3446 réponses à ce sujet

[Natureguy85]

In your first step I notice "logically" and "remain consistent". Does it mean that consistency is related to logic? Or credibility?

 

What do you mean by "credibility?" By remain consistent, I mean the world follows its own internal rules.

 

 

 

Your second step is to look for some alternate interpretations, that's ok but why do you ignore them for Mass Effect's case? We only have to see the discussion about control and synthesis to see that alternate interpretation are not accepted by those who disliked or hated the ending.

 

I don't ignore them. I've analyzed and judged those that have been presented to me. Then there are two types to discuss. There are those that are simply not supported by the narrative, but then there are also those which either are supported or at least not refuted by the narrative and are therefore completely valid but aren't what the author intended. For example, IT doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but someone here (or in the other thread) suggested that the slides were views of what the narrator hoped would happen. I hadn't considered that idea. can't refute that idea from within the game, but can only dispute it as an outside observer and knowing that the writers meant for the slides to be taken as what does happen.

 

 

 

"a reader isn't supposed to have to fill in the blanks for the author on important things". The problem here is what is important in a story? What do you consider to be important in Mass Effect that isn't told explicitly or implicitly?

 

This is a fair question and this is a great discussion point as people may disagree on what is or is not important. Then we get to talk about which plotholes or other oddities are ok because of things like Rule of Cool or Rule of Drama.

 

The strongest example to your last question is probably the question of what the heck the Catalyst was doing during Mass Effect 1 and why it wouldn't open the Relay itself. The Catalyst is a clear retcon and this issue is too big a deal to be left up to fans to make excuses. You can argue it was a movie too late, but this would be like the reveal that Vader was Luke's father without ever having the conversation between Luke and Obi-Wan about the discrepancy with what Obi-Wan said in the first film. We'd be wondering if Obi-Wan meant something cryptic, as he does, or if he was a liar or just a crazy old wizard, as Owen says.

 

Different people are going to have different breaking points for their suspension of disbelief or what they can let slide or excuse, but there is a compounding effect where even if you let an issue slide, that changes what you'll be willing to let slide down the road because you're slightly more out of the fiction than you were a moment ago.

 

For further, I'd reference the "narrative coherence" section from Mr.Btongue's video. This also addresses that "consistency" question from earlier.

 

 

 

"A lot of the problems people have here come from imposing things onto the narrative that aren't there" the problem is that those who like the ending see in the narration what isn't to be there. How can you explain that difference?

 

Around here they twist things to fit what they've already decided. The Catalyst's absolutist claims get turned into mere possibility and "synthetics will destroy all organics" gets turned into "Synthetics are advanced and could easily surpass Organics." The events of the games regarding the Geth are ignored in favor of what happened in the Morning War. While that is valid lore, the events of the game are more important. The events of the series simply do not show what the Catalyst claims. Don't forget that many who like the endings, at least in this thread, don't care about that fact. They just accept what the Catalyst says as gospel. Now, recall that I know as a consumer that the Catalyst is being straight with me, but that's the poor writing.

 

 

 

"The other main problem is accepting the argument from authority from the Catalyst, instead of laying the burden of proof on it." This has nothing to do with the quality of the writing. Or you'll have to demonstrate that it's related.

 

Sure. The events of the story should either support the Catalyst's claims or go against them. If it's the former, then we have a reason to consider the Catalyst's position and may need to work harder to find a reason not to accept it. If it's the latter case, as it is in Mass Effect, then we need to be able to argue against the enemy using those events as evidence/proof. This doesn't happen. Shepard just gives very weak complaints and then still picks from the options presented by the Catalyst. All sense of accomplishment is gone and you're now being allowed to "win" by the enemy. Oh, thank you Catalyst.

 

Refuse arguably fixes the last problem, but it results in what at least feels like a loss, even though one could interpret it as a victory since the Reapers are ultimately defeated. The current cycle we know and love gets Reaped.

 

People are accepting the argument from authority to force the Catalyst scenes to work. While I do this outside the narrative as a player, some are trying to do this within the narrative. It is a reaction to try to fix the bad writing.

 

 

 

 

"Consuming lots of fiction, whether it's movies, books, or even games helps because you'll see good and bad examples of lots of things. Read books or articles from authors too." Drinking a lot wine doesn't make you oenologist. Your sentences are too general to be true.

 

Simply drinking doesn't, but if you learn from others and actually start to analyze and compare what you're drinking and read books on the subject then you can become at least an amateur. You can learn a lot from self study.

 

That last line is a cop-out.

[Natureguy85]

 

"When does it say the Geth are already a threat? I don't remember so please refresh my memory. The rest of what you said is irrelevant. What does that have to do with Synthetics wiping out all Organics?"

 

Can't you see that tech,machines and AI is overtaking ME world vastly?I started seeing this from the second game on and had my questions what it's gonna all this boil down to in the long run.And the ending absolutely answered that.Maybe you need a character to blatantly say "We have a problem with synthetics!" to actually see there is a problem with synthetics?

I like that it all come from nowhere for the characters as well,because the real threat is the evergrowing reliance on tech that would doom organics in the long run.

Yes,the game itself doesn't imply this at all till the very end,and I find this fascinating!Because,everything including the gameplay as well relies on tech almost entirely.This is even a little bit of 4th wall breaking,now that I think about it.Amazing!

 

 

 

No, that isn't demonstrated at all. There are only a few conversations about how Synthetics can think and react faster. ME2 and ME3 show machines working along side Organics. A character stating that there is a problem would at least help set it up. Did you notice that you fought organic, if heavily modified and cybernetic, enemies in ME2? All of those "problems" are easily solved each time.

 

There is no story being told about an evergrowing reliance on tech. They didn't even do a story about the problem of continuing to rely on Reaper tech after the reveal in ME1. You're imposing that on the narrative.

 

 

 

 

"For all of Fallout 3's failings"

 

What are Fallout 3's failings?

 

Spoiler tag for Fraggle.

 

Spoiler

 

Iakus mentioned the ones with the ending, though I'll also add that the game still calls you a coward if you send your radiation immune teammate into the radiation so that everyone can live. I also hate how the other character present, who spent the entire rest of your interaction telling you how awesome she and her unit are, gets mad if you suggest she goes into the radiation. Apparently she thinks it more appropriate that this 18 year old she just met go.

 

There are other things too. The Dad's plan (not necessarily the goal) is highly questionable. He sacrifices himself for no reason and then the guy he tries to kill magically survives with no explanation. The world is also less believable, making cool locations that make no sense. As I said though, those locations are interesting so it depends on how much you care that they make sense.

 

On a purely subjective note, I also got bored eventually fighting the same enemies in the same way over and over. I found it easier to mix it up in New Vegas.

 

Despite those problems, I still like to point at President EDEN for an example of how the Catalyst could have been better executed.

 

 

 

Ha,that never bothered me,big deal!I was so blown away by everything this game offered me,that I was not simply playing it,I was living in it!

 

Interesting. If you were that invested in the world, I'd think you'd be more bothered by the story and setting's failings, not less. But I understand the idea that you don't care about those types of things if you're having a good time playing.

 

 

 

And before you start on the Geth stopped attacking bit. That doesn't matter without the Relay Network to bring the Quarians into the territory controlled by other races and the infrastructure they have build like getting ore, fuel, parts to fabricate what they need the Quarians would have been left with only what food, water and fuel they have being forced to rely only on FTL speed to get any were.

