1106 réponses à ce sujet

[Dantriges]

I think some people here or even quite a lot think that it´s the Catalyst itself offering these choices. As i said, I believe that the catalyst left out quite a bit and handwaved a lot away with its "little more than a power source" and that there is enough left to dislike just about it. You can hate the ending in general and the designers of the Crucible*, too, if you want. 

 

*for being able to hand out a detailed construction plan with dunno millions of details about how to built this thing and then losing the page with the project description.

[Natureguy85]

 I'm actually completely cool with that as a plot line/character concept, it would probably make imports easier to handle too. What I mean to suggest is that, Dragon Age 2 aside, "guy affected by the plot" isn't really a story-line which Bioware has ever seemed to handle, to any extent.

 

Going back to our ME example, playing a Shepard who thinks this decision is "too big for him" would work, if we really had any ability to go that route in the series. ME3 provides more than a few reasonable moments where Shepard could have let the Alliance take the lead role in how to approach these situations, but as a concept, that was denied to us. Also throw on top that a lot of people expect the final decision in a Bioware game to typically be the most significant/most world-altering and the goal of abstaining so someone else can decide doesn't really work all that well.  

 

In short: I think you're right that there is room for middle ground between the two extremes, but I think that Mass Effect, since the original, is a perfect example of the "most important around" spectrum. 

 

Yes, ME was definitely on the "most important guy" spectrum and they justified it at least slightly with the "Specters are above the law" idea. This means Shepard can do whatever he wants, including hang up on the council, giving some of the most fun dialogue in the game

I was mostly highlighting DA2 as the opposite end where Hawke is barely a Protagonist because he doesn't drive anything.

[9TailsFox]

I think some people here or even quite a lot think that it´s the Catalyst itself offering these choices. As i said, I believe that the catalyst left out quite a bit and handwaved a lot away with its "little more than a power source" and that there is enough left to dislike just about it. You can hate the ending in general and the designers of the Crucible*, too, if you want. 

 

*for being able to hand out a detailed construction plan with dunno millions of details about how to built this thing and then losing the page with the project description.

This is why bioware and a lot of people oh you don't like ME3 ending because it's not happy. No it's not the problem at all. The problem is illogical stupid and full off potholes. first of off shepard lost why reapers/space kid bring shepard up ok it's not plot hole reapers are stupid and full of logical bugs. people say we defeted reapers we even have 3 options. No we not win we lost in worst possible they. Reapers/space kid surrender even if they already win. and forced Shepard to kill himself.

Only idiot believe every word you enemy leader say.. Especially if it logic to save everyone is by killing everyone. And shepard eat every word.

[angol fear]

This is why bioware and a lot of people oh you don't like ME3 ending because it's not happy. No it's not the problem at all. The problem is illogical stupid and full off potholes. first of off shepard lost why reapers/space kid bring shepard up ok it's not plot hole reapers are stupid and full of logical bugs. people say we defeted reapers we even have 3 options. No we not win we lost in worst possible they. Reapers/space kid surrender even if they already win. and forced Shepard to kill himself.
Only idiot believe every word you enemy leader say.. Especially if it logic to save everyone is by killing everyone. And shepard eat every word.

Ahahah. I hope you are not serious otherwise it would mean that you totally misunderstood the entire trilogy. That ridiculous logic from haters that never really played Mass Effect and didn't see that the representations are not good/evil, white/black since mass effect 2 and the oversimplification is irony, isn't it ?

[AlanC9]

Only idiot believe every word you enemy leader say.. Especially if it logic to save everyone is by killing everyone. And shepard eat every word.

You think the kid's lying? About what?

[Natureguy85]

Ahahah. I hope you are not serious otherwise it would mean that you totally misunderstood the entire trilogy. That ridiculous logic from haters that never really played Mass Effect and didn't see that the representations are not good/evil, white/black since mass effect 2 and the oversimplification is irony, isn't it ?

