I still don't see the point of this. We know what the truth was. If we're going to talk about alternative versions of ME3, why not just throw out Vendetta's conversation while we're rewriting the game?
Ok. So lets throw out the conversation with Vendetta.
Yeah, that works, if we can explain the cycles in a way that they benefit Reaper interests. That isn't a problem with the existing endings because the universe is not being run for the Reapers' benefit.
"Put forth" meaning "tells you about," of course. It's not like the Catalyst invented Destroy, or ordered the Reapers to shoot at the Crucible because he prefers Destroy and Control to synthesis.
Nope, the Reapers shoot at the Crucible no matter what. Reasons I guess.
Nope, the Reapers shoot at the Crucible no matter what. Reasons I guess.
I would be curious what the Crucible was made of not to be destroyed when shot by the reapers. An Alliance ship is destroyed at the beginning of the game with one shot. Of course if Shepard were to just stand there watching the reaper fire at the ship, it wouldn't be destroyed in one shot. Over Earth an Alliance ship is destroyed with one shot after destroying two legs of a reaper
I don't believe the Reapers needed motivation beyond we are here to kill you, not every enemy needs to have a tragic backstory. If there absolutely had to be one then why not go with a simple reproductive imperative. Yes the design of the proto-Reaper was stupid but in my opinion that worked better than the idea of we turn you into synthetics to save you from synthetics.
One of my biggest issues is what exactly was the Crucible built to do. The Catalyst tells us it is nothing more than a battery, yet what was it meant to do before the Citadel was added to the plans? How does it change an area of the Citadel that its designers did not know existed.
Though to be fair the Catalyst was hinted at back in the first Mass Effect. The Volus billionaire was after all searching for beings of light who would save the galaxy from synthetic machine devils. In the end it was a being of light who ended, by means of proxy Shepard, the threat of the Reapers.
One of my biggest issues is what exactly was the Crucible built to do. The Catalyst tells us it is nothing more than a battery, yet what was it meant to do before the Citadel was added to the plans? How does it change an area of the Citadel that its designers did not know existed.
Here's a post I made of who might be the designers and knew the layout of the Citadel
That's an interesting idea but as we find out in the game the Citadel was only added to the plans of the Crucible later on. If your idea was true then why would they not make it an essential element right at the beginning of the process.
Which just brings the same point to mind for me. What was the Crucible meant to do before the Citadel was added to the plans? Building a gaint battery that does nothing on its own would seem to be a huge waste of resources.
That's an interesting idea but as we find out in the game the Citadel was only added to the plans of the Crucible later on. If your idea was true then why would they not make it an essential element right at the beginning of the process.
They probably did. Each cycle may of called the Citadel something different. Why did the Protheans call the Citadel catalyst?
Vendetta states that, while it is hard to say exactly when, the Catalyst was added to the Crucible plans. So even the Protheans knew it wasn't an original part of the design.
Vendetta states that, while it is hard to say exactly when, the Catalyst was added to the Crucible plans. So even the Protheans knew it wasn't an original part of the design.
They only knew that because that's what the Insuannon passed on to them. I like to know from the original designers if they called the citadel, catalyst. If not, what species called the citadel, catalyst and why?
Which just brings the same point to mind for me. What was the Crucible meant to do before the Citadel was added to the plans? Building a gaint battery that does nothing on its own would seem to be a huge waste of resources.
Maybe before incorporating the Citadel, the Crucible somehow was planned to disperse its energy through something that could destroy, some channel or tube or whatever, like the tube in the end of ME3. That could still classify for a "battery", I think. but maybe the civilizations who added to the Crucible didn't think it would create enough energy.
I read this thread where it was a theory the tube and the Control area came attached to the Crucible already, and I really like the idea. Because 1) it fits with the description of the Crucible being a weapon, it can destroy, or control (as some Protheans thought, and then also TIM), yet it's still a giant power source, and because 2) I didn't like the idea that the options for Control or Destroy were attached to the Citadel. That doesn't make any sense since according to the Catalyst, no organic has ever been there.
I'm thinking that somehow, the plan for the Crucible has developed so far that they saw that the Citadel in its open shape can disperse the energy into the whole galaxy. Maybe they found out some more things about the Citadel back then, we won't know though.
I think that only Synthesis is a byproduct of the Crucible, because the energy it creates is sufficient enough for it to make the space magic to happen. Lucky for the Catalyst, Shepard is "ready" too 
Now, I'm not really unhappy with the ending, but it still does feel incomplete. I'm still left with that sour taste that it was a last minute change. Star Brat and the leviathans are so big, they should not have been retconned last minute. An entire game should have been devoted to finding them and 'dealing' with them.
I also don't know why it's a retcon? Can you explain further?
Obviously planehazza should answer that, but my educated guess is that it is about the introduction of a new character in the last scene that conjures up solutions to the central conflict out of thin air. "Retcon" is strictly speaking the wrong term for this. I also have learned that I am not allowed to use DEM for this, because a DEM is supposed to solve the conflict itself, instead of enabling the protagonist to do so (I'd say that this is an ingenious and felicitous example of the phrase "missing the point", but I'll go along with it on this forum 
).
