3581 réponses à ce sujet

[Natureguy85]

The best thing about Thessia is bringing Javik on the mission for his dialogue otherwise the whole mission was garbage
 

Same reason why Shepard couldn't shoot the thing from a distance instead of getting up close and personal with it. I would like for BioWare to answer that question.

 

 

 

 

There is some, but not a lot. See, most people on BSN want Bioware to fix or rewrite the ending, according to what they see wrong with it.

 

Oh, and words like lazy, or bad writing, etc, aren't constructive. Try using more positive words. That's how you get people to listen to you.

 

The Extended Cut did provide closure, and a little more personalization regards to your choices, which is what people asked for. However, those who wanted a new ending weren't going to get one. You know, what you do for one, you have to do for everyone. There wasn't going to be one version of the ending to address the most vocal fans, and another to address everyone else's. Since they had a wide variety of feedback on the ending, and it wasn't all negative, they decided to extend and expand on things, rather than rewrite it.

 

There was also the thing I talked about reproducing the problem, before they actually do anything. So if people were saying there was a problem with the ending, but the team couldn't reproduce the problem, it wasn't going to be fixed.

 

That first line is what constructive criticism is; how to improve something. If it were trash, we'd just throw it away.

 

Bad writing was a summary of the problems, or perhaps the real problem of which all others are merely the symptoms. I've gone into depth elsewhere, as have many others. The "lazy" accusation was directed at your excuse. That wasn't meant to be constructive.

 

The extended cut did indeed provide a bit more, but with mixed results. The epilogue slides were certainly better than nothing, but not as good as Dragon Age Origins epilogue slides. They edited the Relays breaking to deal with the plot hole of their destruction not wiping out the galaxy and the implications of them being gone for good. The evac scene was nice by itself but didn't fit at all within the larger scene. The extra dialogue with the Catalyst wasn't very helpful.

 

You talk as if the problem were a science experiment or bug in the code. It was just nonsense. There's a reason Quality Assurance work requires someone other than the original creator to review the work done. If you made a mistake, you're likely to miss the same mistake or make it again. The writer's thought their ideas were great. They were stuck on that and weren't budging just because the great unwashed masses didn't like it. Or at least that was the attitude they projected.

 

 

 

I have signatures disabled.

 

I think my favorite is "All were thematically revolting." The MR.Btongue video is the best of those.

 

My signature:

 

If you don't understand why people don't like the ME3 endings, please watch these videos by MrBtongue and Smudboy, read this article or this article.  This article covers the whole game, but is excellent as well. Or check these forum posts.

 

forum.bioware.com/topic/325271-all-were-thematically-revolting-my-lit-professors-take-on-the-endings-updated/

forum.bioware.com/topic/284133-musings-of-a-screenwriter-the-ending-thread/

[rossler]

They edited the Relays breaking to deal with the plot hole of their destruction not wiping out the galaxy and the implications of them being gone for good

 

If this is in reference to the Arrival DLC, an asteroid hitting a mass relay is a bit different than a laser. So it has a different effect.

 

Since it was a laser, and not an asteroid being fired from the Crucible, it's not a plot hole.

 

I have read many articles you've posted, including the GameFront one which was posted quite a bit in 2012, but I can't find a working link to it (turns out their site was shut down permanently on April 30th 2016). And, no, I don't agree with them.

 

You talk as if the problem were a science experiment or bug in the code. It was just nonsense. There's a reason Quality Assurance work requires someone other than the original creator to review the work done. If you made a mistake, you're likely to miss the same mistake or make it again. The writer's thought their ideas were great. They were stuck on that and weren't budging just because the great unwashed masses didn't like it. Or at least that was the attitude they projected.

 

At the end of the day, it is the company, not the customer who decides whether to fix it or not. Ever taken your car in to get fixed? The mechanic has to verify the problem exists first before they fix it. Not the customer. It doesn't matter if you're a mechanic with equal knowledge as well, they still have to look and verify a problem exists

[angol fear]

@Natureguy85, what is a constructive criticism ? When can you say that a criticism is valid ?

[Reorte]

If this is in reference to the Arrival DLC, an asteroid hitting a mass relay is a bit different than a laser. So it has a different effect.
 
Since it was a laser, and not an asteroid being fired from the Crucible, it's not a plot hole.

Well, not a laser but whatever the beam was. The lack of the relays destroying everything is one of the ending complaints that I don't agree with. If a lof of the energy in the relay has been spent transmitting the beam on then there not being enough left to wipe out system when it burns out isn't unreasonable.

