3526 réponses à ce sujet

[gothpunkboy89]

ok
 

He sat there alright. I guess it was his twin brother that flew away
 

The point you keep missing is that Harbinger was flying away as Coates and the others were on the comms saying retreat. I don't believe it was that hard to notice a giant looking reaper leave the scene. Meaning Anderson would also notice the reaper flying away and tell the whatever forces that are left to disregard that order and make another push to the beam

 

 

Which would have resulted in Harbinger flying back to his spot to start shooting fish in a barrel again. A retreat can start before it is officially ordered by someone with high enough rank when the force is being cut to pieces and they have no chance to make it.

[Obadiah]

For all anyone knows Anderson woke up after the blast, couldn't hear anything, and stumbled towards the beam because he saw Shep going that way.

[themikefest]

Which would have resulted in Harbinger flying back to his spot to start shooting fish in a barrel again. A retreat can start before it is officially ordered by someone with high enough rank when the force is being cut to pieces and they have no chance to make it.

So now Harbinger has eyes on its back. ok.  Makes you wonder why he didn't fly back when Shepard was shooting the husks and Mirauder before going up the beam with Andersonnot far behind.

[gothpunkboy89]

So now Harbinger has eyes on its back. ok.  Makes you wonder why he didn't fly back when Shepard was shooting the husks and Mirauder before going up the beam with Andersonnot far behind.

 

Well that and the fact the Reapers are capable of coordinating all their troops without actually being there thanks to the Reaper Signal.  That set up would never work unless it was a two way street. The Reapers can control the troops and the troops in turn are capable of relaying information back to the Reapers. Who then make strategic decisions based on that feed back.

 

You know the way a military would work.

[rossler]

It does if the writer doesn't understand their audience.

 

Why do you think they're closing these forums? Their audience isn't here.

[oddball_bg]

Why do you think they're closing these forums? Their audience isn't here.

Really?!But it is!

[kal_reegar]

Harbringer flying away is one of the worst things about ME3 ending. Could be easily avoided.

But i can be explained.

 

The reapers knew very little about the crucible, how it actually works in connection with the citadel, and especially they didn't knew that it was ready for being used during the final battle (the prothean were still building it after hundred years of war, and they were mass relay builders; this cycle completed the crucible in few months!!!!!).

 

When they saw an assault team running to the beam, they didn't know that their purpose was "re-taking control of the citadel, in order to open it and docked the crucible".

The simplest e most logic thing to think is "they want to retake control of the citadel (perhapes in order to use it against us in battle - the citadel was a pretty big war asset, it has it's own fire-power, for example the geth jamming frequencies upgrading the Citadel's automated defenses etc -  or something like that"

 

So, when the team was destroyed (only few injured survivors), Harb task was completed. They've no longer the strenght to take back the citadel as a war asset. Even if one or two survivors mange to open the arms, so what? They don't represent a threat for the reapers fleet or a factor that can change the battle outcome.

They didn't saw that the crucible was coming, that's all

[Obadiah]

With the conversations in this thread, the title seems a little bit sarcastic.

[rossler]

Really?!But it is!

 

If it was, the forums would stay open.

 

Remember, Bioware stated years ago "we want Call of Duty's audience".

[Natureguy85]

I know how haters work.

 

Ok, now I'm officially done with you. You're not a serious person here to have serious discussions. You've exposed yourself. You won't explain because you can't. You throw down terms you have little to no understanding of to try and establish a position as a learned authority, but there is no actual argument made for me to agree or disagree with. You're a joke.

[Natureguy85]

A story's internal consistency would almost necessarily have to be judged from outside of its experience, objectively, rather than while reading and experiencing it. I can easily see situations where one would enjoy a piece of literature because of the characters or some other aspect, but upon reflection find it isn't internally consistent. So, as far as it being a "rule", that's debatable.

 

No, you can notice plot holes along the way. What you're talking about is called "Fridge Logic" and there's a good argument that they shouldn't be considered plot holes because you didn't notice them at the time.