 

 

This is true, but since the galaxy is in its advanced state at all thanks to Reaper tech, would the Quaians have even made the Geth (at least at this point in history) without it?

[Natureguy85]

You have a point of course, but I think this thesis still can make sense, but it depends on what you yourself believe (it seems ).

 

Sure, it makes sense on its own. That the Reaper solution can't possibly be the best response is another issue entirely.  However, we don't get this premise on its own. We get it inside a story whose events have told us the opposite.

 

 

 

 

The axiom is that a synthetic race always rebels against the creators, while the second part could come much later, but does threaten all organics since the synthetics become significantly stronger the further they develop (based on the exponential growth and how strong the geth already were in their infancy). I think what the Catalyst works with is that it starts with rebellion, and the potential to wipe out organic races is there even early on (see the geth again), but in a more developed state (which will happen due to them constantly improving themselves), wiping out organics becomes inevitable. I guess for the Catalyst, since the rebelling is also inevitable, one just leads to the other. All synthetics will start rebelling when they gain sentience, to fight for their own life, and likely the Catalyst already takes these differences into account - there's two different sides and already conflict from the start.

 

And the problem is that the Catalyst takes what is mere possibility and claims inevitability. Something happening every time so far suggests it might happen again, but it is not a guarantee.  In the current state of the galaxy, the Reapers are not needed and even given the Catalyst's premise, the Reapers are hardly the ideal solution.

 

 

 

There was also something like... synthetics not having any use of organic life. I don't remember who exactly it was that mentioned something like this, maybe it was Javik? I have to check some dialogue

 

Tali mentions this in the first game, though ME2 frames this as just her justifying the Geth working with Saren, particularly given her animosity towards them.

 

 

 

 

I think that in the end, maybe this statement is just meant to raise different opinions and get people to talk about this. As we can see in here, some people absolutely don't believe the Catalyst's claims, while others do. I'm saying that from the Catalyst's side, it has all the right to form this thesis, but players don't necessarily need to accept it.

 

Sure, but good writing and game design either need to have the story demonstrate the that Catalyst is right, at least from a certain point of view, or the game needs to allow the player to argue/fight against him.

 

 

 

Not all get mad, but what is a 'proper story' anyway? Because for some of us - like you say - what we got was enough to see it as proper story, while others don't. Personally I don't care too much for a definition of the term 'proper story', but rather I see if it's fine for my own taste and makes sense to me, not going by some textbook definition.

All in all, I acknowledge the problems others have with the ME story, but it was never an issue for me.

 

Well there's a lot to that, but the big thing here is having an ending that follows naturally from what came before.  ME3 doesn't have this. It might for itself, but not for the series. The Catalyst is a retcon and is very out of place, whether it's the "each a nation, independent" idea or the plot hole of why Mass Effect 1 even needed to happen considering the Catalyst is on the Citadel.

 

 

 

Yeah, but that's what I said, isn't it? We organics do not want it, but synthetics think we want it.

 

Woah, you just stumbled on a great idea. As it stands, to the Catalyst the Reapers are just big genetic libraries with guns. Their purpose is "storing the old life" for whatever that's worth. But the Catalyst says that Organics seek perfection through integrating with technology. Legion says that the Reapers are what the Geth aspire to be, since they are many minds in one body together.

 

The Catalyst could have said something like "I've seen that you want to use technology to improve yourselves. I'll take care of that for you and make you awesome. You're welcome!" Then it would be the Catalyst misunderstanding or taking the concept to an extreme. It could be a "be careful what you wish for" scenario for Organics. However, they'd have to put more emphasis on the idea of Organics improving themselves with tech. What I just described would better fit Deus Ex or Bioshock, with augmentation and ADAM respectively.

 

 

 

I'm not sure I understand why you think it is out of place. Is this simply from a lore view point? That it 'shouldn't' be possible?

Because the ideas of Synthesis and Control, at least to a certain degree, were already in the game. Like in Overlord, or how Javik tells us about the Zha/Zha'til symbiosis. Everything the Reapers touch is a combination of both, the husks, all the abominations they create are part organic, part synthetic. Even they themselves.

Control is often present because of Indoctrination (which I see as a form of it), or later on the Illusive Man with his experiments.

 

Yes, these ideas were in the game but they were never presented positively except by the Indoctrinated enemy.

 

Using Reaper direct Reaper tech always led to problems, mostly Indoctrination. Using the IFF led the Collectors to the Normandy and got the crew kidnapped, though that was apparently a temporary and relatively small scale problem.  The only example that works out fine is developing the Thanix cannon, but I don't know if we're told if there were any Indoctrination problems along the way. This problem is strong in Mass Effect 3 though TIM playing with Reaper tech gets him and all of Cerberus Indoctrinated. Overlord was a disaster. When arguing with TIM, Shepard tells him humanity isn't ready. He asks why TIM doesn't just go Control the Reapers and points out that TIM is Indoctrinated. 

 

If we want to point at Saren and all the Reaper ground troops as Synthesis, then that is always horrific and abominable.

 

 

 

 

I will play it at some point because I already have it (it was cheap so I bought it ). But I'll also think about playing New Vegas.

 

I like New Vegas a lot. FO3 isn't all bad. There are some good side quests and characters. The main plot was just poor. And I almost want to play again just so I can kill Three-Dog.

[gothpunkboy89]

 

 

This is true, but since the galaxy is in its advanced state at all thanks to Reaper tech, would the Quaians have even made the Geth (at least at this point in history) without it?

 

Not necessarily the Reapers left behind ME technology and other scraps that helped but they would have left nothing behind about building VI set ups like the Geth. Particularly given how the point of the Reapers is to prevent said form happening and the Protheans were not big fans of them either.

[Natureguy85]

Not necessarily the Reapers left behind ME technology and other scraps that helped but they would have left nothing behind about building VI set ups like the Geth. Particularly given how the point of the Reapers is to prevent said form happening and the Protheans were not big fans of them either.

 

Maybe not the particulars, but all of the species were as advanced as thy are because of the Reaper technology. The Quarians had already found the Citadel and joined the galactic community. We don't know what technology exactly was found or how A might have led to B, but you have a point regarding VI/AI given the retcon that is the Catalyst.

[oddball_bg]

"No, that isn't demonstrated at all. There are only a few conversations about how Synthetics can think and react faster. ME2 and ME3 show machines working along side Organics. A character stating that there is a problem would at least help set it up. Did you notice that you fought organic, if heavily modified and cybernetic, enemies in ME2? All of those "problems" are easily solved each time.

 

There is no story being told about an evergrowing reliance on tech. They didn't even do a story about the problem of continuing to rely on Reaper tech after the reveal in ME1. You're imposing that on the narrative."

 

 

I think you simply do not understand what I am talking about.Technology and advancement is the thing the whole universe in ME is relying on.The ending goes a little bit ABOVE the narrative itself by stating that all the tech(both lore and gameplay) would be the death of organic life in the long run.It's a little bit of a 4th wall betrayal(in a good way) because the player never questioned that in the series.We took all the tech for granted as we played.Without advanced tech Shepard himself/herself would not be alive in the beginning of ME2.As I said I find this fascinating because it elevates everything about the series.

[oddball_bg]

"I like New Vegas a lot. FO3 isn't all bad. There are some good side quests and characters. The main plot was just poor. And I almost want to play again just so I can kill Three-Dog."

