I don't see the relation. The derelict reaper was taken out by something more conventional. The Destroy beam is as new to the story as the Synthesis one. They're both from the Crucible.
Well, I think the idea of the Reapers that always come back no matter what is one of the main ideas of the trilogy's scenario. Conclusions come to mind themselves. Do whatever you want - you always end up joining them one way or another. Even if this goes like in derelict Reaper case.
Well, I think the idea of the Reapers that always come back no matter what is one of the main ideas of the trilogy's scenario. Conclusions come to mind themselves. Do whatever you want - you always end up joining them one way or another. Even if this goes like in derelict Reaper case.
Reapers don't come back. The Catalyst warns that chaos will. Other AI. It thinks it's our only "hope" from that. Once it's gone, we're on our own. I just happen to think that's a good thing.
Okay, that is a defendable position, but I'm of the opinion that morals that last only up until you're in trouble(even if that trouble is galactic annihilation) are no morals at all.
Reapers don't come back. The Catalyst warns that chaos will. Other AI. It thinks it's our only "hope" from that. Once it's gone, we're on our own. I just happen to think that's a good thing.
The way I see it is that Mass Effect was creating problems with the story pretty much from the word go in Mass Effect 1 but often took an attitude of "we'll deal with that sometime later" until Mass Effect 3 came around and we ran out of later games to keep pushing things off to.
While Mac certainly could have handled ME3 a lot better, I don't think we should place the blame entirely on him. Drew created a lot of problems and then left them for Mac to deal with.
As far as Sovereign goes they could have made it cinematic without making the Reaper be the one to basically solo the fleet, since he did have his own Geth fleet with him that kind of barely did anything.
but Mass Effect 1 wanted to build up the trilogy's main villains as being this massive unstoppable force that you'd believe took down countless civilizations before you. It just seems like they just never really thought during ME1 about how they were going to handle that when it came time to actually beat them.
I place the blame "entirely" on him for 3 reasons.
1) He's the head writer, in terms of writing the buck kinda stops with him. It's his *job* to solve the narrative problems in an elegant way that's consistent with the universe, something he clearly failed to do in every way shape and form. And its not like Drew left *massive* hurdles to overcome either. I didn't see ME2 rushing off to another galaxy to escape the issues left by the first game.
2) All the parts that we know he was in charge of, were absolute ****.
-- He wrote the beginning sequence of the game
-- He wrote the pieces with Kai Leng
-- He wrote the majority of Cerberus
-- The crucible
and of course the ending itself.
Tuchanka and Rannoch were headed up by different writers and are basically labeled the 'best' parts of the entire game by the majority of people.
So in short, everything he had his hands directly on is, *at best* sub par.
3) He has zero credentials to be heading up a game of this scale. His only previous writing experience before ME was Black Whirlwind in Jade Empire and...I think that was pretty much it. Maybe a comic book or 2. Which lends credence to the rumors that the only reason he got the job was due to his friendship with Hudson.
The fact that he's *in charge* of MEA is downright mind boggling to me.
And while what you say is true about the Sovereign cinematic I agree, but I was primarilly pointing out that the handwaving of ME1 and the handwaving of ME3 isn't even in the same league in terms of its egregiously sloppy nature. One was clearly done on purpose, the other was done due to incompetence/lack of creativity.
You're almost certainly right about that. Given the Destroy Stargazer, either AI dominance doesn't happen, or it happened and it's harmless to organics.
It's hardly surprising that the Reaper intelligence turned out to have been wrong about everything
Not that I'm defending the catalyst troll logic, but the fact that something didn't happen up to a certain point, hardly means that it won't happen in the future.
The ending was not the place for decisions. It was the place where the consequences of our past decisions should be evident, not irrelevant. What difference does aligning with the Geth, or curing the genophage, or anything, really, make to that climactic scene? Nothing.
You're almost certainly right about that. Given the Destroy Stargazer, either AI dominance doesn't happen, or it happened and it's harmless to organics.
It's hardly surprising that the Reaper intelligence turned out to have been wrong about everything
Even if it does become a problem, I doubt it'll be the nightmare that is the Reapers. The very thing they're "protecting" me from is actually themselves.
Not that I'm defending the catalyst troll logic, but the fact that something didn't happen up to a certain point, hardly means that it won't happen in the future.
True, but at some point we have to conclude that the presentation is done, and this is just how things turned out. Bio could have had a couple of AI Stargazers talking about how the human Shepard nobly cleared the way for synthetic dominance. They did not.
Bioware is somewhat of an unreliable narrator. Take for example how completely curing the genophage miraculously doesn't end in population explosion and war in a few generations. It's so just because, not because it's the likely outcome.
I place the blame "entirely" on him for 3 reasons.