 

Apparently the writers misunderstood the trilogy because the ending didn't match with the rest of it. While there were examples of gray morality questions, those had to do with how people or races treated eachother. the Reapers were always the bad guys.

 

 

 

You think the kid's lying? About what?

 

Who are you asking: The player who has played already or the player (or Shepard) in the moment? With hindsight we know the Catalyst was telling the truth, but you have no reason to trust him in the moment.

[Satele-Shan87]

We know nothing of the story and yet you speculate on the ending

[Natureguy85]

We know nothing of the story and yet you speculate on the ending

 

Well, he's asking about the type of ending, so we can speak in general terms. However, you do have a point in that the type of ending will depend on the type of story/game.

[Natureguy85]

We know nothing of the story and yet you speculate on the ending

 

Well, he's asking about the type of ending, so we can speak in general terms. However, you do have a point in that the type of ending will depend on the type of story/game.

[Dantriges]

This is why bioware and a lot of people oh you don't like ME3 ending because it's not happy. No it's not the problem at all.

 
Which is quite funny considering that bittersweet or dark ending isn´t really something unusual anymore. Most RPGs or story games I have on drive are in the bitterweet area, ok some of them are parts of a multi game story. But still, I wouldn´t put "best friend gets arm chopped off" or "die or your daughter dies" into the category "necessary for the next title, which isabout the end of the world."
 

You think the kid's lying? About what?

Well it doesn´t about the outcomes as we find out in the slideshow. But without metathink, Shep doesn´t know that, like we can´t do an alternate proposal and there are some. I think that starkid is still a bit fishy when talking about the relationship between it and the Crucible.

[9TailsFox]

You think the kid's lying? About what?

If you asking this question no answer will make you understand. But try to imagine someone killing your people you hate it from you point it's evil monster who can control people minds. Someone you don't know come in and say I am the leader of enemy, look outside we wining, but we will let you win, just shoot this to and we all die. than kill yourself and you can control us or kill yourself and everyone will become Borg. No sane person would listen a word catalyst say. I miss half what he say first time trying to understand wait this really happening   You enemy telling you kill yourself and everyone will be fine.

[Il Divo]

You think the kid's lying? About what?

 

Well, potentially about everything. At the end, it's obviously smarter to use the Crucible than to not use it, but that's less out of trust/belief in the Catalyst and more out of absolutely desperation.
 

[angol fear]

Apparently the writers misunderstood the trilogy 

 

Apparently, the players know more than the writer what Mass Effect is about. You'll have to prove me that it's possible.

 

 

the ending didn't match with the rest of it

 

The ending match with the rest of the trilogy. It doesn't fit only if you misinterpreted the trilogy and still stuck in your own wrong representation of the game.

 

 

While there were examples of gray morality questions, those had to do with how people or races treated eachother. the Reapers were always the bad guys.

 

The reapers were always the bad guys? Sure if you don't want to understand the game. Listen to what Sovereign said in the first game : their intention has nothing to do with good guy and bad guy (that's quite subtle but it's here). You want them to be the bad guys, that's your own representation but since the first game it has never been this way. It was always written to you make you feel this way during the majority of the trilogy, that's not the same thing. If you don't trust me then you have to explain why the dark energy plot make the reapers be the "good guys" instead of "bad guys". The dark energy plot was just an idea during the writing of Mass Effect 2, so they didn't wait the end to think about that aspect of the reapers.

But, most important, if you think about good/ bad, enemy etc... you obviously didn't understand the writing of the trilogy and can't see why the ending fits to the trilogy.

[Natureguy85]

Well, potentially about everything. At the end, it's obviously smarter to use the Crucible than to not use it, but that's less out of trust/belief in the Catalyst and more out of absolutely desperation.
 

 

Ah, but which thing to choose? For example, since when does shooting or breaking something turn it on?

[Natureguy85]

Apparently, the players know more than the writer what Mass Effect is about. You'll have to prove me that it's possible.

