3573 réponses à ce sujet

[angol fear]

Impressive, a lot of people here use the word "catharsis" but do they really know what it's about?

[rossler]

The Extended Cut covers what happens post-Reaper war to the galaxy.

[Natureguy85]

The Extended Cut covers what happens post-Reaper war to the galaxy.

 

Yes, and having some sort of epilogue was indeed an improvement. However it is both generic and general. I want more detail, but more importantly I want to know what happens to and for specific people, most importantly all of Shepard's crew. Dragon Age Origins did this very well.

[aoibhealfae]

I think what's missing in the final slides was lack of slides for the ME3 crews since all of them depicted what happened to ME2 squad plus Wrex.

 

* Liara with Matriarch Aethytha rebuilding Thessia

* Kaidan with his mom at a graveyard in Vancouver

* Ashley being hugged by her family

* James returning to LA to see his uncle among the resistance fighters

* Joker grieving for EDI (if romanced, destroy), or returning to Tiptree grieving what was left of his home with/without EDI

* Javik at Eden Prime standing among the prothean ruins and/or surrounded by his Hanar worshipers

* Garrus with his family returning to Palaven 

* Tali receiving a hero's welcome at Rannoch

 

Kinda wish I could paint though..

[rossler]

I think they mentioned that it had to fit into a 2 GB download limit. The Extended Cut comes in just under that.

 

That, and the Extended Cut wasn't really part of their planned DLC. So if they were to spend six months creating it instead of three, you might end up with one less DLC. Say, Leviathan, which followed the Extended Cut in terms of releases may have to be cut. That leaves Omega and Citadel as the only produced DLCs for the game.

[Natureguy85]

I think they mentioned that they wanted to add more, but it had to fit into a 2 GB download limit. The Extended Cut comes in just under that.

 

It should have been there in the first place.

[angol fear]

It should have been there in the first place.

No because the writing wasn't supposed to have an epilogue. It couldn't be here. It's only here because people wanted it, not because the writing needed it.

[oddball_bg]

What makes this the 'natural end' is that this is the epilogue to the climax of the game, that is, the rush to the beam and the final confrontation with the Illusive Man.

 

The story has entered the final phase of falling action and resolution.

 

The sudden intrusion of Hackett directing Shepard to do 'one more thing' and the confrontation with the Catalyst does not belong *after* the Anderson conversation. It belongs *before* the Anderson conversation.

 

Do some research into successful story structures. Focus on the concepts of catharsis.

Catharsis???What,the hell,are you talking about?Where,the hell,is the catharsis in Shepard and Anderson sitting and staring?!!!Are you even aware what does catharsis means?!If there is one it's through the conversation with the star child and especially during one of the three choices(the effect of them)!Seriously,go and see in a dictionary what does catharsis mean and don't throw the word just like that!

[Natureguy85]

No because the writing wasn't supposed to have an epilogue. It couldn't be here. It's only here because people wanted it, not because the writing needed it.

 

The writing very much needed it. The story ended with the Normandy and crew being marooned on some random world. A massive, galaxy changing event had just occured.

 

Now to be fair, it did have an Epilogue, which was the stargazer scene. However, I mean one that matters to the story, not something disconnected from everything else.

 

 

Catharsis???What,the hell,are you talking about?Where,the hell,is the catharsis in Shepard and Anderson sitting and staring?!!!Are you even aware what does catharsis means?!If there is one it's through the conversation with the star child and especially during one of the three choices(the effect of them)!Seriously,go and see in a dictionary what does catharsis mean and don't throw the word just like that!

 

How so? I think you're trying to say it doesn't just mean "emotional",which is correct. However, I think the conversation between Shepard and Anderson was a great moment for emotional release. It's not about what they are doing as much as it is about what they say. The conversation with the star child is confused nonsense. How is that cathartic?

 

Edit: I could see it for the Destroy ending as Shepard stares down the tube and shoots it repeatedly, venting all the pent up frustration of the war.

[oddball_bg]

 

The Hollywood cliche thing is a little... well, cliche, isn't it? It's not even relevant here. He makes some points and instead of arguing them or asking for clarifications you go straight for an insult(?).

 

Besides haven't you seen the trailer for this game? ME has been "Hollywood" for a while.

What exactly are his points?What?He/She just says that them sitting is the "natural end" because...why?Because this is what you are used to see as an ending!Seriously,what are his/her points that the thing should have ended there,let alone "naturally".Just because it LOOKS like and ending.What does them sitting resolve,or asks,or points or,do anything,actually,besides making you see how they are tired of their struggle?Once again,I don't see his/her points there besides "we are used to see a picture like that as an ending"!

