inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
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 Mar 2, 2020 15:48:09 GMT
Hey well if you insist. The problem is character motivation, and the lack of any real development. This is not a DC vs. Marvel issue, because there are plenty of MCU films that I consider mediocre (Black Panther is ludicrously overrated, well into mediocre territory, for example), even if the franchise as a whole is much higher in quality than the DCEU as a whole.
Part of the issue with the Martha scene is that it's kind of unintentionally hilarious in tone. Subjective, sure, but the delivery is kind of awkward, which is why it's so meme-able. But its bigger issue is that Batman's motivation up to this point is just flat out extinguished by this scene, and just another scene later, says that he's a friend of Martha's son? The character doesn't go through an actual arc, despite what other proponents of the movie might insist. He just flat out changes his mind on a dime. This is exacerbated by the fact that he literally murdered maybe a dozen people with the sole purpose of obtaining the means to kill Superman. That's kind of a big commitment, one that he just abandons on a whim, just because of a name that at the moment.
The comparison to Quill's outburst in Infinity War is a false equivalence. That scene doesn't serve as a turning point for Quill. He basically does the same thing he did in Vol 2 when he learns how his mother died. It's a cheap way to get the heroes to suddenly lose, but this isn't meant to be a character arc either. Batman's scene, on the other hand, is supposed to be a moment where he realizes what he's done. The reason it doesn't really stick is because of the sheer gravity of what drove him to act against Superman in the first place, which can't simply be undone and unaddressed later. This Martha, whoever she is, doesn't change what Superman is, or what Batman is trying to accomplish.
Oh, on the subject of killing, I think there's a gross misunderstanding of "realism" and how it applies to Batman. This isn't a realistic Batman, because there are no realistic consequences for his wanton mayhem, and he no longer carries any sense of legitimacy that always made Batman a compelling character. Like, this Batman can't exist as an ally to Gordon or anyone else in Gotham, because now he's simply a murderer. This Batman doesn't work because he operates like one in a post-apocalyptic dystopia, which isn't what Gotham is, at least as far as we can see. But besides that, many of the deaths by his hand are entirely unnecessary. The entire scene is simply an indulgence to justify the fact that the Batmobile has weaponry, because Snyder thought it was cool, but what does it accomplish? Superman intervenes, hilariously letting the dangerous kryptonite get away, but Batman just sneaks into Luthor's facility and steals it later!
If he could just tag the truck and track them to their final destination, why bother with the big battle at all? If this Batman was at all clever and had regard for human life, he could've just made the kryptonite disappear with none the wiser. But, this is also the same jerk who brands people like cattle with a bat logo, which adds a weird sadistic turn. Again, because Snyder thought it was cool. I guess mileages vary on what makes a good Batman, but this Batman doesn't really listen to reason and is quick to take a direct, violent approach. Any semblance of cunning just seems entirely lost, because Snyder himself is simply not clever at all, favoring mindless bombast regardless of how well it might serve the narrative, which was a major problem with Man of Steel as well (like the Smallville battle where he actually slams Zod through a factory).
But oh my god, Luthor. What can one say about this massive cunt of a character? He is clearly designed to capture some of the appeal of Ledger's Joker, but for the most part just comes off as hugely obnoxious. But more than that, he never seems to have a personal stake in the fate of either character. Snyder seemed to be going for this chaotic character that was just interested in having the heroes destroy each other, but then it goes to left field and tosses in Doomsday, essentially shoehorning the Death of Superman storyline, which should simply have not been included in this film, I think. Aside from Doomsday looking like a cheaper version of the LOTR cave troll, Luthor's whole reasoning for creating him is just non-existent. Like, there was nothing to suggest he'd even be able to control the thing, so he just created something *worse* than Superman for no good reason. This whole sequence was just a slapped together series of events to get the big CGI monster fight and have the dramatic death that has no dramatic stakes because we know he'll be back (which is similarly undercut in Infinity War too since we know the likes of Spider-Man ain't staying dead).
I think one of the most egregious sins of BvS, however, is that it accelerates franchise building to a degree that feels mandated by clueless executives trying hard to cash in on these properties. It even goes so far as to have the annoying villain carefully curate footage of future Justice League members, complete with nifty logos that he probably made in Adobe Illustrator or something. They don't get to organically develop into the DCEU. It feels like Warner Bros was pushing hard to get this film to catch up to the decade long assembly of what the MCU's become, when they could have taken their time.
Wonder Woman is probably the only DCEU film that I can consider to be truly legitimately good, even if its final act is marred by another terrible CGI monster.