[rossler]

The beam only temporarily disabled the relays. As you saw in EC, they were repaired to working order.

 

There was also some minor or major damage to structures (eg. buildings on fire, etc), depending on your EMS. It's not like it wipes out everything, unless your EMS is really low

[themikefest]

The beam only temporarily disabled the relays.

That's if ems is above 2600.

Below 2600, they explode. That's far from being temporarily disabled
 

As you saw in EC, they were repaired to working order.

Did the extended cut show the relays rebuilt?

[rossler]

That's if ems is above 2600.

Below 2600, they explode. That's far from being temporarily disabled

 

Well I didn't feel like listing every single outcome at the time. They will explode and a huge wave of fire will destroy Earth if your EMS is extremely low. The pulse also destroys Earth if you choose control and have low EMS. If it's somewhere in the middle, Earth is pretty badly damaged, but not as much as being vapourized. The high EMS outcomes leave the planets more or less untouched.

 

Still, it's not the same as what destroying a relay with a giant asteroid would do. Everything would be destroyed, regardless in that particular situation. There wasn't a scene where the asteroid would only chip off some paint or rocks, but leave everything else intact. The whole thing completely obliterates the solar system you were in.

 

Did the extended cut show the relays rebuilt?

 

The control one did explicitly show the Reapers repairing them. Under synthesis and destroy it was implied they were rebuilt.

[themikefest]

Well I didn't feel like listing every single outcome at the time.

Why would you have to list all outcomes? You only mentioned the relays.  There's only two outcomes. They're either destroyed or disabled.

 

They will explode and a huge wave of fire will destroy Earth if your EMS is extremely low.

Yes the relays are destroyed if ems is below 2600, but if ems is at 2599, Earth is the same as if ems is higher. If ems is between 1750 -2000, Big Ben is destroyed. Yes the wave destroys a lot of buildings, but Earth is rebuilt with no problem. It just takes a little longer. Its below 1750 that Earth is scorched.
 

The pulse also destroys Earth if you choose control and have low EMS.

The control pulse does not destroy Earth

The only difference between choosing control with high ems and very low ems is the time it takes to rebuild everything even with the reapers helping
 

If it's somewhere in the middle, Earth is pretty badly damaged, but not as much as being vapourized.

The middle would be 1750-2000. Earth is still rebuilt in both destroy and control. Anything over that, Earth is fine. The only ending that Earth is scorched is destroy. Low ems control does not scorch Earth.
 

The control one did explicitly show you. Under synthesis and destroy it was implied they were rebuilt.

Since I always pick destroy, it never shows the relays repaired. Yes its implied they're repaired. Just not shown.

[Natureguy85]

@Natureguy85, what is a constructive criticism ? When can you say that a criticism is valid ?

 

Constructive criticism is done with an intent to improve.  That's why people like me either suggest fixes or point to other areas that were good. As for the second question, it depends on what you mean by "valid." If you mean "correct," that's harder to pin down because it might take a lot of discussion back and forth to nail down if something is actually a problem. However a looser definition would mean something well thought out and based on what was actually written or created.

 

 

 

If this is in reference to the Arrival DLC, an asteroid hitting a mass relay is a bit different than a laser. So it has a different effect.

 

Since it was a laser, and not an asteroid being fired from the Crucible, it's not a plot hole.

 

Well, not a laser but whatever the beam was. The lack of the relays destroying everything is one of the ending complaints that I don't agree with. If a lof of the energy in the relay has been spent transmitting the beam on then there not being enough left to wipe out system when it burns out isn't unreasonable.

 

I'm not even going to get into why that's wrong from a writing perspective. Instead, I'm going to grant you that and explain why it's irrelevant. You don't learn that until a cutscene after you make your choice.

Arrival, played or not, established that destroying Mass Relays destroys the entire solar system. So when the Catalyst says the Crucible will destroy the Mass Relays, that's all you have to go on. Based on what you know, the Catalyst tells you that using the Crucible will destroy every solar system that contains a relay, including the one you're in. Now, using meta-knowledge we can know that's not true. We can assume that isn't what the writer meant and we know they are not good at being consistent with past events.\

 

You also didn't address the second part of my comment, which is that the lack of fast transport dooms many colonies.

[angol fear]

Constructive criticism is done with an intent to improve.

 

I agree. But here "to improve" does it means to make the writing better in its own logic and intention or to make it feel better for the player?

