inherit
738
0
4,633
Link"Guess"ski
3,882
August 2016
linkenski
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Linkenski
asblinkenski
Linkenski
|
Post by Link"Guess"ski on Feb 9, 2018 14:09:44 GMT
If this poll doesn't change from 100% no I'm leaving this board for good. Calling it objectively not bad is a case of mass delusion. Looks like a farewell... At least I know all biodrones are stuck in one place.
|
|
inherit
The Pathfinder
638
0
Sept 22, 2017 23:01:09 GMT
9,422
Serza
Rendering planets viable since 2017
6,301
August 2016
serza
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
13152
|
Post by Serza on Feb 9, 2018 17:39:07 GMT
At least I know all biodrones are stuck in one place. Don't mind me, just commenting on the matter...
|
|
KrrKs
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
Origin: KrrKs
Posts: 781 Likes: 2,233
inherit
678
0
Nov 26, 2024 22:27:00 GMT
2,233
KrrKs
781
August 2016
krrks
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
KrrKs
|
Post by KrrKs on Feb 10, 2018 14:35:14 GMT
hm, Me3s ending does - introduce a new (literal deus ex machina!) Character in the last 10 minutes (both are generally bad concepts...), thereby screwes over ME1 and 2s major plot points and introduces mind boggling contradictions.
- suddenly insist (during the last 10 minutes) that the main theme of the trilogy was something that played a minor role in two(!) optional(!) sidequests and one certain pov to the story in ME1 and was basically debunked as nonsense in an optional conversation in ME2. After about 100 hours of main theme(s) that did have nothing to do with that particular one...
- make use of some sorts of unexplained/unexplainable magic space waves, after most of the trilogy at least tries to explain what and how things function.
I still think that is bad. Very bad. And that's without the subjective design decisions about what choices are available (ugh), or what the ramifications are, or the original "Buy DLC naow!" popup after that.... (And yes, I'm still mad about it)
|
|
inherit
ღ Grumpy Old Man
1046
0
Feb 12, 2024 15:48:21 GMT
15,499
Space Cowboy
They call me a Space Cowboy
4,937
Aug 17, 2016 20:09:17 GMT
August 2016
spacecowboy
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire
|
Post by Space Cowboy on Feb 10, 2018 15:40:29 GMT
The ending is not bad, I reckon most people who say it's bad are butthurt because they didn't get an ending they wanted and because it didn't meet their expectations or that there was no happy end. Which just shows they got emotional over the game, so no objectivity there either.Generally though, objectivity doesn't make a lot of sense to me in games or also music and films anyway. If you don't like something, it can be as "objectively" well done as it wants, people won't care about it if they don't like it. There's always opinions and biases. As for the ME3 ending, I don't get the hate and never will. We deal with the Reapers, which was all we set out to do ever since ME1. This is an unfair and unreasonable assumption on the motives of people who don't share your own personal subjective opinion. And a strawman. You can't possibly know the minds of thousands of people who didn't like the endings. Dismissing the opinions of others like this is transparently dishonest. Other people don't like the thing you like. Get over it, and stop assigning motives that attempt to paint your own opinion as the 'right' one. And yes, that goes for either side of the discussion as well. Yes, no doubt some people didn't like the ending because it was not a happy one with Shepard living happily ever after with Liara, raising blue babies. Many more others disliked the endings for all sorts of other reasons that they've talked endlessly about online for the past 5 years. People have written entire essays about how and why the endings and the general change tone of the games throughout the series, weren't good. I think it can be said that the endings, taken as an end to the trilogy, were disappointing to most players, even if not objectively so. I voted 'yes' because I'd hate to see Link leave the boards But seriously. There were issues with the whole game. Just like there were issues with the two preceding games, as well as Andromeda. Whether you (a general you, not necessarily Fraggle) like or dislike the games is dependent on whether you liked the good bits more than you liked the bad bits. Your enjoyment of the good bits doesnt counteract the bad bits though. The bad bits are still bad. Still disappointing. You just don't care that they are, or your subjective opinion of them doesn't match some others subjective opinions. Likewise, the good bits are still good despite the bad. I loved the original mass Effect. I played it on PC and didnt like the clunky controls, the bad inventory management or the bouncy Mako. But I still enjoyed the game due to the story telling. It pulled me in, despite that fact that I can look back now and pick it apart as well. Mass effect 2, the Lazarus project was dumb and unnecessary, maybe even objectively so. The ending boss was silly. Stripping out parts of the game that didnt work well from ME1 didnt sit well with me either. I'd rather they improve stuff rather than removing/streamlining. But despite the problems I had with the premise, I had tons of fun playing the game. Meeting and recruiting the team and so on was entertaining. ME3 had its issues too. It felt more railroaded. Things had to happen due to drama, it seemed there was only one way through the game, one destined outcome. The choices in the previous games were watered down and hand waved away by making them all about war score, and even then tied to how much multiplayer you played. At least at first. The entire game was disappointing to me, most of it anyway. Tuchanka was good, mostly. Fans of the MP loved it of course. Not that they didnt care about the story and the SP game, but the multiplayer gave them a way to enjoy it that outweighed the parts they may have not liked. As for the endings. Having the reapers motivations be 'ai will wipe out organics if organics make ai, so therefore we (ai) must kill organics before they develop ai' is objectively bad writing. The three choices at the end? meh. I didn't like them personally, but to have managed to make peace between the geth and Quarians only to have some AI monster tell me the organics are doomed anyway due to having invented the geth, made the Rannock mission seem like a waste of time. Worse, there was no way to argue against its absurd logic. Shepard had to nod and accept whatever it said. This was, to me, bad writing. Bad overall plot direction. And no, I don't give a damn whether Shepard died or not. It was the end of his/her story.