Batman is an emotionally stunted man child who can not let his parents deaths go. Hence why rather then grow up to be a politician leading reformations or literally anything else he uses his vast wealth to travel the world and train. So he can go back to his home town and dress up as a bat and beat up poor and mentally unstable individuals. Recruiting a young child (or children depending on the universe) to follow him in his foot steps. And it was shown pretty clearly that Robin or at least one of his possible Robins had the Jason Todd treatment by who we could only assume is Joker given all the hahas on his armor. With this in mind we are shown at the start of the movie were Papa and Mama Wayne are killed and Bruce's father specifically looks dead at Bruce and begs to save Martha. And remember Bruce as so traumatized by this that he dressed up as a bat and punches poor and mentally challenged people all night long. Thus when Bruce has Clark pinned and about to kill him rather then beg for his own life which is what most people would do when they are about to be killed. Clark looks right into Bruce's eyes and begs to save Martha which is a dead repeat to what his father did as he laid dying. This caused him to hesitate long enough for Lois to find them and explain everything to Batman. At which point he realizes how low he sunk and comes around out of the black pit of disparate that he has been sunk into.
This is further highlighted in a cut scene were he shows up in Lex's cell and rather then brand him like he has done with everyone else he hits the wall behind him and leaves. For Quill we have 2 different fuck ups now that you reminded me of GotG 2. Ego knew how much Quill was upset at his mother dying. Quill didn't exactly hide the fact he was pissed at him for his apparent abandonment of him and his mother and her subsequent death. And then right as his plan is about to succeed Ego against all reason or rational directly tells Quill that he put the tumor in his mother to kill her. Which of course turns Quill against Ego and eventually leads to his death. This is stupid because there is no ryhme, reason or build up and he only says it as a plot convenience. In Infinity War Quill wants to kill Thanos and yet during the whole fight it has been made clear the Infinity Gauntlet and the Stones are the entire reason why he is able to put up a fight against everyone. Remove the Gauntlet and they would actually have a chance to kill Thanos. But rather then disarm Thanos and then kill him Quill fucks up and allows Thanos to retain the Gauntlet which allows the rest of Infinity War and Endgame to continue. Both of these are idiotic cringe worthy writing that exists simply for the sake of making drama and allowing the plot to continue. And while you can argue the Martha bit is also cringe worthy writing that exists simply for the sake of making drama and allowing the plot to continue at least they actually incorporated the reason into the plot.
Batman never had integrity all he ever has been is the biggest mary sue that makes even Superman look like a boring background NPC in a video game. His "integrity" has lead to countless deaths due to him allowing literal serial killers to continue to walk around. I mean seriously Joker kills a couple dozen people and Batman shows up and stops him. Then a few months later Joker escapes and kills a few more dozen people and Batman stops him. Then Joker escapes again and kills a couple dozen more people, and repeat the cycle. The idea that he sacrifices dozens to hundreds of people's lives to maintain his "integrity" when he had multiple chances to stop them before they had a kill count in the triple digits. And this bullshit logic of "if he kills someone then he will just become a cold hearted killer" is as bullshit as the story lines were Superman sees Lois is killed and that instantly turns Superman into an oppressive dictator that will kill anyone that gets in his way without remorse. This logic only works if you admit that Batman is a closet phyco who will be completely unable to tell the difference between some random poor person mugging an old lady. And a serial killer clown who has committed literal war crimes. Which also means that every single solider and police officer who ever existed in the DC universe should be a raving mad man who will kill anyone that so much as cuts them off in traffic.
This difference is actually shown in the movie as it shows all the people arrested are branded with the bat symbol which makes them targets in prison by other prisoners. Batman only discards this after Lex manipulates both Batman and Superman into fighting. Feeding the hate and paranoia of Batman into those actions. Not to mention those same private mercenary groups were shown to be more then willing to kill an entire African Village and kidnap a woman and kill them. So Batman is not killing innocent people. And the fact that Bruce actually addresses this. He specifically talks to Alfred about how long he has been at this and how nothing seems to have improved or changed. So he has started to resort to more brutal methods because he lost any hope he had.
Lex in the movie isn't Joker. Lex is and always has in nearly ever universe has a massive god complex. Thinking that he is the smartest person on the planet, with some versions making him think he is the hero of humanity. Then Superman shows up and all of Lex's accomplishments and all his achievements are now meaningless in the face of an almost literal god. This has been shown in countless universesand the fact in every universe were Superman doesn't exist or is actually a bad guy it is Lex who is the hero to the world. And Lex is purposefully egging on both Batman and Superman to hate each other. He wants them to kill each other. This is why Lex sends Clark to Bruce. And when that fails he creates his Doomsday hybrid.