 

 

 

The ending match with the rest of the trilogy. It doesn't fit only if you misinterpreted the trilogy and still stuck in your own wrong representation of the game.

 

 

 

The reapers were always the bad guys? Sure if you don't want to understand the game. Listen to what Sovereign said in the first game : their intention has nothing to do with good guy and bad guy (that's quite subtle but it's here). You want them to be the bad guys, that's your own representation but since the first game it has never been this way. It was always written to you make you feel this way during the majority of the trilogy, that's not the same thing. If you don't trust me then you have to explain why the dark energy plot make the reapers be the "good guys" instead of "bad guys". The dark energy plot was just an idea during the writing of Mass Effect 2, so they didn't wait the end to think about that aspect of the reapers.

But, most important, if you think about good/ bad, enemy etc... you obviously didn't understand the writing of the trilogy and can't see why the ending fits to the trilogy.

 

it's pretty easy when you change writiers, for one. Particularly if it's true that Walters and Hudson wrote the end on their own. It could also be the difference between what someone says and what someone means. Think of sarcasm, for example. You could have sarcasm go over a listener's head, but you could also have a person that is bad at using sarcasm, so their true meaning is missed. If a writer's work doesn't match their intent, then you could easily have that situation.

 

No, it doesn't. It elevates "organics vs synthetics" to the main conflict of the game, which it hadn't been since Virmire. That seemed like it might be the main theme, but it was weakened when Saren explained that Sovereign didn't like the Geth either. It was ruined when they made the Reapers into cyborgs. Beyond that, the end ignores the whole emphasis on diversity that was a major theme of the series. It also drops all characters but Shepard out of the picture in a series carried by its characters.

 

You're right, the Reapers aren't bad guys because they didn't call themselves bad guys. What was I thinking? You'd be right if they'd gone through with the dark energy plot, but they didn't. It doesn't matter what their intent or even their motives are. Their actions are worth opposing. Notice I said "bad guys", not "evil". They are opponents to be defeated.

 

Edit: 9TailsFox mentions "plot hole" below, but there's also "retcon" and "Gainax Ending."

[9TailsFox]

Apparently, the players know more than the writer what Mass Effect is about. You'll have to prove me that it's possible.

 

 

 

The ending match with the rest of the trilogy. It doesn't fit only if you misinterpreted the trilogy and still stuck in your own wrong representation of the game.

 

 

 

The reapers were always the bad guys? Sure if you don't want to understand the game. Listen to what Sovereign said in the first game : their intention has nothing to do with good guy and bad guy (that's quite subtle but it's here). You want them to be the bad guys, that's your own representation but since the first game it has never been this way. It was always written to you make you feel this way during the majority of the trilogy, that's not the same thing. If you don't trust me then you have to explain why the dark energy plot make the reapers be the "good guys" instead of "bad guys". The dark energy plot was just an idea during the writing of Mass Effect 2, so they didn't wait the end to think about that aspect of the reapers.

But, most important, if you think about good/ bad, enemy etc... you obviously didn't understand the writing of the trilogy and can't see why the ending fits to the trilogy.

1) So writers are gods with unlimited intellect and can't make mistakes. Did you ever heard term plothole? This is than writer forgets/make mistake pothole happens. Or Akira Toriyama writer of Dragon ball Z manga forget character Launch. It's not good writing if majority of you audience instead of enjoying ending or crying how sad and touching it is, go wtf happening right now. Or you telling bioware released free DLC to explain why we all stupid and don't understand great ending just because they nice. ME3 ending are nonsense and unsatisfactory so big even EA did something it wasn't good think but they still did it. It was middle finger you don't like our great ending you want to refuse starkid nonsense "SO BE IT" you lost and you die, well at least this ending make sense.

2) I agree it fits on some level. Even if I just made peace between Geth and Quarian and can't tell to catalyst "I just solve you problem you moron even with you trying to sabotage it.". It was just represented horribly, but still theme could work if ending fixed a lot.

