Yeesh, the words "whiny" and "entitled" are getting thrown around a lot, along with other things. Come on, there's a valid discussion to be had here. Can't we talk about this like reasonable civilized people? There's no need to be insulting, and that goes to people on both sides of the debate.
Mass Effect 3: It's not the endings, its the final battle (And synthesis)
- Thread starter Saviordd1
- Start date
DarkhoIlow said:
Yes, there is something that is worth discussing, like how people no longer identifies with the Hero when it accepts the Antagonist logic. I am of course, refering to this:erttheking said:
http://awtr.wikidot.com/long:this-is-not-a-pipe
Now, @DarkhoIlow may not know it, but the higher the EMS you have, the more endings you get and the less chance that you end up vaporizing everyone by Relay explotions (low EMS run on the EC still show that they explode as before. Only on High EMS, the only thing that blows up is the gyroscopic rings of the Relay) + The Crusible killing everyone (not just synthetics but organics too) in low EMS Destroy. I remind you all that "relays exploding = dead solar system by explotion" is canon because the Arrival DLC is canon, and the endings have to subvert that in some way (at least until the EC)
The only ending that requieres the highest EMS, and is viewed as "the ideal solution" by The Catalyst, AND doesnt blow up the relays because there is only one variation of this ending, is Synthesis.
The article there suggest that NONE of the endings (except Refusal) are worth trying because they are "thematically revolting" and they are basically the same methods that the Reapers use.
So far i agree with that, but i dont agree with the idea that the Protagonist CANT see something worth using or agreeing with the Antagonist logic. People use Saren as an example of how the story doesnt agree with "Merging organics and the Reapers into one. Strenght of both, the weakness of neither" but.....that is not true.
You see, we dont agree with Saren because:
1)He was indoctrinated
2)We DIDNT convince that "merging" is wrong, we just tell him that the Reapers are controlling him but not precicely that what he was thinking is wrong per se.
Shep is not saying: "I believe that merging may be a good idea, but the Reapers dont seem too happy to coperate, and since they wipe out civilizations every 50.000 years and we have yet to see a race spared by the Reapers by being one with them, it seems that they will just kill us ASAP rather than coexist with us"
Shep instead says: "No you are wrong because you are indoctrinated, you argument is invalid" (PERMABANNED)
Which is as coherent as any argument on the Internet. Maybe Shep frecuents 4000Chan?
Point is, i see Shepard dissagreeing with the asociation with the Reapers with Saren, rather than Saren itself and what he had in mind. After all, he wanted everyone to survive.
If Shep really was into the ideology that Transhumanism or being half human half machine (Cyborg) is a bad idea in general or moraly repugnant, he/she would probable rip his own guts to remove the implants. Or be in constant struggle with the horrible truth that, since Cerberus resurrected him as a cyborg, he/she is now the very thing that he/she despices.
But anyway, i would like to know if it is ABSOLUTELY nessesary for all fiction EVER to just have an Antagonist that is not only the opposite of what the Protagonist believes, but ALSO has to be automatically wrong in everything the Antagonist thinks like some kind of strawmen. I was under the impresion that that kind of shit is something that a fan-fiction writer does. You know, making a self insert protagonist with an antagonist that its OBVIOUSLY a strawmen or someone who dissagrees with, and therefore... WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG.
There MUST be some kind of example in recent fiction or somewhere where the protagonist agrees with the antagonist and the fans didnt make a shitstorm about it, because it made sense and was well written in its delivery.
None of you remember any of it?
You should be happy that people didnt go quietly in this gentle night. This event is worthy of a study, just like how people examine something as Birth of a Nation, Jack & Jill, and Metroid Other M.gmaverick019 said:
If people werent as dedicaded and critical, we wouldnt never had this:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/lb_i.php?lb_id=13373815860B43920100&i_id=13373815860I43921400&p=1
Yep, I knew that about KOTOR2. Doesn't change the way KOTOR2 is viewed though - especially in its original, pre-Restored Content mod condition, it's viewed by most people as a great game with serious flaws and I still think that's how ME3 is going to be looked at in the future too.DioWallachia said:
Sure, the reasons it's flawed are different. KOTOR2 suffered from huge time pressures. ME3 suffered from incompetent writers. End result is the same though: a great game with serious flaws.