Organic development is bullshit reasoning. Everyone and their grandmother knows about Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash and Batman. They don't need to create their separate origin movies to make everything organic. I mean......Batman being an emotionally stunted man child is just all kinds of horribly unsatisfying on so many levels. I for one feel immense joy that these films are basically a failure. I'm not against making changes or reinterpreting a character (Nolan's Batman actually does this to some degree), but these need to be good changes. The sad part is that I actually *like* Affleck as an older Wayne/Batman. It's just too bad that the writer is a talentless hack. Regardless of what anyone here or anyone else might think, there's a stark qualitative difference between these franchises that determines the success of one and failure of the other. One has a clear, concise vision that, while definitely not perfect and has some pretty bad missteps here and there, is still just immensely better and generally more entertaining. I think the leadership at WB/DC took all of the wrong lessons from the Nolan trilogy and thought they could just run with that. It's definitely clear in what they were going for in Suicide Squad, which they were scrambling to emulate the Guardians tone after their original, darker version didn't pass their audience test.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
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 Mar 2, 2020 16:02:24 GMT
The Catalyst lying doesn’t really make any sense, largely because there’s no reason to lay out all of these options if it had the capacity to omit certain truths with none the wiser, but I feel the writers were trying to have their cake and eat it too with the epilogue slides. The peace won’t last, which is the total thrust of the Catalyst’s little back and forth, but no matter what you choose each ending is supposed to be all peaceful anyway. It’s just a very confused mess, that I personally reconcile as being the Catalyst’s fallibility at work. It’s so caught up in the cockamamie cycle of behavior, to the point where it accelerated progress and imposed its own influence, that it now determines these things to be absolute inevitability. Good thing that’s not really how life works. Sure. The Catalyst can be speaking truthfully but still be totally wrong about stuff. The Leviathans programmed him with bad premises. Garbage in, garbage out. It's the simplest solution with the most evidence supporting it. All this fan theory about the Catalyst lying doesn't really fly. If there's one thing that's certain, it's how unsubtle this game is. If the Catalyst was lying, the narrative would flat out show us that it was deceiving us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 28, 2024 22:27:46 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 28, 2024 22:27:46 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 16:23:56 GMT
Sure. The Catalyst can be speaking truthfully but still be totally wrong about stuff. The Leviathans programmed him with bad premises. Garbage in, garbage out. It's the simplest solution with the most evidence supporting it. All this fan theory about the Catalyst lying doesn't really fly. If there's one thing that's certain, it's how unsubtle this game is. If the Catalyst was lying, the narrative would flat out show us that it was deceiving us. ... and the EC shows us that the Catalyst wasn't wrong either... Control causes the Reapers to be controlled by the Shepard AI; synthesis causes the DNA of organics to be combined with the equivalent of DNA in synthetics and hostilities cease, and destroy annihilates the Reapers and the geth and EDI. The only thing not shown us in the EC is whether or not the various forms of peace "last"... and that's a pretty ambiguous term anyways... last forever, last 1000 years, last 5 years, etc.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Apr 28, 2024 20:12:39 GMT
24,268
themikefest
14,812
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Mar 2, 2020 16:30:13 GMT
The thing says the green can't be forced yet Shepard forces it on the galaxy if he/she chooses it. Was the thing misleading Shepard to get him/her to choose the green or was it lying?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 28, 2024 22:27:46 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 28, 2024 22:27:46 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 16:50:07 GMT
The thing says the green can't be forced yet Shepard forces it on the galaxy if he/she chooses it. Was the thing misleading Shepard to get him/her to choose the green or was it lying? Not if, in some way, it's not "forced" anymore than evolution is "forced" on organics currently. It's your assessment that it is being "forced" against the will of organics. The assessment of the Catalyst is that organics are now ready for it to work. If not ready, it would fail to work as it had failed in the past. Since it works, the Catalyst was neither lying nor wrong.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Apr 28, 2024 20:12:39 GMT
24,268
themikefest
14,812
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Mar 2, 2020 17:12:24 GMT
Maybe the momentum of the blast wave propels them without the thrusters. In space, thrusters are now for maintaining momentum since the forces acting to slow an object down are not that great. Without those thrusters and the wing, the ship isn't doing much of anything. Once the SR2 enters the atmosphere of that planet, it would break apart, and if not, it would fall to ground.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Apr 28, 2024 22:27:46 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 28, 2024 22:27:46 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 17:18:44 GMT
I’m pretty sure this is largely the result of sloppy writing, but if this bit is being at all consistent with the rest of the series, “synthetic” should just be referring to the sentient machines, not all technologies in general. In any case, the fact that things like ships seem to be operating just fine means that other non-reaper technology that isn’t sentient is probably fine, even if that makes no sense. Heh, imagine Garrus suddenly writhing in pain because the few cybernetics in his body decided to just up and fail. You know Bioware has editors right? That's their job. To check the writers work and make sure it all lines up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 28, 2024 22:27:46 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 28, 2024 22:27:46 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 17:25:12 GMT
Maybe the momentum of the blast wave propels them without the thrusters. In space, thrusters are now for maintaining momentum since the forces acting to slow an object down are not that great. Without those thrusters and the wing, the ship isn't doing much of anything. Once the SR2 enters the atmosphere of that planet, it would break apart, and if not, it would fall to ground. Again, we're not shown the crash or what directly preceded the crash. All we see the wave catching up with the ship at an undefined point. If the wave caught it before leaving the Sol system, then, as @magnetite said, a planet of that type doesn't exist in lore. Bioware has not explained what happened. You can construct whatever head canon you want and use it to spit at Bioware all you like... it's still head canon.
