Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Sept 28, 2024 4:19:19 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 28, 2024 4:19:19 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 17:03:10 GMT
Because players would complain if Destroy had any negative aspects. I've already gone over it before but the basic implication before the EC hand waves away is that Destroy would cause the direct death of millions and indirect death of billions as a consequence of wiping out technology. Ships drifting in space as their crews slowly die from lack of clean air to breath. Thousands of shuttles dropping from the air to smash into the ground killing their occupants and anyone near by. War ravaged and backwater planets that need outside help or relied on supply drops now have no way to get access to the supplies they need resulting in death by disease or starvation. But they don't even attempt to hint at this with EC how now makes the tech wipe beam only magically target Reapers because if it showed that actual effect then players would throw an absolute shit hurricane because it would have a negative aspect to it. FFS they even added the breath scene on high EMS Destroy to make fans happy. This is also why Destroy is the weakest ending to me. Wait a second.... the breath clip is pre-EC. People who have looked at Bio statements on it think that the inflated EMS requirements pre-EC were due to simple incompetence -- late rebalancing and cuts lowered acheivable EMS totals, but nobody remembered to lower the threshold for the clip. (The conspiracy-theory version of this is that higher-ups were deliberately trying to push MP.) Note that devs posting on the old forums had no idea what fans were talking about in the week after release; many of them insisted that getting the clip was possible without MP, but they had tested a version of the game where that was true. I agree with your general point, although since the pre-EC version did everything by implementation, I'm not sure this technically should count as a retcon. There still is at least some starvation and death, since some clusters have settlements but don't have garden worlds. Absolutely... the breath clip existed before the Extended Cut was made. It was available if you obtained, I believe, over 4000 EMS, which wasn't achievable when the game released without playing multiplayer to get your Effective Military Strength higher than 50%. My memory is a little foggy, but I believe 4000 EMS is totally achievable now without multiplayer and without having the Extended Cut installed by having an imported file and all the other DLC (which gives additional war assets).
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Dec 2, 2019 17:10:39 GMT
I just destroy them and leave it at that. If I’m required to use my imagination to conjure up a follow-up of what happens later, my idea that a subsequent machine uprising is simply defeated is no less valid than anyone else’s guess. Like, nothing the game even precludes the possibility that any future conflict can be won by the races of the Milky Way. If your doctor tells you that smoking can cause cancer, you can have your next cigarette and feel good after it. You can have thousands of cigarettes and have no health problems. Or eventually get cancer and get it cured. Does that mean that doctor's warnings are unfounded and should be ignored. Not really sure what would be analogous to smoking here. Destroying the reapers? Simply existing? Thing is, the only truly deleterious trait that the narrative is trying to sell me on is the inevitability that someone will create machines that rebel and destroy them. Basically, "smoking", in this example, would just be leaving the galaxy to its own devices and technological advances that someday, somehow kill them all. My thing is, nothing at all precludes the chance that this doesn't happen. Would that mean that simple existence is hazardous to our health, and that we should heed warnings? Well fuck me, better not go outside, because aside from being a potentially R rated documentary, I could very well get murdered at random because every place outside your house is a high level zone with one-hit-kill enemies. I guess I prefer a more chaotic universe that we can take our chances on. It's a lot more interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Sept 28, 2024 4:19:19 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 28, 2024 4:19:19 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 17:16:29 GMT
As far as the underlying message is concerned, Synthesis is a terrible ending. Assimilation is peace. Diversity is destruction. Ugh. The entire "synthetics vs organics" conflict is a non-argument. It implies that both sides are unable to recognize coexistence as the best option, when the only faction that utterly, completely refuses coexistence are the reapers themselves. But even if it were really inevitable that synthetics would go to war against organics again, how much of a difference would that make? The Milky Way has always had its share of conflict and warfare, and the geth would just be one more hostile faction in all this. There will always be strife in the galaxy. Again, the only truly catastrophic aspect of a synthetics vs organics war are the reapers themselves because they cannot be successfully opposed by any military means according to the word of god. The obvious conclusion is that the galaxy would be better off without reapers. Remove them, and the potential problem of synthetics vs organics becomes just one more armed struggle, no different from clashes with Batarians or Rachni and whatnot. And at that point the writers take the geth and EDI as hostages should the player pick that option. "Shoot that tube and the toasters get it, I dare you!" A bullshit consequence to cover a bullshit choice's ass. I'm sorry, I don't see that as an obvious conclusion at all. The concept introduced in ME3 was that the Reapers were the archive of all of the knowledge of all the previous galactic civilizations. The ending dialogue with the catalyst verifies that there is an error in the programming of the AI that controls them. Fixing the error in that AI or removing that AI and replacing it with another that doesn't have that error and retaining all that previous history is what is needed. The control ending offers that option. The cost is Shepard's life. It's precisely what is demonstrated as being possible through Legion uploading his own personality into the geth... and they respond by becoming again helpful partners (not slaves) to the Quarian people.