[Natureguy85]

What exactly are his points?What?He/She just says that them sitting is the "natural end" because...why?Because this is what you are used to see as an ending!Seriously,what are his/her points that the thing should have ended there,let alone "naturally".Just because it LOOKS like and ending.What does them sitting resolve,or asks,or points or,do anything,actually,besides making you see how they are tired of their struggle?Once again,I don't see his/her points there besides "we are used to see a picture like that as an ending"!

 

Because everything is resolved at that point. All that needed to happen beyond there is Crucible activates and Reapers die. Instead, the Catalyst add a whole new pile of nonsense at the very end where things should be getting resolved, not muddled.

[angol fear]

You are right everthing is resolved : we still don't know exactly what the crucible is, we don't know why the citadel is needed, we don't know the reapers motivation.

Ps : from the first game till the third Mass Effect has shown the player that there is a difference between what we think something is and what it actually is.

[Natureguy85]

You are right everthing is resolved : we still don't know exactly what the crucible is, we don't know why the citadel is needed, we don't know the reapers motivation.

Ps : from the first game till the third Mass Effect has shown the player that there is a difference between what we think something is and what it actually is.

 

Not that they can't be included or done well, but none of those things are strictly necessary. The Crucible is technology that kills Reapers. It can do that in any number of ways. The Citadel is easy; it's a Mass Relay so it does something with the Relay network, which is what happens. The motivation doesn't really need to be explained because their actions are worth opposing. A motivation might help, but it depends on what it is. I always saw it as them stealing resources and eliminating potential threats, like the grasshoppers from A Bug's Life.

[Sheridan31]

Is it meanwhile 100% clear wheather or not the ending was in shepards head (indoctrination) OR the real thing that is going to happen to the galaxy?

[oddball_bg]

Because everything is resolved at that point. All that needed to happen beyond there is Crucible activates and Reapers die. Instead, the Catalyst add a whole new pile of nonsense at the very end where things should be getting resolved, not muddled.

You people seem to really want Shepard to just destroy the reapers and everything to be ok and just jump on the next game where good conquers evil and everyone is happy!How old are you guys?!

 

Also,absolutely nothing is resolved in this conversation,it's just a quiet moment before the big finale.Go and check what catharsis means,please!

[wright1978]

I think what's missing in the final slides was lack of slides for the ME3 crews since all of them depicted what happened to ME2 squad plus Wrex.

 

* Liara with Matriarch Aethytha rebuilding Thessia

* Kaidan with his mom at a graveyard in Vancouver

* Ashley being hugged by her family

* James returning to LA to see his uncle among the resistance fighters

* Joker grieving for EDI (if romanced, destroy), or returning to Tiptree grieving what was left of his home with/without EDI

* Javik at Eden Prime standing among the prothean ruins and/or surrounded by his Hanar worshipers

* Garrus with his family returning to Palaven 

* Tali receiving a hero's welcome at Rannoch

 

Kinda wish I could paint though..

 

 It's what they deserved for holding a memorial without any knowledge about what happened to Shep.

[angol fear]

Not that they can't be included or done well, but none of those things are strictly necessary. The Crucible is technology that kills Reapers. It can do that in any number of ways. The Citadel is easy; it's a Mass Relay so it does something with the Relay network, which is what happens. The motivation doesn't really need to be explained because their actions are worth opposing. A motivation might help, but it depends on what it is. I always saw it as them stealing resources and eliminating potential threats, like the grasshoppers from A Bug's Life.

 

The crucible isn't technology that kills the reapers. We don't know what it is, we only suppose that it's a super weapon.

The citadel, if you want, could be reduce to that in our representation before we reach the very end.

 

Let's see the (basic) structure you wanted for the trilogy :

Revelation in the end of Mass Effect 1 : the citadel isn't prothean but reaper's work.

Revelation in the end of Mass Effect  2 : the reapers are preserving civilisations essence, each reaper is a civilisation that has been harvested.

Revelation in the end of Mass Effect 3 would be with your scenario : no revelation! The writers actually didn't know what they were doing they just wrote think that sounded cool.

 

The motivation : stealing ressource and elimating potential threats? You're probably right. That's exactly what we think when we hear Sovereign talking about the difference between organics and synthetics, when he talks about order and chaos.

http://www.imdb.com/...h0270806/quotes

 

That's what we think when we read Klencory's description

http://masseffect.wi...m/wiki/Klencory

 

That's what we think when we hear Harbinger saying that he is our salvation through destruction.