[Natureguy85]

I agree. But here "to improve" does it means to make the writing better in its own logic and intention or to make it feel better for the player?

 

Those are not mutually exclusive.

[angol fear]

Those are not mutually exclusive.

 

For some other examples I would agree. But, here, they are mutually exclusive : for example, you can take a look at the writing based on retcons and what people think about retcons. So you have to choose.

 

PS : don't focuse your attention on my example (the retcons) because it's not relevant to develop that point. There are so many other examples that show that those two are mutually exclusive here, it would be a waste of time to talk about it.

[Natureguy85]

For some other examples I would agree. But, here, they are mutually exclusive : for example, you can take a look at the writing based on retcons and what people think about retcons. So you have to choose.

 

PS : don't focuse your attention on my example (the retcons) because it's not relevant to develop that point. There are so many other examples that show that those two are mutually exclusive here, it would be a waste of time to talk about it.

 

Well for here part of the problem was that the intent didn't match the logic or tone of the preceding events (assuming the ending really was what they intended).  So which are you going to change?

[angol fear]

Well for here part of the problem was that the intent didn't match the logic or tone of the preceding events (assuming the ending really was what they intended). So which are you going to change?

That's the problem. The intention matches with the logic of writing. It only didn't match with the expectations of the players (actually not everyone). So you have to choose one : internal logic of writing or player's expectations ?

[rossler]

You also didn't address the second part of my comment, which is that the lack of fast transport dooms many colonies.

 

FTL still exists.

 

Not to mention you heard Hackett state that all that stuff can be rebuilt in the Extended Cut.

 

Some species already had a working version of their own mass relay, so....

 

The bottom line is, because it was a different type of explosion, you can't use Arrival as an example for what will happen when the Crucible is activated. Due to the fact that it doesn't fire giant asteroids from it. Rather energy beams.

 

It's all about releasing the correct amount of energy as well, which is determined by your EMS rating. The higher the EMS, the better chance of the Crucible firing and destroying the Reapers, without destroying everything in the process.

[Natureguy85]

FTL still exists.

 

And is not a replacement for Mass Relys. It will take decades and centuries to cross distances the Relays covered instantaneously.

 

 

 

 

Not to mention you heard Hackett state that all that stuff can be rebuilt in the Extended Cut.

 

Exactly. That had to be added into the EC to deal with this problem. You apparently lost track of how this discussion started.

 

 

 

Some species already had a working version of their own mass relay, so....

 

The Protheans had a prototype that worked one way.  Was there another?

 

 

 

 

The bottom line is, because it was a different type of explosion, you can't use Arrival as an example for what will happen when the Crucible is activated. Due to the fact that it doesn't fire giant asteroids from it. Rather energy beams.

 

It's all about releasing the correct amount of energy as well, which is determined by your EMS rating. The higher the EMS, the better chance of the Crucible firing and destroying the Reapers, without destroying everything in the process.

 

The bottom line is you don't know that when you make a decision, so I absolutely can. When the Catalyst says every choice "will destroy the Mass Relays", all you have to go off of is Arrival. Arrival had only two things of narrative value

 

1) Establishing that Relays can be destroyed and that it will wipe out the galaxy

 

2) A real chat with Harbinger

 

Neither of these were used for anything. They altered the Relay cutscene with the EC to show the Relays merely falling apart rather than violently exploding partially to cover this problem.

[Reorte]

I'm not even going to get into why that's wrong from a writing perspective. Instead, I'm going to grant you that and explain why it's irrelevant. You don't learn that until a cutscene after you make your choice.

Arrival, played or not, established that destroying Mass Relays destroys the entire solar system. So when the Catalyst says the Crucible will destroy the Mass Relays, that's all you have to go on.

I see where you're coming from but I think you need to be wary with that sort of conclusion. We've plenty of real world examples of things getting destroyed with various degrees of destruction as a result, the events of Arrival simply don't say to me "This is the inevitable result of relay destruction", just "this is what happens if you destroy one by smashing something big into it." Arrival establishes that it can cause that much damage but not so firmly that I feel that it's that inevitable without prior contradictory information, particularly when in the ME3 ending situation it's just been seen to have probably spent a good deal of stored energy.

[Iakus]

I see where you're coming from but I think you need to be wary with that sort of conclusion. We've plenty of real world examples of things getting destroyed with various degrees of destruction as a result, the events of Arrival simply don't say to me "This is the inevitable result of relay destruction", just "this is what happens if you destroy one by smashing something big into it." Arrival establishes that it can cause that much damage but not so firmly that I feel that it's that inevitable without prior contradictory information, particularly when in the ME3 ending situation it's just been seen to have probably spent a good deal of stored energy.

