3578 réponses à ce sujet

[Natureguy85]

And I repeat the flaws are what people complain about. If the flaws did not exist people would not complain.

 

Very simple cause and effect stuff here. People see the imperfections and complain about them because they effect the over all story the game is telling. They want to remove those imperfections or improve on them to make the game perfect. At least their idealized version of perfection.

 

That is why some people state they should remove or never added in the Catalyst into the game. They see it as a flaw that causes a problem for them. Or that they way the Catalyst is handled is a flaw that causes problems for them and if it was only handled differently it would be perfect to them.

 

Everyone has their own definition of perfect. Perfection is subjective not objective.

 

Yes, people complain about flaws. Gee, how profound. You were accused of going to extremes for posts like this. Why go immediately to perfection? Why not start with better?

 

 

 

Your constant complains about everything is proof of it's imperfection. If those issues that you have did not exist it would be perfection to you.

 

Yes, I complain about the major flaws, but no, removing those would not make it perfect. If the big mistakes weren't there, I'd probably notice more small ones. But like the small ones I've already noticed, I'd roll with them. For example, I've said many times that I think ME2 is a good game despite its garbage main plot.

 

 

BTW Reapers did need detailed motivation and history. They are the main antagonist of the trilogy and thus need a bit more back story then goon 8694-B that you mow down without a second thought.

 

No, they didn't. Your insistence that they do is interesting considering your constant claims that it's everyone else that needs everything explained to them. And again with the extremes, I never said they shouldn't have any backstory. I said it didn't need to be particularly deep or profound. We didn't need the Catalyst philosophizing at us. It was already annoying with TIM but at least he was an established character.

Btongue uses the Emperor as the example, but look at Vader. He didn't have a complex motivation either in the Original Trilogy. He went to the Dark Side because he wanted power. He tried to turn Luke to have Luke help him overthrow the Emperor and take over. And with those simple motivations, Darth Vader is one of the best and most iconic movie villains ever. And adding the complexity in the Prequels is one of the mistakes of those later films.

 

 

For a sec I thought you were talking about posting in this thread...

 

I don't know if you realize how important that statement is to this conversation, since I'm guessing you were just being funny. I did laugh but it's actually a powerful statement about stories. They can convey a message and have multiple applications. It's one of the reasons we like them so much.

 

 

The very reply from Natureguy you quoted is using an extreme or absolute. Stating the Reapers didn't need any sort of back story just exist. Which again is an extreme.

 

I never said that. Is this a purposeful lie or your lack of reading comprehension?

 

 

That's what makes the Reapers so interesting.

 

What makes them interesting? That they are the antagonist? The post you quoted didn't say anything about them. I think this and this are what made them interesting.

[gothpunkboy89]

About what?

 

That BioWare didn't get to make the original ending 100% as they would have liked. Leaving only what they could to convey the ending they wanted. Hence why it seems a bit off compared to the rest of the game(s) story telling.

 

Would you agree the original ending compared to the rest of the trilogy is a bit off what has become the norm in story telling?

 

Would you agree the EC puts the ending more in line with the rest of the trilogy's story telling?

[Natureguy85]

That BioWare didn't get to make the original ending 100% as they would have liked. Leaving only what they could to convey the ending they wanted. Hence why it seems a bit off compared to the rest of the game(s) story telling.

 

Would you agree the original ending compared to the rest of the trilogy is a bit off what has become the norm in story telling?

 

Would you agree the EC puts the ending more in line with the rest of the trilogy's story telling?

 

That depends on what you mean. Norm in story telling generally or in Mass Effect? In line with the rest of the trilogy in terms of quality or narrative coherence?

[rossler]

What makes them interesting? That they are the antagonist? The post you quoted didn't say anything about them. I think this and this are what made them interesting.

 

They aren't some cookie cutter bad guy with simple motives.

[Monica21]

That depends on what you mean. Norm in story telling generally or in Mass Effect? In line with the rest of the trilogy in terms of quality or narrative coherence?

Not to mention, is this related to some previous conversation that I missed, or opening up an entirely new topic?

[Natureguy85]

They aren't some cookie cutter bad guy with simple motives.

 

I'll take simplicity over stupid nonsense when we can't call the enemy out on their stupid nonsense. Though the idea that Synthetics and Organics fight isn't complicated. Where we get confused is how killing organics is the best solution to stopping Synthetics from killing Organics.

 

 

Not to mention, is this related to some previous conversation that I missed, or opening up an entirely new topic?

 

It's goth both trying to say that EC is what they really wanted and proves that the original ending isn't and that the ending fits with the rest of the series. The former is probably wrong and the latter most definitely is wrong.

[Monica21]

That BioWare didn't get to make the original ending 100% as they would have liked. Leaving only what they could to convey the ending they wanted. Hence why it seems a bit off compared to the rest of the game(s) story telling.