|
|
jtav
N2
Posts: 58 Likes: 94
inherit
762
0
Nov 23, 2020 20:45:33 GMT
94
jtav
58
August 2016
jtav
|
Post by jtav on Feb 10, 2018 19:28:27 GMT
The ending is objectively (as near as art can be) poorly written because it's a twenty minute exposition dump about a problem the narrative already dealth with, and undercutting synthetics and organics have irreconcilable differences being undercut at every turn. But I do think the ending states as portrayed in the EC are pretty good and have something for everyone.
|
|
inherit
159
0
Nov 26, 2024 23:17:53 GMT
8,312
fraggle
1,362
August 2016
fraggle
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition, Dragon Age The Veilguard
fraggleblabla
fraggleblabla
|
Post by fraggle on Feb 10, 2018 23:49:40 GMT
The ending is not bad, I reckon most people who say it's bad are butthurt because they didn't get an ending they wanted and because it didn't meet their expectations or that there was no happy end. Which just shows they got emotional over the game, so no objectivity there either. This is an unfair and unreasonable assumption on the motives of people who don't share your own personal subjective opinion. And a strawman. You can't possibly know the minds of thousands of people who didn't like the endings. Dismissing the opinions of others like this is transparently dishonest. Other people don't like the thing you like. Get over it, and stop assigning motives that attempt to paint your own opinion as the 'right' one. And yes, that goes for either side of the discussion as well. Yes, no doubt some people didn't like the ending because it was not a happy one with Shepard living happily ever after with Liara, raising blue babies. Many more others disliked the endings for all sorts of other reasons that they've talked endlessly about online for the past 5 years. People have written entire essays about how and why the endings and the general change tone of the games throughout the series, weren't good. I think it can be said that the endings, taken as an end to the trilogy, were disappointing to most players, even if not objectively so. I'm well aware I can't know this, hence why I wrote reckon and also mentioned the ending not meeting expectations players had, leading to an emotional outburst. Another reason is because this is the experience I've had in the past. And I'm definitely not dismissing any opinions of people who don't like the ending, in fact I had a lot of very good discussions about the ending on the old board with people that never cared for a happy end in the first place. I understood their position and can accept why they feel this way, and I also am aware that the ending has its flaws, as has every installment in the series. But for example some of the plotholes some people want to see are simply not there, and just because not everything is explained doesn't mean you can't try and interpret it. It's funny though that you tell me to get over the fact that people hate the ending (never had an issue with people hating the ending, but how it all went down was just pathetic), when those who hate the ending still can't get over it after YEARS. Yeah, meeting the team in ME2 was fun and interesting, but ME2 is largely at fault for ME3 having to tie up the Reaper story in one game. Plus all the different variables, choices and so on. And for the time they had developing this game it still impresses me with its different outcomes and dialogue changes. Personally I do not see how choices were generally watered down. But maybe that's because I wasn't expecting too much in the first place. Yeah, I've had these kind of discussions before. Why is it bad writing that the Reapers' (or rather the Catalyst's/Leviathan's) motivations are to avoid technological singularity? Because you didn't like it? And how would you argue with a being that has been around for billions of years, with the experience that it has? And the peace argument is not a good one. It is ONE instance where synthetics and organics stopped fighting each other, however both factions are aware of one of them being wiped out if they don't make the truce. And it isn't guaranteed it stays like that in the future. And saying its logic is absurd... how do you know it's not actually right? What if synthetics will rise in the future? Maybe not the geth, but some other AI that will be invented? Now, I firmly believe that each player can choose for themselves what might or might not happen in the future, and I also pick Destroy most of the time because I believe everything should play out on its own, but we simply can't know whether the Catalyst is right or not. Bioware chose to make this whole thing ambiguous, and I think this is one of the most brilliant things to do, because everyone can believe in what they want.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Feb 11, 2018 1:51:54 GMT
The ending is objectively (as near as art can be) poorly written because it's a twenty minute exposition dump about a problem the narrative already dealth with, and undercutting synthetics and organics have irreconcilable differences being undercut at every turn. But I do think the ending states as portrayed in the EC are pretty good and have something for everyone. Peace and War are two very different beasts. Your best friend in war can often become your most bitter enemy once the dust settles.
