Update: Fan "Fixes" Mass Effect 3 Ending With A 539-Page Rewrite
- Thread starter Josh Engen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you point at good things about something others hate, they will get equally defensive and even aggressive, ignoring or downplaying presented arguments.nuttshell said:
What am I defensive against though? I cherish ME3 overall, yea, but I see where a lot of the criticism are coming from, I get them, and I even share some of them, and I repeatedly said as much before. I mean, there has to be a reason why the story is collapsing at the same point in this story for so many people. I'm just not believing that all the criticisms are valid, that some stuff really comes down to personal preference, lack of understanding, or being an overzealous member of the plot hole police.
I don't have an issue with people who're saying, look, there were big problems with the ending, just when they go all fundemantalist and claim that it is all utter shit, and objectively so, and anything before was equally shitty and nothing makes any sense or has any meaning and that I'm stupid and ignorant for liking what is so obviously all shit, yea, that kinda rubs me the wrong way.
My post says: it is pointless to discuss this any longer. You think it's like this he thinks it's like that and none of you are going to change each others minds.CloudAtlas said:
That's the thing really, you believe instead of knowing, you didn't watch his videos till the end so you cannot know if all the criticism he brings to the table is valid. Sure, people make bad arguments. If you talk about something, there are people who can make a stupid comment. It doesn't make the valid criticism less valid.
It's alright to like ME. That doesn't make you or the people you mentioned above stupid. All it does is indicate that you either didn't give it much thought, have very low standards and/or the "wrong" priorities regarding its objective quality. And I do believe there is such a thing.CloudAtlas said:
Giant ass pulls like the Crucible and the Catalyst are certainly not part of a well written story. They're particularly bad when they retroactively break the plot of the previous games.
The Crucible's backstory is just ridiculous, especially considering that not even the Protheans (who managed to build a mass relay) were able to build it and that it requires a completely unknown entity to function. The idea behind it might make it romantic but it doesn't make it smart.
The Catalyst was never properly foreshadowed and single-handedly invalidates everything the Reapers have done up to that point. It makes Sovereign, the Collectors and the Reaper's plan B with the Alpha Relay totally redundant.
So, how can something that relies on such awful plot devices be good? And that's ignoring all the other problems the narrative has. A couple of good moments here and there just can't outweigh such tremendous flaws.
I wasn't referring to his criticism in particular here. And yes, I do not know everything, I'm not sure about everything, but admitting that is only displaying an appropriate degree of modesty, something that is often missing in this debate. It's always to proclaim one's own opinion, one's own judgement as absolute truth, I know.nuttshell said:
And I assume you will be more than happy to educate me about the "right" way to experience a story, the objectively "right" priorities and preferences, correct?The Great Fungus said:
What is wrong, shallow, or thoughtless with liking the story for the deeper themes it touches upon, the moral ambiguity of many of its elements, the difficult questions it asks of you, while emotionally pulling you in enough to make me care about all of this in the first place?
You don't have to oblivious to any flaws for doing so. Now it certainly helps if not all supposed flaws are actually flaws to you, or at least not as bad as others make them out to be, or whatever, but saying as much will only lead to certain people repeating themselves that you're wrong/ignorant/whatever for not equally caring, for not disliking stuff as much as they do, and other similarly stupid claims, exactly the claims that made you respond in the first place, and now you're running in circles and nothing will ever come out of it.
Is modesty desirable in a debate about entertainment? How can a person even participate in a debate if it doesn't know the points of the debate? I really think it is quite nice of you to say that you don't know everything because so many won't admit that they don't but how does this further the debate?CloudAtlas said:
Well, no. I'm not going to tell you what the right way is because I don't think there is a right way. That's why I put wrong in quotation marks.CloudAtlas said:
My point wasn't about whether ME is enjoyable or not, because that indeed comes down to personal preferences. I also never criticized you or anyone else for liking it. I liked it for the same reasons you named, I was just very disappointed by it. Did expectations and disappointments ever factor into your experience? They might have played a bigger role for us (the "haters") because we waited for years to watch the trilogy unfold. Perhaps that's why the whole thing left a very bitter taste in our mouths.
All I'm trying to say, and I'm sorry if I'm failing at it, is that ME's writing can't be considered good storytelling without ignoring or not thinking about its flaws.
The themes and deeper meanings were there. Some of the characters and their story arcs were interesting and moving. I'll give you that. What's bad is the thing that holds everything together. Everyone can throw in thoughtful subjects, it's how you package them that matters. Birdemic also had an important message to tell, and yet it sucks. Its saving grace though is that it's hilariously bad, ME isn't.
I just don't understand how someone can look at giant plot holes, sloppy characterizations, contrived plot devices, a deus ex machina, nonsensical motivations and whatever else has been said a thousand times and still say that those things are not important.
Please remember that I'm not one those who call it the worst thing ever made. I try not to engage in hyperbole. It just irks me that writing in gaming is still held up to an appallingly low standard. Look at how much praise Bioshock Infinite has gotten even though its plot is utter garbage.