The flaw in the AI's programming is the idea that you need to destroy something utterly in order to try to save something else. For millennia, it's gone about destroying civilizations in order to lock them up into archives to save "their essence" from war with the technologies they created. It did not stop other civilizations from rising and repeating the creation process... but without actual progress beyond the point where they had been before. Destroy is following the exact same philosophy that the catalyst has followed for millennia.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Dec 2, 2019 17:47:59 GMT
Because players would complain if Destroy had any negative aspects. I've already gone over it before but the basic implication before the EC hand waves away is that Destroy would cause the direct death of millions and indirect death of billions as a consequence of wiping out technology. Ships drifting in space as their crews slowly die from lack of clean air to breath. Thousands of shuttles dropping from the air to smash into the ground killing their occupants and anyone near by. War ravaged and backwater planets that need outside help or relied on supply drops now have no way to get access to the supplies they need resulting in death by disease or starvation. But they don't even attempt to hint at this with EC how now makes the tech wipe beam only magically target Reapers because if it showed that actual effect then players would throw an absolute shit hurricane because it would have a negative aspect to it. FFS they even added the breath scene on high EMS Destroy to make fans happy. This is also why Destroy is the weakest ending to me. Wait a second.... the breath clip is pre-EC. People who have looked at Bio statements on it think that the inflated EMS requirements pre-EC were due to simple incompetence -- late rebalancing and cuts lowered acheivable EMS totals, but nobody remembered to lower the threshold for the clip. (The conspiracy-theory version of this is that higher-ups were deliberately trying to push MP.) Note that devs posting on the old forums had no idea what fans were talking about in the week after release; many of them insisted that getting the clip was possible without MP, but they had tested a version of the game where that was true. I agree with your general point, although since the pre-EC version did everything by implementation, I'm not sure this technically should count as a retcon. There still is at least some starvation and death, since some clusters have settlements but don't have garden worlds.
Surviving squad members on Normandy place Shepard's name onto the memorial wall, with Admiral Anderson's already on it. If the Destroy ending was chosen and the player has a high enough EMS rating, however, the Commander's name is not actually shown to be placed on the wall (his/her love interest instead smiles and refrains from placing the plaque). This, coupled with the cutscene of Shepard breathing in the rubble, leaves the Commander's final fate ambiguous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Sept 28, 2024 4:19:19 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 28, 2024 4:19:19 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 17:55:37 GMT
Wait a second.... the breath clip is pre-EC. People who have looked at Bio statements on it think that the inflated EMS requirements pre-EC were due to simple incompetence -- late rebalancing and cuts lowered acheivable EMS totals, but nobody remembered to lower the threshold for the clip. (The conspiracy-theory version of this is that higher-ups were deliberately trying to push MP.) Note that devs posting on the old forums had no idea what fans were talking about in the week after release; many of them insisted that getting the clip was possible without MP, but they had tested a version of the game where that was true. I agree with your general point, although since the pre-EC version did everything by implementation, I'm not sure this technically should count as a retcon. There still is at least some starvation and death, since some clusters have settlements but don't have garden worlds.
Surviving squad members on Normandy place Shepard's name onto the memorial wall, with Admiral Anderson's already on it. If the Destroy ending was chosen and the player has a high enough EMS rating, however, the Commander's name is not actually shown to be placed on the wall (his/her love interest instead smiles and refrains from placing the plaque). This, coupled with the cutscene of Shepard breathing in the rubble, leaves the Commander's final fate ambiguous.
The breath clip by itself leaves the fate of the commander ambiguous. The scene with the squad mate not adding the plaque on the wall is not necessary to accomplish that ambiguity. The breath scene is pre-EC. The squad mate scene really adds nothing since those aboard the ship would not know Shepard's fate regardless. The scene is merely a show of "faith" or "hope" or, conversely, the lack of it.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Dec 2, 2019 18:27:17 GMT
Because players would complain if Destroy had any negative aspects. I've already gone over it before but the basic implication before the EC hand waves away is that Destroy would cause the direct death of millions and indirect death of billions as a consequence of wiping out technology. Ships drifting in space as their crews slowly die from lack of clean air to breath. Thousands of shuttles dropping from the air to smash into the ground killing their occupants and anyone near by. War ravaged and backwater planets that need outside help or relied on supply drops now have no way to get access to the supplies they need resulting in death by disease or starvation.
But they don't even attempt to hint at this with EC how now makes the tech wipe beam only magically target Reapers because if it showed that actual effect then players would throw an absolute shit hurricane because it would have a negative aspect to it. FFS they even added the breath scene on high EMS Destroy to make fans happy. This is also why Destroy is the weakest ending to me.