And it's arguable whether the endings of ME3 were intended all along. The ones we got certainly weren't the ones Drew Karpyshyn intended for us when he started writing the series. Whether his would have been better is debatable, but I don't believe he planned these ones.
They didn't jam the signal, they changed the way the Keepers responded to it.ThriKreen said:
Essentially the Keepers still got the signal but this time instead of them responding to it by activating the Citadel relay, they simply did nothing.
Vigil explains that on Ilos in the first game.
Since Casey Hudson is the head honcho of the ME series, it doesnt matter what Drew Karpyshyn says (as evidenced by the fact that he took over the writting along with walters in the last minutes of the game) the integrity of Hudson is what matters now, not what the other writers say. Their input or belief is not requiered.AD-Stu said:
And by "intended all along" i mean this:
Exhibit A:
Fan: "Man, that game felt incomplete. What happened?"
Obsidian: "We were rushed and we are sorry. We did the best we could with the storyline to give the best experience as possible while tying as many plot threads left hanging"
Exhibit B:
Fan: "Man, that game felt incomplete. What happened?"
Bioware: "Incomplete? its not incomplete. Everything is there in place as we dictated from the beginning of the production of the game just as what we said in the pre-release. But since YOU think there is a problem for some reason, i dont know why , we will just clarify it for you. After all, we are Bioware. We are the same entity that made Baldur's Gate and KOTOR1, it will be inconceivable to think that we are capable of error."
I honestly don't see how having a Prothean as the Catalyst makes the story any more coherent - in fact, to me, it makes it more flimsy compared to the Citadel, which at least has more of a connection to the Reapers and a reason behind requiring it.JellySlimerMan said:
From what I've been able to find on the whole leaked script anyway, it sounds like it was Cerberus mistakenly thinking the prothean was the Catalyst, or he knew what the Catalyst was, not that he was as such. As later on in the script it corrects itself saying the Citadel was the Catalyst all along. But people only focused on the "Prothean is the Catalyst" part, not "Cerberus video log says Prothean is the Catalyst" nor the later correction. Misleading information, and probably intentional - after all we know Cerberus isn't infallible.
Plus, you should not value any left over, cut content in a game as even potential canon. Or even a leaked script. Game direction changes all the time during development - heck, the UNCs on ME1 changed direction at least four times.
Stuff still in the resource files are there either due to improper clean up or still referenced in some manner that could cause potential errors if removed completely. Resource versioning is really difficult to juggle in game dev, hence why a lot of games still have legacy content in them all the time. Or in the case of the prothean, it seems like the squadmate data was finished so left in to reduce download sizes, while the mission data for "From Ashes" came later.
The Fleet battle itself was bland, and where were the Geth Fleet, I don't know if it was being lazy or what, but that game had allot of plot holes, in it even before the ending which is nothing sure of hey Lets avoid epic battles on a bigger scale, and just wave our magic wand, and make it end somehow. Then one of the DLC's was lets make this awesome reaper race as a result of a race of tribal fish who were extinct even if they can use mind control on the reapers. I also STILL don't get why we can't use the Normandy in Space combat armed with it's thanix cannons it may have been able to saw a Reaper destroyer in half. It was tiresome to play, and I am sad people didn't see it as that too.
I posted that to prove to that guy that we are not making shit up as he always says (and conveniently he didnt even cared to respond to that comment.) That is it.ThriKreen said:
However, if you interested, why not talk about cut content that could save you the hair splitting problem of leaving questions and the motivations of the antagonist unanswered? like how a Human Reaper is made: (1:10)
Without this, ME2 ends up in a contrived mess (if the Suicide Mission wasnt already contrived already). I hear many times that since it was cut, its non canon, but really? we end up with nothing if we dont have this.