Unfortunately a plot device that shares some essential traits of a well known anti-pattern of story telling still has the potential to disappoint its audience, even if it twists one small aspect to avoid the label 
.
yay another ending thread. Where's my popcorn?
"There is no war, there is only the harvest....."
We're fighting for our very survival against somethng that sees us as nothing more than either a food source or reaper slusho.
So you can either..
1. Destroy them
2. Surrender to them.
3. Join them.
that kind of sums up the endings for me. Can shepard see past star jar and pull the trigger? It's the only way he'll take that breath.
There's nothing in the wiki that doesn't come from just paying attention during the games, you know.
Very true, but it's a while since I've played 3 and I forget the details. I found that link a nice summary.
Obviously planehazza should answer that, but my educated guess is that it is about the introduction of a new character in the last scene that conjures up solutions to the central conflict out of thin air. "Retcon" is strictly speaking the wrong term for this. I also have learned that I am not allowed to use DEM for this, because a DEM is supposed to solve the conflict itself, instead of enabling the protagonist to do so (I'd say that this is an ingenious and felicitous example of the phrase "missing the point", but I'll go along with it on this forum
Unfortunately a plot device that shares some essential traits of a well known anti-pattern of story telling still has the potential to disappoint its audience, even if it twists one small aspect to avoid the label
I probably used Retcon incorrectly. I thought it was the term for introducing plot and twists to redo or fix plot holes so that the new bit of story fitted and made sense. Leviathan DLC is a prime example but I don't care as it's a brilliant DLC. I just wish that there had been more to it, seeing as it's such a vital part of the Reaper background.
I probably used Retcon incorrectly. I thought it was the term for introducing plot and twists to redo or fix plot holes so that the new bit of story fitted and made sense. Leviathan DLC is a prime example but I don't care as it's a brilliant DLC. I just wish that there had been more to it, seeing as it's such a vital part of the Reaper background.
No problem . I try to be pedantic if and only if it actually helps communicating. A "retcon" usually means that writers change a fact retrospectively, see for example http://tvtropes.org/...php/Main/Retcon. The ME series has retcons, but if one calls the Leviathan a retcon, people may start to explain how in fact it all fits together with information that was previously available, which is probably not your point.
Leviathan is mostly what writers sometimes call "planting", that was ironically added only later 
. "Planting" means that you establish some facts, traits of your characters etc. that make later events more plausible. If your protagonist wins a fist fight against three trained adversaries, you better do some planting and explain why the protagonist is exceptionally capable at fist fights 
This is different from "foreshadowing", because you (as a writer) don't give a direct clue that later in the story there will be a fist fight, but establish a trait of your character that makes him/her winning less surprising and more plausible.
The Leviathan DLC tries this planting for the catalyst scene by explaining that there is an AI that created the Reapers to achieve a solution to a given problem.Therefore, when Shepard stumbles upon the starchild, we are supposed to be less surprised by its existence and its goal. It is not foreshadowing, as the Leviathans AFAIK don't tell Shepard that the AI is in any way connected to the crucible in general or the catalyst in particular.
IMHO neither the existence nor the goal of the catalyst are a plot hole in the vanilla version of the game, that's only bad story telling . A plot hole is for example why the catalyst speaks with the voices of both FemShep and MaleShep, as there is no in-universe way that it can know both voices...which would take us right into the discussion of the definition of "plot hole"...but I think we have had enough terminology for one post 
I also have learned that I am not allowed to use DEM for this, because a DEM is supposed to solve the conflict itself, instead of enabling the protagonist to do so (I'd say that this is an ingenious and felicitous example of the phrase "missing the point", but I'll go along with it on this forum
The Leviathan DLC tries this planting for the catalyst scene by explaining that there is an AI that created the Reapers to achieve a solution to a given problem.Therefore, when Shepard stumbles upon the starchild, we are supposed to be less surprised by its existence and its goal. It is not foreshadowing, as the Leviathans AFAIK don't tell Shepard that the AI is in any way connected to the crucible in general or the catalyst in particular.
I just see the Reapers as highly intelligent, sentient beings, but with blinker vision narrow-mindedness 
"Must kill squishy things!" But why? "We just must!"
Ever since I finished the game for the first time a couple of weeks ago I've been reading and looking through a lot of discussions on the ending and while I also didn't think it was that bad at first, I can now definitely see some of the problems it has. I came to the forums ready to defend the ending or make interesting discussions but now I feel like it's pointless. All of these discussions about the ending has made me feel sad and frustrated because as interesting and as brave as it was for me, the fact that they might have been rushed by EA, or that the original writer wasn't on board, or that they just had to come up with something at the last minute make it all sad and pointless. Which leads me to the question, why? Why do professional writers do that? I've seen this happen in movies, TV shows and even books, they come up with interesting ideas only to leave them dangling and see where it takes them and then make stuff up as they go along leaving a trail of plot holes and what not. This is frustrating for me because I love storytelling and as a someone who attempts to also write stories, one of the most satisfying things about it is having a whole, clear picture of the story in my head and then just filling up the details. I personally never sit down and attempt to write one of my stories if I don't have a clear picture of where is going (I often envision the ending first) or if can't connect the dots in a satisfying manner. And I'm just a poor college student with only a couple of Composition classes on my belt, I cannot understand that from blockbuster productions 
Anyway, the behind-the-scenes of the whole ending controversy is very interesting and I guess I have learned more about stuff like how game development goes specially for a big and beloved series such as this which anyway cannot help but love for the great experience it provided me 
I thought the objection was that the Catalyst doesn't actually solve anything for Shepard; it just complicates an existing solution. Although, technically, I suppose the Catalyst does solve the suddenly-introduced problem of the Crucible having no "on" switch.