We don't even really know the duration between the time the wave catches the ship and the crash or, for that matter, the duration before repairs were made and the ship flies off. Thrusters are gone, but perhaps some sort of mass effect field generation is possible. The Derelict reaper was able to maintain an orbit for eons without "thrusters." With the crash on the Collector Base, Joker clearly says that the mass effect field generators weren't responding and doesn't mention thrusters at all. We don't know and won't know unless Bioware eventually explains it to us... and they may never do that.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
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 Mar 2, 2020 18:15:33 GMT
I’m pretty sure this is largely the result of sloppy writing, but if this bit is being at all consistent with the rest of the series, “synthetic” should just be referring to the sentient machines, not all technologies in general. In any case, the fact that things like ships seem to be operating just fine means that other non-reaper technology that isn’t sentient is probably fine, even if that makes no sense. Heh, imagine Garrus suddenly writhing in pain because the few cybernetics in his body decided to just up and fail. You know Bioware has editors right? That's their job. To check the writers work and make sure it all lines up. Heh, too bad they were out taking a piss at the time.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
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 Mar 2, 2020 18:19:29 GMT
It's the simplest solution with the most evidence supporting it. All this fan theory about the Catalyst lying doesn't really fly. If there's one thing that's certain, it's how unsubtle this game is. If the Catalyst was lying, the narrative would flat out show us that it was deceiving us. ... and the EC shows us that the Catalyst wasn't wrong either... Control causes the Reapers to be controlled by the Shepard AI; synthesis causes the DNA of organics to be combined with the equivalent of DNA in synthetics and hostilities cease, and destroy annihilates the Reapers and the geth and EDI. The only thing not shown us in the EC is whether or not the various forms of peace "last"... and that's a pretty ambiguous term anyways... last forever, last 1000 years, last 5 years, etc. Well, yes and no. All endings in a high EMS scenario seem to be pretty much equally good for all surviving characters. All this stuff about conflict returning could come back in the future, but it’s a hollow “threat” that gets no follow-up in the epilogue’s narrative.
|
|
inherit
2754
0
Member is Online
Apr 28, 2024 22:25:00 GMT
5,958
Son of Dorn
Fortifying everything.
6,273
Jan 11, 2017 14:17:27 GMT
January 2017
doomlolz
Dragon Age Inquisition
|
Post by Son of Dorn on Mar 2, 2020 18:22:29 GMT
You know Bioware has editors right? That's their job. To check the writers work and make sure it all lines up. Heh, too bad they were out taking a piss at the time. And dropping off the fleet....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 28, 2024 22:27:46 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 28, 2024 22:27:46 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 18:58:53 GMT
... and the EC shows us that the Catalyst wasn't wrong either... Control causes the Reapers to be controlled by the Shepard AI; synthesis causes the DNA of organics to be combined with the equivalent of DNA in synthetics and hostilities cease, and destroy annihilates the Reapers and the geth and EDI. The only thing not shown us in the EC is whether or not the various forms of peace "last"... and that's a pretty ambiguous term anyways... last forever, last 1000 years, last 5 years, etc. Well, yes and no. All endings in a high EMS scenario seem to be pretty much equally good for all surviving characters. All this stuff about conflict returning could come back in the future, but it’s a hollow “threat” that gets no follow-up in the epilogue’s narrative. So? Is one supposed to be inherently worse than another? Or were they just written to be different from each other?
I also don't hear a threatening tone from the Catalyst at any point. He's an AI and is calculating relative probabilities... likely none of them are zero and none of them are 100%. From his wording, he does calculate the probability of organics creating new synthetics to be high and the probability of those synthetics eventually becoming sentient and questioning their "servitude" the way the geth did as also high. Conversely, he calculates the probability of the Crucible being well enough focused to target only the Reapers as being effectively zero and the probability of it not affecting Shepard's implants to be "not zero." He's a computer and doing the math... is that the same as making an "emotion-based" threat? I don't think it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Apr 28, 2024 22:27:46 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 28, 2024 22:27:46 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 19:02:53 GMT
You know Bioware has editors right? That's their job. To check the writers work and make sure it all lines up. Heh, too bad they were out taking a piss at the time. Not likely. Their boss is watching them.