Well, the same would be true of Renegade Control. I could've stood to see some reapers zapping Batarians or Krogan because they inevitably got out of line in the future. In any case, the original ending was so abrupt and nonsensical that it more of a cheap attempt at being thought provoking. It didn't really matter which ending was even picked at that point. It was just a befuddling mess that practically ruined the franchise. It needed something to expand upon those choices to be even remotely worthwhile. Like, this ain't The Sopranos. It can't just END all of a sudden and have it be a good ending.
The tech wipe beam still targets non-Reaper tech, being the AI's. For all this stuff about reaper code, it's as if the concept of what "code" actually is gets thrown out the window. As if an EMP will only target Windows and MacOS, but somehow spare Linux machines. It's one of those silly space magic things that I just shrug off as "Well that's Mass Effect for you." The reason I say this is because the Shepard breath scene was not a new addition; it was always a part of the base game. It's just that it was impossible to get on the max EMS you could get in the campaign without raising it further with multiplayer. It was changed because people were rightly pissed off that they were forced to do multiplayer to have all singleplayer outcomes available to them. So, technically, Shepard's breath scene had the highest requirement of all the endings to obtain. Any implication of what would happen if you chose Destroy got thrown out when you see that Shepard can still live, despite being on the Citadel in orbit. Reapers zapping Batarians or Krogan because they got out of line IS good ending because that is the intent of Renegade control. To protect the peace no matter the cost utilizing the Reapers as peace keepers. That wouldn't be vaugly similar to "I destroy the Reapers but cause millions to die as collateral damage" that Destroy has. There is also the fact that the Relays are damaged if not out right destroyed. Synthesis and Control still leaves the Reapers around to repair them while Destroy would render them inoperable and the Milky Way would have no way to know how to fix them. Which would further fragment the races of the galaxy further making helping war damaged or far flung colonies impossible. And unless they are self sufficient the would slowly die off.
Glossing over all of this is shitty because Destroy is very much a primarily an emotional choice then any pragmatism. This is best highlighted by the countless conversations and reasons people used. Primarily some variation of "They killed billions they deserve to die for their actions." which shows primary motivation for choosing it. And that ties into the old saying of An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. You stop the Reapers but your actions have consequences that causes the death of even more people and shatter the galaxy at large with the ever looming possibility of the cycle starting all over.
If it had that then Destroy would have been the best ending ever. Still not my preferred ending but still would be the best out of the 4 choices due to the stark reality of what the choice would do and that the emotionally satisfying isn't always the best choice. Particularly since Refuse is just you being a super douche canoe that is so self centered you actually make the Inquisition from Warhammer 40k look like caring individuals. Control is more practical as you realize the great potential the Reapers have and how they could be used for so much good to the galaxy. With Synthesis being the optimistic future given you are altering organic life to bridge the gap between organic and synthetic to jump all live to a new level of existence and improving the galaxy with that.
|
|
inherit
11346
0
Sept 27, 2024 20:30:11 GMT
1,439
skekSil
1,200
November 2019
skeksil
Mass Effect Trilogy, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by skekSil on Dec 2, 2019 19:40:13 GMT
If your doctor tells you that smoking can cause cancer, you can have your next cigarette and feel good after it. You can have thousands of cigarettes and have no health problems. Or eventually get cancer and get it cured. Does that mean that doctor's warnings are unfounded and should be ignored. Not really sure what would be analogous to smoking here. Destroying the reapers? Simply existing? Thing is, the only truly deleterious trait that the narrative is trying to sell me on is the inevitability that someone will create machines that rebel and destroy them. Basically, "smoking", in this example, would just be leaving the galaxy to its own devices and technological advances that someday, somehow kill them all. My thing is, nothing at all precludes the chance that this doesn't happen. Would that mean that simple existence is hazardous to our health, and that we should heed warnings? Well fuck me, better not go outside, because aside from being a potentially R rated documentary, I could very well get murdered at random because every place outside your house is a high level zone with one-hit-kill enemies. I guess I prefer a more chaotic universe that we can take our chances on. It's a lot more interesting. Doctor is telling you "I've seen hundreds of lung cancer patiens and majority of them are smokers. I've read numerous studies and they all point to smoking being a number one cause for cancer and that stopping smoking reduces the risk of cancer. So Im telling you now you should stop smoking." You are essentially saying "well, smoking may lead to cancer or maybe it will not. But I like smoking, i feel great after a cigarette, so I guess Ill take my chances". And the thing is you might not get a lung cancer and die peacefully in a car crash or whatever. But does that make doctor's advice bad?