3)I never think reapers are bad. It same as pig I eat think I am evil monster. I always think since Sovereign speech that reapers think we can't comprehend is reproduction. They "eat" us and make more reapers like any living organism. I never could imagine they "saving us".

[Il Divo]

it's pretty easy when you change writiers, for one. Particularly if it's true that Walters and Hudson wrote the end on their own. It could also be the difference between what someone says and what someone means. Think of sarcasm, for example. You could have sarcasm go over a listener's head, but you could also have a person that is bad at using sarcasm, so their true meaning is missed. If a writer's work doesn't match their intent, then you could easily have that situation.

 

No, it doesn't. It elevates "organics vs synthetics" to the main conflict of the game, which it hadn't been since Virmire. That seemed like it might be the main theme, but it was weakened when Saren explained that Sovereign didn't like the Geth either. It was ruined when they made the Reapers into cyborgs. Beyond that, the end ignores the whole emphasis on diversity that was a major theme of the series. It also drops all characters but Shepard out of the picture in a series carried by its characters.

 

You're right, the Reapers aren't bad guys because they didn't call themselves bad guys. What was I thinking? You'd be right if they'd gone through with the dark energy plot, but they didn't. It doesn't matter what their intent or even their motives are. Their actions are worth opposing. Notice I said "bad guys", not "evil". They are opponents to be defeated.

 

Edit: 9TailsFox mentions "plot hole" below, but there's also "retcon" and "Gainax Ending."

 

Exactly. I could have dealt with a story where Organics vs. Synthetics was the main conflict of the series, but if that was supposed to be the case here, it was mishandled badly.

 

In terms of character arc, EDI's (and the Geth's) stories move in the direction of "we can all get along after all". I think the Catalyst dropping the "every time we've done this, synthetics always rebel" just feels lazy, without providing any additional context. In general, that could be said for most/all of the Catalyst's comments, with little in the way of a coherent motive, imo.

[KaiserShep]

In terms of character arc, EDI's (and the Geth's) stories move in the direction of "we can all get along after all". I think the Catalyst dropping the "every time we've done this, synthetics always rebel" just feels lazy, without providing any additional context. In general, that could be said for most/all of the Catalyst's comments, with little in the way of a coherent motive, imo.

 

Well, in fairness, where the real problem lies is in the Crucible itself, because you cannot separate the reapers from other synthetics, and Shepard must die in order for everyone to coexist, even without changing every living thing in the galaxy.

[fraggle]

1) So writers are gods with unlimited intellect and can't make mistakes. Did you ever heard term plothole? This is than writer forgets/make mistake pothole happens. Or Akira Toriyama writer of Dragon ball Z manga forget character Launch. It's not good writing if majority of you audience instead of enjoying ending or crying how sad and touching it is, go wtf happening right now. Or you telling bioware released free DLC to explain why we all stupid and don't understand great ending just because they nice. ME3 ending are nonsense and unsatisfactory so big even EA did something it wasn't good think but they still did it. It was middle finger you don't like our great ending you want to refuse starkid nonsense "SO BE IT" you lost and you die, well at least this ending make sense.

2) I agree it fits on some level. Even if I just made peace between Geth and Quarian and can't tell to catalyst "I just solve you problem you moron even with you trying to sabotage it.". It was just represented horribly, but still theme could work if ending fixed a lot.

3)I never think reapers are bad. It same as pig I eat think I am evil monster. I always think since Sovereign speech that reapers think we can't comprehend is reproduction. They "eat" us and make more reapers like any living organism. I never could imagine they "saving us".

 

Sorry to just jump in, but...

1) I want to know what the plot holes are you're talking about, and also what the EC did that made the original ending "better". They haven't changed any fundamental plot points in the story, they only expanded on it, and quite frankly, what was added could've been thought of by people themselves had they tried.