People seem to think there was some grand conspiracy to intentionally mess up the ending. They'll come up with whatever excuse they can to justify their hate.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
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 Mar 2, 2020 19:12:49 GMT
Heh, too bad they were out taking a piss at the time. Not likely. Their boss is watching them.
People seem to think there was some grand conspiracy to intentionally mess up the ending. They'll come up with whatever excuse they can to justify their hate. I'm not sure where you're getting this conspiracy talk from. I didn't say anything about intent. I'm sure the team at BioWare truly wanted to make a great game with a great conclusion. However, there's a distinct lack of polish and thought in this conclusion that suggests to me that perhaps the dev team was not exactly experiencing an environment conducive to a better creative process. That's speculation so I won't really get too into that (despite there being actual reports of BioWare staff suffering terrible periods of crunch time that challenges their well-being), but the ending is so abrupt and thematically dissonant that it felt like it was just the most they could do before it needed to be wrapped up and shipped out, and hopefully it'll work out, which obviously it didn't since they had to go back and create a patch (people will call it DLC but this is such a meaningless distinction), to sort of bandage up the debacle. I guess it worked to a degree since I can accept it for what it is, while I could never accept the horrifyingly dissatisfying original ending, but whatever oversight the team had clearly dropped the ball.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Apr 28, 2024 20:12:39 GMT
24,268
themikefest
14,812
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Mar 2, 2020 19:27:15 GMT
When it comes to the FTL thing, there's no planets outside the Sol system on the map. The Sol system is the only system in the Local Cluster. So FTL out of the Sol system, and there's no planets to land on. The planet does sort of resemble Aite from Overlord DLC, but that's halfway across the galaxy. From a lore point of view, that planet doesn't exist. The planet could be Demeter Again, we're not shown the crash or what directly preceded the crash. All we see the wave catching up with the ship at an undefined point. If the wave caught it before leaving the Sol system, then, as @magnetite said, a planet of that type doesn't exist in lore. Bioware has not explained what happened. I see the thrusters are ripped from the fuselage. Not hard to believe the ship should be in pieces on the planet. That's how I see it. In regards to the planet, see the above comment. Why so angry?
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
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 Mar 2, 2020 19:31:22 GMT
Well, yes and no. All endings in a high EMS scenario seem to be pretty much equally good for all surviving characters. All this stuff about conflict returning could come back in the future, but it’s a hollow “threat” that gets no follow-up in the epilogue’s narrative. So? Is one supposed to be inherently worse than another? Or were they just written to be different from each other?
I also don't hear a threatening tone from the Catalyst at any point. He's an AI and is calculating relative probabilities... likely none of them are zero and none of them are 100%. From his wording, he does calculate the probability of organics creating new synthetics to be high and the probability of those synthetics eventually becoming sentient and questioning their "servitude" the way the geth did as also high. Conversely, he calculates the probability of the Crucible being well enough focused to target only the Reapers as being effectively zero and the probability of it not affecting Shepard's implants to be "not zero." He's a computer and doing the math... is that the same as making an "emotion-based" threat? I don't think it is.
I don't mean threat in the sense that the character is actually threatening to do anything, but rather the prediction of a future doom that a particular path seems destined toward. After all, the idea that synthetics *will* eventually rise up and kill everyone again is served as the primary motivator to find an alternative to Destroy, not the morality of actually destroying the synthetics while eliminating the reapers. It doesn't use words like probably or serve us odds against a successful cycle. It says flat out that this is going to happen, and says also that the "peace won't last", which is a sentence in itself devoid of meaning in any kind of real universe. This is the inherent "threat" of Destroy, that this path is ultimately doomed. But, with there being no machine apocalypse in sight, and Buzz Aldren regaling some kid on Nowhereia about the adventures of Shepard in some undetermined future, I guess things turned out OK there, so the Catalyst was wrong. Sure, it said the reapers would be destroyed, but that last bit about synthetic uprisings just don't seem to happen at any point worth noting in an epilogue.
|
|
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: 10,624 Likes: 18,442
inherit
2309
0
Apr 28, 2024 20:17:28 GMT
18,442
sjsharp2010
Go Team!