Consider it this way:

 

Smashing something into a relay was the only way that had ever been discovered that could destroy a relay.  That includes nearby supernovas.

 

It also demonstrates the sheer destructive force contained in a relay.

 

Thus the perfectly reasonable conclusion one could make is that the reason they are so hard to destroy is because they contain so much potentially destructive energy within them that you done dare break one!

[gothpunkboy89]

Consider it this way:

 

Smashing something into a relay was the only way that had ever been discovered that could destroy a relay.  That includes nearby supernovas.

 

It also demonstrates the sheer destructive force contained in a relay.

 

Thus the perfectly reasonable conclusion one could make is that the reason they are so hard to destroy is because they contain so much potentially destructive energy within them that you done dare break one!

 

Well no one would willingly try and blow one up. Though they could be replaced between cycles if one was gone. Super Nova and smashing one with a planet sized asteroid are two very different set of physics going on.  As massive as a super nova is it is sill an explosion and all that energy is released in a omnidirectional set up.That resulting wave of energy would hit the relay first before any sort of debris from planets would since the Relay is typically placed at the edge of the solar system.  Creating a sort of wave to be ridden for the Relay.

 

Being hit with a rock is more how bullets function. It is how people can survive explosions but tend to die when shot. Added all endings rather clearly show the Relays discharging a ton of energy before destruction kind of does a good job of explaining why the galaxy wasn't wiped out when they exploded even on low set up.

[Reorte]

Consider it this way:
 
Smashing something into a relay was the only way that had ever been discovered that could destroy a relay.  That includes nearby supernovas.
 
It also demonstrates the sheer destructive force contained in a relay.
 
Thus the perfectly reasonable conclusion one could make is that the reason they are so hard to destroy is because they contain so much potentially destructive energy within them that you done dare break one!

It's also reasonable to assume that they've spent most of that energy in the beam. Shoot at a pressurised boiler and you'll get a very nasty explosion (might do if you crash something into it hard enough too), but if it's just spent all that pressure doing something you'll just get some metal with a hole in it. Something-with-lots-of-energy-blows-up I see following that analogy, without information to the contrary.

[ImaginaryMatter]

The important part is the visuals. In the original endings we see a Relay explode, then a cut to the galaxy map (this is visual shorthand for an explosion dealing a massive amount of damage) which then shows colored waves emanating from the relays accompanied by booms, then a cut to Joker racing away from a wave and the wave then dealing substantial damage to the Nomandy before cutting away again. All these images strongly enforce the idea that the relays destruction were indeed destructive. Especially considering that the ending epilogue infers some sort of technological reset.

Without the Arrival DLC, the only counterpoint to this seems to be a bunch of assumptions about not well understood physics in a series that has, from the beginning, undermined or ignored it's own universe's physical rules on a somewhat consistent basis. This is why what the visuals show is so important. The Arrival DLC for all intents and purposes cements the destructiveness of relays going off. With Arrival only one Relay has been seen being destroyed in the entire trilogy up the ending. This sets the expectation that blowing them up is a bad idea, unless again, we start making assumptions about ME physics.

 

When it comes to trusting on made up physics or trusting their own eyes, most players are going to go with the later. If the creators of the game intended for the relays destruction to not be so destructive they should have changed the visuals during the ending cut scene, which is what they mostly did with the EC.

[gothpunkboy89]

The important part is the visuals. In the original endings we see a Relay explode, then a cut to the galaxy map (this is visual shorthand for an explosion dealing a massive amount of damage) which then shows colored waves emanating from the relays accompanied by booms, then a cut to Joker racing away from a wave and the wave then dealing substantial damage to the Nomandy before cutting away again. All these images strongly enforce the idea that the relays destruction were indeed destructive. Especially considering that the ending epilogue infers some sort of technological reset.

Without the Arrival DLC, the only counterpoint to this seems to be a bunch of assumptions about not well understood physics in a series that has, from the beginning, undermined or ignored it's own universe's physical rules on a somewhat consistent basis. This is why what the visuals show is so important. The Arrival DLC for all intents and purposes cements the destructiveness of relays going off. With Arrival only one Relay has been seen being destroyed in the entire trilogy up the ending. This sets the expectation that blowing them up is a bad idea, unless again, we start making assumptions about ME physics.