2) This peace between the geth and the quarians is not exactly a good example imo. You know why the "peace" happens? Because you hold the fleet back by telling the quarians they will be annihilated if they wouldn't. If you let Legion continue to upload the Reaper Code, it would tear the fleet to pieces. So with their backs against the wall the quarians let you blackmail them into stepping back. It's either death or survival. Of course they step back to guarantee their survival. And if you can't broker peace you are the factor that decides over the fate of the geth and the quarians in a similar way, so this is settled via outside source in both cases. I'm sure without Shepard's intervention the geth would've wiped out the quarians. Doesn't matter in this case who started which war. The organics would have been killed by the synthetics, just as the Catalyst has observed who knows how many times.

3) That's the problem that you can't imagine them saving us, and exactly why the Reapers say that organics cannot comprehend. I would advise you to read the Retribution book, Karpyshyn touches on this topic.

 

Also anyone who still doesn't see the organics vs. synthetics thing... think about who we fight, what they are. Imo ME2's mistake was to focus on the loyalty missions and not on the plot that could've pushed the theme even more into light. Yet it was still there as our main theme the whole time.

Hell, even Drew Karpyshyn spoke about this theme in his blog and I bet many people think Mac and Casey made this theme up the last minute. Sorry, but that's not the case.

This is like if you take stuff that's presented to you in a history lesson and you deny it because "Oh, I wasn't there. I'm sure these guys are lying and this is not what happened because XYZ". If the Catalyst says this is what happened in the far away past, sure, it could be lying, but who are we to judge it? We haven't been there. It can be true after all. But people here don't even want to consider this, because... hey, we didn't see it in this cycle (which is untrue, but oh well) so that thing must be lying and it's non-sensical.

If they were open that this conflict might be a thing and that's why everything happens how it does, how the cycles came to be... then I'm sure we wouldn't have so many raging fans.

[Il Divo]

^Not sure that works as a counter-point here. You don't even really need to make peace between the Geth and the Quarians to demonstrate potential for cooperation. If I let all the Quarians be murdered, Shepard + company are still organics working in tandem with the Geth.

 

More than anything else, what that demonstrates is that if you mindlessly pursue destruction of your enemy at all costs, they're likely to pull the same move on you. That applies to the Quarians sure, for whom the conflict is a bit personal, but not necessarily for the rest of us.

 

Problem there is you're working from the framework of the Catalyst is telling the truth. Why should we start with that assumption though? This guy just appeared in the form of a small dead child which the game forces Shepard to repeatedly think about, while self-admitting to be your main adversary. That's not the best starting point for verification. I'm certainly not an IT theorist, but there are grounds there for Shepard to be extremely suspicious of what's going on around him.  

[Eryri]

Exactly. I could have dealt with a story where Organics vs. Synthetics was the main conflict of the series, but if that was supposed to be the case here, it was mishandled badly.

In terms of character arc, EDI's (and the Geth's) stories move in the direction of "we can all get along after all". I think the Catalyst dropping the "every time we've done this, synthetics always rebel" just feels lazy, without providing any additional context. In general, that could be said for most/all of the Catalyst's comments, with little in the way of a coherent motive, imo.

^This! I wholeheartedly agree. If "organics vs synthetics" ever was an important theme, it was entirely subverted by the revelations that the Geth, and Legion in particular, were not the marauding monsters that they first appeared to be, and that EDI, as an AI, could sincerely fall in love with a human. Those themes were well and truly put to bed by the optimal conclusion of the Rannoch arc, and by the paragon version of the EDI / Joker romance. And I was actually mostly satisfied with those resolutions, bar the Pinocchiofication of the Geth and Legion having to die to copy a few files for the sake of manfactured pathos.
Then the ending comes along, and drags those tired themes out of bed again and shoves them, bleary eyed, back into the centre of the plot. And we're left thinking "Really? We have to deal with this again? I thought this was over and done with!"
Not only was the ending poor in itself, but it undermined my enjoyment in reconciling the Geth and Quarians. Just for some clumsy philosophical musings on a hypothetical issue in which I was no longer interested.

