367 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

One day the Milky Way and Andromeda will collide as a result of dark energy....or in spite of it.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Shepard didn't even get a trip to Tahiti out of this!

[JeffZero]

One day the Milky Way and Andromeda will collide as a result of dark energy. 

 

Well, ****.

[dreamgazer]

It's hard to be worse than the Organic-Synthetic conflict.

Continuing to be responsible for your own Big Crunch problem, the reason for the cycles, will do it.
 

Problem that scenario runs into is that Bioware did everything they could to shove the "We can all get along" point down our throats. There's no ME3 where I can murder EDI and proclaim my distrust of all things AI.

No, you can't murder EDI, but you can absolutely show your distrust to all things AI and take the opposing viewpoint on it as a form of life.
 

Synthetic-Organic conflict could have worked as a Reaper motive, if like Deus Ex, Bioware had kept trying to keep the perspectives balanced. Hell, if they'd gone with DA2's approach to Mages vs Templars, it might have worked. Instead, they tacked on Deus Ex's endings to a series that was never interested in exploring Deus Ex's conflicts to any meaningful extent.

The series explored the ideas in peripheral ways that facilitated personal viewpoints, and the Asimov-esque ending was still better than alternatives. Besides, the Mage-Templar conflict has been repeatedly labeled "heavy-handed", so I'm not seeing how that should serve as a good template.
 

Dark energy has a number of advantages, one being that it doesn't outright contradict one of the themes that Bioware has continuously emphasized since ME2 onwards. Of course, that also depends on whether Karpshyn would have included the organic-synthetic conflict in his dark energy plot. If so, we're back to square one.

It's too busy contradicting the core of the series' narrative about the relays and associated tech to contradict any themes, to which there wouldn't really be any. Not only is it broken, it's shallow, too.
 

And there's a world of difference between a "near-death incident" and a "death incident".  Shepard didn't even get a trip to Tahiti out of this!

Shepard before wouldn't be the same as the Shepard after, and it would take time to realize this technology and transformation, knocking him/her out of commission. From an overarching narrative standpoint, very little (if any) difference.
 

And what does organic energy have to do with Shepard being a cyborg?

You're the one that gripes about organic energy being involved in ME3's ending. You tell me.

Shepard being part-man and part-machine because of Lazarus does create a certain synergy between organic and synthetic life elements, though.
 

The big difference I see is one got implemented and the other didn't

Thank the Maker for that.

[felipejiraya]

I like Drew. He's a competent writer (his ME novels are pretty good) and think BioWare is better with him woking there. That said, I agree with everyone in the thread that said he's not (or ever was) our lord and saviour.

[LinksOcarina]

That's because you don't understand how concept creation works. You don't understand a thing about creative projects or how they work. Simplifying what i said to how it "Feels" is the perfect example of that. And it's really common on the forums here, People jumping down the Devs' throats because of faulty understanding and wanting to look smart while they're the definition of cyncisim.

 

As a concept though, Dark Energy is just as flawed.Creative projects is a problem argument here even the entire writing and dev team were unsure how the concept would play out, and the ideas presented in the end, while attached since the beginning of the series, are either too vague or to fundamentally different from what were seeing.

 

For example, Sovereign says the following "I am beyond your comprehension, I am Soverign." ,"Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades, you wither and die. " and "Organic life evolves, advances, and at the apex of their glory they are extinguished."

 

The entire exchange with Sovereign would contradict Dark Energy as a theory for three reasons. One, even if the Reapers are attempting to control life and order it around as much as possible, then what motivation is there truly, outside of "we represent order" that they have to do this? If the full-blown destruction of the galaxy was possible through Dark Energy, as Drew states, then the Reapers logic of allowing organic life to exist makes no sense, especially through a machine.

 

Two, if they are immortal beings, the need of Organic life then makes little sense to the Reapers logic.Wiping out and cultivating races and civilizations every 50,000 years so that they evolve to use Biotic powers that can destroy the universe also contradicts the logic of the story-thread;I.E, the fact that the Reapers simply wipe everything out to prevent the destruction of the Galaxy, ergo saving themselves from destruction, is a glaring inconsistency.