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Dec 2, 2019 23:10:42 GMT
Not really sure what would be analogous to smoking here. Destroying the reapers? Simply existing? Thing is, the only truly deleterious trait that the narrative is trying to sell me on is the inevitability that someone will create machines that rebel and destroy them. Basically, "smoking", in this example, would just be leaving the galaxy to its own devices and technological advances that someday, somehow kill them all. My thing is, nothing at all precludes the chance that this doesn't happen. Would that mean that simple existence is hazardous to our health, and that we should heed warnings? Well fuck me, better not go outside, because aside from being a potentially R rated documentary, I could very well get murdered at random because every place outside your house is a high level zone with one-hit-kill enemies. I guess I prefer a more chaotic universe that we can take our chances on. It's a lot more interesting. Doctor is telling you "I've seen hundreds of lung cancer patiens and majority of them are smokers. I've read numerous studies and they all point to smoking being a number one cause for cancer and that stopping smoking reduces the risk of cancer. So Im telling you now you should stop smoking." You are essentially saying "well, smoking may lead to cancer or maybe it will not. But I like smoking, i feel great after a cigarette, so I guess Ill take my chances". And the thing is you might not get a lung cancer and die peacefully in a car crash or whatever. But does that make doctor's advice bad? I know you're fond of the lung cancer analogy, but that still doesn't really make sense, unless the idea here is that allowing civilization to advance without altering or lording over it is the equivalent to inhaling carcinogens on a regular basis. But, then again, life in and of itself is some sort of terminal illness, yes? Being born is the easiest way to die. Catalyst: "Destroying me is akin to smoking. Synthesis or Control so you don't get lung cancer." Shepard: "....The fuck is this even supposed to mean?" Catalyst: "JUST DO IT!"
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Dec 2, 2019 23:16:51 GMT
Well, the same would be true of Renegade Control. I could've stood to see some reapers zapping Batarians or Krogan because they inevitably got out of line in the future. In any case, the original ending was so abrupt and nonsensical that it more of a cheap attempt at being thought provoking. It didn't really matter which ending was even picked at that point. It was just a befuddling mess that practically ruined the franchise. It needed something to expand upon those choices to be even remotely worthwhile. Like, this ain't The Sopranos. It can't just END all of a sudden and have it be a good ending.
The tech wipe beam still targets non-Reaper tech, being the AI's. For all this stuff about reaper code, it's as if the concept of what "code" actually is gets thrown out the window. As if an EMP will only target Windows and MacOS, but somehow spare Linux machines. It's one of those silly space magic things that I just shrug off as "Well that's Mass Effect for you." The reason I say this is because the Shepard breath scene was not a new addition; it was always a part of the base game. It's just that it was impossible to get on the max EMS you could get in the campaign without raising it further with multiplayer. It was changed because people were rightly pissed off that they were forced to do multiplayer to have all singleplayer outcomes available to them. So, technically, Shepard's breath scene had the highest requirement of all the endings to obtain. Any implication of what would happen if you chose Destroy got thrown out when you see that Shepard can still live, despite being on the Citadel in orbit. Reapers zapping Batarians or Krogan because they got out of line IS good ending because that is the intent of Renegade control. To protect the peace no matter the cost utilizing the Reapers as peace keepers. That wouldn't be vaugly similar to "I destroy the Reapers but cause millions to die as collateral damage" that Destroy has. There is also the fact that the Relays are damaged if not out right destroyed. Synthesis and Control still leaves the Reapers around to repair them while Destroy would render them inoperable and the Milky Way would have no way to know how to fix them. Which would further fragment the races of the galaxy further making helping war damaged or far flung colonies impossible. And unless they are self sufficient the would slowly die off.
Glossing over all of this is shitty because Destroy is very much a primarily an emotional choice then any pragmatism. This is best highlighted by the countless conversations and reasons people used. Primarily some variation of "They killed billions they deserve to die for their actions." which shows primary motivation for choosing it. And that ties into the old saying of An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. You stop the Reapers but your actions have consequences that causes the death of even more people and shatter the galaxy at large with the ever looming possibility of the cycle starting all over.
If it had that then Destroy would have been the best ending ever. Still not my preferred ending but still would be the best out of the 4 choices due to the stark reality of what the choice would do and that the emotionally satisfying isn't always the best choice. Particularly since Refuse is just you being a super douche canoe that is so self centered you actually make the Inquisition from Warhammer 40k look like caring individuals. Control is more practical as you realize the great potential the Reapers have and how they could be used for so much good to the galaxy. With Synthesis being the optimistic future given you are altering organic life to bridge the gap between organic and synthetic to jump all live to a new level of existence and improving the galaxy with that.