 

When it comes to trusting on made up physics or trusting their own eyes, most players are going to go with the later. If the creators of the game intended for the relays destruction to not be so destructive they should have changed the visuals during the ending cut scene, which is what they mostly did with the EC.

 

 

Any argument using the original ending isn't valid anymore. Particularly since EC was the second DLC to be released just over a month from the game's release.

[Natureguy85]

That's the problem. The intention matches with the logic of writing. It only didn't match with the expectations of the players (actually not everyone). So you have to choose one : internal logic of writing or player's expectations ?

 

No, it doesn't. The attack plan requires using new, unknown technology, TIM magically gets to the Citadel and can control Shepard and Anderson's motor functions, and the Catalyst makes claims that are unsupported if not outright subverted by the story.  The expectations of the players were built upon the prior story.

 

 

I see where you're coming from but I think you need to be wary with that sort of conclusion. We've plenty of real world examples of things getting destroyed with various degrees of destruction as a result, the events of Arrival simply don't say to me "This is the inevitable result of relay destruction", just "this is what happens if you destroy one by smashing something big into it." Arrival establishes that it can cause that much damage but not so firmly that I feel that it's that inevitable without prior contradictory information, particularly when in the ME3 ending situation it's just been seen to have probably spent a good deal of stored energy.

 

Then please tell me the narrative purpose of Arrival. What is the point of having that happen? It isn't to put Shepard in jail, as it is optional DLC and ME3 accounts for you not doing it. It wasn't to delay the Reapers because they get there whenever the writer wants.

 

 

 

Well no one would willingly try and blow one up. Though they could be replaced between cycles if one was gone. Super Nova and smashing one with a planet sized asteroid are two very different set of physics going on.  As massive as a super nova is it is sill an explosion and all that energy is released in a omnidirectional set up.That resulting wave of energy would hit the relay first before any sort of debris from planets would since the Relay is typically placed at the edge of the solar system.  Creating a sort of wave to be ridden for the Relay.

 

Being hit with a rock is more how bullets function. It is how people can survive explosions but tend to die when shot. Added all endings rather clearly show the Relays discharging a ton of energy before destruction kind of does a good job of explaining why the galaxy wasn't wiped out when they exploded even on low set up.

 

How do you know somebody wouldn't willingly blow one up? What about terrorists or someone trying to close off entry into their territory?

 

You're right, the Supernova is a lot more powerful. But we know the energy dissipates and from what I could find, only planets within a certain radius are utterly destroyed with others being ejected, just like what happened to the Mu Relay. Normally a Relay sized object would not be as tough as a planet, but we don't know how powerful those Quantum Shields are or if they can ever be broken until Arrival.

And then you ruin it with your usual ignorance of the real world. The major damage from a bullet is not the kinetic energy of impact; it's from the expansion of the round and gasses inside the body.

 

 

It's also reasonable to assume that they've spent most of that energy in the beam. Shoot at a pressurised boiler and you'll get a very nasty explosion (might do if you crash something into it hard enough too), but if it's just spent all that pressure doing something you'll just get some metal with a hole in it. Something-with-lots-of-energy-blows-up I see following that analogy, without information to the contrary.

 

No it's not because you have no idea what the beam is or what is needed to make it. The most you can go off of is that the shiny core disappears right before the Relay explodes in the EC cutscene. I don't know if it does that without EC. But again, that is what you see in a cutscene after you make the choice. Shepard never sees that.

 

My signature guys Mr.Btongue and Smudboy describe it well.

[dorktainian]

ah smudboy.  I actually loved his analysis of ME3 and everything that is wrong with it.  The guy talks sense, especially the criticism of the (lack of) narrative coherrence and his questioning the story itself.  As i've stated myself before, the story just doesn't seem well structured at all in a literal sense.  Best of all he called synthesis out for what it is.  'Stupid'.

[Natureguy85]

ah smudboy.  I actually loved his analysis of ME3 and everything that is wrong with it.  The guy talks sense, especially the criticism of the (lack of) narrative coherrence and his questioning the story itself.  As i've stated myself before, the story just doesn't seem well structured at all in a literal sense.  Best of all he called synthesis out for what it is.  'Stupid'.

 

Yeah, I really like his videos. Some people don't like him because he's very blunt with his criticisms and then they try and find one of the few places he's wrong and harp on it to try and throw out the rest of his analysis. He does  get a few things wrong here and there, like anyone else, but he's mostly very smart and spot on.