 

That's what we think when we can talk with the reaper on Rannoch (strange that we can talk at this moment with a reaper, a moment when there is the conflict between organics and synthetics)

http://www.gamefaqs....fect-3/63596608

 

So yes, "ressources and elimating potential threats", it could have been interpreted this way with all these elements here.

[Natureguy85]

Is it meanwhile 100% clear wheather or not the ending was in shepards head (indoctrination) OR the real thing that is going to happen to the galaxy?

 

Yes and it's the latter but there are many who will imagine it to be the former. The events of the ending are strange and I can't explain every bit of it, but it is not in keeping with the descriptions of Indoctrination.

 

 

You people seem to really want Shepard to just destroy the reapers and everything to be ok and just jump on the next game where good conquers evil and everyone is happy!How old are you guys?!

 

Also,absolutely nothing is resolved in this conversation,it's just a quiet moment before the big finale.Go and check what catharsis means,please!

 

Nothing has to be revealed necessarily. The conflict just has to be resolved. The goal was to beat the Reapers. We want to beat the Reapers. What's the problem with that? We don't want a brand new antagonist to vomit moronic exposition and philosophy on us at the last minute.

 

How is catharsis being used incorrectly?

 

 

The crucible isn't technology that kills the reapers. We don't know what it is, we only suppose that it's a super weapon.

The citadel, if you want, could be reduce to that in our representation before we reach the very end.

 

Let's see the (basic) structure you wanted for the trilogy :

Revelation in the end of Mass Effect 1 : the citadel isn't prothean but reaper's work.

Revelation in the end of Mass Effect  2 : the reapers are preserving civilisations essence, each reaper is a civilisation that has been harvested.

Revelation in the end of Mass Effect 3 would be with your scenario : no revelation! The writers actually didn't know what they were doing they just wrote think that sounded cool.

 

The motivation : stealing ressource and elimating potential threats? You're probably right. That's exactly what we think when we hear Sovereign talking about the difference between organics and synthetics, when he talks about order and chaos.

http://www.imdb.com/...h0270806/quotes

 

That's what we think when we read Klencory's description

http://masseffect.wi...m/wiki/Klencory

 

That's what we think when we hear Harbinger saying that he is our salvation through destruction.

 

That's what we think when we can talk with the reaper on Rannoch (strange that we can talk at this moment with a reaper, a moment when there is the conflict between organics and synthetics)

http://www.gamefaqs....fect-3/63596608

 

So yes, "ressources and elimating potential threats", it could have been interpreted this way with all these elements here.

 

Correct, we don't know what the Crucible does until the end, but it doesn't have to be anything fancy.

 

Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 had revelations like that because the story had to grow and expand heading into the next title. Mass Effect's was cool while Mass Effect 2's was stupid. The end of Mass Effect 3 should be wrapping things up. That's not to say there couldn't be some sort of reveal, but the Catalyst scene is too close to the end for that massive a shift in tone and conflict.

 

My idea was based on Mass Effect. It fits with their behavior. Sovereign doesn't say anything that goes against it. Klencory's description is irrelevant. It's a minor thing that isn't part of the main story. It adds to world building but not the plot. As of Mass Effect 1, it sounds like something worth exploring in ME2 because we'd see the Reapers as the "machine devils." As of ME3, apparently the Reapers are actually the "angels."

 

You're right that ME2's plot starts to take things in a different direction. However, the Rannoch Reaper can be proven wrong if peace is achieved. Also, the Catalyst's supposed problem isn't that Organics and Synthetics fight, it's that Synthetics will win and wipe out all organic life which is not true of the Geth.

[Sheridan31]

You people seem to really want Shepard to just destroy the reapers and everything to be ok and just jump on the next game where good conquers evil and everyone is happy!How old are you guys?!

 

Also,absolutely nothing is resolved in this conversation,it's just a quiet moment before the big finale.Go and check what catharsis means,please!

 

I cant speak for everyone it might be that some or many think that (good should destroy evil).

 

I desperatly want an ending that is not good destroys evil but an fairly cooperativly, negotiated peace, where enemy images fall apart. Is that what you wan too?

 

The problems i have with the ending:

- to me its uncrear due to the indoctrinations sightns a) wheather the ending is meant to real (or just a dream or a forced indoctrination).

- while i like the syntheis ending for the reseason of droping enemy images). I do have problem . its not narrativly lead to this. i cannot see (much) decisions where i start to understand the reaper, or where any of my crew empathies and sympathies with them. even edi wants them dead. Then *suddenly* while everyone exspects my shepard to end the reaper i can in the last 5 minutes choose otherwise. id wish to have this "cartharis" happens more often and with choice on my part.