Too bad that we dont get an explanation of why the Charon Relay (Sol Relay) is still open even before going with all the fleets, when the Reapers are supposed to shut down the relay network like they always do in every cycle.itchcrotch said:
Having the Rachnni do the heroic comeback to help us would have been fuelled by a plot hole of the side of the Human Reaper.
Keep ignoring the details that BW ignores too. We dont know the difference between the weapons of the Quarians to Council ships or if they can ignore shields like the Thanix Cannon does. We know that the Quarian ships are made up of spare parts to make sure they can survive as long as possible without they only home breaking appart, and since Council space ignores them, i doubt they could get the best weapons or goodies for even fixing the toilets (oh wait, sealed suits, nevermind). And of course, we dont get an email or something explaning how effective were the Quarian fleet on the Spider Reaper on Rannoch after doing research in its corpse for vital information.Lily Venus said:
As for not being space battle game, so what? ME was inspired (and by inspired i mean Ripped Off) by Star Control 2: The Ur-Quan Masters anyway:
http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/mento/old-vs-new-star-control-ii-vs-mass-effect-ii/30-75395/
http://www.vidgama.com/2009/04/head-to-head-mass-effect-vs-star-control-ii/
Do the Mako sequenses remind you of something?
And if you conveniently forget already, the series of ME HAD moments where the gameplay style changes. Remember controlling Joker in ME2 when the Collectors came to board the Normandy?? its not the best stealth gameplay ever, but if they can jump from 3rd person shooter to a hide and seek gameplay, then why not control Joker again in a space battle long enough for the Normandy to get to Earth and deploy troops in London?
You mean the Cain? you know, that heavy weapon that was available in the other games except in ME3 for no reason whatsoever?Devoneaux said:
Actually there IS a reason of why it wasnt available: (16:02)
Not really sure what you're getting at here.JellySlimerMan said:
First of all surely, you're well aware that a feeling of "incompleteness" isn't the complaint most people have about ME3 - sure they complain about some of the plot holes, but the far more common complaint is about how completely stupid the ending was. I'm not even going to get into whether that complaint is valid or not. I'm just saying that's the basic complaint, not that the game felt incomplete.
Second, it should be obvious to all but the most casual observer that the ending we got (for better or worse) was NOT something that was set in stone from the beginning of the series. Aside from all the go-nowhere dark energy foreshadowing in ME2 (which was apparently a lead in to Drew Karpyshyn's ending, which in turn is why it went nowhere after he left the project), Casey Hudson has openly come out and stated that he and Mac Walters only got together to write the ending when they were most of the way through the writing and development process for ME3.
So if not having a branching narrative as Armando Troisi presented it back when he said that ME3 WAS supposed to have that because its the final game of the series, is not a valid complain, then what is? you know, having your choices make a meaningful impact that isnt just a mail or a cameo of someone that you saved on the Suicide Mission? or how about the fact that, for being an RPG, the game itself makes automatic responses to dialog based on your Paragon or Renegade ranking? how about, and i am just thinking out loud, CHOOSING what my character would say? you know, like the games you made before and sold so well that made you, Bioware, the powerhouse you are now??AD-Stu said:
Not sure how i can properly say it to you. Sure, one CANT plan a whole series from the scratch because its too risky and depends of how well the first game (i could argue that BW, even before making Mass Effect, had such a powerful brand recongnition that the game would sell well regardless.) But even if they openly say they had to make this ending because Drew left, the "actitude" that came across when they responded to the fans (via text announcement, not in person, like they say they would, nor in the PAX panel) is that it is our fault for not getting what is CLEARLY what the series has been building up to (even since the introduction of The Crusible in the same game)
Jesus really? In March I came up with the term "Masshole" to describe those people who constantly ***** about the game and it's ending, and I can see they're still going strong. This was 2012 people, approaching 1 year later, are you still that hung up? Do you know how many games have come out since that you could enjoy and can help you forget about ME3? Grow up!