All of this really highlights to me why the ending is irrevocably broken, and why I consider the Milky Way dead narratively. No matter how anyone slices it, BioWare basically decided to scorch the earth and then lay down salt for good measure so nothing could grow again. Things like pragmatism and such just don't really apply to any of the endings. They're all a horribly illogical mess created by people who decided to put their biggest Hack Helmet on. Hyperbole? Sure, but this is why I'm basically all-in with Andromeda over anything Milky Way related. You can be sure that if BioWare decides to chicken out and go back there, they'll retcon the endings so hard EDI might just be a VI on Luna again.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 21,081 Likes: 49,910
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,910
Iakus
21,081
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Dec 2, 2019 23:32:47 GMT
Even though this thread was supposed to be about the future of Mass Effect, it all keeps coming back to ME3's ending. The ending is where the train wreck really happened. When you get down to it, it's what put Mass Effect's future in doubt.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 21,081 Likes: 49,910
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,910
Iakus
21,081
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Dec 2, 2019 23:39:00 GMT
Reapers zapping Batarians or Krogan because they got out of line IS good ending because that is the intent of Renegade control. To protect the peace no matter the cost utilizing the Reapers as peace keepers. That wouldn't be vaugly similar to "I destroy the Reapers but cause millions to die as collateral damage" that Destroy has. There is also the fact that the Relays are damaged if not out right destroyed. Synthesis and Control still leaves the Reapers around to repair them while Destroy would render them inoperable and the Milky Way would have no way to know how to fix them. Which would further fragment the races of the galaxy further making helping war damaged or far flung colonies impossible. And unless they are self sufficient the would slowly die off.
Glossing over all of this is shitty because Destroy is very much a primarily an emotional choice then any pragmatism. This is best highlighted by the countless conversations and reasons people used. Primarily some variation of "They killed billions they deserve to die for their actions." which shows primary motivation for choosing it. And that ties into the old saying of An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. You stop the Reapers but your actions have consequences that causes the death of even more people and shatter the galaxy at large with the ever looming possibility of the cycle starting all over.
If it had that then Destroy would have been the best ending ever. Still not my preferred ending but still would be the best out of the 4 choices due to the stark reality of what the choice would do and that the emotionally satisfying isn't always the best choice. Particularly since Refuse is just you being a super douche canoe that is so self centered you actually make the Inquisition from Warhammer 40k look like caring individuals. Control is more practical as you realize the great potential the Reapers have and how they could be used for so much good to the galaxy. With Synthesis being the optimistic future given you are altering organic life to bridge the gap between organic and synthetic to jump all live to a new level of existence and improving the galaxy with that.
All of this really highlights to me why the ending is irrevocably broken, and why I consider the Milky Way dead narratively. No matter how anyone slices it, BioWare basically decided to scorch the earth and then lay down salt for good measure so nothing could grow again. Things like pragmatism and such just don't really apply to any of the endings. They're all a horribly illogical mess created by people who decided to put their biggest Hack Helmet on. Hyperbole? Sure, but this is why I'm basically all-in with Andromeda over anything Milky Way related. You can be sure that if BioWare decides to chicken out and go back there, they'll retcon the endings so hard EDI might just be a VI on Luna again. While I don't disagree with your analysis. But Andromeda is just so uninspired I can't really imagine it succeeding as it is. Even the method of getting there in the first place is a hackneyed "a wizard did it".
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Dec 3, 2019 0:04:26 GMT
All of this really highlights to me why the ending is irrevocably broken, and why I consider the Milky Way dead narratively. No matter how anyone slices it, BioWare basically decided to scorch the earth and then lay down salt for good measure so nothing could grow again. Things like pragmatism and such just don't really apply to any of the endings. They're all a horribly illogical mess created by people who decided to put their biggest Hack Helmet on. Hyperbole? Sure, but this is why I'm basically all-in with Andromeda over anything Milky Way related. You can be sure that if BioWare decides to chicken out and go back there, they'll retcon the endings so hard EDI might just be a VI on Luna again. While I don't disagree with your analysis. But Andromeda is just so uninspired I can't really imagine it succeeding as it is. Even the method of getting there in the first place is a hackneyed "a wizard did it". I understand that, but honestly, if they can spin a good yarn that actually gets people's attention, how they got there won't matter as much. I get the reason why the OSDY or LSD or whatever drive would bug the more lore-oriented people who care about continuity, but I've come to terms with continuity basically being that dog that BioWare slaps around while no one is watching and forces to sit in its kennel all day.
|
|
inherit
1227
0
Sept 28, 2024 3:43:31 GMT
3,692
Phantom
2,664
August 2016
deathscepter
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Jade Empire
|
Post by Phantom on Dec 3, 2019 0:14:41 GMT
Humm Is there as alternative way to have a Post ME3 game in the Milk way while addressing the ME3 endings and others issues without having Shepard as the Primary Player Character
|
|
sjsharp2010
N7
Go Team!
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 12,303 Likes: 20,283
inherit
2309
0
Sept 27, 2024 21:44:37 GMT
20,283
sjsharp2010
Go Team!