 

As is the fact that the reapers also built the Mass Effect relays, according to Soverign again "Your civilization is based on the technology of the Mass Relays, our technology." Why would they create technology that would also hasten the destruction of the universe through Dark Energy?

 

The only explanation that possibly can work comes from Drew himself. "Then we thought, let's take it to the next level. Maybe the Reapers are looking at a way to stop this. Maybe there's an inevitable descent into the opposite of the Big Bang (the Big Crunch) and the Reapers realise that the only way they can stop it is by using biotics, but since they can't use biotics they have to keep rebuilding society - as they try and find the perfect group to use biotics for this purpose. The asari were close but they weren't quite right, the Protheans were close as well."

 

But it is still flawed, because then the time clock for destruction makes little sense; every 50,000 years for mellenia this has been going on, and the timeframe of this big crunch is very unclear, even in Mass Effect 2. 

 

So the truth of the matter is that Dark Energy is a flawed premise in of itself. Part of that creative process you mention is likely why it was not used. As Drew states "I find it funny that fans end up hearing a couple things they like about it and in their minds they add in all the details they specifically want," he explained. "It's like vapourware - vapourware is always perfect, anytime someone talks about the new greatest game. It's perfect until it comes out."

[Beerfish]

Honestly...

 

Drew is an overrated writer. 

Perhaps but compared to what came after him......

[LinksOcarina]

As i have just said, Two words, Preliminarily concepts.

 

Leo8Skylar, on 21 Sept 2015 - 6:50 PM, said:

 

    *Facepalm* How many times am i going to tell you that I'm not even attempting to explain or rather explore a pre-alpha concept that even its creator said that it's really not at its full might and readiness yet? Even if i did, I don't have the knowledge to do so. What I'm trying to say, Again, Is something that's sailing over your head because you like criticizing everything so much. And just for your information everything my argument has to offer has already been said. You want to understand and analyze, Be my guest. You don't? Your problem, Not mine. But let's attempt a final try because well, Why not? And you might actually understand it this time.

A concept when it's first created is like a cocoon, It has a lot potential but it hasn't reached it yet, You sense that potential and then develop it step by step. Same case here, First they had a concept, Then they changed it, "Developed" it, Then they were going to propely develop it further when the time comes.

 

It's just that they have laid the ground work there, The decisions that decide the flow of the story might change the pacing and narrative and therefore the concept will need to evolve further. So, As i said, They laid the ground work and left it there. Now because you're unfamiliar with this process, You'd consider a preliminarily as something that's fully fleshed out and start to criticize it as a fully developed concept which is a very faulty approach. It's like saying: "Man, This game is buggy as hell." after seeing the Pre-alpha footage of the game. Exactly the same concept and idea.

 

Irrelevant to the final product in the end.

 

Not only do we have no way of knowing what is better or worse (that leads to hindsight which gets us nowhere at best) its frankly a bit disingenuous to state one concept is more agreeable or makes more sense than the other because of the process that was created for it, and the foundations left in the product suggest it versus what was made in the end. 

 

My point is that the creative process does not matter regarding the final product, because they do that anyway and came up with the selected ending they thought was best. Preliminary concepts or not, it doesn't really matter anymore what they were, they are irrelevant now unless they are revisited later. 

 

We can argue that if you like, but that's not going to go anywhere of course, the proof of it is the game itself, not what "could have been."

[LinksOcarina]

Well, This isn't a thread about ME3 ending, This is a thread about Drew K, The man who "could" have made the game different. So, It makes sense that this kind of could have happened argument would surface on this thread.

The lore is what tells which concept fits in better. And the lore gives the twists the basis they need or else they'd be Deus Ex Machinas. While DX: Machina is a category of plot twists, It's considered by me and others as something writers use when they are trapped. In other words, As a compromise or a retckon. And that's something i don't approve of.

 

He could have, but in hindsight I doubt it would be. Once again, what could have been is irrelevant to the product.

 

The lore is also never set in stone. 

 

Even in game one there are moments that contradict or "retcon" our understanding of the rules of this universe. The Rachni are just one example. The Protheans are another. People let them slide due their presentation or impact, but they are retcons of the lore as we are presented. 