10,624
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 Mar 2, 2020 19:31:53 GMT
It's the simplest solution with the most evidence supporting it. All this fan theory about the Catalyst lying doesn't really fly. If there's one thing that's certain, it's how unsubtle this game is. If the Catalyst was lying, the narrative would flat out show us that it was deceiving us. ... and the EC shows us that the Catalyst wasn't wrong either... Control causes the Reapers to be controlled by the Shepard AI; synthesis causes the DNA of organics to be combined with the equivalent of DNA in synthetics and hostilities cease, and destroy annihilates the Reapers and the geth and EDI. The only thing not shown us in the EC is whether or not the various forms of peace "last"... and that's a pretty ambiguous term anyways... last forever, last 1000 years, last 5 years, etc. Yeah judging by the slides we see a ttheend it certainlylook sand feels like the Catalyst was telling the rtuth because it probably felt it needed too. Because i fShepard didn't finish it then and ther the nex tcycle certainly would in 50,000 years time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Apr 28, 2024 22:27:46 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 28, 2024 22:27:46 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 20:39:52 GMT
Not likely. Their boss is watching them.
People seem to think there was some grand conspiracy to intentionally mess up the ending. They'll come up with whatever excuse they can to justify their hate. I'm not sure where you're getting this conspiracy talk from. I didn't say anything about intent. I'm sure the team at BioWare truly wanted to make a great game with a great conclusion. However, there's a distinct lack of polish and thought in this conclusion that suggests to me that perhaps the dev team was not exactly experiencing an environment conducive to a better creative process. That's speculation so I won't really get too into that (despite there being actual reports of BioWare staff suffering terrible periods of crunch time that challenges their well-being), but the ending is so abrupt and thematically dissonant that it felt like it was just the most they could do before it needed to be wrapped up and shipped out, and hopefully it'll work out, which obviously it didn't since they had to go back and create a patch (people will call it DLC but this is such a meaningless distinction), to sort of bandage up the debacle. I guess it worked to a degree since I can accept it for what it is, while I could never accept the horrifyingly dissatisfying original ending, but whatever oversight the team had clearly dropped the ball. I'm not saying you personally, but *some* people did come up with conspiracy theories or excuses to justify why the ending came out the way it did.
They said in a video that before they do anything, a high level overview document is written to plan out what happens from beginning to end. Then they fill in the side missions and stuff. Before any game development besides writing happens, the script is written first, then comes the audio, gameplay, textures, etc. Also, they don't write the ending last. They write it as the same time as the other parts of the game before any work is done.
I found another guy who made games who said the same thing. Games are not made in the order that you play them. They write and edit the story first before doing anything else. They do cut corners when deadlines approach, but they cut them on side missions and minuscule things. This is all part of project management which people like Mike Gamble and such are responsible for. The producer is responsible for overseeing all the department's work. And the executive producer is responsible for overseeing the producer's work. Then, the two doctors, the founders of Bioware, are responsible for overseeing the executive producer's work. It's all a chain of command.
I didn't find any thematic dissonance in the ending. A lot of those complaints revolve around the Starchild, and since he doesn't acknowledge your new found peace, they think it's not thematically correct. If he was established to be an ally....maybe. However, it's quite clear, he is the Reapers. He is the antagonist. Anything an antagonist believes is completely at odds with what the protagonist believes. So that's not thematic dissonance.
As for the ending being too short, it really wasn't. The ending is supposed to address the end of Shepard's story and the end of the Reaper's main plot. What happens to everyone in the galaxy, well, they basically told you what their plans were during the game. However, since Bioware didn't create a full length feature film to tell people what happens to every damn person in the galaxy, it doesn't count. This is a customer expectation issue.
As I said before, the EC is not a patch. It is an optional DLC content which people can download if they wanted more clarity and closure. If it were a patch, it would be mandatory, and everyone would have to download and install it before playing the game. It's kind of like an extended version of a movie. There's the theatrical version, and the extended or director's cut, usually offered separately from the theatrical version.
|
|
inherit
10160
0
Apr 27, 2024 17:14:33 GMT
4,884
burningcherry
1,329
May 18, 2018 21:58:48 GMT
May 2018
burningcherry
Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect Andromeda
burningcherry97
|
Post by burningcherry on Mar 3, 2020 10:25:23 GMT
The problem with the Catalyst is that its "organic-synthetic conflict" premise is a bit of babbling because the idea of a stiff distinction between organics and synthetics is challenged since ME1 and largely falls by ME2. Even if we assume it works for most practical purposes (sure) then a universal conflict is not exactly what we see and not exactly what the in-universe science says (ME: Revelation chapter 8, ME: Initiation chapter 10). Of course the thing saw a lot more than us but it could very well have been programmed with a bad premise it never challenged.
|
|
Cyberstrike
N4
is wanting to have some fun!