12,303
December 2016
sjsharp2010
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by sjsharp2010 on Dec 3, 2019 0:23:17 GMT
Even though this thread was supposed to be about the future of Mass Effect, it all keeps coming back to ME3's ending. The ending is where the train wreck really happened. When you get down to it, it's what put Mass Effect's future in doubt. True but then I doubt they initially intended to pick it up again. The ywere probabl yencouraged t odo s ob ysomeone a tEA an dthat's why they cameup with Andromeda. Because they knwe th eonl yway the yucould wor karoun dth endin s was to move the story elsewhere to a place no taffected by what happened in the trliogy. End of the da ythough I think it was an interesting concept and I'm intersted t osee wher ethey go next with it. I know som edon't lik ethe idea o fcontinuing Andromeda but I do but we'll see in time what they want to do.
|
|
sjsharp2010
N7
Go Team!
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 12,303 Likes: 20,283
inherit
2309
0
Sept 27, 2024 21:44:37 GMT
20,283
sjsharp2010
Go Team!
12,303
December 2016
sjsharp2010
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by sjsharp2010 on Dec 3, 2019 0:26:19 GMT
Humm Is there as alternative way to have a Post ME3 game in the Milk way while addressing the ME3 endings and others issues without having Shepard as the Primary Player Character I personally don' t see one. No twithou tretconning what's already been written.
|
|
inherit
1227
0
Sept 28, 2024 3:43:31 GMT
3,692
Phantom
2,664
August 2016
deathscepter
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Jade Empire
|
Post by Phantom on Dec 3, 2019 0:33:19 GMT
Humm Is there as alternative way to have a Post ME3 game in the Milk way while addressing the ME3 endings and others issues without having Shepard as the Primary Player Character I personally don' t see one. No twithou tretconning what's already been written. It will not be a first time with Retcons. And Keep in mind sjsharp2010, that a bad retcon will be just as bad if not worse than the ME3 Endings.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 21,081 Likes: 49,910
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,910
Iakus
21,081
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Dec 3, 2019 0:51:11 GMT
Humm Is there as alternative way to have a Post ME3 game in the Milk way while addressing the ME3 endings and others issues without having Shepard as the Primary Player Character "The Reapers were stopped. Shepard saved us all. Now let's never speak of it again"
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Dec 3, 2019 0:57:01 GMT
Humm Is there as alternative way to have a Post ME3 game in the Milk way while addressing the ME3 endings and others issues without having Shepard as the Primary Player Character "The Reapers were stopped. Shepard saved us all. Now let's never speak of it again"
|
|
inherit
1227
0
Sept 28, 2024 3:43:31 GMT
3,692
Phantom
2,664
August 2016
deathscepter
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Jade Empire
|
Post by Phantom on Dec 3, 2019 0:58:55 GMT
Humm Is there as alternative way to have a Post ME3 game in the Milk way while addressing the ME3 endings and others issues without having Shepard as the Primary Player Character "The Reapers were stopped. Shepard saved us all. Now let's never speak of it again" Well that is one of many possible solution.
|
|
sjsharp2010
N7
Go Team!
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 12,303 Likes: 20,283
inherit
2309
0
Sept 27, 2024 21:44:37 GMT
20,283
sjsharp2010
Go Team!
12,303
December 2016
sjsharp2010
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by sjsharp2010 on Dec 3, 2019 1:14:38 GMT
I personally don' t see one. No twithou tretconning what's already been written. It will not be a first time with Retcons. And Keep in mind sjsharp2010, that a bad retcon will be just as bad if not worse than the ME3 Endings. yeah I agree an dthat's why for me the safer bet is just continue whatever plans they had for Andromeda for now. Which for me is what I'd want them to do anyway. I'm happy with what they've done in the trilogy so I wouldn't want them to change it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Sept 28, 2024 4:19:19 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 28, 2024 4:19:19 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 3:23:36 GMT
Even though this thread was supposed to be about the future of Mass Effect, it all keeps coming back to ME3's ending. The ending is where the train wreck really happened. When you get down to it, it's what put Mass Effect's future in doubt. Mass Effect has no future beyond ME3.
|
|
shermos
N2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, SWTOR
Posts: 142 Likes: 123
inherit
5320
0
Nov 21, 2023 16:35:36 GMT
123
shermos
142
March 2017
shermos
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by shermos on Dec 3, 2019 7:03:17 GMT
Humm Is there as alternative way to have a Post ME3 game in the Milk way while addressing the ME3 endings and others issues without having Shepard as the Primary Player Character "The Reapers were stopped. Shepard saved us all. Now let's never speak of it again"
It really doesn't have to be much more complicated than that. If Bioware wanted to, they could do something like the Dragon Age Keep to give returning players a bit more detail (perhaps through codex entries) on how the Krogan Genophage was cured and why the Quarians/Geth still exist etc depending on what choices they made. Even long lived characters Like Liara who could potentially make an appearance will only know that the Crucible worked without any of the details. The writers needn't get bogged down too much.
