716 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

The game's files refer to the scene as taking place 10,000 years later, which is consistent with "so very long ago".

Joker, Garrus, and Javik =/= Adam and Eve.

Rebuilding the relays will be easier in Control and Synthesis. Humans live up to 150 years in the MEU. That's some time, and that's assuming we're supposed to take the Hackett epilogue as a literal recording and not just a meta narration.

How do you want the crew to look?

No, the Stargazer says "some of the details" have been lost in time, not much of history, which acknowledges the player's decision-making.

[Gothfather]

Oh right yes, I'd forgotten about that bit and had to look it up. Yes it is different to the book indeed but I didn't find it too jarring of a brek from the source as I felt that they were trying to show the resolve of Aragorn and how the ring calls to Isildur's heir. What was more jarring was the way they made the orcs dumb Af. They were supposed to be the fighting Uruk Hai and yet tripped over their own boots half the time. They also missed out on all the orc banter from the books.

 

As for the second bit, yes the green undead swirlies was slightly overdone. From what I heard, Jackson was reluctant to include them but did it for the sake of the readers. And speculatively perhaps due to their CGI nature they were more convenient as a plot device than the southern army of gondor to clear the besieging enemy. On that note I also am not a fan of how they passed over Glorifindel for Arwen and how they removed the legions of Dol Amroth and Imrahil but I can understand those decisions from a filmmaker's viewpoint.

 

I personally didn't mind replacing Glorifindel with Arwen because it allowed for imparting important knowledge about Aragorn & Arwen's relationship that is explained in the appendix but not the books themselves along with Aragorn's motivations.  But they ignore all that by making Aragorn the "reluctant" king Yet in the books he spends over 50 fraking years doing EVERYTHING in his power to become King because that was the condition Elrond put for the hand of his daughter. And since Glorifindel is never spoken of again in the trilogy it makes sense that his contribution can be switched. What I hate is when PJ just takes and pulls things out of his A$$ to add to the story while cutting things out like  the breaking of Saurman and lets just add Aragorn's falling off his horse into a river to add a dream sequence. Or adding Elves to Helm's deep?!?!

 

The books handle Aragorn's journey perfectly. It waits until the siege is over to tell the story about the paths of the dead and the how he seizes the corsairs ships. This allows his arrival to be a surprise AND it doesn't break up the pacing of the books as things build to the reunion of Eormer and Aragorn on the field of battle by switching back and forth. Given all the changes me made I think there is more than enough evidence to argue that PJ isn't a Tolkien fan because he doesn't actually have faith in the material which is why he just makes sh!t up all the time. And I thought his take of LOTR was bad but I hear it is even worse with the Hobbit. But I stayed clear of those movies so can't speak with first hand knowledge.

[Gothfather]

Ah. Thanks.

Someone ought to do a "Phantom Edit" version of the trilogy and cut out the stuff Jackson made up.

 

I don't think it is limited to just the extended version because I only saw the return of the king once and in theatres and i recall seeing the scene of him being murdered. At least this is what i remember.  Once was enough to see PJ butcher the source material I don't need to own a copy of that cluster frak and then watch a longer version of it.

[Gothfather]

Everything getting destroyed was just to look cool, according to you. Casey Hudson is actually Michael Bay. The relays getting destroyed was pointless since they were rebuilt lickety-split. The Citadel getting destroyed was pointless since, what, infinite resources post-Reaper invasion? The Normandy crashing was pointless since it just took right back off again, despite the crew getting off and looking off into the vista like that was their new home or Adam & Eve getting off and, well...
 

He doesn't know what's historical fact and what's a fairy tale. There's no legitimate reason why any major figures or events would be "lost to time" when billions of people were wearing recording devices at all times and data storage was incalculably more advanced than it is now.
The Stargazer was more cement for the Adam & Eve allegory. "The Shepard" was more religious BS.

And the "one day, my sweet" was, aside from creepy, clearly the old pedophile telling the child that humans will reach the stars again in the future. No one tells children "you'll be able to do X one day" when they're talking about stuff they can do when they're older. They say "when you're older" or "when you're grown up." 
 

Adam & Eve, for starters.
 

Smug and wrong is a bad combo.

 

 

The problem with your contention that there is an Adam & Eve allegory is that it is conditional. If 'Eve' is dead she doesn't show up and if 'Eve' isn't used much she doesn't show up for most endings. In fact, the fact EDI/Eve can not show up is proof that your theory isn't fool proof nor that people are stupid for not seeing it. EDI doesn't always show up meaning that for many players she just doesn't make an appearance so it is very hard to people to see significance to her with the aftermath ending.