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
XBL Gamertag: cyberstrike nTo
PSN: cyberstrike-nTo
Prime Posts: 1,732
Prime Likes: 467
Posts: 1,879 Likes: 3,044
inherit
634
0
May 14, 2017 17:50:43 GMT
3,044
Cyberstrike
is wanting to have some fun!
1,879
August 2016
cyberstrike
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
cyberstrike nTo
cyberstrike-nTo
1,732
467
|
Post by Cyberstrike on Mar 3, 2020 13:37:47 GMT
Batman is an emotionally stunted man child who can not let his parents deaths go. Hence why rather then grow up to be a politician leading reformations or literally anything else he uses his vast wealth to travel the world and train. So he can go back to his home town and dress up as a bat and beat up poor and mentally unstable individuals. Recruiting a young child (or children depending on the universe) to follow him in his foot steps. And it was shown pretty clearly that Robin or at least one of his possible Robins had the Jason Todd treatment by who we could only assume is Joker given all the hahas on his armor. With this in mind we are shown at the start of the movie were Papa and Mama Wayne are killed and Bruce's father specifically looks dead at Bruce and begs to save Martha. And remember Bruce as so traumatized by this that he dressed up as a bat and punches poor and mentally challenged people all night long. Thus when Bruce has Clark pinned and about to kill him rather then beg for his own life which is what most people would do when they are about to be killed. Clark looks right into Bruce's eyes and begs to save Martha which is a dead repeat to what his father did as he laid dying. This caused him to hesitate long enough for Lois to find them and explain everything to Batman. At which point he realizes how low he sunk and comes around out of the black pit of disparate that he has been sunk into.
This is further highlighted in a cut scene were he shows up in Lex's cell and rather then brand him like he has done with everyone else he hits the wall behind him and leaves. For Quill we have 2 different fuck ups now that you reminded me of GotG 2. Ego knew how much Quill was upset at his mother dying. Quill didn't exactly hide the fact he was pissed at him for his apparent abandonment of him and his mother and her subsequent death. And then right as his plan is about to succeed Ego against all reason or rational directly tells Quill that he put the tumor in his mother to kill her. Which of course turns Quill against Ego and eventually leads to his death. This is stupid because there is no ryhme, reason or build up and he only says it as a plot convenience. In Infinity War Quill wants to kill Thanos and yet during the whole fight it has been made clear the Infinity Gauntlet and the Stones are the entire reason why he is able to put up a fight against everyone. Remove the Gauntlet and they would actually have a chance to kill Thanos. But rather then disarm Thanos and then kill him Quill fucks up and allows Thanos to retain the Gauntlet which allows the rest of Infinity War and Endgame to continue. Both of these are idiotic cringe worthy writing that exists simply for the sake of making drama and allowing the plot to continue. And while you can argue the Martha bit is also cringe worthy writing that exists simply for the sake of making drama and allowing the plot to continue at least they actually incorporated the reason into the plot.
Batman never had integrity all he ever has been is the biggest mary sue that makes even Superman look like a boring background NPC in a video game. His "integrity" has lead to countless deaths due to him allowing literal serial killers to continue to walk around. I mean seriously Joker kills a couple dozen people and Batman shows up and stops him. Then a few months later Joker escapes and kills a few more dozen people and Batman stops him. Then Joker escapes again and kills a couple dozen more people, and repeat the cycle. The idea that he sacrifices dozens to hundreds of people's lives to maintain his "integrity" when he had multiple chances to stop them before they had a kill count in the triple digits. And this bullshit logic of "if he kills someone then he will just become a cold hearted killer" is as bullshit as the story lines were Superman sees Lois is killed and that instantly turns Superman into an oppressive dictator that will kill anyone that gets in his way without remorse. This logic only works if you admit that Batman is a closet phyco who will be completely unable to tell the difference between some random poor person mugging an old lady. And a serial killer clown who has committed literal war crimes. Which also means that every single solider and police officer who ever existed in the DC universe should be a raving mad man who will kill anyone that so much as cuts them off in traffic.
This difference is actually shown in the movie as it shows all the people arrested are branded with the bat symbol which makes them targets in prison by other prisoners. Batman only discards this after Lex manipulates both Batman and Superman into fighting. Feeding the hate and paranoia of Batman into those actions. Not to mention those same private mercenary groups were shown to be more then willing to kill an entire African Village and kidnap a woman and kill them. So Batman is not killing innocent people. And the fact that Bruce actually addresses this. He specifically talks to Alfred about how long he has been at this and how nothing seems to have improved or changed. So he has started to resort to more brutal methods because he lost any hope he had.