 

The other part of that discussion is people constantly calling things into question based on how things work in the real world rather than how they are established to work in the fictional world.

 

 

 

 
The lack of an explanation for the Catalyst's behavior isn't a plot hole. The Catalyst could have simply been dormant, or content to act as an observer so as not to give itself away. It was dormant for most of Mass Effect 3, so its behavior doesn't exactly break the story's internal consistency.

 

Your guesses don't make it not a plot hole. This is just you attempting to fill the plot hole that exists. None of those are sensible given the importance of activating the Relay. Now, if the Reapers were a way of advancing Organics through conflict like the Aliens in XCOM or the Shadows in Babylon 5, that would work, but they didn't do that. They didn't even address it.

 

 

 

 
The Catalyst's appearance was clearly meant to be a twist ending. I wouldn't say there was much foreshadowing, and what was foreshadowed was just meant to support its appearance upon the player's reflection, which it does. Twist endings that reframe everything that came before happen in stories all the time.

 

Yes, but a reader should be able to see it coming from far earlier in retrospect and it should ultimately fit the story. The Catalyst fails at both. "Oh yeah, there was that one line of dialogue" isn't good reflection. A twist for its own sake is not good.

 

 

 

 
I'm not sure what you expected, but I thought it worked just fine. Marauder Shields is annoying (because I can't aim), but the rest of the sequence works. I really enjoy that standoff with TIM and Anderson. It's one of my favorite sequences of the game. I don't see an internal inconsistency here.

 

That point was about flow and pacing, not narrative coherence.

 

 

We got into this some upthread, and I still don't see the logic of it. The actual design error is the lack of an internal sensor net capable of reporting sabotage. If the Catalyst is present that net would report to it. No Catalyst and the net would report to Sovereign.

But there's no net, and no report. It doesn't matter who didn't get a report that doesn't exist.

 

You can see that as a problem but it's still a far smaller problem if there is not a Reaper brain on the Citadel.

[gothpunkboy89]

Ok, now I'm officially done with you. You're not a serious person here to have serious discussions. You've exposed yourself. You won't explain because you can't. You throw down terms you have little to no understanding of to try and establish a position as a learned authority, but there is no actual argument made for me to agree or disagree with. You're a joke.

 

neither are you. You quite readily accept plot problems in one area when they support you but then cry foul over plot problems in other areas when they go against you.

 

You accept everything Vigil tells you on Ilos as absolute fact because it exists as an info dump. Yet the Catalyst acts the same thing with the exact same amount of fore shadowing yet you complain about it constantly.

 

You have little to no understanding of what you are trying to argue other then you have seen it on a web site and thus makes you feel like you are validated to use it in argument.Don't get on any high horse because you really doesn't deserve that position.

[Natureguy85]

neither are you. You quite readily accept plot problems in one area when they support you but then cry foul over plot problems in other areas when they go against you.

 

You accept everything Vigil tells you on Ilos as absolute fact because it exists as an info dump. Yet the Catalyst acts the same thing with the exact same amount of fore shadowing yet you complain about it constantly.

 

You have little to no understanding of what you are trying to argue other then you have seen it on a web site and thus makes you feel like you are validated to use it in argument.Don't get on any high horse because you really doesn't deserve that position.

 

The context of the two are totally different and that's where the difference lies. I've explained this to you before. And when I "readily accept plot problems," I acknowledge them as problems and explain why they are not derailing.

[BloodyMares]

Ok, now I'm officially done with you. You're not a serious person here to have serious discussions. You've exposed yourself. You won't explain because you can't. You throw down terms you have little to no understanding of to try and establish a position as a learned authority, but there is no actual argument made for me to agree or disagree with. You're a joke.

 

neither are you. You quite readily accept plot problems in one area when they support you but then cry foul over plot problems in other areas when they go against you.

 

You accept everything Vigil tells you on Ilos as absolute fact because it exists as an info dump. Yet the Catalyst acts the same thing with the exact same amount of fore shadowing yet you complain about it constantly.

 

You have little to no understanding of what you are trying to argue other then you have seen it on a web site and thus makes you feel like you are validated to use it in argument.Don't get on any high horse because you really doesn't deserve that position.