 

 

 

• If EMS is substantially low (below ~2000), nobody exits the Normandy.
• If EMS is moderately high (above minimum, below maximum) and Destroy or Control are chosen, Joker and the player's most-favored crew mate will exit the ship.
• If Synthesis is chosen, Joker, EDI, and the player's most-favored crew member will exit the ship. Joker and EDI will embrace.
• If EMS is 4000+ then three crew members will exit in the Destroy and Control endings; Joker and two of the player's most-favored crew mates.^[3][4]

 

This is taken from wiki and note this important caveat about this above points (again quoting the wiki)

 

 

 

  Note: This section intentionally does not take into account changes made by the Extended Cut DLC. See the following section for a breakdown of Mass Effect 3's ending with Extended Cut installed.

 

Now if you use EDI a lot then most endings she survives will have her strengthening one's PERSPECTIVE that there is an Eve Allegory for her. Now imagine people rarely play EDI and don't pick Synthesis until their third play through. Here you can have two endings already not including her so when you do see her you don't automatically think Adam & Eve because you simply see her take the place with other crew members for one ending. And given that control and destroy with high EMS give you three (Joker and two others) people coming out of the Normandy without EDI, there are very strong reasons why people see no Eve allegory.

 

I will grant that if you play EDI a lot then she will appear like a vital cog to the normandy crash endings because she will show up in every ending she isn't dead in giving the illusion that she is vital to the narrative of the crash this is even more reinforced if you get an EMS score range where only one character joins Joker and you just so happened to USe EDI the most. But she isn't actually vital to the aftermath endings as the mechanics show which kinda blows the idea that teh developer intended an allegory as there is a good chance she just wont show.

 

The religious allegories in the trilogy have always been focused on Shepard. The term "The Shepard" actually doesn't give any weight to your position of the Adam & Eve allegory but rather give weight to the Messiah literary imagery/symbolism given to Shepard through out the series. And Messiah literary symbolism doesn't automatically equate to religious BS. Neo from the Matrix is another character that is written with tons of messiah symbolism but Neo isn't a religious character nor is the matrix trilogy making a religious statement. Shepard and Neo are examples characters that use the messiah literary archetype without being religious in nature. There are numerous academic papers on the secular messiah figure that Neo is a perfect representation of. The non religious Messiah figure isn't new to modern literature. Adding 'the' to a name isn't even a sign of reverence, People have used the term 'The Donald' for donald trump and they are being derogatory.

 

It is my belief that you have conflated the Messiah imagery of Shepard with the aftermath scene and perhaps confused the mechanics of who shows up with more significance than what is actually happening under the hood.

 

It is my belief that the developers saw that some people where putting undue importance to certain things in the ending and so used the extended cut scenes to dispel this. I am not implying this was the reason the EC was made only that they used this as an opportunity to clarify the aftermath scenes.

 

 

For Me EDI was so underused as a squadie in my first few playthroughs that she rarely if ever showed up in the aftermath scenes that it simply was not possible for me to draw the conclusions that you did. And because I think I only picked the synthesis option once to see what happened choice and once to show someone the 'differences" to the endings and never as an actual 'this is Shepard's choice', EDI just doesn't make appearances at the end of my games to carry any weight to this notion that She is an Eve allegory. What i see with the synthesis ending given this perspective isn't the allegory of Adam & Eve but rather symbolism of love. And if your are trying to make a statement it really fails if the key in the cog of said statement isn't important enough to show up in the majority of the possible outcomes of said scenes.

 

[Source] http://masseffect.wi...Priority:_Earth (Aftermath section)

[Gothfather]

The game's own files refer to Joker and EDI as Adam and Eve in the Synthesis ending, and all of the endings were built around that framework. 

The relays are rebuilt and working in every ending apparently well within Hackett's lifetime and service.

No one looks any worse for wear when the Normandy takes back off.

The old man says that much of history has "been lost in time." That doesn't happen with advanced technology. 

Where are you getting 10,000 years?

 

Really? Here is something that gets lost to time DETAILS. And popular 'history' is filled with falsehoods. The idea that Polish cavalry attacked German tanks is a perfect example. And that is just over 75 years ago, the fact that it is possible to get an alien stargazer version shows that we a looking at something that is far into the future.

