- a player who must make a choice (check),

- based on incomplete information (double check, we know almost nothing).

- There is no objectively best choice (check, there isn't even a good one), 

- because the outcome critically depends on choices of other players that cannot be predicted with certainty (...ugh...).

 

To get a prisoner's dilemma in the ending, we need another player who could decide to sabotage Shepard's decision for synthesis by deciding to not cooperate.  

 

I'd recommend an "ethical dilemma" instead. Destroy violates the general respect for (sentient) live, control vilolates Libertarianism and synthesis does not solve any conflicts and is just crap.

[larsdt]

I'm continually impressed with the amount of thought put into the interpretation of the ME3 ending in this forum. 

 

In my humble opinion the game plot should have been this: There is NO way to defeat the reapers. No super weapon or space magic. You've had your 50.000 years of fun, now deal with it. You can cheat death but only to a certain point. Looking back at the dialogue between Saren and Shepard in ME1, I think this was the original intent.

 

The reason for "overthinking" the end does not have so much to do with holes in game lore, as the fact that the gameplay is betrayed:

- You learn in ME1 and ME2 that the Krogan are inherently violent and hates the Turians and Salarians. Do you want to cure the Genophage in ME3?

- Geth can be controlled by the Reapers and show signs of individual thinking. Is it safe to keep them alive in ME3?

My point is this: You've had the previous games helping you make these decisions. Now all of a sudden this godchild/superAI appears 2 minutes before the game over and lets you decide the fate of the galaxy from a couple of confusing dialogue options.

[ImaginaryMatter]

 

I think it's those flaws though that prevent it from being that kind of philosophical ending. The trolley problem is a pretty silly set-up but we instantly know what the consequences are and cut right into the deeper conversation (like no one argues about the plot hole of people being stuck on the tracks). You need those clear consequences for the entire exercise to work.

 

You don't have this in the ME3 ending. Destroy is the closest to being an actual option, there is a mostly clear set of trade-offs (dead Reapers for destroyed Geth and some other degree of destruction among other technologies -- and a past choice could completely nullify one of those).

 

Control is where the real problem starts. I think it's representation as an opposition to Libertarianism is completely undermined (in everything but name, I guess) by some version of Shepard being the Controller. The game is adamant about Shepard being your character and when Shepard grasps those electric knobs it is supposedly still some Shepard entity making the calls. Because of this, Control is more a reflection of whatever the player wants it to be: a benevolent protector, a strong hand to guide the galaxy, a silent guardian who only intervenes against outside forces, a force to only hold the Reapers back, ordering them into the sun for a psuedo Destroy option, etc... not everything is an antagonist to Liberalism, some could arguably be promoting it, and the vagueness of the solution invites this kind of openness.

 

There couldn't really ever be an argument about Control vs Destroy because everyone's idea of what Control is could be different. Synthesis has a similar issue because that idea is extremely vague. I have yet to see such an argument, because it always degrades into the 3 options doing different things depending on who you ask... and usually someone bringing up IT.

 

I think get where you're coming from, but I think the ending's vagueness invites too much subjectiveness. If you want it to be a conflicted choice -- it can be; if you don't -- it isn't. And it's not any one's fault for lack of understanding -- or something like that -- it's the ending itself. Normally when games do this kind of ending the consequences are much more established and usually reflect a recurring central conflict of some kind. ME3's only does this in the most superficial sense, but that's for tomorrow. I need sleep.