[AlanC9]

If you asking this question no answer will make you understand. But try to imagine someone killing your people you hate it from you point it's evil monster who can control people minds. Someone you don't know come in and say I am the leader of enemy, look outside we wining, but we will let you win, just shoot this to and we all die. than kill yourself and you can control us or kill yourself and everyone will become Borg. No sane person would listen a word catalyst say. I miss half what he say first time trying to understand wait this really happening   You enemy telling you kill yourself and everyone will be fine.

So the sane thing to do is to just stand there and wait for the Reapers to win? Put another way, how can listening to the Catalyst make things worse? I don't see a way.

And even if there's only a tiny chance that he's telling the truth, a tiny chance of victory is better than absolutely certain failure.

Incidentally, you ducked the question rather than answering it. Did you think the Catalyst was lying? Did your Shepard? If so, about what, and for what purpose?

[Ahglock]

^This! I wholeheartedly agree. If "organics vs synthetics" ever was an important theme, it was entirely subverted by the revelations that the Geth, and Legion in particular, were not the marauding monsters that they first appeared to be, and that EDI, as an AI, could sincerely fall in love with a human. Those themes were well and truly put to bed by the optimal conclusion of the Rannoch arc, and by the paragon version of the EDI / Joker romance. And I was actually mostly satisfied with those resolutions, bar the Pinocchiofication of the Geth and Legion having to die to copy a few files for the sake of manfactured pathos.
Then the ending comes along, and drags those tired themes out of bed again and shoves them, bleary eyed, back into the centre of the plot. And we're left thinking "Really? We have to deal with this again? I thought this was over and done with!"
Not only was the ending poor in itself, but it undermined my enjoyment in reconciling the Geth and Quarians. Just for some clumsy philosophical musings on a hypothetical issue in which I was no longer interested.

 

If they had focussed on the organics vs synthetics more and isntead of it coming across as a side plot the end plot would have looked a bit better I think.  I mean I guess i can call it a plot twist, but it didn't come as a interesting relevation more of a really your motives and plans are that stupid? Still once they used the catalyst plot device the ending was shot for me.  Frickin design ME3 from the gorund up without a magic wand to solve your problems.  Hell have your defeat inevitable and this is just one more cycle, I don't care.  Like make refuse the only option and the crucible is just a trap for you to waste reosurces on.  But once your plot revolves around the magic button fixing everything I'm done.

[AlanC9]

Problem there is you're working from the framework of the Catalyst is telling the truth. Why should we start with that assumption though? This guy just appeared in the form of a small dead child which the game forces Shepard to repeatedly think about, while self-admitting to be your main adversary. That's not the best starting point for verification. I'm certainly not an IT theorist, but there are grounds there for Shepard to be extremely suspicious of what's going on around him.

Sure, but in the end suspicion doesn't get Shepard very far. Shepard can stand there and wait for the Crucible to do something, but it won't. You can come up with versions where the Catalyst is telling a partial lie, but I can't think of one where Destroy isn't the fake. And if the Crucible can't or shouldn't be used, then the war's a total loss anyway.

[Il Divo]

Sure, but in the end suspicion doesn't get Shepard very far. Shepard can stand there and wait for the Crucible to do something, but it won't. You can come up with versions where the Catalyst is telling a partial lie, but I can't think of one where Destroy isn't the fake. And if the Crucible can't or shouldn't be used, then the war's a total loss anyway.

 

 

True, but I don't think that's really an endorsement of trusting the Catalyst.

 

To put it another way, I don't think of "yes, you are definitely telling me the truth" and "well, I have nothing else to lose, why the hell not?" as really being synonymous with each other. It's essentially a huge dice roll whether or not I think the Crucible will do what he says it's going to do, even if I do give it a shot at the end of the day.