I have no reason to believe that Bioware didn't make the ending they wanted to make.
 

Would you agree the original ending compared to the rest of the trilogy is a bit off what has become the norm in story telling?

I am not qualified to talk about norms in storytelling. I read books. I don't write them. The EC is actually what seems "off" to me but I can't pinpoint why.
 

Would you agree the EC puts the ending more in line with the rest of the trilogy's story telling?

Nope. 
 

They aren't some cookie cutter bad guy with simple motives.

 
They really are. "I'm killing you because I'm programmed to." Sovereign says that he is beyond our comprehension, except he's totally within our comprehension and as it turns out, kind of boring. I'd rather not have ever known what their purpose was. I didn't need to know.
 

I'll take simplicity over stupid nonsense when we can't call the enemy out on their stupid nonsense. Though the idea that Synthetics and Organics fight isn't complicated. Where we get confused is how killing organics is the best solution to stopping Synthetics from killing Organics.

And this too. 
 

It's goth both trying to say that EC is what they really wanted and proves that the original ending isn't and that the ending fits with the rest of the series. The former is probably wrong and the latter most definitely is wrong.

Ugh. Not this again.

[rossler]

I'll take simplicity over stupid nonsense when we can't call the enemy out on their stupid nonsense. Though the idea that Synthetics and Organics fight isn't complicated.

 

Yes you can actually. In the original ending the line was "the definition of organic life is to think for ourselves, make our own choices...". In the Extended Cut, this was changed to a dialogue choice on the wheel you can select to play the same line. Among others.

 

Just because you can't bring up the arguments you want to bring up (eg. Geth/Quarian peace) doesn't mean you can't call him out on his nonsense.

 

Honestly what he says isn't nonsense. It is in line with what the Reapers have been doing this whole time.

 

Where we get confused is how killing organics is the best solution to stopping Synthetics from killing Organics.

 

Where you get confused. Don't try and talk for everyone here.

 

I'd suggest laying off the internet memes, because what you said mimics what a xzibit meme said about the logic. 

[gothpunkboy89]

I have no reason to believe that Bioware didn't make the ending they wanted to make.
 

I am not qualified to talk about norms in storytelling. I read books. I don't write them. The EC is actually what seems "off" to me but I can't pinpoint why.
 

Nope.

 

You are contradicting yourself again. First you claim they didn't get 100% what they wanted because no company does now you back track saying they got the ending they wanted to make.

 

You also state you are not qualified to talk about norms in storytelling yet then come to conclusions based on that set up. Because I specifically asked if the EC ending fits with the norms of story telling which you just said you are not qualified to talk about.

[Natureguy85]

You are contradicting yourself again. First you claim they didn't get 100% what they wanted because no company does now you back track saying they got the ending they wanted to make.

 

You also state you are not qualified to talk about norms in storytelling yet then come to conclusions based on that set up. Because I specifically asked if the EC ending fits with the norms of story telling which you just said you are not qualified to talk about.

 

Those are not mutually exclusive. Just because they didn't get every detail they wanted doesn't meant they didn't get to project the general idea they wanted. That's why they said the EC was to bring "clarity and closure" not change the ending. And the EC was still in response to the fan outcry.

[Monica21]

You are contradicting yourself again. First you claim they didn't get 100% what they wanted because no company does now you back track saying they got the ending they wanted to make.
 
You also state you are not qualified to talk about norms in storytelling yet then come to conclusions based on that set up. Because I specifically asked if the EC ending fits with the norms of story telling which you just said you are not qualified to talk about.

I have no idea how you can't understand that you can get the thematic end you wanted, as in the "galactic wasteland" part, and not get the details of what you wanted. You really don't understand that, do you?

And here, let me give you some room. Why don't you talk about norms in storytelling. I mean, what do we have now? Weapons expert? Diplomatic expert? Space travel expert? Let's add storytelling to that.

[gothpunkboy89]

Yes, people complain about flaws. Gee, how profound. You were accused of going to extremes for posts like this. Why go immediately to perfection? Why not start with better?

 

Yes, I complain about the major flaws, but no, removing those would not make it perfect. If the big mistakes weren't there, I'd probably notice more small ones. But like the small ones I've already noticed, I'd roll with them. For example, I've said many times that I think ME2 is a good game despite its garbage main plot.

 

No, they didn't. Your insistence that they do is interesting considering your constant claims that it's everyone else that needs everything explained to them. And again with the extremes, I never said they shouldn't have any backstory. I said it didn't need to be particularly deep or profound. We didn't need the Catalyst philosophizing at us. It was already annoying with TIM but at least he was an established character.