 

I'd also know by what facts you think history doesn't get 'lost in time' with advance technology, because everything I know about history shows that 'facts' get quickly lost in time. Hell Al gore claiming to invent the internet is a perfect example how facts can get lost in time within hours let alone years. He never claimed to have invented the internet the context of his statement is obviously not claiming to have invented the internet. Context is vital for meaning. Kennedy never said I am a doughnut in german during his famous speak even though people claim he said that because the CONTEXT of his statement he was saying I am a Berliner not i am a doughnut. Yet these are things that people believe are true the FACTS the actual history of these events is lost in time to the populous.

 

I don't know about you but some adult talking to a child doesn't strike me as an academically rigorous conversation and that him not knowing facts correctly seems more plausible than not. This is especially true given just how many falsehoods people believe are true in events that are less significantly less than the average lifetime with our advance technology. I really think you are so fixated on this internal narrative that you are failing to see any evidence that conflicts with your position.

 

[Sources] http://www.snopes.co...es/internet.asp

 

https://en.wikipedia...rge_at_Krojanty

[von uber]

Why are you still arguing about it? It would matter if mass effect was going to be carrying on in that rich place they built up over 3 games.
But it isnt - they've junked the setting and have had to move on.

[Teabaggin Krogan]

I personally didn't mind replacing Glorifindel with Arwen because it allowed for imparting important knowledge about Aragorn & Arwen's relationship that is explained in the appendix but not the books themselves along with Aragorn's motivations.  But they ignore all that by making Aragorn the "reluctant" king Yet in the books he spends over 50 fraking years doing EVERYTHING in his power to become King because that was the condition Elrond put for the hand of his daughter. And since Glorifindel is never spoken of again in the trilogy it makes sense that his contribution can be switched. What I hate is when PJ just takes and pulls things out of his A$$ to add to the story while cutting things out like  the breaking of Saurman and lets just add Aragorn's falling off his horse into a river to add a dream sequence. Or adding Elves to Helm's deep?!?!

 

The books handle Aragorn's journey perfectly. It waits until the siege is over to tell the story about the paths of the dead and the how he seizes the corsairs ships. This allows his arrival to be a surprise AND it doesn't break up the pacing of the books as things build to the reunion of Eormer and Aragorn on the field of battle by switching back and forth. Given all the changes me made I think there is more than enough evidence to argue that PJ isn't a Tolkien fan because he doesn't actually have faith in the material which is why he just makes sh!t up all the time. And I thought his take of LOTR was bad but I hear it is even worse with the Hobbit. But I stayed clear of those movies so can't speak with first hand knowledge.

 

True I can accept Arwen covering for Glorifindel from a casting perspective but from the books wasn't Arwen the image of Luthien herself and for PJ to have made her into some sort of warrior lady was kinda jarring given that their relation mirrored that of Beren and Luthien and the way she was described in the books. Also Glorifindel plays a large part in the appendices of the book and is one of the longstanding characters in the whole story, so it was kinda disappointing not seeing him.

 

I was okay with the portrayal of Aragorn and his road to being the king. He should've had Anduril with him during the start of the fellowship's journey rather than getting it from Elrond later on in the movie. But his motivations I felt were somewhat clear in the movie even with the deviations made by Jackson. As for the breaking of Saruman, by which I'm assuming you mean his death, it was rather disappointing but if they were to stay true to the source they would've needed to film the whole sacking of the shire at the end of the book and that would've dragged the movie even longer. So I understand that decision although I do feel it could've been done better and more in tune with the source. 

 

The elves in helms deep was really unnecessary I agree and from what I hear originally Arwen was supposed to appear and fight along with Aragorn which would've been an absolute pile of tripe. But I do think that PJ is a Tolkien fan because I feel they have stayed true to most of the essential plots and happenings in the book. The movie has been faithful to most of the key turning points in the book and largely follows the story of the book in essence even if they've taken a few liberties here and there, big and small. 

 

The Hobbit though hasn't turned out so well and is rather disappointing overall. Bilbo is done well and Smaug is magnificent in form, voice and grandeur. Also the dwarves are mostly alright but that's about it. They've taken so many silly deviations from the original that at times it is downright silly! They unnecessarily crammed Legolas and a dwarf-elf love story that really had no place there.  They also made Azog from the book way more important like some kind of super orc and trivialized Sauron as a shadow who for most of the movie spends time bickering with the orcs. The ending really became a cgi cluster duck during the final battle which just felt kinda pointless. But I'd say you could give it a watch just to see the portrayal of Smaug alone, who is truly glorious and one of the best dragons I've seen in a movie. 