|
|
inherit
ღ Grumpy Old Man
1046
0
Feb 12, 2024 15:48:21 GMT
15,499
Space Cowboy
They call me a Space Cowboy
4,937
Aug 17, 2016 20:09:17 GMT
August 2016
spacecowboy
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire
|
Post by Space Cowboy on Feb 11, 2018 2:07:21 GMT
I just watched a video discussing the trilogy. The guy is fair and balanced in his opinions, noting both good and bad things about the entire trilogy, but mostly the third game. Lots of technical problems and discussions about why things ended up like they did (time constraints, budget etc). I'll leave it here in case anyone is interested. And saying its logic is absurd... how do you know it's not actually right? What if synthetics will rise in the future? Maybe not the geth, but some other AI that will be invented? There are many things an all powerful machine race that actually cared about organics, as the the catalyst claims to be, could do to protect them from rampant AI of their own making, besides galactic genocide. Like say, oh I don't know.. killing the hostile AI instead? And aside from that, isn't the fact that the Reapers want to 'preserve' organics proof that the Catalysts claims are unfounded? Why havent the reapers wiped out all sentient organic life? Why only the ones that develop space travel? Is not their existence alongside organic life proof that not all AI kill organics indiscriminately? Besides which, 'preserving' organics in reaper form is an insult to logic and science. But I dont claim my own opinions are objective. I'm not expecting you to agree. Believe what you will about the endings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
7734
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 4:13:17 GMT
I actually chose no. Because it depends. Is it a bad ending for ME3? No. Is it a bad ending for the Mass Effect saga? In my opinion, yes.
But that's because in my opinion ME3 as a whole, from beginning to end, is a bad conclusion to the ME saga. I certainly hoped for more after ME1, but in terms of main story it wasn't wrecked in the end of ME3, it started falling apart in the beginning of ME2. As a ME2+3 player I think the ending is ok, as a ME1 fanboy it is not my main issue.
|
|
inherit
738
0
4,633
Link"Guess"ski
3,882
August 2016
linkenski
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Linkenski
asblinkenski
Linkenski
|
Post by Link"Guess"ski on Feb 11, 2018 7:17:34 GMT
I actually chose no. Because it depends. Is it a bad ending for ME3? No. Is it a bad ending for the Mass Effect saga? In my opinion, yes. But that's because in my opinion ME3 as a whole, from beginning to end, is a bad conclusion to the ME saga. I certainly hoped for more after ME1, but in terms of main story it wasn't wrecked in the end of ME3, it started falling apart in the beginning of ME2. As a ME2+3 player I think the ending is ok, as a ME1 fanboy it is not my main issue. I think it is objectively bad for both, and doesn't really change whether the Rannoch conflict resolves one way or the other. It is still a 20-minute contrived rewriting of the premise itself shifting everything to a previously concluded subtheme as if it never happened and as of everything before the ending was leading up to the thematical metaphysical conflict between organic and inorganic life which was neither the solely emotional core of the trilogy nor ME3.
|
|
inherit
4007
0
Nov 26, 2024 23:34:29 GMT
3,855
kotoreffect3
1,756
March 2017
kotoreffect3
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by kotoreffect3 on Feb 11, 2018 8:10:53 GMT
Nope not after the EC not subjectively or "objectively" bad. Also I hate the way the term objectively is thrown around these days. It forces an ultimatum and subscribes to black and white thinking. A piece of entertainment is never objectively good or bad. It always comes down to personal taste.
|
|
inherit
159
0
Nov 26, 2024 23:17:53 GMT
8,312
fraggle
1,362
August 2016
fraggle
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition, Dragon Age The Veilguard
fraggleblabla
fraggleblabla
|
Post by fraggle on Feb 11, 2018 8:45:37 GMT
And saying its logic is absurd... how do you know it's not actually right? What if synthetics will rise in the future? Maybe not the geth, but some other AI that will be invented? There are many things an all powerful machine race that actually cared about organics, as the the catalyst claims to be, could do to protect them from rampant AI of their own making, besides galactic genocide. Like say, oh I don't know.. killing the hostile AI instead? And aside from that, isn't the fact that the Reapers want to 'preserve' organics proof that the Catalysts claims are unfounded? Why havent the reapers wiped out all sentient organic life? Why only the ones that develop space travel? Is not their existence alongside organic life proof that not all AI kill organics indiscriminately? Besides which, 'preserving' organics in reaper form is an insult to logic and science. But I dont claim my own opinions are objective. I'm not expecting you to agree. Believe what you will about the endings. Sure, there can be other ways. I think the main problem is that we don't know what exactly the Catalyst tried before. It tells us it tried different solutions, but of course we would never know what it tried. Perhaps it tried this very thing, but organics just developed another AI? Besides, its mandate was to establish a connection, it was supposed to be the catalyst for peace between synthetics and organics. There's one thing it also says, and that is that it strives to preserve both organics and synthetics before they are forever lost. If it just killed off any hostile synthetics, it would have failed. How is it an insult? I at least try to understand different positions, but I also have formed my very own arguments from the ending and try to defend it, or some parts at least.