Btongue uses the Emperor as the example, but look at Vader. He didn't have a complex motivation either in the Original Trilogy. He went to the Dark Side because he wanted power. He tried to turn Luke to have Luke help him overthrow the Emperor and take over. And with those simple motivations, Darth Vader is one of the best and most iconic movie villains ever. And adding the complexity in the Prequels is one of the mistakes of those later films.

 

I never said that. Is this a purposeful lie or your lack of reading comprehension?

 

And you are a great example of the extremes in the various forms. From taking a single line stated in ME 1 treating it as word of law why events in later games make no sense and complaining about that. To the frankly pretty close to obsession over the "show don't tell" thing you have going on. Using that as near constant reason why you find flaws in just about everything with the story. To the fact that like Lakus finding you making a post were you aren't complaining about something or other about this game is like finding a 4 leaf clover. A slim chance at best. All different forms of extremes with what seems to be no middle ground.

 

Yes they did need a backstory and motivation behind why they instigate the harvest. Other wise they are just doing it for the lolz and that isn't interesting in the slightest. Again you post a video of someone agreeing with you as if that some how improves your point. Do I need to post my Tim Minchin song again? Or maybe I can post a RvB episode for all the help it would do.

 

 

Catalyst philosophizing at is is the best part because it turns the Reapers from a 2d flat stale seen it a million time enemy into something a slightly bit more unique. Because seriously the basic plot of bad guy shows up and does things for bad guy reasons pushing the good guys back till the protagonist shows up and protagonists his/her way across the game till some plot related happening happens and the bad guy who is doing bad guy things for bad guy reasons is defeated and everyone lives happily ever after is extremely played out. Catalyst philosophizing at you and the over all Reaper back story turns them from a flat, stale and over used 2D antagonist to at least a 2.5D antagonist that has some measure of uniqueness to it.

 

Seriously ever heard people talk about any Marvel movie? With the exception of Loki never hear anyone talking about how good the villain is. Because they are all the same bland, boring, copy paste one off bad guys over and over again. And you know why Loki is loved by many and is really the only good Marvel villain in all of their movies? Because they added a bit of depth and character to him. That is why you can find a ton of cosplay of Loki but not a lot of Ivan Vanko the villain of IM 2.

 

I've seen the Star Wars movies multiple times and never stated that he went to the dark side just for power. He actually has some depth to him more then you give credit for. Attempting to recruit his son rather then kill him is far more then just for power. He could have done that with any force sensitive person. And as soon as it looks like the Emperor is going to kill Luke he turns on him and kills the Emperor. There are many different reasons for people to love Vader. The being 8 foot tall dressed in black isn't the key and only reason how ever. Unless you have some sort of proof of this claim that the majority like him just because he is a bad guy dressed in black with a mask? Because the prequels did at least one thing right in terms of Vader. Gives more reasoning why he was so dead set on converting Luke and why he turned on the Emperor so quickly when Luke was in danger.

 

And a few comics seem to be filling him out rather well without hurting who he is http://www.dorkly.co...th-vader-comics

[Monica21]

Again you post a video of someone agreeing with you as if that some how improves your point.

I agree with him. I mean, I don't have a video or anything, but that makes at least two of us. Does that count?

[rossler]

And the EC was still in response to the fan outcry.

 

I liked the part where you refuse the choices offered everything dies. That is Bioware telling the noisy fans to bug off. I got quite a laugh when I first tried it out.

[KaiserShep]

I liked the part where you refuse the choices offered everything dies. That is Bioware telling the noisy fans to bug off. I got quite a laugh when I first tried it out.

 

Not sure exactly what people expected from a refuse ending, but anyone who seriously thought that rejecting the choices could end in any other way but total annihilation was rather silly.

[Abedsbrother]

<snip> the idea that Synthetics and Organics fight isn't complicated. Where we get confused is how killing organics is the best solution to stopping Synthetics from killing Organics.

(using the quotes b/c it's easier to read imo, not being sarcastic)

Well, I thought the reason that the Catalyst "killed organics" in order to "stop synthetics from killing organics" was because the organics created the synthetics in the first place. Prevent organic advancement by harvesting them, and time the harvest to happen right as they are beginning to experiment with synthetics, preventing the development of synthetics that would turn on their organic masters and destroy them (insert obligatory Yo Dawg meme here). 

 

Which is why so many people are angry that the Catalyst takes little notice of Geth-Quarian peace, because the fact that peace can happen between organics and synthetics proves that the Catalyst's professed reason for existence is in fact unnecessary.

[correctamundo]

The Geth and Quarians may be at peace for now but will there be everlasting peace? Cata Lyst seems to believe that it has the statistics to support the contrary.

[Dantriges]

I'll take simplicity over stupid nonsense when we can't call the enemy out on their stupid nonsense.