 

 

No matter how hard I tried I just could not like New Vegas that mush,let alone more than Fallout 3.Fallout 3 was one of my first next gen experiences and I was absolutely blown away by everything.Simply put I haven't played anything like this before.I absolutely didn't care about it's main story at all,I didn't even need one.I had my own story,my own experience in the wasteland.I was simply living in this world,not merely playing.Who cares that you can have Fawkes and send him to turn off the generator at the end!Really,super small oversight that shouldn't be discussed at all!

New Vegas felt really unnecessary to me.It somehow felt like an imitation to the previous game that couldn't justify it's existence very well.And not to have the exact same gameplay,they made so many unneccessery,frustrating and emburdening little changes to the gameplay that they ultimately just suck the fun out of it.Not to mention that the game was mostly linear compared to FO3,where you get out of the vault with a pistol and a baseball bat,get blinded by the sudden sunlight and see this vast wasteland in front of you,and you know it's up to you to go wherever you want and make your own experience.

Also they nerfed V.A.T.S. so much to the point that it was more of your enemy than your ally.V.A.T.S. was one of the main reasons i liked FO3 so much.It was an ingenious mechanic!You could deal with very high level enemies and mostly groups with it if you know how to use it.It created the sense of tactical and semi turn based gameplay on the fly(whenever you want).In New Vegas it was almost used as a last resort and many times it would get you killed instead of actually helping you.

And the main antagonists,Caesar's Legion,oh my God!In the post apocalyptic world where there are plasma cannons,plasma rifles,robots,AI etc.,they go with spears and hammers just for the sake of it!And they terrorise and kill everyone,and no one can do anything about it.They were so artificially buffed,it felt like a parody.At one point I was shooting some general centurion(not boss) with a plasma cannon and he was chasing me with a hammer,absolutely ignoring everything I was throwing at him,half naked with sandals.I managed,with a lot of effort,to cripple both his legs,and guess what,no change whatsoever!He was still faster than me,absolutely ignoring his own crippled limbs.It was like I was battling Michael Myers.I don't complain because it was hard(I like challenging hardcore games),I am complaining because it was so ridiculous that it's putting you out of the experience!

Oh,and the fractions they added didn't do absolutely anything to the gameplay except emburdening it more.You could be part of every fraction at the same time and...then what?!Well,just for the sake of it,of course!

Also there wasn't a single area in Mohave wasteland that was interesting or complex like,for example,the D.C. ruins.

[Natureguy85]

 

"No, that isn't demonstrated at all. There are only a few conversations about how Synthetics can think and react faster. ME2 and ME3 show machines working along side Organics. A character stating that there is a problem would at least help set it up. Did you notice that you fought organic, if heavily modified and cybernetic, enemies in ME2? All of those "problems" are easily solved each time.

 

There is no story being told about an evergrowing reliance on tech. They didn't even do a story about the problem of continuing to rely on Reaper tech after the reveal in ME1. You're imposing that on the narrative."

 

 

I think you simply do not understand what I am talking about.Technology and advancement is the thing the whole universe in ME is relying on.The ending goes a little bit ABOVE the narrative itself by stating that all the tech(both lore and gameplay) would be the death of organic life in the long run.It's a little bit of a 4th wall betrayal(in a good way) because the player never questioned that in the series.We took all the tech for granted as we played.Without advanced tech Shepard himself/herself would not be alive in the beginning of ME2.As I said I find this fascinating because it elevates everything about the series.

 

 

That's an interesting view. That's certainly not the story as written by the actual writers, but it's definitely a way they could have gone.

 

 

 

"I like New Vegas a lot. FO3 isn't all bad. There are some good side quests and characters. The main plot was just poor. And I almost want to play again just so I can kill Three-Dog."

 

 

No matter how hard I tried I just could not like New Vegas that mush,let alone more than Fallout 3.Fallout 3 was one of my first next gen experiences and I was absolutely blown away by everything.Simply put I haven't played anything like this before.I absolutely didn't care about it's main story at all,I didn't even need one.I had my own story,my own experience in the wasteland.I was simply living in this world,not merely playing.Who cares that you can have Fawkes and send him to turn off the generator at the end!Really,super small oversight that shouldn't be discussed at all!

New Vegas felt really unnecessary to me.It somehow felt like an imitation to the previous game that couldn't justify it's existence very well.And not to have the exact same gameplay,they made so many unneccessery,frustrating and emburdening little changes to the gameplay that they ultimately just suck the fun out of it.Not to mention that the game was mostly linear compared to FO3,where you get out of the vault with a pistol and a baseball bat,get blinded by the sudden sunlight and see this vast wasteland in front of you,and you know it's up to you to go wherever you want and make your own experience.

Also they nerfed V.A.T.S. so much to the point that it was more of your enemy than your ally.V.A.T.S. was one of the main reasons i liked FO3 so much.It was an ingenious mechanic!You could deal with very high level enemies and mostly groups with it if you know how to use it.It created the sense of tactical and semi turn based gameplay on the fly(whenever you want).In New Vegas it was almost used as a last resort and many times it would get you killed instead of actually helping you.

And the main antagonists,Caesar's Legion,oh my God!In the post apocalyptic world where there are plasma cannons,plasma rifles,robots,AI etc.,they go with spears and hammers just for the sake of it!And they terrorise and kill everyone,and no one can do anything about it.They were so artificially buffed,it felt like a parody.At one point I was shooting some general centurion(not boss) with a plasma cannon and he was chasing me with a hammer,absolutely ignoring everything I was throwing at him,half naked with sandals.I managed,with a lot of effort,to cripple both his legs,and guess what,no change whatsoever!He was still faster than me,absolutely ignoring his own crippled limbs.It was like I was battling Michael Myers.I don't complain because it was hard(I like challenging hardcore games),I am complaining because it was so ridiculous that it's putting you out of the experience!

Oh,and the fractions they added didn't do absolutely anything to the gameplay except emburdening it more.You could be part of every fraction at the same time and...then what?!Well,just for the sake of it,of course!

Also there wasn't a single area in Mohave wasteland that was interesting or complex like,for example,the D.C. ruins.

 

 

Ah, so you have an emotional attachment to FO3. That's totally cool if you want to ignore the story and craft your own. I'd actually recommend it because FO3's story sucked. However, not being able to send in one of three immune companions is a major flaw in the story because it exposes how stupid the forced sacrifice is, especially considering

Spoiler

how the story demonstrates that the Father's sacrifice was worthless.

 

I know what you mean about NV being an imitation because it was supposed to be just the next one. They did change a few things, including streamlining the skills. It's been awhile but I didn't notice a change in VATS. NV wasn't any more linear than FO3. While you're directed toward New Vegas, there's plenty to explore. You are right that the first steps out of the Vault in FO3 was a cool scene and done well.

 

Caesar's Legion is a lot more interesting than the Enclave, with the exception of EDEN, who was awesome. Both are obvious bad guys but the Legion is more present in the world. I see what you mean about the weapons, but that's true of both games that the weapons are balanced a certain way. People and creatures often take many hits from energy weapons. They are supposed to be relatively rare and expensive to the setting.

 

You didn't really belong to the factions in New Vegas, but you had relationships with them. I liked that you had some that opposed each other.