 

Some of these are also compromises as you see it for game reasons. Thermal clips for example is a game mechanic designed to the universe to clean up the shooting gameplay, and it contradicts the established lore as well.

 

The problem is moreso folks pick and choose what is a good or bad change. Some of it is justified through writing or presentation, but let's not kid ourselves and presume that the lore of a game is always the rule of the world; no game world with in-game lore is. To think so would make the players very determinist, I.E, the lore of the game has to be taken literally each time, deviations contradict it.

 

Has little to do with Deus Ex Machina's as well, which were also a part of Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2, mind you...

[Fandango]

Welcome back Drew.

[RepHope]

Nice to have him back. One thing I've noticed about Drew is that he seems to have a love of space gangs. Wish he'd get to make a game where that's the focus.

[LinksOcarina]

No, ME1 and ME2 didn't have Deus Ex Machinas. Everything was set and planned and could be obsereved that it was. The lore is in stone. As i have stated before, I have never met someone on this site that stated a lore problem that turned out to be solid. It's either that they didn't read the codex or they don't understand the narrative pillar of Perspective ME added. The thermal clip problem was explained in an in-game codex entry and a scrapped codex entry as well. But i agree that it was done to improve the gameplay because of the techincal limitations that games had in ME1. But the concept of the combat is still solid as it is. Same concepts, Heat venting, Powers, Dark energy manipulation, etc.

 

The human reaper and Vigil are Deus Ex Machinas.

 

Vigil serves the purpose of the exposition dump for Shepard, and provides you, the player, with the knowledge of the backdoor to the citadel via the conduit and a full blown clarification of the Protheans and the Reapers, their motives, and what to do next. 

 

The Human Reaper serves that purpose because its entire construction, destruction, and use later on in Mass Effect 3 is not only never explained, but never fully fleshed out in any semblence of the story and serves as a one off in the end to only advance the plot regarding Cerberus. Admittingly it doesn't save the world, but it continues lingering plot threads.

 

If we are going to call the Catalyst a Deus Ex Machina, then we should be acknowledge all of the other moments this has happened. Regardless of their "plan" in-game and behind the scenes.

 

Regarding the lore, to believe it is always set in stone is completely a-typical to its design; simply put, things have to change in order to actually tell a story and it will not always make sense in context to it, but it is often ignored or allowed because of how the story is told. In-game lore has to be fluid or else nothing can change without being contradictory in some fashion.  

 

This is not just a problem with lore in Mass Effect, but lore in general. Games like Elder Scrolls, Witcher, Final Fantasy, tabletop games; the list goes on as we see games establish, contradict, and build upon their own structure and perspectives. The thermal clip stuff for example is never explained in game 2 (the cut codex entry) so for a lot of people, no explaination= no reason for it existing right out of the gate. It just simply is, and no additional codex entry after game 2 matters while playing game 2 (hindsight again.)

 

The bigger problem is implantation. Folks on here have argued that thermal clips found on certain planets or missions, not to mention dialogue in-game by Shepard and other characters, also contradict their presence. ("There are no thermal clips here.", Jacobs loyalty mission, the Suicide Mission, and so forth.)  It may make sense as a concept when presented (reversed engineered tech or whatever it was) but does it truly matter?

 

See the concept of the combat still being solid is another one of those things that is irrelevant to the grand design of the game; the creation of the clips serves the function of the game, not the story. In fact, a lot of those concepts are more or less not really present in the game outside of the codex entry providing the techno-babble/space-magic explanation of how they are plausible, versus practical or utilized in tandem with the plot or narrative.

 

This is why lore should always be fluid, it is cynical to think otherwise because then you pigeon-hole everything in the game to a form of order that would make it narrativly speaking really boring. Not to mention when the game itself serves as the contradiction to that said lore in an attempt to use a plot twist on the player or to build upon previous themes present in the narrative, it hinders that progress.

 

ETA: Come to think of it, Shepard dying and being resurrected is a better example of a Deus Ex Machina. 

[dreamgazer]

Vigil serves the purpose of the exposition dump for Shepard, and provides you, the player, with the knowledge of the backdoor to the citadel via the conduit and a full blown clarification of the Protheans and the Reapers, their motives, and what to do next.