 

I think the last part is the most important one, when you go with a bit more complexity. The ability to say "I get where you are coming from, but we/I disagree."

[Natureguy85]

Not sure exactly what people expected from a refuse ending, but anyone who seriously thought that rejecting the choices could end in any other way but total annihilation was rather silly.

 

That's true based on how everything was set up, with the galaxy having no plan, making seemingly only one advancement from Sovereign, and being forced to rely on a giant plot device that was conveniently found by another character between games. However, Refuse fits best with the themes of the game. Taking only conversation into account, Refuse is the proper response to the Catalyst's BS.

 

 

(using the quotes b/c it's easier to read imo, not being sarcastic)

Well, I thought the reason that the Catalyst "killed organics" in order to "stop synthetics from killing organics" was because the organics created the synthetics in the first place. Prevent organic advancement by harvesting them, and time the harvest to happen right as they are beginning to experiment with synthetics, preventing the development of synthetics that would turn on their organic masters and destroy them (insert obligatory Yo Dawg meme here). 

 

Which is why so many people are angry that the Catalyst takes little notice of Geth-Quarian peace, because the fact that peace can happen between organics and synthetics proves that the Catalyst's professed reason for existence is in fact unnecessary.

 

Your understanding is correct, but while that does solve the problem, it's a very convoluted solution. How is that the best plan the Catalyst could come up with?

 

The excuse regarding the Geth and the Quarians is that it proves only that the Geth might not be the killer synthetics that will eventually come. Basically, you can't say the Cataylst is wrong about inevitability because eternity hasn't happened yet.

 

 

The Geth and Quarians may be at peace for now but will there be everlasting peace? Cata Lyst seems to believe that it has the statistics to support the contrary.

 

Sure, but that has to be presented in the story for us to buy into it. Otherwise he's just a crazy person ranting about having secret knowledge. And in ME3, he's just a crazy person ranting about having secret knowledge. In any other game, he'd be on the street corner wearing a sandwich board. If this was to be the Reaper motivation from the beginning, it should have been presented at some point in ME2. We'd question it but be faced with evidence of it as the plot went along. Instead, we fought bug-men with a goal that is unclear as to how it fits into the bigger plan and why it must be done now.

 

 

I think the last part is the most important one, when you go with a bit more complexity. The ability to say "I get where you are coming from, but we/I disagree."

 

That's a bit different. That more describes how TIM probably should have been handled. I knew TIM was Indoctrinated from the first conversation on Mars after the Cerberus Trooper face reveal. Lets say they didn't do the Reaper tech reveal right away on Mars, or that TIM didn't even turn to Reaper tech until the end out of desperation. Make small Cerberus teams pop up on missions rather than having them be their own Empire. Then we'd see him as an actual rival that still wanted the Reapers stopped. We'd only be disagreeing on methods.

The Catalyst, on the other hand, never made it's case. My point was that I don't get where it's coming from.

[KaiserShep]

The Geth and Quarians may be at peace for now but will there be everlasting peace? Cata Lyst seems to believe that it has the statistics to support the contrary.

Everlasting peace is an unrealistic pipe dream, but that's not really important. What's important is that peace can happen at all.

[gothpunkboy89]

I agree with him. I mean, I don't have a video or anything, but that makes at least two of us. Does that count?

 

Has it's place but he continues to post videos not of game play footage to support to back up points but videos of people stating exactly what he said. As if just because they posted a video some how his point is now more important because it is on youtube.

[sveners]

Not sure exactly what people expected from a refuse ending, but anyone who seriously thought that rejecting the choices could end in any other way but total annihilation was rather silly.

Indeed. "Do as I tell you, or everyone dies".

[Natureguy85]

Has it's place but he continues to post videos not of game play footage to support to back up points but videos of people stating exactly what he said. As if just because they posted a video some how his point is now more important because it is on youtube.

 

I do it because it's a different presentation of the same ideas. The hope is that if another person says it in a different way, it will penetrate the fog around your brain. The point is about story telling in general and is being applied to Mass Effect so I don't need gameplay footage. We know what happened and we're discussing it..

[rossler]

Not sure exactly what people expected from a refuse ending, but anyone who seriously thought that rejecting the choices could end in any other way but total annihilation was rather silly.

 

Yes. The game establishes it many times that the Reapers can't be defeated conventionally, and the Crucible is required to end the conflict.

 

I think people ignored the story and focused on their power fantasy instead.

[Abedsbrother]

Your understanding is correct, but while that does solve the problem, it's a very convoluted solution. How is that the best plan the Catalyst could come up with?

We can only judge that when we know the entirety of the solutions the Catalyst attempted, but failed to implement, which obviously couldn't happen in the time provided in the game. The only previously attempted solution that I recall was Synthesis.