I know the discussion only from the point where the crucible does not do anything and Shepard faints. While the whole concept of the crucible is somewhat laughable - we built it, but don't know what it does, or rather, no one bothers to tell Shepard because Shepard's a moron - given that premise it is not a big surprise that people don't know how to start the thing after it has docked 
. That is, statement A is b***t, statement B is b***t, but the implication how one gets from A to B actually makes sense .
Of course Shepard could have regained conciousness, "nice nap, now get going!", and randomly pushed buttons until the crucible...does stuff, in which case the catalyst would indeed just have complicated things but that possibility was off my plausibility radar when I first saw that scene...
I just see the Reapers as highly intelligent, sentient beings, but with blinker vision narrow-mindedness
Of course we have so little information that we can make up almost anything about the reapers. That they are just VIs, bound to their programming without free will. That the starchild is a trick played by Harbinger. That the starchild controls all reapers and they only wrongly believe that they have a free will (like Souvereign). That the starchild is a manifestation of the free willed hive conciousness of the reapers. And so on and so on...
I mostly like your interpretation: They are sentient, highly intelligent, but bound to a misguided hypothesis about life by their core programming that they themselves cannot change (makes them almost human ).
But, to describe this whole situation with the catalyst, I'd like to cite what Dave Van Ronk said about Bob Dylan's song "All Along the Watchtower":
That whole artistic mystique is one of the great traps of this business, because down that road lies unintelligibility. Dylan has a lot to answer for there, because after a while he discovered that he could get away with anything—he was Bob Dylan and people would take whatever he wrote on faith. So he could do something like "All Along the Watchtower," which is simply a mistake from the title on down: a watchtower is not a road or a wall, and you can't go along it.
That's almost applicable 1:1 to the catalyst. Or the whole ending.
the fact that they might have been rushed by EA
Bioware said that E.A. didn't interfere in Mass Effect 3 development. And why would they interfere in something that sells well? (http://www.escapistm...reative-Control)
the original writer wasn't on board
Drew karpyphyn wasn't on board because he wanted to write his own book. There was no problem (proof : he went back). You overestimated the writer's job. As a teamjob, the Mass Effect project is made by several people. Not only writers. You forget the most important people : the producers. If you have seen what is needed to work as a writer at Bioware, you must have noticed that the writer must create the form for the producers ideas. Why Casey Hudson talked so much about Mass Effect ? Just because it was his project! He was the one who decided the direction. Changing Drew Karpyphyn was not so important actually. (Gibeau from EA : "Casey is an artist. He made a choice about the story that he [and the team] wanted to tell as related to Mass Effect 3. And we didn't intervene.")
that they just had to come up with something at the last minute make it all sad and pointless
Ok, that's rumors again. Bioware said that the ending was not created at the last minute. Drew Karpyphyn talked about the fact that the ending used what they were thinking about the ending ("From what I hear, the basic concept of the original ending is there, though some details may have been tweaked").
This is frustrating for me because I love storytelling and as a someone who attempts to also write stories, one of the most satisfying things about it is having a whole, clear picture of the story in my head and then just filling up the details. I personally never sit down and attempt to write one of my stories if I don't have a clear picture of where is going (I often envision the ending first) or if can't connect the dots in a satisfying manner. And I'm just a poor college student with only a couple of Composition classes on my belt, I cannot understand that from blockbuster productions
Ok you write at a level where you can do that. Sorry but when you have a project that will take you almost 10 years, you don't clearly see what the ending will be. that's what happens when you write at professional level. Writing isn't about events, it's about form, structures, ideas etc... Bioware had an idea, quite vague, for the ending. Writing will change your ideas so having a vague idea is enough.
I think it's more accurate to say that Shepard's side doesn't have that part of the plans. Though apparently TIM does? He does get some portion of the Mars data that Shepard didn't get. And it's not necessarily a problem that they're building a device with no understanding of its function. (see, for instance, Niven and Gerrold's The Flying Sorcerers, where a crashed human explorer teaches aliens to build a hydrogen balloon so he can fly back to his ship. The aliens don't have the necessary concepts to understand hydrogen, or electrolysis. But as long as they arrange the wires and magnets just so, and keep turning the crank, they don't need to. The device makes hydrogen whether you understand it or not.)I know the discussion only from the point where the crucible does not do anything and Shepard faints. While the whole concept of the crucible is somewhat laughable - we built it, but don't know what it does, or rather, no one bothers to tell Shepard because Shepard's a moron
Retour en haut