[AlanC9]

Rebuilding the relays will be easier in Control and Synthesis. Humans live up to 150 years in the MEU. That's some time, and that's assuming we're supposed to take the Hackett epilogue as a literal recording and not just a meta narration.

I don't think we even get to meta. Hackett's speech is manifestly in the immediate aftermath of the war; the reconstruction he talks about is going to happen in the future. Since many of the pictures aren't from the moment of the speech, they can't possibly be evidence of the reconstruction happening in his lifetime.

[frylock23]

New information!

 

Well, not that much but I'll take what I can get at this point.

 

I know not who Shinobi is, but I like the sound of "this is what ME1 was envisioned to be" and the part where each planet has plenty of things to do.

 

I just hope "plenty of things to do" means plenty of interesting things to do. There were lots of things to do in DA:I too, but they were hardly all necessary or relevant to the game. In fact, you could make a good case that most of them were a waste of time if you wanted to be technical.

 

Hopefully they miss that feel with ME:A and either give us useful feeling stuff to do or stuff that is necessary to do.

[Iakus]

Why are you still arguing about it? It would matter if mass effect was going to be carrying on in that rich place they built up over 3 games.
But it isnt - they've junked the setting and have had to move on.

Like a swarm of locusts...

[In Exile]

Why are you still arguing about it? It would matter if mass effect was going to be carrying on in that rich place they built up over 3 games.
But it isnt - they've junked the setting and have had to move on.

 

They thoroughly tore down that rich place in ME3. There's nothing to go back to - even if they picked a cannon ending, the world would be unrecognizable. 

[Iakus]

 

I was okay with the portrayal of Aragorn and his road to being the king. He should've had Anduril with him during the start of the fellowship's journey rather than getting it from Elrond later on in the movie. But his motivations I felt were somewhat clear in the movie even with the deviations made by Jackson. As for the breaking of Saruman, by which I'm assuming you mean his death, it was rather disappointing but if they were to stay true to the source they would've needed to film the whole sacking of the shire at the end of the book and that would've dragged the movie even longer. So I understand that decision although I do feel it could've been done better and more in tune with the source. 

 

I wish they had the Scouring of the Shire.  It really showed how Merry and Pippin had grown up from a couple of childish pranksters to serious leaders able to rally the hobbits in a crisis.

[The Elder King]

I wish they had the Scouring of the Shire.  It really showed how Merry and Pippin had grown up from a couple of childish pranksters to serious leaders able to rally the hobbits in a crisis.

True. Their growth was one of my favourite part of the books.

[Iakus]

Wut? I even gave you thematic intentions above. 

 

Michael Bay? Yawn.

 

Nowadays I'm thinking Zack Snyder is a better fit.

[Steelcan]

I wish they had the Scouring of the Shire.  It really showed how Merry and Pippin had grown up from a couple of childish pranksters to serious leaders able to rally the hobbits in a crisis.

It didn't fit with the tone of the movie at that time, and Make knows it didn't need another plot line to wrap up

[lastpatriot]

"This is a spiritual successor to Mass Effect 1. This is what ME1 was envisioned to be"

Oh god yes

 

That's what I needed to see.  My heart broke at the end of ME3 so I'm glad to see they understand how much these stories mean to us.  

[Gothfather]

True I can accept Arwen covering for Glorifindel from a casting perspective but from the books wasn't Arwen the image of Luthien herself and for PJ to have made her into some sort of warrior lady was kinda jarring given that their relation mirrored that of Beren and Luthien and the way she was described in the books. Also Glorifindel plays a large part in the appendices of the book and is one of the longstanding characters in the whole story, so it was kinda disappointing not seeing him.

 

I was okay with the portrayal of Aragorn and his road to being the king. He should've had Anduril with him during the start of the fellowship's journey rather than getting it from Elrond later on in the movie. But his motivations I felt were somewhat clear in the movie even with the deviations made by Jackson. As for the breaking of Saruman, by which I'm assuming you mean his death, it was rather disappointing but if they were to stay true to the source they would've needed to film the whole sacking of the shire at the end of the book and that would've dragged the movie even longer. So I understand that decision although I do feel it could've been done better and more in tune with the source. 

 

The elves in helms deep was really unnecessary I agree and from what I hear originally Arwen was supposed to appear and fight along with Aragorn which would've been an absolute pile of tripe. But I do think that PJ is a Tolkien fan because I feel they have stayed true to most of the essential plots and happenings in the book. The movie has been faithful to most of the key turning points in the book and largely follows the story of the book in essence even if they've taken a few liberties here and there, big and small. 