|
|
Gileadan
N5
Agent 46
Clearance Level Ultra
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Origin: ALoneGretchin
Posts: 2,840 Likes: 7,102
inherit
Agent 46
177
0
Sept 27, 2024 20:34:06 GMT
7,102
Gileadan
Clearance Level Ultra
2,840
August 2016
gileadan
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
ALoneGretchin
|
Post by Gileadan on Dec 3, 2019 8:24:26 GMT
I'm sorry, I don't see that as an obvious conclusion at all. The concept introduced in ME3 was that the Reapers were the archive of all of the knowledge of all the previous galactic civilizations. The ending dialogue with the catalyst verifies that there is an error in the programming of the AI that controls them. Fixing the error in that AI or removing that AI and replacing it with another that doesn't have that error and retaining all that previous history is what is needed. The control ending offers that option. The cost is Shepard's life. It's precisely what is demonstrated as being possible through Legion uploading his own personality into the geth... and they respond by becoming again helpful partners (not slaves) to the Quarian people. The flaw in the AI's programming is the idea that you need to destroy something utterly in order to try to save something else. For millennia, it's gone about destroying civilizations in order to lock them up into archives to save "their essence" from war with the technologies they created. It did not stop other civilizations from rising and repeating the creation process... but without actual progress beyond the point where they had been before. Destroy is following the exact same philosophy that the catalyst has followed for millennia.
And... does any of that make sense to you? Throughout the trilogy, the reapers are portrayed as actively malicious with an a thousand miles high superiority complex. Is that the attitude of an AI that attempts to preserve something but, through some minor mistake in its friend-foe recognition or some such, ends up completely destroying it in the process? (Also, I don't know enough about AI to even start this discussion, but I really wonder if something that cannot even detect such a major flaw in its behaviour, let alone fix it, is truly an AI. To me this looks like a malfunctioning VI, repeating a flawed loop ad infinitum, but certainly not like any sort of self-aware and self-reflecting artificial intelligence.) A last minute retcon from inhuman monstrosities to misguided stewards of preservation. Weren't the geth isolationist until Sovereign showed up and made them hostile towards organics? It doesn't make much sense to me that uploading reaper code to them makes them peaceful and cooperative again. Isn't it the Quarians ceasing fire that makes them realize that no more self defense is required? Destroy is removing the obstacle to progress that always happened before at a certain point - the reapers. With them eliminated, that point can now be bypassed without galaxy wide genocide happening. Preserving the reapers and their archives with the Control ending might be a preferable way to end the conflict, but since no civilization passed the point of development the Milky Way is currently at thanks to the reapers, these archives are basically museum material now. And the reapers are still around, with a single point of failure attached to them - the new AI that was spacemagically created through Shepard's death. Unless it remains flawless for all time, the whole scenario might just repeat itself at some point. Whereas the destroy ending removes the reapers for good, enabling the galaxy progress beyond the point where it had been stopped at before, time and time again. This is the moment the Milky Way's civilizations can move past the limit previously imposed by the reaper genocide. But in the end, this story was written by people who thought it made sense that all organics could have their DNA altered, through galaxy wide space magic, to sprout cybernetics or some such, so maybe I should just shrug and nod... That said, I don't think that Control is a bad choice. It is an optimistic choice, I think. Destroy is the "better safe than sorry" choice... which I prefer because the potential "sorry" is so, so immeasurably big.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Sept 28, 2024 4:19:19 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 28, 2024 4:19:19 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 11:10:59 GMT
I'm sorry, I don't see that as an obvious conclusion at all. The concept introduced in ME3 was that the Reapers were the archive of all of the knowledge of all the previous galactic civilizations. The ending dialogue with the catalyst verifies that there is an error in the programming of the AI that controls them. Fixing the error in that AI or removing that AI and replacing it with another that doesn't have that error and retaining all that previous history is what is needed. The control ending offers that option. The cost is Shepard's life. It's precisely what is demonstrated as being possible through Legion uploading his own personality into the geth... and they respond by becoming again helpful partners (not slaves) to the Quarian people. The flaw in the AI's programming is the idea that you need to destroy something utterly in order to try to save something else. For millennia, it's gone about destroying civilizations in order to lock them up into archives to save "their essence" from war with the technologies they created. It did not stop other civilizations from rising and repeating the creation process... but without actual progress beyond the point where they had been before. Destroy is following the exact same philosophy that the catalyst has followed for millennia.