Don't get personal, gentlemen. It's neither nice nor productive. One thing is to get hot defending your argument but it's another thing to personally insult each other. 

[Natureguy85]

Don't get personal, gentlemen. It's neither nice nor productive. One thing is to get hot defending your argument but it's another thing to personally insult each other. 

 

[gothpunkboy89]

The context of the two are totally different and that's where the difference lies. I've explained this to you before. And when I "readily accept plot problems," I acknowledge them as problems and explain why they are not derailing.

 

And yet you harp on ME 3 problems while continuing to treat ME 1 as a golden child. Even though the problems exist across all 3 games and are all the same value.

[Obadiah]

@Natureguy85 Your argument right now is that you don't like the pacing and flow because its "weird", and the fictional world is inconsistent because it didn't provide an explicit explanation for something which you require, which is in fact not the definition of an inconsistency, but the definition of a mystery.

Compelling stuff.

[Natureguy85]

@Natureguy85 Your argument right now is that you don't like the pacing and flow because its "weird", and the fictional world is inconsistent because it didn't provide an explicit explanation for something which you require, which is in fact not the definition of an inconsistency, but the definition of a mystery.

Compelling stuff.

 

No, I said I don't like the pacing and flow because it slams to a halt and then drags on. You're grasping at straws to avoid a clear, major plot hole. I thought we were going to have a real conversation, but you seem to just be another fanboy apologist. If the Catalyst's inaction is merely a mystery, then that mystery ought to be explored and solved in at least some way. The story needed to address it, but it didn't.

[Natureguy85]

And yet you harp on ME 3 problems while continuing to treat ME 1 as a golden child. Even though the problems exist across all 3 games and are all the same value.

 

No, they aren't and I've explained why. Your constant refrain that they are has no value since you don't offer any argument as to why they are on the same level while I have described why they are not. Again, you're just shouting "nuh-uh!"

[Obadiah]

@Natureguy85 Is that really so much better?

The conversation is described by you as "weird" and the pacing is described as "slams to a halt" - both are equally fuzzy and subjective descriptions, which even if true are not really a basis for any criticism of the story. Plot pacings change, and, well, you and some others apparently need more exposition in the conversation, whereas it isn't a strict requirement for some of us.

At this rate, these rules appear to be more contingent on what a critical mass of consumers think of the story, rather than the some rule that was broken - you just don't like the pacing and the conversation.

[Natureguy85]

@Natureguy85 Is that really so much better?

The conversation is described by you as "weird" and the pacing is described as "slams to a halt" - both are equally fuzzy and subjective descriptions, which even if true are not really a basis for any criticism of the story. Plot pacings change, and, well, you and some others apparently need more exposition in the conversation, whereas it isn't a strict requirement for some of us.

At this rate, these rules appear to be more contingent on what a critical mass of consumers think of the story, rather than the some rule that was broken - you just don't like the pacing and the conversation.

 

There is something to be said for that, which is why I sometimes use the quotes. Conventions may be a more appropriate word. Unlike scientific laws, these things formed out of our human tradition of story telling rather than existing beforehand as some sort of universal truth.

 

However, I would like to know how TIM suddenly being able to Control two people's bodies is not weird. With your question of consistency in mind, where was that ability set up beforehand? How is he doing that?

[gothpunkboy89]

The context of the two are totally different and that's where the difference lies. I've explained this to you before. And when I "readily accept plot problems," I acknowledge them as problems and explain why they are not derailing.

 

And yet they both exist in the same purpose. Vigil provides info dump that based on that you choose if to save the Council or not. If their lives are worth the risk of Sovereign winning if to many ships get blown up trying to protect them. Much in the same way the Catalyst and it's conversation sets you up to choose your ending to the climax of the game. You treat Vigil's statements as if they are the words of God. Yet constantly question every statement from the Catalyst. Were if it so much as makes a grammar error you use it as proof it is full of hot air.