Vigil, an almost literal god from the machine, also supplies Shepard with an unforeshadowed, crucial datafile that solves the plot's big unsolvable problem: thwarting Saren's plan to gain control of the Citadel. That's your DEM.

[Heimdall]

Overrated he may be, but Drew's not a bad writer. I'd probably still rank him above Walters.

He's still partly to blame for Bioware's not figuring out what the Reapers were trying to accomplish beforehand. That's something they should have had worked out from the beginning.

[AlanC9]

No, you can't murder EDI,

Well, you can kill her as collateral damage. But I don't think this could be technically "murder" under a legal system anything like ours -- of course, we've written our legal system so we can drop bombs on stuff without it being "murder" when a few civilians get blown up.

[AlanC9]

*Facepalm* How many times am i going to tell you that I'm not even attempting to explain or rather explore a pre-alpha concept that even its creator said that it's really not at its full might and readiness yet? Even if i did, I don't have the knowledge to do so. What I'm trying to say, Again, Is something that's sailing over your head because you like criticizing everything so much. And just for your information everything my argument has to offer has already been said. You want to understand and analyze, Be my guest. You don't? Your problem, Not mine. But let's attempt a final try because well, Why not? And you might actually understand it this time. A concept when it's first created is like a cocoon, It has a lot potential but it hasn't reached it yet, You sense that potential and then develop it step by step. Same case here, First they had a concept, Then they changed it, "Developed" it, Then they were going to propely develop it further when the time comes. It's just that they have laid the ground work there, The decisions that decide the flow of the story might change the pacing and narrative and therefore the concept will need to evolve further. So, As i said, They laid the ground work and left it there. Now because you're unfamiliar with this process, You'd consider a preliminarily as something that's fully fleshed out and start to criticize it as a fully developed concept which is a very faulty approach. It's like saying: "Man, This game is buggy as hell." after seeing the Pre-alpha footage of the game. Exactly the same concept and idea.

You do realize that this argument is pretty much the same one that the Catalyst offers, right? If things are allowed to proceed in a certain manner then X will happen. I can't tell you why X will, but I know it will. The only difference is that you're predicting that a good thing would have happened, rather than a bad one.

Assuming that this is an argument at all and not a pile of wishful thinking masquerading as an argument.

[Dean_the_Young]

Same thing i was just talking about. You guys don't get what I'm trying to say. A preliminarily concept changes and twists in order to better develop the concept. That's how things work. You don't start by having a fully detailed concept that makes perfect sense, It's a step-by-step basis, And even in that interview he pointed out how that happened, First they thought of something and then they changed it. But, The point is, The Dark Energy element has basis within the series, And that it'd have made sense if the ending revolved around them. And absoutely not, The Catalyst and Dark Energy are not the same. The Catalyst is a deus ex machina, Someone that came out of nowhere, Having too much power over the storyline, Stating his opinions as facts and you're forced to like it and accept it. It's part of the whole argument how ME3 changed ME RPG style into Deus Ex Human Revolution RPG style. In HR, Your character's personality and relationships are introduced to you, You only have to decide the main events of the storyline. And that's why, Despite the fact that the HR's ending was similar to ME3's, It worked just fine. And it made perfect sense. I'm not here to question the Catalyst's logic, I personally think that 70-80% of what he said "Kinda" made sense. I'm questioning the narrative and the changes the writing team did without Drew. That "Is" why ME3 was a mess, Not because of the ending.
 

 

Why are you arguing on the basis of ME3, when I explicitly asked you otherwise?

 

The Dark Energy Theory as proposed in the 'initial ideas' doesn't stumble because of ME2 or ME3- it stumbles because ME1 explicitly establishes that the Reapers are responsible for the galaxy developing along Mass Effect, dark-energy producing tech paths.

 

ME3 and the Catalyst didn't make the Cycles a poor solution to Dark Energy theory. ME1 did. In order to argue that it's a better vision, you have to fit it within the context established by ME1- which, unfortunately, came before the Reaper purpose was even decided.