And... does any of that make sense to you? Throughout the trilogy, the reapers are portrayed as actively malicious with an a thousand miles high superiority complex. Is that the attitude of an AI that attempts to preserve something but, through some minor mistake in its friend-foe recognition or some such, ends up completely destroying it in the process? (Also, I don't know enough about AI to even start this discussion, but I really wonder if something that cannot even detect such a major flaw in its behaviour, let alone fix it, is truly an AI. To me this looks like a malfunctioning VI, repeating a flawed loop ad infinitum, but certainly not like any sort of self-aware and self-reflecting artificial intelligence.) A last minute retcon from inhuman monstrosities to misguided stewards of preservation. Weren't the geth isolationist until Sovereign showed up and made them hostile towards organics? It doesn't make much sense to me that uploading reaper code to them makes them peaceful and cooperative again. Isn't it the Quarians ceasing fire that makes them realize that no more self defense is required? Destroy is removing the obstacle to progress that always happened before at a certain point - the reapers. With them eliminated, that point can now be bypassed without galaxy wide genocide happening. Preserving the reapers and their archives with the Control ending might be a preferable way to end the conflict, but since no civilization passed the point of development the Milky Way is currently at thanks to the reapers, these archives are basically museum material now. And the reapers are still around, with a single point of failure attached to them - the new AI that was spacemagically created through Shepard's death. Unless it remains flawless for all time, the whole scenario might just repeat itself at some point. Whereas the destroy ending removes the reapers for good, enabling the galaxy progress beyond the point where it had been stopped at before, time and time again. This is the moment the Milky Way's civilizations can move past the limit previously imposed by the reaper genocide. But in the end, this story was written by people who thought it made sense that all organics could have their DNA altered, through galaxy wide space magic, to sprout cybernetics or some such, so maybe I should just shrug and nod... That said, I don't think that Control is a bad choice. It is an optimistic choice, I think. Destroy is the "better safe than sorry" choice... which I prefer because the potential "sorry" is so, so immeasurably big. 1) If the Catalyst is a flawed VI that's controlling the Reapers, then the best solution is to turn that VI off or replace it with one that isn't flawed. If it doesn't control the Reapers as it says, then shooting the tube will not destroy them either... because everything Shepard knows about the function of the Crucible comes from that AI/VI. There is no other source telling him/her how to initiate the device. Hackett doesn't even know why "nothing is happening." If it's the Catalyst preventing the device from being initiated by Hackett, then the best solution is to turn the Catalyst off or replace it with another that isn't faulty. Logic should say that shooting the tube would destroy the device itself... all those months of hard work for naught... the equivalent of shooting the screen on your computer because it doesn't appear to be accepting a command you've entered.
2) Were the geth isolationist? Legion says they stayed on Rannoch to look after the graves of the Quarian dead. They also are completely networked together and they monitor organic signals throughout the galaxy and even bait organics with false data. That's not being isolationist.
3) Destroying museums IS a war crime in our actual society. A law dictated by the UN. Why, if what contained inside a museum is of no value because every civilization in earth's history has not come close to advancing as far as we have today?
|
|
Gileadan
N5
Agent 46
Clearance Level Ultra
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Origin: ALoneGretchin
Posts: 2,840 Likes: 7,102
inherit
Agent 46
177
0
Sept 27, 2024 20:34:06 GMT
7,102
Gileadan
Clearance Level Ultra
2,840
August 2016
gileadan
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
ALoneGretchin
|
Post by Gileadan on Dec 3, 2019 11:33:04 GMT
1) If the Catalyst is a flawed VI that's controllng the Reapers, then the best solution is to turn that VI off or replace it with one that isn't flawed. If it doesn't control the Reapers as it says, then shooting the tube will not destroy them either... because everything Shepard knows about the function of the Crucible comes from that AI/VI. There is no other source telling him.her out to initiate the device. Hackett doesn't even know why "nothing is happening." Yet you also cannot know in advance if the one replacing it will be flawless, let alone remain flawless for all time. All it takes is one malfunction. While reapers that are gone remain gone, unless someone actively went through the effort to somehow, probably spacemagically, reconstruct them. 2) Were the geth isolationist? Legion says they stayed on Rannoch to look after the graves of the Quarian dead. They also are completely networked together and they monitor organic signals throughout the galaxy and even bait organics with false data. That's not being isolationist. But I'm pretty sure I remember that they shunned contact with organic races, which seems pretty isolationist to me. Just monitoring something, probably from a safe distance, does not contradict this. 3) Destroying museums IS a war crime in our actual society. A law dictated by the UN. Why, if what contained inside a museum is of no value because every civilization in earth's history has not come close to advancing as far as we have today?
Are you being facetious here? I'm pretty sure the UN regulation was not made with intelligent super weapons of galaxy wide mass destruction that also happened to contain historical archives in mind. And museums are by their nature generally a look back at how we got here, not of where we go from here. And if the reapers want to avoid destruction, all they need to do is surrender or parlay and assist in the fixing of their faulty precepts. But frankly I think an evil as complete and irredeemable as theirs needs to be eliminated for good. Even during the most horrific periods of human history, there have always been acts of kindness on all sides involved, as rare as they might have been. But not from the reapers. They are the embodiment of total war, in a way that I only associate with the other end of the sentience spectrum: a zombie apocalypse.
|
|