 

The DC ruins was only cool because it used actual landmarks we know in the real world. The actual area itself wasn't that interesting. However, conceptually Megaton and Rivet City were neat, even if they made no sense.

[oddball_bg]

"Ah, so you have an emotional attachment to FO3. That's totally cool if you want to ignore the story and craft your own. I'd actually recommend it because FO3's story sucked. However, not being able to send in one of three immune companions is a major flaw in the story because it exposes how stupid the forced sacrifice is, especially considering

Spoiler 

 

 

 

I know what you mean about NV being an imitation because it was supposed to be just the next one. They did change a few things, including streamlining the skills. It's been awhile but I didn't notice a change in VATS. NV wasn't any more linear than FO3. While you're directed toward New Vegas, there's plenty to explore. You are right that the first steps out of the Vault in FO3 was a cool scene and done well.

 

Caesar's Legion is a lot more interesting than the Enclave, with the exception of EDEN, who was awesome. Both are obvious bad guys but the Legion is more present in the world. I see what you mean about the weapons, but that's true of both games that the weapons are balanced a certain way. People and creatures often take many hits from energy weapons. They are supposed to be relatively rare and expensive to the setting.

 

You didn't really belong to the factions in New Vegas, but you had relationships with them. I liked that you had some that opposed each other.

 

The DC ruins was only cool because it used actual landmarks we know in the real world. The actual area itself wasn't that interesting. However, conceptually Megaton and Rivet City were neat, even if they made no sense."

 

I am sorry but you are very very wrong!NV was much more linear than F03.Yes,technically you could go in whichever direction you would like to in the beginning,but Obsidian put very high level enemies(cazadors,etc.) everywhere except on the path they wanted you to take,forcing you to take it.And it's not only in the beginning as well.Not to mention that the whole Mohave map was mostly narrow roads to areas,forcing you to enter them from a predefined spots.In FO3 you could climb hills and mountains and generally you can go anywhere(whatever is visible is reachable).In NV you couldn't climb anything,you had to stick only to the roads.Overall FO3 is designed with a different intentions and mindset than NV.In FO3 the main emphasis is freedom and shaping your own adventure.In NV it's not entirely like that,you had to stick and play more or less as the developers intended,otherwise you would have miserable experience(as I had,because I tried to play it like FO3).I am not sure it was even intended for NV to be like that,if I have to be honest.But this is how it turned out.In my opinion Obsidian made it like that out of sheer lack of skill to build it like the the previous one.

Another example of this is how they were constantly shoving NCR and Caesar's legion down your throat literally everywhere you go,again,forcing you to take a side.I didn't like both fractions at all(the super silly patriotic good guys and the super bad "kill all innocent weaklings" bad guys),both were going very very close to a tasteless parody,and it was simply boring to listen to their mumbling all the time!Literally wherever you go it was "NCR this and Caesar's legion that"!I got fed up with it in the first third of the game.Just wanted to explore but the game was just not designed like that!In FO3 the Enclave were much more subtle,hell,in my first playthrough I met Enclave soldiers near the end of the game.No one was forcing you to do anything you didn't want and that was the main emphasis.

Also,you are not right comparing Enclave with Caesar's legion in terms of weapon and damage.The enclave were all wearing power armor and were using plasma weapons,robots,centry turrets.Caesar's legion were half naked,wearing skirts and sandals,were attacking you with spears and wild dogs,and were still 1000% more damage sponges than the Enclave.Come on,it's ridiculous!

V.A.T.S. was deliberately nerfed because people were complaining it was too overpowered in FO3(you didn't take damage in V.A.T.S.,or very very little).And,again,they messed it up big time,making it almost useless.For example,if you are fighting one of those rattlesnake coyotes and enter V.A.T.S. to fire at it,the thing that will happen is the following:in slow motion you will see the coyote coming fast at you and start biting you,and then you will fire your gun NOT HITTING IT AT ALL!For whatever reason,when someone is very close to you in V.A.T.S. or coming at you,you don't hit him at all.They managed to botch the awesome tactical gameplay from FO3,making it much more streamlined and boring.In NV V.A.T.S. is used only to fire a single shot from a distance and that's it.Let me give you an example of how I play FO3:let's say there are three enemies coming at you at the same time.You immediately enter V.A.T.S. to see what type they are.What you see,for example,is the following:a guy with assault rifle,a guy with a flamethrower,and a girl with a melee weapon.You have limited points in V.A.T.S., so this is what you do:you fire at assault guy's arm,making him not fire at you for a short time and decreasing his accuracy at least 50% because one of his arms is crippled;you fire at the flamethrower weapon itself,forcing him to drop it entirely(you may pick it up before him,btw);and you fire at the melee girl's feet,crippling her and slowing her down significantly.And all of this is done in ONE V.A.T.S. session.AND IT WORKS LIKE A CHARM!Try to do this in NV,I dare you!

About areas,in NV most of them were a single house or a shack,and that's it.There was nothing even remotely complex or creative,or as big as D.C. ruins,Rivet city,Megaton etc.The only thing I can think of is that boring NCR base.

 

Anyway,not to turn this into a Fallout thread...

[gothpunkboy89]

Maybe not the particulars, but all of the species were as advanced as thy are because of the Reaper technology. The Quarians had already found the Citadel and joined the galactic community. We don't know what technology exactly was found or how A might have led to B, but you have a point regarding VI/AI given the retcon that is the Catalyst.

 

sped up the development that lead to the Geth maybe. But the Geth would have been created then or 400 years later when their technology reached that point on their own.  It was an inevitability.

[fraggle]

Sure, it makes sense on its own. That the Reaper solution can't possibly be the best response is another issue entirely.  However, we don't get this premise on its own. We get it inside a story whose events have told us the opposite.

 

And the problem is that the Catalyst takes what is mere possibility and claims inevitability. Something happening every time so far suggests it might happen again, but it is not a guarantee.  In the current state of the galaxy, the Reapers are not needed and even given the Catalyst's premise, the Reapers are hardly the ideal solution.

 

Fair enough, like I said I think everybody just believes what they want to or can believe. Within ME, Javik now crossed my mind. He absolutely has no doubt that all synthetics at some point commit treachery and wants to see them gone. And he doesn't even know the Catalyst's claims. He just goes by his own experience. Maybe we can use this as a parallel for all players. Of course we can say that we've beaten or can beat any synthetics in the games, but we also learn of the geth history enough to make up our mind about a possible truth of the Catalyst's claim. And I'm not saying that everyone should just believe its claim, just that some people choose to do, despite us being able to solve synthetic problems on our own. Some people just choose to believe that if not the geth, the next synthetic race or one after will become a threat to organics.

 

Tali mentions this in the first game, though ME2 frames this as just her justifying the Geth working with Saren, particularly given her animosity towards them.

 

Ah, thanks!

 

Sure, but good writing and game design either need to have the story demonstrate the that Catalyst is right, at least from a certain point of view, or the game needs to allow the player to argue/fight against him.

 

I actually think that the story doesn't have to demonstrate that the Catalyst is right, because it kinda feels like we as players experience ME in our own way, each of us, and each of us has a different opinion about the truth in the claim. If we were shown the Catalyst is right, what would it have changed really? Would we all suddenly have picked Synthesis because we possibly could've witnessed the extinction of one or multiple organic races and thought merging organics and synthetics is the ultimate solution? I think the problem is that even if we would've witnessed it, we cannot foresee the future, so we can still only choose what we believe is the best.