|
|
inherit
ღ Grumpy Old Man
1046
0
Feb 12, 2024 15:48:21 GMT
15,499
Space Cowboy
They call me a Space Cowboy
4,937
Aug 17, 2016 20:09:17 GMT
August 2016
spacecowboy
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire
|
Post by Space Cowboy on Feb 11, 2018 12:25:23 GMT
Sure, there can be other ways. I think the main problem is that we don't know what exactly the Catalyst tried before. It tells us it tried different solutions, but of course we would never know what it tried. Perhaps it tried this very thing, but organics just developed another AI? See, I'm a cynical old man. I just read that as 'writer cop out'. I'm not buying into the premise that the writers thought more about the story than that. Maybe they did, I have no way of knowing, but it isnt apparent to me in the game. Besides, its mandate was to establish a connection, it was supposed to be the catalyst for peace between synthetics and organics. There's one thing it also says, and that is that it strives to preserve both organics and synthetics before they are forever lost. If it just killed off any hostile synthetics, it would have failed. I don't remember this part. I'll have to go back and play again one day. It's been a few years. Our culture and heritage are not stored in our genes. Even if they were, there is no in game indication that what's being preserved is anything more than component atoms, somehow reformed into metallic reaper material blocks, or something. If my news paper is recycled and sent to a factory that eventually turns it into a cardboard box, the newspaper, and any ink forming words are gone. The component paper molecules are preserved and reformed, but what made it a newspaper is gone forever. Nothing of the original newspaper is preserved. it's stories and information are gone. It's component atoms are now part of a cardboard box and that is all it is. That's an issue with the entire trilogy though, not just the ME3 ending. It's the exact same beef I have with the Andromeda game scanning the Helius cluster using data from mass relays. The physics described don't match with either reality or the known uses of mass relays. But I'm not trying to start a debate on the science of the MEA game. Nor on the trilogy. They made a conscious effort to maintain scientific plausibility in some ways in the first game, but that seemed to go out the window in the later games. Obviously its just a game, about magic space rocks that give you telekinetic abilities, and bend the laws of physics to allow ships to go faster. I just like my sci fi to establish rules for nonsensical things and stick by them.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Feb 11, 2018 13:58:54 GMT
Our culture and heritage are not stored in our genes. Even if they were, there is no in game indication that what's being preserved is anything more than component atoms, somehow reformed into metallic reaper material blocks, or something. Our culture and heritage is also not stored in our minds either. We selectively choose what aspects we approve and disprove of. That is how in USA you can get the almost rabid people who declare the USA the greatest nation on the planet and any real or perceived insult or disrespect to it results in them launch off on some rant about how ungrateful you are and how you should go live in (insert war torn/impoverished nation). While at the same time waving a flag and defending a flag and people associated with a group of openly racist and treasonous people who tried their best to destroy the USA by dividing it into their own nation that suit their needs to keep colored people working like dogs. That are super pro military wanting a constant increase in spending to give them newer and better guns with more advance war ships. But go on paranoid rants about the Government wants to take their guns to enforce a totalitarian government and only Bubba with is Ar-15 can stop them. Our culture and heritage are not stored in genes, or paper or our minds. It is constantly shifting and changing to the point it isn't a stretch to say they don't really exist at all. At least not in the form you seem to be talking about.
|
|
inherit
ღ Grumpy Old Man
1046
0
Feb 12, 2024 15:48:21 GMT
15,499
Space Cowboy
They call me a Space Cowboy
4,937
Aug 17, 2016 20:09:17 GMT
August 2016
spacecowboy
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire
|
Post by Space Cowboy on Feb 11, 2018 14:12:25 GMT
Our culture and heritage are not stored in our genes. Even if they were, there is no in game indication that what's being preserved is anything more than component atoms, somehow reformed into metallic reaper material blocks, or something. Our culture and heritage is also not stored in our minds either. We selectively choose what aspects we approve and disprove of. That is how in USA you can get the almost rabid people who declare the USA the greatest nation on the planet and any real or perceived insult or disrespect to it results in them launch off on some rant about how ungrateful you are and how you should go live in (insert war torn/impoverished nation). While at the same time waving a flag and defending a flag and people associated with a group of openly racist and treasonous people who tried their best to destroy the USA by dividing it into their own nation that suit their needs to keep colored people working like dogs. That are super pro military wanting a constant increase in spending to give them newer and better guns with more advance war ships. But go on paranoid rants about the Government wants to take their guns to enforce a totalitarian government and only Bubba with is Ar-15 can stop them. Our culture and heritage are not stored in genes, or paper or our minds. It is constantly shifting and changing to the point it isn't a stretch to say they don't really exist at all. At least not in the form you seem to be talking about. You're misinterpreting me. I agree with you. The point being, all those things you mentioned are not being preserved by the reapers, so what exactly are they preserving, besides our component atoms? (nothing) The premise is absurd. Thats ok though, if you can overlook the absurdity then great. the games are still mostly pretty good. I suppose it works as well as the idea that the Reapers were misguided robots who though they were preserving organic species, without understanding what the organics were and what made them, them. But shepard wasnt allowed to argue that point.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Feb 11, 2018 14:41:06 GMT
Our culture and heritage is also not stored in our minds either. We selectively choose what aspects we approve and disprove of. That is how in USA you can get the almost rabid people who declare the USA the greatest nation on the planet and any real or perceived insult or disrespect to it results in them launch off on some rant about how ungrateful you are and how you should go live in (insert war torn/impoverished nation). While at the same time waving a flag and defending a flag and people associated with a group of openly racist and treasonous people who tried their best to destroy the USA by dividing it into their own nation that suit their needs to keep colored people working like dogs. That are super pro military wanting a constant increase in spending to give them newer and better guns with more advance war ships. But go on paranoid rants about the Government wants to take their guns to enforce a totalitarian government and only Bubba with is Ar-15 can stop them. Our culture and heritage are not stored in genes, or paper or our minds. It is constantly shifting and changing to the point it isn't a stretch to say they don't really exist at all. At least not in the form you seem to be talking about. You're misinterpreting me. I agree with you. The point being, all those things you mentioned are not being preserved by the reapers, so what exactly are they preserving, besides our component atoms? (nothing) The premise is absurd. Thats ok though, if you can overlook the absurdity then great. the games are still mostly pretty good. I suppose it works as well as the idea that the Reapers were misguided robots who though they were preserving organic species, without understanding what the organics were and what made them, them. But shepard wasnt allowed to argue that point. Culture and history is simply data. Data that we selectively use and enforce but simple data all the same. If aliens were to show up tomorrow and wanted to know all about our history and culture all they would have to do is download everything on Wikipedia and they would have the sum total of our history and culture. Load that onto an eternal hard drive and we are now preserved for all eternity. The using bodies to build the Reapers is simply smart recycling. Rather then strip worlds of resources simply re purpose all those soon to be dead bodies into more useful materials. Very eco friendly even Captain Planet would approve of that.