It was you who interpreted "I believe" as "I don't know". I just responded to that.nuttshell said:
They did, in fact, not. I didn't play any Mass Effect game until... ME3 with all DLC but Citadel was out. I wasn't interested in Mass Effect (it looked too cheesy to me), I didn't follow the news, consequently there weren't really any expectations to be had, one way or another.The Great Fungus said:
Kudos for trying, I guess, but using expressions like "giant ass pull" might not be that wise then.
I guess I can consider myself lucky then that I never felt like engaging in debates about Infinite.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AssPullCloudAtlas said:
You need to brush up on your terms then. There's nothing wrong with calling something what it is, regardless of your emotional reaction to words. This is the TV tropes description. It is synonymous with deus ex machina (a term which you seem confused by, since you invented the term "machina" without explaining it.)
I didn't make the term "machina" up, it is simply latin for, guess what, machine. I didn't expect that to be confusing for someone who prides himself so much in his understanding of deus ex machina(s).smudboy said:
Sure...while I'm aware that machina means machine, "deus ex machina" is an established term for a plot device. It comes from the historical stage control of having a crane-like device lift an object onto the stage, to represent a god or supernatural force coming down to deal with the mundane issue that some character can't resolve. Hence, machine.CloudAtlas said:
What does a machine (or your machina) do? What are you talking about?
I'm pretty sure many people use the terms "I believe that..." synonymously with "I think that..." in many circumstances, and although English is not my first language, I believe there's nothing wrong with that.nuttshell said:
Are you taking me for stupid or what? Or are you playing stupid yourself? Do you expect me to explain to you that, or why, the Crucible is a machine, a device of some sort? Why am I even doing this again...smudboy said:
Except in this circumstance you don't want to listen to arguments (said videos), you want to argue, however, that not all arguments are good. It's fine but it really adds zero to the discussion...there is allways shit somewhere, thats nothing new. Where are we going with this anyway? I wanted to point out, discussing is pointless, yet here I am...CloudAtlas said:
I had a quick read, and I have to say its good, I like it a lot more than the original.
The "three flavors" problem is not present because there are more outcomes depending on how good your score was.
I especially like how the controll ending was changed into a "victory by any means" bad ending that fits the renegade personality quite well.
The "three flavors" problem is not present because there are more outcomes depending on how good your score was.
I especially like how the controll ending was changed into a "victory by any means" bad ending that fits the renegade personality quite well.
I expect you to define a new term when you invent it, and start using, yes. (Whether it's derivative of another term is irrelevant.) I am the confused one here, and I am asking a simple question: what do you mean?[/quote]smudboy said:
I didn't invent the term though, the Romans did, more than 2000 years ago. Why are you so hung up on that? It was just a play of words. I just asked, rethorically, what makes a machina (= a machine, a device... it's almost the same word, you don't need to know Latin for that, Jesus) a deus ex machina. And the Crucible hardly matches the definition.
I hope you are happy now.
Seconded, regarding part 1.skywolfblue said:
I was wondering if anyone else picked that up.
That Renegade Shepard can alone survive with the Destroy ending makes solid sense.
A Renegade has time after time chosen themselves over others, whether on a personal or species-wide level. The last reward for that kind of selfishness is to get to live when all others are dying. The reward for being a bastard is little blue babies by the bucketload. And fame. And ridiculous influence. And breeding requests. And siring half of the Asari race. And pretty much anything and everything a Shep could imagine.
A Paragon Shep has, on the other hand, finally given her all, has truly sacrificed everything. When ME 2 started she gave up her life, then was reborn and gave up her humanity. The climax of the Control choice is to make what's truly the ultimate sacrifice: Shepard gives up her Death. There will never be oblivion for her, only endless watching and waiting for the next terrible catastrophe. Unending vigilance in the truest, most remorseless sense.
A Big Goddamn Hero.
2) Also this. Destroy is Paragon? What?
You could equally argue that Control is the ultimate fascist fantasy, one person alone having total control of the fate of the galaxy - not really a power that anyone should be able to wield. Destroy on the other hand removes this power gives everyone the freedom to decide their own fate, with the Geth (if they still exist at all at this point) just being collateral damage.Beretta said:
The final choices are simply morally ambiguous, and to make them dependent on your Paragon/Renegade score is an awful idea. The Paragon/Renegade system deeply flawed anyway. It makes players look at the color of the choices, instead of thinking about the actual question and deciding for themselves, it judges your choices and this judgement sometimes does not match your own moral beliefs, it does not distinguish between being an asshole and being a pragmatic ends-justify-the-means type, and is ultimately pretty useless on top. The mature way to tackle morally ambiguous choices would be to entirely do away with any explicit system like this.
Yes you did invent it. You took "deus ex machina" and reduced it to "machina". (You didn't invent the word, that's obvious. And we already know the meaning of the word machina.)CloudAtlas said:
You used that word in a different way; apparently, without much reasoning. In fact, you didn't quite grasp what a deus ex machina was until after I explained it, and then started talking about machina, which is where I was confused.
And after your definition, that is that machina=machine, which is self-explanatory, is completely pointless, because the Crucible or Catalyst could have equally have been people, or natural, and not machines.
So what if they're machines? How do them being machines resolve the plot? And how is this good or bad, or done well or poorly?
So your entire point is...what exactly? That machine=machina?