And the arguing, yeah, I can get why people want that. Personally, I might have not liked it, but I guess it all depends on how it would've been handled.

 

Well there's a lot to that, but the big thing here is having an ending that follows naturally from what came before.  ME3 doesn't have this. It might for itself, but not for the series. The Catalyst is a retcon and is very out of place, whether it's the "each a nation, independent" idea or the plot hole of why Mass Effect 1 even needed to happen considering the Catalyst is on the Citadel.

 

Yeah ok, we've been over this retcon thing before I think I want to make the Catalyst work in ME1, you don't, which is absolutely fine, but then a discussion about this is actually rather pointless

 

The Catalyst could have said something like "I've seen that you want to use technology to improve yourselves. I'll take care of that for you and make you awesome. You're welcome!" Then it would be the Catalyst misunderstanding or taking the concept to an extreme. It could be a "be careful what you wish for" scenario for Organics. However, they'd have to put more emphasis on the idea of Organics improving themselves with tech. What I just described would better fit Deus Ex or Bioshock, with augmentation and ADAM respectively.

 

I like that idea. "Be careful what you wish for" is always one of my favourite scenarios! I don't know the other games, so I can't say if it would fit better in there.

 

Yes, these ideas were in the game but they were never presented positively except by the Indoctrinated enemy.

 

Point taken But even if it's the enemies' methods or ideas, you don't think that some really like this concept? I mean, people ARE choosing Synthesis, or Control, besides all we've seen can go wrong. I think this is because everyone of us has their own interpretation how things will work out. I've seen good arguments on both sides to be honest, and while I personally don't like either of these concepts, it's at least interesting an interesting read for me.

 

Using Reaper direct Reaper tech always led to problems, mostly Indoctrination. Using the IFF led the Collectors to the Normandy and got the crew kidnapped, though that was apparently a temporary and relatively small scale problem.  The only example that works out fine is developing the Thanix cannon, but I don't know if we're told if there were any Indoctrination problems along the way. This problem is strong in Mass Effect 3 though TIM playing with Reaper tech gets him and all of Cerberus Indoctrinated. Overlord was a disaster. When arguing with TIM, Shepard tells him humanity isn't ready. He asks why TIM doesn't just go Control the Reapers and points out that TIM is Indoctrinated.

 

You're right of course, but TIM also accomplished to actually control via the experiments at Sanctuary. Doesn't mean that's something good, but the concept of Control is presented by TIM, just as we can see in the end, Anderson stands for Destroy, TIM for Control. We've been confronted by these concepts throughout the game. Synthesis, I can get that this is introduced by the Catalyst first, even though we've already been in touch with the concept of combining organics and synthetics, despite it being good or bad. It was just enough for me to get introduced to the concept and the idea behind it.

 

If we want to point at Saren and all the Reaper ground troops as Synthesis, then that is always horrific and abominable.

 

I can agree on that. I was simply speaking about the idea of combining the two. For some of the players, after all we've seen, I guess Synthesis does leave a weird taste in the mouth.

 

Also, thanks for that Spoiler tag for FO3 I stopped reading you guys' posts in regards to this, hehe.

[Natureguy85]

sped up the development that lead to the Geth maybe. But the Geth would have been created then or 400 years later when their technology reached that point on their own.  It was an inevitability.

 

Not necessarily. Who knows what development path any species would have taken.

[gothpunkboy89]

Not necessarily. Who knows what development path any species would have taken.

 

And would have ended the same way. Robotics advancing enough that they can take over doing labor intensive or dangerous jobs is kind of a big goal of any technologically developed race.

[Natureguy85]

Fair enough, like I said I think everybody just believes what they want to or can believe. Within ME, Javik now crossed my mind. He absolutely has no doubt that all synthetics at some point commit treachery and wants to see them gone. And he doesn't even know the Catalyst's claims. He just goes by his own experience. Maybe we can use this as a parallel for all players. Of course we can say that we've beaten or can beat any synthetics in the games, but we also learn of the geth history enough to make up our mind about a possible truth of the Catalyst's claim. And I'm not saying that everyone should just believe its claim, just that some people choose to do, despite us being able to solve synthetic problems on our own. Some people just choose to believe that if not the geth, the next synthetic race or one after will become a threat to organics.

 

People can believe what they want but that's not how you tell a story. The events don't support the Catalyst. If people are supposed to use their own thoughts on AI outside of the narrative, we might as well have skipped everything between Sovereign and the Catalyst.

 

 

 

I actually think that the story doesn't have to demonstrate that the Catalyst is right, because it kinda feels like we as players experience ME in our own way, each of us, and each of us has a different opinion about the truth in the claim. If we were shown the Catalyst is right, what would it have changed really? Would we all suddenly have picked Synthesis because we possibly could've witnessed the extinction of one or multiple organic races and thought merging organics and synthetics is the ultimate solution? I think the problem is that even if we would've witnessed it, we cannot foresee the future, so we can still only choose what we believe is the best.

And the arguing, yeah, I can get why people want that. Personally, I might have not liked it, but I guess it all depends on how it would've been handled.

 

It doesn't have to show that the Catalyst is right, but it has to show that it might be right if we are supposed to consider that it's conclusion and solution might be right. It's also possible to accept that the Catalyst is right but still reject the Reapers as an appropriate solution. The problem is only that the Catalyst is making claims without presenting evidence to the player. Again, we might as well have just skipped to this point because the Catalyst is just looking for a decision based on his exposition, not on 3 games worth of experience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like that idea. "Be careful what you wish for" is always one of my favourite scenarios! I don't know the other games, so I can't say if it would fit better in there.

 

In Deus Ex, people can get augmented with technology. Those with older, obvious augmentations are worried that they will be surpassed and looked down on now that new technology makes augmentations far less obvious. I haven't played Human Revolution yet but I think that gets more into the Ethics of it.

In Bioshock, this substance called ADAM allows people to manipulate their DNA to give themselves various abilities, including what functions as the game's "magic." But people become addicted to the process and go insane, killing each other to get ADAM.

 

 

 

Point taken But even if it's the enemies' methods or ideas, you don't think that some really like this concept? I mean, people ARE choosing Synthesis, or Control, besides all we've seen can go wrong. I think this is because everyone of us has their own interpretation how things will work out. I've seen good arguments on both sides to be honest, and while I personally don't like either of these concepts, it's at least interesting an interesting read for me.

 

Sure, but what matters is the presentation within the story. An outside observer might think that Boromir is right and they should use the One Ring against Sauron, but the story tells you this is a bad idea. Likewise, even if you think that using the enemy's technology or methods is a good idea, the story tells you it isn't. This is a matter of themes again.

 

http://www.shamusyou...edtale/?p=28485

 

http://www.escapistm...en-Fanfiction.2

 

 

 

 

You're right of course, but TIM also accomplished to actually control via the experiments at Sanctuary. Doesn't mean that's something good, but the concept of Control is presented by TIM, just as we can see in the end, Anderson stands for Destroy, TIM for Control. We've been confronted by these concepts throughout the game. Synthesis, I can get that this is introduced by the Catalyst first, even though we've already been in touch with the concept of combining organics and synthetics, despite it being good or bad. It was just enough for me to get introduced to the concept and the idea behind it.