|
|
Upggrade
N2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy
Origin: Upggradde
PSN: Upggrade
Posts: 200 Likes: 454
inherit
1025
0
Apr 16, 2022 23:13:56 GMT
454
Upggrade
200
Aug 16, 2016 23:51:44 GMT
August 2016
upggrade
Mass Effect Trilogy
Upggradde
Upggrade
|
Post by Upggrade on Feb 11, 2018 15:20:01 GMT
I'd say it's bad because it's such a departure from the rest of the series. 60 hours of buildup, several choices with long lasting ramifications, explanations for how most stuff works, a bunch of characters we've all grown attached to, only to throw it all out. Everything we've done is boiled down to numbers on a board and replaced with a macguffin telling us to pick a color. Then it's just over. And don't tell me the EC fixed it, it mostly added superfluous shit that I didn't need to be shown to know it happened.
|
|
inherit
159
0
Nov 26, 2024 23:17:53 GMT
8,312
fraggle
1,362
August 2016
fraggle
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition, Dragon Age The Veilguard
fraggleblabla
fraggleblabla
|
Post by fraggle on Feb 11, 2018 15:33:50 GMT
Besides, its mandate was to establish a connection, it was supposed to be the catalyst for peace between synthetics and organics. There's one thing it also says, and that is that it strives to preserve both organics and synthetics before they are forever lost. If it just killed off any hostile synthetics, it would have failed. I don't remember this part. I'll have to go back and play again one day. It's been a few years. Pretty sure it's only in the EC, but since that's what they gave us it's what I work with. It does provide a few more answers. I'm not sure if you ever read the ME books. And yeah, it's not in the game, sadly. But in Retribution we learn that once a Reaper takes control over the human body via nanites, it can read their minds, learn things, get to know them and control them. This would be a way to store any information gathered. In ME2 we see the colonists being broken down by nanites too. All that a person was will be broken down and pumped into a new Reaper, therefore storing every information a Reaper/the nanites could ever access within the new Reaper. In that way they preserve what humans are, it's just not of use to 'us', only to the Reapers. And to go with your example, what if the factory that turns it into cardboard box scans all the pages and stores the information somewhere, preserving it before it gets turned into a new form? I always thought that's how the Reapers work. I understand we know very little about how the Reapers actually work. Since they were never truly studied during the time of war, it's logical we don't quite understand how they are able to do what they do, what's possible. We also have to keep in mind that this is a hyper-advanced race far in the future, so I don't think we should measure it with what we know about today's science. Perhaps it's a bit fantasy like, but it's still plausible within the MEverse, at least to me. What do you think about the Protheans then? Being able to touch someone and absorb information about organics in that way. Too idiotic for your taste as well? I just always think a little fantasy has to be included. Those are aliens, and some things we can't possibly ever understand since this is the part the writers made all up. They can do whatever they want with alien life forms in this universe.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Nov 26, 2024 12:38:10 GMT
26,304
themikefest
15,635
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Feb 11, 2018 16:58:01 GMT
There's one thing it also says, and that is that it strives to preserve both organics and synthetics before they are forever lost. If it just killed off any hostile synthetics, it would have failed. Its too bad Shepard can't ask the thing if it preserves them in reaper form, why put the reapers in harm's way? So with Sovereign being destroyed, does that mean the thing failed?