 

To your request to check what carthasis means: To me its clearing inner conflicts, resolving projections, such as viewing the reaper as an enemy. Solving problems by growing yourselve.

 

Does this fit your definition?

[angol fear]

My idea was based on Mass Effect. It fits with their behavior. Sovereign doesn't say anything that goes against it. Klencory's description is irrelevant. It's a minor thing that isn't part of the main story. It adds to world building but not the plot. As of Mass Effect 1, it sounds like something worth exploring in ME2 because we'd see the Reapers as the "machine devils." As of ME3, apparently the Reapers are actually the "angels."

 

You're right that ME2's plot starts to take things in a different direction. However, the Rannoch Reaper can be proven wrong if peace is achieved. Also, the Catalyst's supposed problem isn't that Organics and Synthetics fight, it's that Synthetics will win and wipe out all organic life which is not true of the Geth.

 

So as long as Sovereign doesn't contradict your vision, your headcanon is true? Did you really read the speech? When did you see potential threat? Why do you ignore one of his most important line : order and chaos! 

Klencory is irrelevant for you and that's why you can't accept the ending : the whole trilogy is based on a writing where details give clues. There are no direct answers, no "main theme" etc... It was delibaratly written this way. And once again you didn't read the text : why the description of Klencory in Mass Effect 3 is that text?

Once again, Mass Effect has always been written in a a way to show to the player the difference between what he thinks and what it is. The retcons that started in the end of Mass Effect 1, the retcons that totally structured the writing of Mass Effect 2 and that was developed in Mass Effect 3, that's how it was written. If you can't accept to change your point of view and knowledge about something, then it's the entire trilogy that you have to blame because it was written this way from the beginning. And details are important in the Mass Effect trilogy. 

So the reaper on rannoch sounds to be wrong, but once again the gap between what it seems and what it is! You only see a part of the picture.

Did you played the rannoch mission where you learn how the conflict started? You have the starting point of the catalyst logic. You add what Sovereign said about the difference between organics and synthetics (Javick developed the same ideas in Mass Effect 3), and you will start to see why the catalyst said that.

[Sheridan31]

Yes and it's the latter but there are many who will imagine it to be the former. The events of the ending are strange and I can't explain every bit of it, but it is not in keeping with the descriptions of Indoctrination.

 

Thank you. i wasn´t in this board for a while. Since there where a lot of confusion since ME3 released, can you give links or references on who clarified it?

[themikefest]

I think what's missing in the final slides was lack of slides for the ME3 crews since all of them depicted what happened to ME2 squad plus Wrex.

 

* Liara with Matriarch Aethytha rebuilding Thessia

* Kaidan with his mom at a graveyard in Vancouver

* Ashley being hugged by her family

* James returning to LA to see his uncle among the resistance fighters

* Joker grieving for EDI (if romanced, destroy), or returning to Tiptree grieving what was left of his home with/without EDI

* Javik at Eden Prime standing among the prothean ruins and/or surrounded by his Hanar worshipers

* Garrus with his family returning to Palaven 

* Tali receiving a hero's welcome at Rannoch

 

Kinda wish I could paint though..

Steve is seen standing over the grave of his dead husband holding flowers

Gabby and Ken at a church ready to be married

Dr.Chakwas being in charge of a newly built hospital

Adams opening his own business

the quiet guy that walks around the ship is seen patroling the grounds of an Alliance base as a security guard

space Hamster gives a thumbs up to femshep and Samantha as they have drinks in Vancouver

[themikefest]

The Extended Cut covers what happens post-Reaper war to the galaxy.

Only after everything is rebuilt.

 

How long did it take to rebuild? Was there anyone questioning the asari for withholding the information for so long? Is there a council? If so, who are the councilors? How did each species handle all the questions their people had about the reapers? Did any rebel against their government for not doing more?

 

The biggest thing is what happens to the destroyed reapers on the planets? Did the species cut them up into little pieces or did the rush to see who would the first to get any information from them to use to their advantage?

 

How long does it take before the relays are operational again? How long does it take to clean up the debris that's littered all over space?

 

How long does it take for the Normandy to get back to Earth? If ems is below 2600, how long will it be before the crew on the Normandy is rescued? Is the Normandy going to be rebuilt?

 

If Conrad survived, what's he doing? After all he was Shepard's number one fan.

[Natureguy85]

I cant speak for everyone it might be that some or many think that (good should destroy evil).

 

I desperatly want an ending that is not good destroys evil but an fairly cooperativly, negotiated peace, where enemy images fall apart. Is that what you wan too?