 

The Hobbit though hasn't turned out so well and is rather disappointing overall. Bilbo is done well and Smaug is magnificent in form, voice and grandeur. Also the dwarves are mostly alright but that's about it. They've taken so many silly deviations from the original that at times it is downright silly! They unnecessarily crammed Legolas and a dwarf-elf love story that really had no place there.  They also made Azog from the book way more important like some kind of super orc and trivialized Sauron as a shadow who for most of the movie spends time bickering with the orcs. The ending really became a cgi cluster duck during the final battle which just felt kinda pointless. But I'd say you could give it a watch just to see the portrayal of Smaug alone, who is truly glorious and one of the best dragons I've seen in a movie. 

 

Arwen looks like Luthian yes. But I think you forget that in the Silmarillian she also is pretty badass, she travels to Morgoth's lair and helps Beren steal a Silmarillian, faces down a werewolf with just herself and Beren's hound, it isn't like she is a wallflower. So Arwen's appearance in the movie is very analogous to Luthian.

 

Bilbo is done well? Really?  Bilbo finds the ring in the books fumbling in the dark before he even knows Gollum exists. In PJ's shitshow Bilbo STEALS the ring which is a complete contradiction of the source material AND it conflicts with Why Bilbo was able to give up the ring because he committed no evil in obtaining it so it was never able to fully take hold of him. And before people say he didn't steal it, I encourage them to watch that scene, again a friend showed it to me years ago just to watch me RAGE lol. Bilbo sees the ring fall out of Gollum's pocket and then takes the ring when he is alone. If I see someone drop their wallet and then wait for them to leave and take it, IT IS STEALING.

 

When you CHANGE the motivations of a Character completely you are showing you have zero faith in the material and if you don't have faith in the material you are not a fan. Change plot elements, change dialogue that is all acceptable in my book change a character's base motivations and you go too far.

 

Aragorn's motivation is completely changed as is his personality he is a fraking murderer in PJ's vision.

Bilbo's a bloody thief which completely changes his entire character

Saurman was trying to seize the ring for himself in PJ craptastic movies he is nothing more than Sauron's lacky

Farimir is yet another character who's motivations completely change.

 

But I am done. I accept that other people get real joy out of the films and that is great. I don't and I really don't want to get into an even longer discussion about a series of 6 films that I like only one of said films, it is a waste of my time. It is a subjective thing no one has to justify why they like the films and or dislike them.

[AlanC9]

Of course, Tolkein himself rewrote how Bilbo got the Ring.

[Seraphim24]

Apparently LOTR is just Viking Mythology with tea and bits of English. 

 

In fact apparently Viking Mythology is Roman Mythology which is Greek Mythology, which is probably like late Egyptian and Sumerian Mythology or something. 

 

History is weird. 

[lastpatriot]

Just had a creepy thought... if this game is supposed be like what ME1 was intended, the does that mean we'll be getting those long elevator rides back again?  

[Steelcan]

 

When you CHANGE the motivations of a Character completely you are showing you have zero faith in the material and if you don't have faith in the material you are not a fan. Change plot elements, change dialogue that is all acceptable in my book change a character's base motivations and you go too far.

this right here is some nonsense.

 

Let's take Faramir as an example, in the books he has approximately 0% character development, his lack of interest in the Ring completely underscores how corrupting it is supposed to be.  He is supposed to be emblematic of the best that Gondor has to offer but he just falls completely flat as a character, no growth, no conflict, changes to that sort of character motivation are desirable and make for much better material than "I would not pick this thing up if it lay by the wayside of the road" (paraphrased)

[Il Divo]

Just had a creepy thought... if this game is supposed be like what ME1 was intended, the does that mean we'll be getting those long elevator rides back again?  

 

 

Confession: I loved the ME1 elevators. 

 

There, I got that out. I feel much better. 

[General TSAR]

To be honest, Dragon Age 2 was in a league of its own. You either get it or you don't. I'm disappointed people didn't realize its quality and they'll never have that kind of quality writing again.

It's April Fools again?

[Kaweebo]

Confession: I loved the ME1 elevators. 

 

There, I got that out. I feel much better. 

Me, too. I have no shame. 

[NKnight7]

Just had a creepy thought... if this game is supposed be like what ME1 was intended, the does that mean we'll be getting those long elevator rides back again?  

 

I actually didn't mind them, especially when the companions started chatting it up on the long rides.