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Feb 11, 2018 19:46:16 GMT
There's one thing it also says, and that is that it strives to preserve both organics and synthetics before they are forever lost. If it just killed off any hostile synthetics, it would have failed. Its too bad Shepard can't ask the thing if it preserves them in reaper form, why put the reapers in harm's way? So with Sovereign being destroyed, does that mean the thing failed? Well the intent is a surprise attack that cripples their ability to fight back. This cycle was an anomaly due to Prothean interference. And the loss of a few Reapers compared to how many more that will come after it. Worth while risk. Much in the same way surgery isn't 100% safe. But the numbers saved vs numbers lost means it is a worth while risk. You lose 12 people but save 500 and it is a worth while loss.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Feb 13, 2018 20:42:15 GMT
The ending is broken. That war you speak of is set up in ME1 and then in ME3 the thematic examples they go by to further address this particular theme of the series was EDI and the Geth and then finally the Catalyst. Explain to me how the Catalyst is coherent with EDI and the Geth. What do they inform the audience about in regards to the "war of synthetics and organics"? Then what does the Catalyst add to it as the finale and conclusion of the body of the plot. You know that's how stories are told right? The beginning establishes the protagonist, the premise and central conflict and stakes. The middle examines it and elaborates it and the ending resolves and concludes it. What does ME3's first two missions do for the war on synthetics? What does the middle part on Rannoch and conversations with EDI add and then how does the Catalyst resolve this? Also, if I can't use my arguments because Mass Effect isn't a novel, then please, sir, explain me this: If it isn't written like a novel, then why does it say "Prologue, act 1, bridge, act 2, bridge" and then "act 3"? Yes, there is choice and that's all good, but man, you're out of whack now. So, because I'm offered a choice and a slight chance of roleplaying and headcanoning my Shepard's reasons for chosing his ending the logic of the underlying plot that is the component for player choice is justified? Why? I'll give it, if there was a trillion more choices in the ending and the total content had a ton of entertainment value, idk, Shepard turning into a dinosaur using a fourth option, that might've improved the ending overall just in how it generates different player reactions and conversations about what happened in each player's story, but you cannot say that the core story, the one described RIGHT HERE, in this flowchart from BioWare when they made ME3, which is linear and crit-path, makes for a good story with their intended Catalyst conclusion. Choosing between the 3 endings would've made people argue favorable over what is right or wrong if the context for even choosing those things made sense, but that's where the ending fails. The justification for choosing either 3 options is hinging on an argument that isn't solid and not even foreshadowed properly, and it simultaneously drops the previous thread of the narrative in favor of a new premise. C'mon man, just recognize that this is bad logic already. I agree, Leviathan DLC just made it obvious in case you didn't get the "irony" (or double-irony) in the EC catalyst dialogue. Why are the Geth and Quarians fighting? The Quarians and Geth are fighting because the Quarians though experiments that could easily be considered as unethical as anything Cerberus has done if Geth were organic beings. With the intent to commit whole sale genocide on the Geth race. Or even worse depending on your perspective strip them of their intelligence and render them nothing more then glorified rumbas. And why are the Quarians doing that? Because they started another war hundreds of years ago in an attempt to prevent the Geth intelligence from emerging resulting in a war that cost 3/4th's of their entire population. Why do they make peace? Because Shepard puts the Quarians in a position that attacking the Geth is suicidal actions that would result in the near total genocide of their race. A key aspect between peace and siding with Geth is the Quarians deciding to shoot or not. But why do they not shoot? Because Shepard makes it very clear across the entire Rannoch Arc the Reapers are the real enemies and we shouldn't waste time fighting among ourselves. They unite over a common enemy but what happens when that common enemy is gone? Without the common enemy would they have any reason to unite? Not just the real world history but even the ME world history shows allies in war time to not always equal to best friends in peace time. Just ask the Krogan. And the basis of the Council runs counter to the Geth's desire to have no one decide their fate and develop as they wish completely independent. As for is ME a novel statement. Let me ask you a simple question is Shepard a boy or girl? Do you cure the genophage or not? Do you side with Quarians, Geth or peace? Has BioWare said specifically that Shepard is a man who didn't cure the genophage for this specific reason and sided with the Geth for this specific reason? Choices were never given specifics and no canon was established so all choices and all reasons are valid. To accommodate that vagueness is needed. And people are very attached to their own head canon. In fact when Andromeda was still in development and only the first trailer was released with only very basic details about the game and how they reached the Andromeda. I simply suggested that Andromeda be treated like a multiverse set up. Within the universe that Andromeda takes place these specific choices were made. They are not official canon choices for the original Trilogy simply choices that could end up resulting in Andromeda. All in an effort to make a more logical set up then the gaping plot hole that the official Andromeda follows were we are capable of building in 2 years massive ships that can traverse dark space and solve the single biggest problem with FTL travel while utilizing a highly illegal AI. The result of that suggestion on this forum, reddit and other talking locations is best described like they caught me urinating on their front door at 2am. Now again no offical canon for the trilogy would exist. It would simply be chosen to give the game a more logical start point to continue on. As well as that set up would allow BioWare to make multiple ME games/trilogies that take place post different endings. But even the vague idea of their head canon not being respective and they did not like it. So BioWare attempting to make everyone's choice and everyone's reasoning valid with the ending was a must.
|
|
inherit
2044
0
Nov 10, 2016 16:47:07 GMT
10,275
AnDromedary
4,446
Nov 10, 2016 16:30:09 GMT
November 2016
andromedary
|
Post by AnDromedary on Feb 13, 2018 21:12:29 GMT
Honestly, I do think it is objectively a writing failure. Here is a post from the old forums that summarizes fairly well why (you can skip the blue stuff in that post). Now, that doesn't mean that it is impossible to like the ending or that people who do are "wrong". However, I do think it would be tough to claim that the ending was free of serious flaws. even if they don't bother you particularly.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Feb 13, 2018 21:26:45 GMT
hm, Me3s ending does - introduce a new (literal deus ex machina!) Character in the last 10 minutes (both are generally bad concepts...), thereby screwes over ME1 and 2s major plot points and introduces mind boggling contradictions.