1) He's the head writer, in terms of writing the buck kinda stops with him.
2) All the parts that we know he was in charge of, were absolute ****.
-- He wrote the beginning sequence of the game
-- He wrote the pieces with Kai Leng
-- He wrote the majority of Cerberus
-- The crucible
and of course the ending itself.
Tuchanka and Rannoch were headed up by different writers and are basically labeled the 'best' parts of the entire game by the majority of people.
So in short, everything he had his hands directly on is, *at best* sub par.
3) He has zero credentials to be heading up a game of this scale. His only previous writing experience before ME was Black Whirlwind in Jade Empire and...I think that was pretty much it. Maybe a comic book or 2. Which lends credence to the rumors that the only reason he got the job was due to his friendship with Hudson.
The fact that he's *in charge* of MEA is downright mind boggling to me.
And while what you say is true about the Sovereign cinematic I agree, but I was primarilly pointing out that the handwaving of ME1 and the handwaving of ME3 isn't even in the same league in terms of its egregiously sloppy nature. One was clearly done on purpose, the other was done due to incompetence/lack of creativity.
Drew was the head writer for 2 games while Mac was head writer for 2 games. Are we not going to put some of the blame on Drew for causing issues in the first place? I'm talking about the entire trilogy here, not just Mass Effect 3. A lot of the problems that culminate in 3 started in 2 and 1.
I'm not going to argue that Mac is qualified for head writer or anything like that, because that has absolutely nothing to do with my point and I don't disagree with the notion that he isn't.
My point is that people put Drew up on a pedestal and act like Mass Effect had this great writing before Mac came along and ruined it, when the reality is that the problems show themselves starting in the first game.
It's not even a case of doing it for the sake of the story, as the only reason we can say Mass Effect 1 should have ended in 5 minutes is because the conduit is 100% pointless. Had they wrote that the conduit was something actually needed to bring back the Reapers and not just a quick transport back to an area of the Citadel that basically everybody could access anyway, that would have solved it.
BioWare's story writing has always kind of been a case of "it works decently, just don't stop to think about it or it falls apart".
I still like Drew for the novels and his Ascension/Cerberus stuff. I pointed out in another thread though that I never liked the themes of sacrifice he seemed big on. If he was in charge, it would have eventually led to the Dark Energy ending. Which is an ending I'd truly hate.
It's exactly because of "meat". And all the cellular processes that entails. It's my only experience of life. I don't live in Magical Fairy Bioware Wonderland, where the definition is different.
Go ahead and blame me and call me genocidal for it though. Carry on with the delusion that people who played Mass Effect differently are just as bad as Stalin and Pol Pot. I have better things to do than dignifying it. At least dignifying it for too long.
Not that I'm defending the catalyst troll logic, but the fact that something didn't happen up to a certain point, hardly means that it won't happen in the future.
Yes, but the problem with that troll logic is that you can as easily run out of organics to genocide.
One of the problems.
I wouldn't have the genocide argument. That's boring. It's predicting on geth being people. The interesting argument is on your view that geth aren't people because they're not made out of meat. That's the argument.
What makes meat special? You say your only experience of life is cellular, but that's not a useful standard. You don't know if your subjective experience of life is very much like mine, even through we are made mostly of the same stuff. And now you can't say much at all about a dolphin or a dog. In terms of the outward signs of sapience, there's no real difference between Garrus and EDI. So what makes meat special?
Bingo. You know, that Mac and Casey turned Mass Effect into a celebration of ignorance and bigotry is just one of the many - entirely legitimate - problems people have with the ending to the trilogy. Indeed, that the furore following the release of that game extended well beyond these boards - and lingers still - is testament to the awful job they did of trying to conclude things. That some people still enjoy the game is great for them, but there really is no defending that ending. There just isn't.
I wouldn't have the genocide argument. That's boring. It's predicting on geth being people. The interesting argument is on your view that geth aren't people because they're not made out of meat. That's the argument.
What makes meat special? You say your only experience of life is cellular, but that's not a useful standard. You don't know if your subjective experience of life is very much like mine, even through we are made mostly of the same stuff. And now you can't say much at all about a dolphin or a dog. In terms of the outward signs of sapience, there's no real difference between Garrus and EDI. So what makes meat special?
I don't have to argue that "meat" is special. It's reality. The burden is on transhumanists. Not me. It sucks for them that things can't be so easily declared. That life on their terms can't simply be lived. That they can't just smell the flowers, listen to the birds, and just be. It's just theory - and not even a good one.
The real truth is that transhumanists hate "meat" (as cyberpunk types did before them). This all comes down to anguish over their mortal form and fear of death. Everyone fears death, but they take it to the Nth degree. It makes them feel better by just declaring there's a better way. But until there actually is, it means nothing.