 

You're right that we were introduced to Control. Synthesis is an order of magnitude over what we've witnessed so far, though they could have framed the Reapers themselves as a crude attempt at Synthesis. Of course, Sovereign said they were already the pinnacle of existence. But only antagonists ever framed Control or Synthesis as good and both caused problems. Whatever you think on your own, the story never framed them positively. Control had an easy fix. Just take Xen's idea from ME2 to Control the Geth and have that as a possible way to resolve the Rannoch arc. Have it work and the Geth not break free or anything. That would show that Control can be a very good idea and help you. We'd consider that TIM might be right and be more inclined to take that option.

[angol fear]

What do you mean by "credibility?" By remain consistent, I mean the world follows its own internal rules.

 

Here there is something that bother me : "the world follows its own internal rules". A story is an intellectual construction. It uses words or/ image or/and sound to create something. It's not a world that follows some rules, it's some people who create something. The coherence isn't made by the world or some rules, it's made by the writing. So if you actually mean that the coherence is the internal logic of writing, I agree. I might sound to be playing with semantic, but I'm not : if you want to be objective and talk about the narrative, you have to be at the narrative level, not inside the story.

 

 

This is a fair question and this is a great discussion point as people may disagree on what is or is not important. Then we get to talk about which plotholes or other oddities are ok because of things like Rule of Cool or Rule of Drama.

 

The strongest example to your last question is probably the question of what the heck the Catalyst was doing during Mass Effect 1 and why it wouldn't open the Relay itself. The Catalyst is a clear retcon and this issue is too big a deal to be left up to fans to make excuses. You can argue it was a movie too late, but this would be like the reveal that Vader was Luke's father without ever having the conversation between Luke and Obi-Wan about the discrepancy with what Obi-Wan said in the first film. We'd be wondering if Obi-Wan meant something cryptic, as he does, or if he was a liar or just a crazy old wizard, as Owen says.

 

Different people are going to have different breaking points for their suspension of disbelief or what they can let slide or excuse, but there is a compounding effect where even if you let an issue slide, that changes what you'll be willing to let slide down the road because you're slightly more out of the fiction than you were a moment ago.

 

For further, I'd reference the "narrative coherence" section from Mr.Btongue's video. This also addresses that "consistency" question from earlier.

 

Now let's see how serious Mr.Btongue is.

"But I went with it because everything else was so good"

So here he states that it's good before any analysis. Just because he liked it, then it wasn't a problem for him.

 

"It seemed very vulnerable to me[...] Why didn't they blow up the crucible?"

Here he is outside the story, he doesn't follow the story and the writing, he is asking his own question because of his own expectations. He can, and once again, because he liked, then it wasn't a problem. "I don't know and I don't really care"

 

Then if you take a look at his question to show how bad the ending is, you have for instance "what the crucible is supposed to do?" (it's very late to ask himself this question! This guy seems to notice thing only when he dislikes) and then the question are less and less relevant and he makes a noisy effect to create the illusion that the player asked this question when he was reaching the ending. This isn't true.

 

So if we really take a look at his method it's very clear : when he likes, then it's good so no problem, but when he dislikes, you can use the same mechanism, it turns to be bad and problematic. His method is very subjective and he tries to sound as if he was objective using literature terms. So no seriously, you shouldn't use him as a reference to literature words. I actually didn't listen to everything because I've seen this video long ago and honestly, everything he says is wrong (he has to learn what a genre is, for instance, because he clearly doesn't know the latest researches)

 

 

I agree with you that people have different breaking point, so I understand (I have always said that) that some people dislike the ending.

If we go back on your example (What the catalyst was doing in Mass Effect 1?) I can ask "what was he doing in Mass Effect 3?". What I mean is that the catalyst is a coherent character. People want him to be active in Mass Effect 1 while he doesn't explicit act in Mass Effect 3. So he would be active at a moment (to help Sovereign) but wouldn't do anything against the crucible, or against Shepard reaching the citadel. If he would have reasons to be an explicit active character in Mass Effect 1 then it's the same in Mass Effect 3. So when people ask this question they actually want to character to be incoherent : This character has never be shown as an active character. So the fact that he does nothing in Mass Effect 1 is coherent, the character is coherent.

Now you can say that it's a retcon, so it breaks the coherence of the storytelling. And here too it doesn't work : the whole writing of Mass Effect is based on revelations. Mass Effect 2 is basically a big retcon, the same can be said for Mass Effect 3. At the same time, Mass Effect 1 actually set the basis, Mass Effect 2 starts to show that it's not black or white, and Mass Effect 3 goes further. We only learn more and more.

And if we focuse on the "it doesn't make sense", the reapers level is based on paradox, so here again it's coherent with what was set up with Sovereign in Mass Effect 1, then what Harbinger said in Mass Effect 2. It's just that the paradoxes are bigger. Here we can no longer say that it's just taunt or that he is arrogant, that's why the paradox become a real problem for most people. But here we've got a coherent writing.

[Iakus]

 

 

Another example of this is how they were constantly shoving NCR and Caesar's legion down your throat literally everywhere you go,again,forcing you to take a side.I didn't like both fractions at all(the super silly patriotic good guys and the super bad "kill all innocent weaklings" bad guys),both were going very very close to a tasteless parody,and it was simply boring to listen to their mumbling all the time!Literally wherever you go it was "NCR this and Caesar's legion that"!I got fed up with it in the first third of the game.Just wanted to explore but the game was just not designed like that!In FO3 the Enclave were much more subtle,hell,in my first playthrough I met Enclave soldiers near the end of the game.No one was forcing you to do anything you didn't want and that was the main emphasis.

 

You realize that even though there's a war going on between the NCR and Legion (thus why they're everywhere) you're not required to side with either of them, right?  You can side with House and there are endings specifically for that.

 

You can even go "Screw you all!" to ALL THREE FACTIONS and kick them all out.  There's a path to victory going that route as well.

 

Anyway, FNV wins by virtue of the WIld Wasteland trait alone.

[oddball_bg]

"You realize that even though there's a war going on between the NCR and Legion (thus why they're everywhere) you're not required to side with either of them, right?  You can side with House and there are endings specifically for that.

 

You can even go "Screw you all!" to ALL THREE FACTIONS and kick them all out.  There's a path to victory going that route as well.

 

Anyway, FNV wins by virtue of the WIld Wasteland trait alone."

 

Yeah,but 60% of the quests are related to NCR and Caesar's legion.If you wanna do SOMETHING in this game or just explore,it's inevitable you will meet them,simply because they are absolutely everywhere!Believe me,I tried to avoid them.There's not that much else besides them.

Hm...in FO3 there were far more and better weird things than Wild Wasteland trait has to offer.Some of the quests themselves were wackier than WW trait.Honestly,I don't see what's so special about it.The only thing you get is a slight hint sometimes that something is supposed to be off at certain place or time.Many times I have received the weird sound,but there was nothing extraordinary around,or maybe it was so small and unnoticeable that I simply failed to see it.

[oddball_bg]

" At the same time, Mass Effect 1 actually set the basis, Mass Effect 2 starts to show that it's not black or white, and Mass Effect 3 goes further."

 

Absolutely!

[angol fear]

Sorry I could not answer to everything, I didn't have enough time.