- suddenly insist (during the last 10 minutes) that the main theme of the trilogy was something that played a minor role in two(!) optional(!) sidequests and one certain pov to the story in ME1 and was basically debunked as nonsense in an optional conversation in ME2. After about 100 hours of main theme(s) that did have nothing to do with that particular one...
- make use of some sorts of unexplained/unexplainable magic space waves, after most of the trilogy at least tries to explain what and how things function.
I still think that is bad. Very bad. And that's without the subjective design decisions about what choices are available (ugh), or what the ramifications are, or the original "Buy DLC naow!" popup after that.... (And yes, I'm still mad about it)ME 1's ending has it's own literal deus ex machnia both in the form of the Prothean VI and the program it had. With a power surge from defeating a glorifed husk some how disabling Sovereign and causing it's kinetic barrier to fail. ME 2 had multiple deus ex machina moments. Normandy crashes on the outside of the Collector base and they can't be bothered to send a scout ship to make sure it was destroyed. EDI is able to access their network without anyone noticing when earlier in game she was in an all out fight with the Collector leader to allow Shepard to escape from ship. They make a big deal how so many swamers would over whelm the protection Mordin uses but they never utilize it besides that one short walk though. And finally the magic button to blow up or kill all collectors is in an easy to access panel with the tool to do it being hand held. Neither plot points of ME 1 or 2 are effected by ME3. If anything it provides a clear picture of why the Reapers are harvesting races. The best villains are not ones that want to watch the world burn simply because they can or are driven only by selfish greedy motivations. The best villains are the ones who are legitimately trying to make the world a better place but doing it in a way that is considered morally questionable. Even better if they are getting results like the Reapers are. In a few ways ME3's ending is similar to The Watchmen comic. Ozymandias creates and carries out a plan that kills hundreds of thousands of people across the planet all in an effort to prevent another world war and bring about peace between major super powers by creating a mutual enemy beyond the scope of each individual one. After the massacre the plot proves to be working as major powers like US and Soviet Russia are now willing to communicate with each other. All the other heroes besides Rorschach agree to keep quite to keep the peace. He is killed when he refuses to be quite and it is shown he mailed off his notes that shows how Ozymandias is responsible for all of it. The ending is left vague on if it became anything more then a conspiracy theory or if the results of Rorschach's journal the peace is broken and we enter into a world war resulting in even more death and destruction. Main theme of the trilogy was fighting the Reapers. Beyond that the argument breaks down depending on the context you wish to use. The enemy of my enemy is my friend doesn't mean you are actually friends. Just that you have a mutual enemy that is best dealt with by working together towards a mutual goal of not dying. Kind of important context to remember that the peace option on Rannoch can only happen if the Geth are in a position of over whelming power. Literally the only difference between peace and wiping out the Quarians is them taking a shot. Peace imposed by threat of total destruction is not the solid foundation for a long lasting relationship. Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
31,154
gervaise21
13,087
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Feb 14, 2018 17:43:10 GMT
I feel that the ending to ME3 is objectively bad for the reasons that people other than the poster have stated. Specifics that bother me:
The choices should never have been coloured. This immediately made them subjective not objective. Throughout the series we had been conditioned into thinking red represented a certain mind set and blue another. Then green clearly becomes the neutral option. If all choices were equally valid and could been chosen objectively then that is how they should have been represented. Actually green was considered the "ideal" option by the writers because you could only access it under certain conditions that you had "earned" and it was the central, direct path. The final moments with Liara were also designed to make you think that the bright white light beckoning you forwards was foreshadowed by your time meditating with her. If the writers are deliberately manipulating your emotions to achieve their preferred outcome then the ending cannot be judged objectively.
Things are asserted by the Catalyst that are subjectively provable not objectively. You are not allowed to dispute his logic. He might ignore you but you should at least be able to say you disagree with his premise.
The whole running for the beam to transport you to the Citadel is contrived, since you cannot avoid it and no explanation is given why you survive being hit by Harbinger. There is no logic for how both Anderson and the Elusive Man end up there before you. If fact, whilst I do not fully buy into the "Shepard was indoctrinated" idea the fact is that it makes more sense that this is all taking place in Shepard's mind.
Synthesis is pure space magic. How Shepard jumping into the beam allows the entirety of creation to be synthesised is never explained adequately. How can it be that something that was being engineered to destroy the Reapers suddenly becomes capable of doing this?