This is the start of a LONG critique of the Mass Effect trilogy and how the ending was almost inevitably going to be a train-wreck. It's very good reading.
http://www.shamusyou...edtale/?p=27792
It has pointed out and identified a lot of the tonal shifts and changes in the fundamental design and writing of the different games in the trilogy. It has helped me clarify much of my disappointment with Mass Effect 3. I strongly recommend reading it to understand why, exactly, people are not looking forward eagerly to Mass Effect Andromeda.
There were several things about ME3 that were terribly executed specifically in the third game, such as:
1. The three endings which were terrible for many reasons, but I won't go into that since the matter has been (and currently is being) discussed quite thoroughly by others. I will simply say they were hugely disappointing, and move on.
2. The fact that they released critical information regarding the origins and, more importantly, the reasonings behind the Reapers as a DLC (Leviathan) which many people (including myself) weren't even aware of because by that point they had dropped the ME series altogether out of disappointment. Perhaps if they had kept that as part of the game, there wouldn't have been so much of a backlash because then at least we would have had some understanding of the troll reasoning of the Reapers.
3. The way that our decisions, many of which should have had a critical impact on the story were dismissed or played down to a laughable angle. I'm thinking specifically of the Rachni quest. The Rachni were a menace, a nightmare, a foe so dangerous that they had to go find the krogan, a species that had not yet discovered space travel, to defeat them. So, I chose to save the Rachni queen, and in the second game we had hints that having done so would have a massive, positive impact on our war efforts. Instead, we had one lousy mission with them, and we never see them again. A huge letdown in my opinion.
And finally, we come to 4., which to me was the biggest disappointment of all (the entire game sucked, but this part specifically): the way they treated our companions. I'm one of those people who gets invested into a series in large by the characters we can interact with, and in the first two games we were presented with an assortment of companions from all different backgrounds that I absolutely fell in love with. Then in the third game, pretty much all of them are treated as unimportant and are brushed aside, having maybe one side mission with them at the most. And God help if you wanted to romance anyone but Liara T'soni, or, horror of horrors, a male character!
I feel like the third Mass Effect game can basically be summed up in "The cake is a lie." We were promised all sorts of things such as a multiple endings (and I believe that there was even a quote where they said "We won't just have three endings"), a satisfying ending to the series, that our relationships with our companions and LIs would have a good impact... and then instead of all that, we got the catastrophe that was Mass Effect 3.
Basically, all of the things which have been mentioned above and in other posts have made lots of players, especially those who played all three games, doubtful of BioWare's ability to do anything correctly when it comes to this series. I feel like a lot of us see Andromeda as their way of trying to capitalize on a once-popular franchise that dove off a cliff and into a volcano, and we're not interested in falling for a bunch of false promises again. I for one will consider purchasing Andromeda ONLY if original players and fans like myself try it and give it good reviews. And even then it'll be with a lot of trepidation. What if I get really invested in the series only to have them pull yet another ME3 on us? Unlikely, yes, but still a sobering thought.
It would be cool if Bioware hires Chris Avellone. Dead Money is the best thing ever in the last gen.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
Oh wait...you were serious. Yea no. Dead Money makes me want to kill myself. Literally the worst DLC I've ever played. No thanks.
Bingo. You know, that Mac and Casey turned Mass Effect into a celebration of ignorance and bigotry is just one of the many - entirely legitimate - problems people have with the ending to the trilogy. Indeed, that the furore following the release of that game extended well beyond these boards - and lingers still - is testament to the awful job they did of trying to conclude things. That some people still enjoy the game is great for them, but there really is no defending that ending. There just isn't.
Except they didn't, it was just a poorly executed ending nothing more. Also there are several instances where Shepard can betray his/her allies i.e. sabotaging the cure while Wrex is alive.
I don't have to argue that "meat" is special. It's reality. The burden is on transhumanists. Not me. It sucks for them that things can't be so easily declared. That life on their terms can't simply be lived. That they can't just smell the flowers, listen to the birds, and just be. It's just theory - and not even a good one.
The real truth is that transhumanists hate "meat" (as cyberpunk types did before them). This all comes down to anguish over their mortal form and fear of death. Everyone fears death, but they take it to the Nth degree. It makes them feel better by just declaring there's a better way. But until there actually is, it means nothing.
It's exactly because of "meat". And all the cellular processes that entails. It's my only experience of life. I don't live in Magical Fairy Bioware Wonderland, where the definition is different.
Go ahead and blame me and call me genocidal for it though. Carry on with the delusion that people who played Mass Effect differently are just as bad as Stalin and Pol Pot. I have better things to do than dignifying it. At least dignifying it for too long.
Retour en haut