 

Around here they twist things to fit what they've already decided. The Catalyst's absolutist claims get turned into mere possibility and "synthetics will destroy all organics" gets turned into "Synthetics are advanced and could easily surpass Organics." The events of the games regarding the Geth are ignored in favor of what happened in the Morning War. While that is valid lore, the events of the game are more important. The events of the series simply do not show what the Catalyst claims. Don't forget that many who like the endings, at least in this thread, don't care about that fact. They just accept what the Catalyst says as gospel. Now, recall that I know as a consumer that the Catalyst is being straight with me, but that's the poor writing.

 

But here you seem to talk about what the catalyst says as if it was the first time we have it. But the central part of Mass Effect 3 is Rannoch and we have :

 

http://m.imdb.com/ti...es?qt=qt1672323

 

"Without our intervention, organics are doomed", "The Battle for Rannoch disproves your assertion".

 

We can add that the Rannoch conflict was made without the reapers, but the peace is made with a different context : the reapers and the harvest.

 

You can disagree with the catalyst, but what he says was already said in the middle of the game, he only made explicit, more concrete what was said by the reapers. And at the same time, you can disagree with him : the destroy choice is a choice that can be interpreted as "organics are not doomed".

 

Here I don't understand what you mean by "poor writing".

 

 

Sure. The events of the story should either support the Catalyst's claims or go against them. If it's the former, then we have a reason to consider the Catalyst's position and may need to work harder to find a reason not to accept it. If it's the latter case, as it is in Mass Effect, then we need to be able to argue against the enemy using those events as evidence/proof. This doesn't happen. Shepard just gives very weak complaints and then still picks from the options presented by the Catalyst. All sense of accomplishment is gone and you're now being allowed to "win" by the enemy. Oh, thank you Catalyst.

 

Refuse arguably fixes the last problem, but it results in what at least feels like a loss, even though one could interpret it as a victory since the Reapers are ultimately defeated. The current cycle we know and love gets Reaped.

 

People are accepting the argument from authority to force the Catalyst scenes to work. While I do this outside the narrative as a player, some are trying to do this within the narrative. It is a reaction to try to fix the bad writing.

 

"We need to be able to argue against the enemy" : Mass Effect has never shown a situation where Shepard could convince a synthetic. Legion asked Shepard something to get his point of view but I don't remember something like this (Shepard trying to convince a synthetic, or he always failed). And there another thing in this quotation : the "enemy". The ending made it explicit : there is no battle, it's only a harvest, the reapers are not good or evil, they simply are. When you states that they are the enemy, it means that you are not following the writing, you are making your own interpretation where you consider the catalyst to be an enemy but it seems that Shepard disagree with you. And it seems that the Catalyst is very cooperative for an enemy. The ending is supposed to be "high level" (casey Hudson's words, and the whole catalyst scene is supposed to give the impression that you are far from the battle, you have the feeling of someone who observes, who is outside and see the big picture), above good and evil, and here you go against the writing.

 

All sense of accomplishment is gone : here you are talking about satisfaction. This has nothing to do with the quality, it has to do with the reception. It's not because you are not satisfied that it's bad. The satisfaction part of your perception can't be said to be objective. Do you think that the developers wanted to create a satisfying ending? Do you really think that they wanted to create the sense of accomplishment people want? Then why didn't they create a final boss? And why did Mike Gamble said before the game was released that the ending would not please everybody?

So you can consider the ending to be a bad part as a video game, but from the writing point of view they were coherent and that's the most important point, from an objective perspective.

If a writer creates a character who is supposed to be hated, then it would be ridiculous to blame the writer for having created that character because you  hate it. In that case, the writer succeed and you dislike. But from an objective perspective there is no problem. Here I'm not talking about good or bad, I'm just talking about the objective aspect of analysis because all our discussion is about that point.

 

 

Simply drinking doesn't, but if you learn from others and actually start to analyze and compare what you're drinking and read books on the subject then you can become at least an amateur. You can learn a lot from self study.

 

That last line is a cop-out.

 

What I meant is that people can watch a lot of films, TV series, read a lot of book, if there is no quality they won't know what is quality. The same goes for analysis, if they watch and read what is on internet or if they think that what they have learnt at school (or even in university) is enough to think that they know and can make a real analysis, they are wrong, once again. they will use argument to sound like a critique, but it will be an opinion disguised. So my last line wasn't a cop out because what you said is very vague, which means that I can't disagree, but at the same time it's not true because it's incomplete.

Do you think that if you write a thesis at the university, using internet source (wikipedia, youtube...) will be valid source? When I talk about Barthes and someone answers with youtube, don't you think that there is a problem, a gap between the sources? And sure internet or the lessons (which are incomplete and are not equal to real reading of the books) make people say "I'm pretty sure that the critic/philosopher ..." while if they would have read they would know that they are wrong. But when people think they know because they have read it on internet and people agree with them (so they have repeated it, and you see it everywhere on internet), they do not develop their skills for analysis.

Reading few but with intelligence is better than reading a lot without thinking.

[Dantriges]

I take setting that tries to be internally consistent* over attempt at high level writing in something sold to me as an RPG.

 

*"tries" because it´s impossible to make it completely consistent

[gothpunkboy89]

I take setting that tries to be internally consistent* over attempt at high level writing in something sold to me as an RPG.

 

*"tries" because it´s impossible to make it completely consistent

 

Actually isn't that hard. Most of the inconsistency come from game play reasons. AKA in one cut scene it shows Shep killing guys with one bullet despite barriers and such. Game play and budget reasons they had to speed up what would have been a kind of drawn out gun fight to allow more player time shooting and to save on budget and animating those fights would take up money and disk space.

[Natureguy85]

 

Anyway,not to turn this into a Fallout thread...

 

 

Ok, I see we're looking for two different things then. You just want to explore an open world, and you've made a good case for how FO3 allowed you to do that better. I preferred New Vegas' more developed setting and better story.

 

 

 

 

And would have ended the same way. Robotics advancing enough that they can take over doing labor intensive or dangerous jobs is kind of a big goal of any technologically developed race.

 

Then why didn't every species make their own Geth? Sure, species still use tech to make some thing easier, but you don't know they would have developed the same way. We don't know what other tech would or wouldn't have been developed along side it without advancements from the Protheans/Reapers. Or if the Quarans might have had different technology that would have allowed them to more easily defeat the Geth and not be pushed off Rannoch.

 

Actually, we don't even know if the Quarians would exist as they are or if they'd have been enslaved or killed by some other species the Reapers killed. That was the plot of Descent Freespace, from which ME3 seemed to borrow.

[Natureguy85]

Here there is something that bother me : "the world follows its own internal rules". A story is an intellectual construction. It uses words or/ image or/and sound to create something. It's not a world that follows some rules, it's some people who create something. The coherence isn't made by the world or some rules, it's made by the writing. So if you actually mean that the coherence is the internal logic of writing, I agree. I might sound to be playing with semantic, but I'm not : if you want to be objective and talk about the narrative, you have to be at the narrative level, not inside the story.

 

No. The story happens within a fictional world. That world can be as like or unlike the real world as the author likes. I like this Tolkien quote:

 

"What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful 'sub-creator'. He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is 'true' : it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken ; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive secondary World from outside."

 

When a work of fiction establishes what is and is not possible within that world, we allow for that with suspension of disbelief. However, if the work starts to violate its own established rules, then our immersion and suspension of disbelief are damaged. It's not always catastrophic, but it's always damaging.

 

 

 

Now let's see how serious Mr.Btongue is.