The plot concerning the destruction of all AIs if you opt for destroy was also contrived back when we do the Geth/Qarian plot. I never understood why, if you have just gone to the trouble of removing the Reaper virus from the Geth (sub-quest), you would then allow Legion to upload more Reaper technology to the Geth. This means, of course, that even if you have located the upgrade to the Crucible that specifically targets Reapers, it will take out all AIs with their technology.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Feb 14, 2018 19:45:49 GMT
The choices should never have been coloured. This immediately made them subjective not objective. Throughout the series we had been conditioned into thinking red represented a certain mind set and blue another. Only because those colors help us to know what kind of reaction it will give. Text doesn't show the tone and context that will be used. Even something simple as "your an idiot" can have different meanings depending on the tone used. It could be playfully joking or it could be a more sarcastic eye rolling joking to a straight up insult. The difference between renegade and paragon besides obvious nice guy vs ass hole stuff. Is that they seem to become short term vs long term benefits. I mean think about it a pure renegade play though results in drastically less resources for the ending. If it wasn't for DLC and Mp side a pure 100% renegade play though would barly have the resources for even a good destroy ending that doesn't result in the Crucible nuking Earth. And this is carried over with ending. Destroy is red because it is a short term solution. Yay Reapers are gone but the after effect of them in the galaxy will take generations to fix and the issue with synthetics is never fully addressed. Control gives a new leader of the Reapers who can try new things, use their resources to help rebuild the galaxy and try every single thing everyone has ever complained the Catalyst never should have done or tried but never did. Course it doesn't help that they really tone down to ignore the consequences of destroy. Things are asserted by the Catalyst that are subjectively provable not objectively. You are not allowed to dispute his logic. He might ignore you but you should at least be able to say you disagree with his premise. How are things asserted by the Catalyst subjective and not provable objectively? Quarian/Geth conflict proves it pretty objectively. Council restricts AI development. Quarian race walks a tight rope on the edge of those restrictions and create the Geth. The Geth start to develop on their own into intelligent life and the Quarians start a war to prevent it. Geth develop faster then Quarian's think and lose the war resulting in their population being depleted to only a couple hundred thousand. Few hundred years later the Quarians take another crack at the Geth to wipe them out or lobotomize them into gloried Rumbas. They only get the advantage because they exploit the Geth's dependency on other Geth for basic intelligence. Once the Reapers intervene and upgrade them to full AI status on par with the likes of EDI not only are they able to reverse the fighting against the Quarians. To the point they send for Shepard to help them out but also capable of wiping out the entire Quarian race. When you watch history unfold it isn't' really subjective statement made by the Catalyst. And given Shepard the option to object doesn't change anything. I mean NASA can say the Earth is round and flat earthers can object and say it isn't. But that doesn't change everything shown has proven NASA's statement that the Earth is in fact round. The whole running for the beam to transport you to the Citadel is contrived, since you cannot avoid it and no explanation is given why you survive being hit by Harbinger. There is no logic for how both Anderson and the Elusive Man end up there before you. For the same reason in any action movie the hero runs head first into a hail of gunfire and never gets hit/gets hit in a non lethal way that is actually very lethal. I mean look at any Marvel movie. As long as you don't actually think for more then a second about the plot they are great movies. But you start to examine the plot and the logic of it and it starts to fall apart really fast. Synthesis is pure space magic. How Shepard jumping into the beam allows the entirety of creation to be synthesised is never explained adequately. How can it be that something that was being engineered to destroy the Reapers suddenly becomes capable of doing this? The Reapers and everything about them is space magic. That is the result of dealing with technology you don't fully understand. Try to explain text messages to someone in the 18th century. They don't know what the Crucible is. They draw that to attention very early on. They assume it is a Reaper destroying weapon because the Protheans were trying to build it and they were known to be fighting against the Reapers. Shepard chooses to believe and convinces everyone to help by saying it is a tool to destroy the Reapers. While TIM thinks it is a tool to control them. The plot concerning the destruction of all AIs if you opt for destroy was also contrived back when we do the Geth/Qarian plot. I never understood why, if you have just gone to the trouble of removing the Reaper virus from the Geth (sub-quest), you would then allow Legion to upload more Reaper technology to the Geth. This means, of course, that even if you have located the upgrade to the Crucible that specifically targets Reapers, it will take out all AIs with their technology. The Geth have a fundamental flaw that they are aware of and have been trying to correct. They are so dependent on each other for intelligence that if separated or the lose of Geth results in their collective intelligence diminishing. When you are surrounded by hundreds of other people you are Tony Stark level intellect. But isolate you alone and you couldn't figure what shoe goes on what foot. That is the Geth in a nut shell. A weakness that the Quarians exploited to devastating effect and the Reapers would exploit as well. The upgrade allows each Geth to be independent and not reliant on other Geth for basic intelligence. Pretty sure there is no upgrade to make it target only Reapers. It would be impossible since all technology used is based on Reaper tech. Any BS line about that was added in with EC to please the players that were complaining about how destroy ending has consequences to their actions. When they really just want a happy ending and to hell with any possible consequences to your actions. Which makes Fraggle's statement probably the most likely reason for the complaints about the ending. If WW2 were a video game those people would be complaining about the consequences of dropping nukes on Japan.
|
|