 

Another thing that bothers is how people mistake leaving things open because the game was supposed to be a trilogy, Leaving mysteries for the over-arching plot for the so-called "Plot holes". ME1 had nothing wrong. Mass Effect is the first series so far that pulled off the narrative element of "Perspective", That sometimes some things aren't fully explained to you because you're not in a position where everything should be explained to you. Made the narrative and storyline feel more vivid and brilliant. ME2's plot fundmentally depended on ME3, That's why, Changing the vision right at the end was a very big mistake.

 

 

The plot of ME2 doesn't depend on ME3: that's reversing the relationship, in which ME3 had to react to ME2 (and ME1's) design decisions. ME2's plot should have depended on ME1... except we know, by Dev admission, that key elements of ME2 were made up on the go post-ME1 (Cerberus, Collectors), and that ME1 didn't have a vision from the start.

 

ME1 had plenty wrong- it's main story choices are among the weaker in the series in terms of balance and consequence planning- but the biggest was beginning a trilogy without a clue as to what was supposed to be the ending, themes, or even motivation for the bad guy. Not 'aren't fully explained', but simply unplanned. ME1 could get away with abysmal planning because it kicked the consequences of it down the road. ME3 was left holding a bag, the contents of which weren't even decided by ME1.

 

ME has a lot of strengths, but planning as a trilogy is not one of them- and that problem starts in ME1.

[Il Divo]

You do realize that this argument is pretty much the same one that the Catalyst offers, right? If things are allowed to proceed in a certain manner then X will happen. I can't tell you why X will, but I know it will. The only difference is that you're predicting that a good thing would have happened, rather than a bad one.

Assuming that this is an argument at all and not a pile of wishful thinking masquerading as an argument.

 

Well, that and the fact that you don't have two games' worth of content forcing the Synthetics and Organics can get along point on us.

​

Dark energy is still quite a bit flawed. It's still a conflict coming out of left field, with a number of logic inconsistencies (Dean nailed a few on the last page and above). But it's also one where the moral conflict being thrown at the player isn't the Catalyst giving us a line about how he's watched synthetics rebel every single time, despite what ME2 and 3 did their best to convince us of the opposite. Cue moral conflict.

 

Basically, if you're going to drop that kind of earth-shattering bomb shell on the player. And then tell him that the Catalyst is convinced his "solution" won't work anymore. You can't really follow that up with refusing to explain your central motive. This is the part where you lay all your proverbial cards on the player.

[Dean_the_Young]

Largely because you're avoiding the plainly described issues with the idea and going on about how it "feels".


Drew has repeatedly acknowledged the conflict between organics and synthetics as a theme. It's not an "outsider element"; the plot for ME1 wouldn't exist without synthetics that inevitably rebelled (Tali's words, not mine) and wiped out nearly all of their creators.

 

I'm not sure it was ever developed well enough in ME1 to be a theme- the major antagonistic synthetic actor in the series was the Geth, not the Reapers (who being synthetics was the 'reaveal'), and the hostile Geth were humanized/organicized by being made religious, ie not so synthetic after all. And most of our conflict was with fellow organics, while the most exceptional thing about fighting synthetics was that it was exceptional, because this was the first time in hundreds of years it happened.

 

ME2 had a much more developed organic-synthetic theme... but it was far more about cooperation, via EDI and Legion. Whereas the antagonistic forces were the blending of organic and synthetic- the Collectors, the Reaper-smoothies, and the Cerberus mad science projects. Even Shepard- Renegade shepard gets more inhumane and shows the cybernetics, whereas Paragon Shepard, benevolent hero of everything, heals the scars and looks more human while acting more humane, with no focus to the cybernetics whatsoever.

 

[Il Divo]

Well, you can kill her as collateral damage. But I don't think this could be technically "murder" under a legal system anything like ours -- of course, we've written our legal system so we can drop bombs on stuff without it being "murder" when a few civilians get blown up.

 

And that's essentially the secondary point. By ME3's end, EDI falls into "trusted member of the crew" category. ME3 makes no effort by this point to leave that lingering doubt. It's essentially fun, fun, Joker dating EDI, etc, etc. Which is fine, but still doubles down on the point that this isn't about us vs. them.

[Artemis_Entrari]

I wasn't a huge fan of what he did with Revan in Revan's novel, but his work directly at BIoWare has been good.

 

I was a HUGE fan of his until that novel.  I absolutely hated where he took the story in that novel, though.