"But I went with it because everything else was so good"

So here he states that it's good before any analysis. Just because he liked it, then it wasn't a problem for him.

 

 

"It seemed very vulnerable to me[...] Why didn't they blow up the crucible?"

Here he is outside the story, he doesn't follow the story and the writing, he is asking his own question because of his own expectations. He can, and once again, because he liked, then it wasn't a problem. "I don't know and I don't really care"

 

 

He did analyze it. He's saying that this was a thing he noticed, but went along with it. It was a bump in the road, but didn't derail the journey. He also said "Everything else was so good," meaning that one aspect wasn't. For the Crucible, he's using logic that still holds within the game world. "The Reapers must have known about it. They have Indoctrinated spies everywhere." Again, he questions it, but lets it slide.

 

If you actually paid attention to that "narrative coherence" section, there was no individual catastrophic problem. It was the compounding effect of all the little problems.

 

 

 

 

Then if you take a look at his question to show how bad the ending is, you have for instance "what the crucible is supposed to do?" (it's very late to ask himself this question! This guy seems to notice thing only when he dislikes) and then the question are less and less relevant and he makes a noisy effect to create the illusion that the player asked this question when he was reaching the ending. This isn't true.

 

Wrong. He, like all of us, had that question at the start but they had the entire game to explain that. He says "I don't get what the Crucible was even originally supposed to do." It isn't revealed until later that the Crucible wasn't of Prothean origin but was added onto by successive cycles. That means somebody started it and got it to an unknown point that is much less complete than what we have. What their original intent and goal was is a reasonable question.

 

That's twice now you've misquoted him. Is this a lack of care in your posts or intentional intellectual dishonesty?

 

 

 

I agree with you that people have different breaking point, so I understand (I have always said that) that some people dislike the ending.

If we go back on your example (What the catalyst was doing in Mass Effect 1?) I can ask "what was he doing in Mass Effect 3?". What I mean is that the catalyst is a coherent character. People want him to be active in Mass Effect 1 while he doesn't explicit act in Mass Effect 3. So he would be active at a moment (to help Sovereign) but wouldn't do anything against the crucible, or against Shepard reaching the citadel. If he would have reasons to be an explicit active character in Mass Effect 1 then it's the same in Mass Effect 3. So when people ask this question they actually want to character to be incoherent : This character has never be shown as an active character. So the fact that he does nothing in Mass Effect 1 is coherent, the character is coherent.

Now you can say that it's a retcon, so it breaks the coherence of the storytelling. And here too it doesn't work : the whole writing of Mass Effect is based on revelations. Mass Effect 2 is basically a big retcon, the same can be said for Mass Effect 3. At the same time, Mass Effect 1 actually set the basis, Mass Effect 2 starts to show that it's not black or white, and Mass Effect 3 goes further. We only learn more and more.

And if we focuse on the "it doesn't make sense", the reapers level is based on paradox, so here again it's coherent with what was set up with Sovereign in Mass Effect 1, then what Harbinger said in Mass Effect 2. It's just that the paradoxes are bigger. Here we can no longer say that it's just taunt or that he is arrogant, that's why the paradox become a real problem for most people. But here we've got a coherent writing.

 

The issue isn't the Catalyst being coherent or consistent with itself or not, it's that such a "character" doesn't fit well with what came before. It doesn't belong in this story. Why would such a character do nothing?

 

And yeah, Mass Effect 2 did retcon some things. Those are some of its problems, along with not advancing the plot at all. What "paradoxes" are you talking about?

[oddball_bg]

"Ok, I see we're looking for two different things then. You just want to explore an open world, and you've made a good case for how FO3 allowed you to do that better. I preferred New Vegas' more developed setting and better story."

 

"More developed setting"?!!!?!?!?

Seriously?!You are kidding,right!The map is smaller,it mainly consists of roads leading to small shacks or houses,or caves.Everything is ugly brownish and yellowish and just put there without much coherence.There's no variety whatsoever."Oh,look at this campfire,it's a setting;oh,look at this empty caravan,it's another setting!But beware of geckos(that looked like they came out of a comic book) and inhabit 70% of all areas!

Now,I can see what they were going for:post apocalyptic wild west.And on paper it sounds good enough.But you have to be much more creative and brave and not trying blindly to fit into your big brother shoes(FO3) for the whole thing to work.Instead,everything felt half assed,a bunch of different ideas scrapped together with a scotch tape.There was something anemic and unenthusiastic about the whole game.And the feeling of "being there,done that,but infinitely better and infinitely more fun" was with me the whole time.I tried,I really tried to lie to myself and like it,but in the long run I just couldn't!

Not to mention the avalanche of bugs and glitches which made the game literally unplayable on launch.The game is still plagued with them to this day.FO3 also has some bugs and glitches but compared to NV it's as clean as dew.

The story was a convoluted mess from the beginning to the end.And the endgame choices were super confusing:"screw this fraction while half screwing the other one,while mostly not screwing that one...",or "not entirely screwing this fraction,but totally screwing the next one,while maybe probably helping the other..."!At that point I have decided to "screw" the game itself!FO3 had much simpler story,"Go look for your father!",and that's it.No one was forcing you to do anything beyond that.You are even kind of encouraged to forget what you are supposed to do and do your own adventure,like I did,and the rest of the story will naturally catch up with you.

[Natureguy85]

"Ok, I see we're looking for two different things then. You just want to explore an open world, and you've made a good case for how FO3 allowed you to do that better. I preferred New Vegas' more developed setting and better story."

 

"More developed setting"?!!!?!?!?

Seriously?!You are kidding,right!The map is smaller,it mainly consists of roads leading to small shacks or houses,or caves.Everything is ugly brownish and yellowish and just put there without much coherence.There's no variety whatsoever."Oh,look at this campfire,it's a setting;oh,look at this empty caravan,it's another setting!But beware of geckos(that looked like they came out of a comic book) and inhabit 70% of all areas!

Now,I can see what they were going for:post apocalyptic wild west.And on paper it sounds good enough.But you have to be much more creative and brave and not trying blindly to fit into your big brother shoes(FO3) for the whole thing to work.Instead,everything felt half assed,a bunch of different ideas scrapped together with a scotch tape.There was something anemic and unenthusiastic about the whole game.And the feeling of "being there,done that,but infinitely better and infinitely more fun" was with me the whole time.I tried,I really tried to lie to myself and like it,but in the long run I just couldn't!

Not to mention the avalanche of bugs and glitches which made the game literally unplayable on launch.The game is still plagued with them to this day.FO3 also has some bugs and glitches but compared to NV it's as clean as dew.

The story was a convoluted mess from the beginning to the end.And the endgame choices were super confusing:"screw this fraction while half screwing the other one,while mostly not screwing that one...",or "not entirely screwing this fraction,but totally screwing the next one,while maybe probably helping the other..."!At that point I have decided to "screw" the game itself!FO3 had much simpler story,"Go look for your father!",and that's it.No one was forcing you to do anything beyond that.You are even kind of encouraged to forget what you are supposed to do and do your own adventure,like I did,and the rest of the story will naturally catch up with you.

 

As opposed to green broken buildings. New Vegas had actual cities and settlements where people were trying to survive, not "Hey, this is an interesting idea to build a city around." What sense does Megaton make?

 

FO3's story was simpler but not the better for it. I didn't see anything confusing about the ending choices in New Vegas.

 

 

Edit: Here's a good video