 

So like the end of The Matrix Trilogy?

 

 

So as long as Sovereign doesn't contradict your vision, your headcanon is true? Did you really read the speech? When did you see potential threat? Why do you ignore one of his most important line : order and chaos! 

Klencory is irrelevant for you and that's why you can't accept the ending : the whole trilogy is based on a writing where details give clues. There are no direct answers, no "main theme" etc... It was delibaratly written this way. And once again you didn't read the text : why the description of Klencory in Mass Effect 3 is that text?

Once again, Mass Effect has always been written in a a way to show to the player the difference between what he thinks and what it is. The retcons that started in the end of Mass Effect 1, the retcons that totally structured the writing of Mass Effect 2 and that was developed in Mass Effect 3, that's how it was written. If you can't accept to change your point of view and knowledge about something, then it's the entire trilogy that you have to blame because it was written this way from the beginning. And details are important in the Mass Effect trilogy. 

So the reaper on rannoch sounds to be wrong, but once again the gap between what it seems and what it is! You only see a part of the picture.

Did you played the rannoch mission where you learn how the conflict started? You have the starting point of the catalyst logic. You add what Sovereign said about the difference between organics and synthetics (Javick developed the same ideas in Mass Effect 3), and you will start to see why the catalyst said that.

 

That Sovereign doesn't contradict my idea doesn't mean that it was true, but it does mean that it was valid. The idea of eliminating a potential threat came from the repeat of the 50,000 year cycle to keep the galaxy from advancing too far. I don't ignore the order and chaos line at all. Together with the Reapers' directing the path of technology development, I saw it like wildlife management.

 

It's telling that your view hinges on flavor text rather than on the main plot. The story did indeed have themes and a central conflict. Details stopped being important in Mass Effect 2 to make way for drama and action.

 

The Reaper on Rannoch doesn't "seem" to be wrong; it can be proven wrong by events of the same story arc. Yes, I went through the part of how the conflict started and it defies the Catalyst's premise. The Catalyst says that Synthetics will wipe out all organic life. The Geth fought back and killed many Quarians, but chose not to kill those who fled. On Rannoch, the Geth would have been defeated by the Quarians if not for the Reaper intervention. They will only kill the Quarians there in self-defense. The Catalyst's claim that the created will always destroy their creators is proven wrong.

 

Thank you. i wasn´t in this board for a while. Since there where a lot of confusion since ME3 released, can you give links or references on who clarified it?

 

Well, this is a good video on it:  

 

However, the reason I said it's clear is that IT is built on linking things that really don't fit together. For example, the boy is clear, vivid, and sticks around long enough to talk to Shepard. Indoctrination can cause "ghostly presences" and images that appear and disappear very quickly, such as when the Cerberus scientist on the Reaper sees a face in a wall. These are not the same thing.

 

The epilogues do this too. Why would Shepard suddenly have a 3rd person omniscient viewpoint and hear narration? Plus, they occur after Shepard is potentially dead.

[Sheridan31]

So like the end of The Matrix Trilogy?

 

Partly. There are simularities, like the jesus, messi kind of guy who sees that force creates counterforce. In real life i heared something about a law enforcer and an anachrist who realized they deny in them selve, everything that is in the other. Like looking in each others mirror. They give purpose to each other.

 

However there are also differences to the Matrix ending. I do know it was disliked a lot too.

 

In real life i listend to an anthroplogicist and mytholigy historian... they claim that 5 to 10.000 years ago a myth (smitherin) was created that was woven in in all the major religion and is something you still see in almost every book and movie. the good guy killing of the "bad". the idea of punishing evil to create good. We where all raised with it. Breaking this pattern, is like questening an subconcious "religion". It gets hated, just like any human is punished for uncovering the projections of others.

 

Lets add some other examples:

- Grand Torino

- Revolver

- anything where "good" and "bad" guys/girls, like each other again without any 3rd party enemy to be destroyed. (very rare, i do not even know one right now. do you have one?)

 

I also like to mention: "The way of the peacfull warrior". A little spoiler: Here instead of undoing an enemy image, there simply is no outside enemy.

the cathasis is done overcoming inner battles, instead of destroying opponents.

 

I do not say that Matrix 3 or Mass Effects 3 Synthesis ending is doing all the things right though. I think a lot more would have been nessecary to not lose the majority of fans during the process (including mostly me). 

 

2. With a 100% clarity, that there was NO indoctrination in the sense of the last part being a FULL DREAM. i meant: Did Bioware made it clear at any point?