 

You make complaints about why Shepard wouldn't know X or Y because they exist in the game and wouldn't have access to that information since they are not the player. Usually in line with making a complaint about the ending. Yet you decide that DLC is no longer relevant to the topic because it is DLC. Specifically pointing out the DLC that addresses your problems with the story as to why it isn't vital since it wasn't in the vanilla version of the game. Which ignores once a DLC is released regardless of if someone plays it or not it becomes official canon to the story unless stated otherwise by game developers.

 

You continually use the term retcon less like a statement and more closer to a insulting jab. Much in the same way conservatives will call someone a liberal almost as if it is an insult. And vastly over use it to describe anything even vaugly changed. Particularly when compared to your words of God from Vigil. Which you treat as any possible alteration from those statements as blasphemy.

 

You obsess over show don't tell as if it is the only valid way to tell any story.  Which ignores some rather important parts besides the fact that you don't have to show and can tell things without ruining the quality of the story. Besides the fact you can tell a story just fine by telling most and showing only a little. Showing isn't nearly as budget friendly as simply telling. While I and I no doubt countless other would love a couple hours of cut scenes showing the Reapers advancing and every little plot point played out in extreme detail. That would unfortunately cost a lot to do and unfortunately ME series has never gotten close to the level of popularity like CoD were the day of it's release will sell millions of copies simply because of it's name to warrant the budget to pull it off.

 

You see what you want to see rather then what happens in the game. Which is expected because you perceptions always color things how you want to see them. This is painfully obvious in politics to the point it makes me think there are a lot more stupid people out there then I think there are. How ever you take your perception of the game and it's story and then try to apply literary criticism to it as if it is an exact science like 1+1=2.  It simply is not.  If you are not familar with it I would suggest you getting familiar with Red Vs Blue. It is a great machinima series currently on it's 14th season. Inconsistency and retcon are close to second nature to the series yet it has gained so much popularity that you can find all 13 seasons besides the handful of short series like Recovery One on Netflix.  Using your arguments this should be a terrible story that shouldn't have made it past the first 3 seasons. Yet here it is mid way though the 14th season with a promise of a 15th and more. Stating they will keep making it as long as the fans keep watching it.

[BloodyMares]

Usually in line with making a complaint about the ending. Yet you decide that DLC is no longer relevant to the topic because it is DLC. Specifically pointing out the DLC that addresses your problems with the story as to why it isn't vital since it wasn't in the vanilla version of the game. Which ignores once a DLC is released regardless of if someone plays it or not it becomes official canon to the story unless stated otherwise by game developers.

Erm...not quite. The official canon for Mass Effect can only be the events that every player experienced. i.e. everything that cannot be skipped: cutscenes for the main storyline and several dialogues that happen the same way regardless of your choice. That's it. Everything else is "personal canon" because the player decides which events take place in their game. Your Shepard can be a man or a woman, Shepard can be a naive saint or a ruthless jerk. Shepard can spare the colonists of Feros or they can kill them. Shepard can cure the Genophage or sabotage it etc. You get the idea. That's why Bioware always say that there is no canon ending. Everyone shapes their own story. And DLC is a part of that "personal canon". But unlike the content of the base game, it's not accessible to everyone.

[dorktainian]

Erm...not quite. The official canon for Mass Effect can only be the events that every player experienced. i.e. everything that cannot be skipped: cutscenes for the main storyline and several dialogues that happen the same way regardless of your choice. That's it. Everything else is "personal canon" because the player decides which events take place in their game. Your Shepard can be a man or a woman, Shepard can be a naive saint or a ruthless jerk. Shepard can spare the colonists of Feros or they can kill them. Shepard can cure the Genophage or sabotage it etc. You get the idea. That's why Bioware always say that there is no canon ending. Everyone shapes their own story. And DLC is a part of that "personal canon". But unlike the content of the base game, it's not accessible to everyone.

which is why i'm forever saying the original ending is the ending bioware intended and should be treated as such.  

[BloodyMares]

which is why i'm forever saying the original ending is the ending bioware intended and should be treated as such.  

I agree, but at least Extended Cut is free unlike other plot DLC.