Lex in the movie isn't Joker. Lex is and always has in nearly ever universe has a massive god complex. Thinking that he is the smartest person on the planet, with some versions making him think he is the hero of humanity. Then Superman shows up and all of Lex's accomplishments and all his achievements are now meaningless in the face of an almost literal god. This has been shown in countless universesand the fact in every universe were Superman doesn't exist or is actually a bad guy it is Lex who is the hero to the world. And Lex is purposefully egging on both Batman and Superman to hate each other. He wants them to kill each other. This is why Lex sends Clark to Bruce. And when that fails he creates his Doomsday hybrid.
Organic development is bullshit reasoning. Everyone and their grandmother knows about Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash and Batman. They don't need to create their separate origin movies to make everything organic. I mean......Batman being an emotionally stunted man child is just all kinds of horribly unsatisfying on so many levels. I for one feel immense joy that these films are basically a failure. I'm not against making changes or reinterpreting a character (Nolan's Batman actually does this to some degree), but these need to be good changes. The sad part is that I actually *like* Affleck as an older Wayne/Batman. It's just too bad that the writer is a talentless hack. Regardless of what anyone here or anyone else might think, there's a stark qualitative difference between these franchises that determines the success of one and failure of the other. One has a clear, concise vision that, while definitely not perfect and has some pretty bad missteps here and there, is still just immensely better and generally more entertaining. I think the leadership at WB/DC took all of the wrong lessons from the Nolan trilogy and thought they could just run with that. It's definitely clear in what they were going for in Suicide Squad, which they were scrambling to emulate the Guardians tone after their original, darker version didn't pass their audience test.
The thing is with Marvel movies is that they're really hybrid movies with superheroes sometimes as window dressing the only Marvel movies I would even consider superhero movies are Captain America: Civil War and all 4 of The Avengers films. Marvel has the phases which has helped them a movie Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 1 probably wouldn't been the hit that it became if they made that film in phase 1 but building up the audience and fan trust let them turn a fourth string team into a big hit, and that is what DC should've done with Suicide Squad 1 you build up the audience and fan trust where the second and third tier characters and teams can be used. You don't make a movie about a group of supervillains that 90% of audiences have never heard of and have little or no interest in until you either introduce them in other movies or you built enough trust and good will that audiences and fans will go with it even if you make a lot of radical changes to it, in the original comics The Guardians of the Galaxy were set in the distant future NOT in the present day and were basically Marvel's version of DC's Legion of Super-Heroes of teenage/young adult superheroes who battled evil 1,000 years in the future.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
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 Mar 3, 2020 16:19:37 GMT
I mean......Batman being an emotionally stunted man child is just all kinds of horribly unsatisfying on so many levels. I for one feel immense joy that these films are basically a failure. I'm not against making changes or reinterpreting a character (Nolan's Batman actually does this to some degree), but these need to be good changes. The sad part is that I actually *like* Affleck as an older Wayne/Batman. It's just too bad that the writer is a talentless hack. Regardless of what anyone here or anyone else might think, there's a stark qualitative difference between these franchises that determines the success of one and failure of the other. One has a clear, concise vision that, while definitely not perfect and has some pretty bad missteps here and there, is still just immensely better and generally more entertaining. I think the leadership at WB/DC took all of the wrong lessons from the Nolan trilogy and thought they could just run with that. It's definitely clear in what they were going for in Suicide Squad, which they were scrambling to emulate the Guardians tone after their original, darker version didn't pass their audience test.
The thing is with Marvel movies is that they're really hybrid movies with superheroes sometimes as window dressing the only Marvel movies I would even consider superhero movies are Captain America: Civil War and all 4 of The Avengers films. Marvel has the phases which has helped them a movie Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 1 probably wouldn't been the hit that it became if they made that film in phase 1 but building up the audience and fan trust let them turn a fourth string team into a big hit, and that is what DC should've done with Suicide Squad 1 you build up the audience and fan trust where the second and third tier characters and teams can be used. You don't make a movie about a group of supervillains that 90% of audiences have never heard of and have little or no interest in until you either introduce them in other movies or you built enough trust and good will that audiences and fans will go with it even if you make a lot of radical changes to it, in the original comics The Guardians of the Galaxy were set in the distant future NOT in the present day and were basically Marvel's version of DC's Legion of Super-Heroes of teenage/young adult superheroes who battled evil 1,000 years in the future.
I actually got angry watching Suicide Squad. The level of incompetence in that film was genuinely frustrating to no end. I hope all creators of various media, be it movies, TV and in this case games, takes note of the cavalcade of failures at work here and learn what not to do when trying to reprise old properties, bring back old characters or assemble ensemble casts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Apr 28, 2024 22:27:46 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 28, 2024 22:27:46 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 17:41:39 GMT
The problem with the Catalyst is that its "organic-synthetic conflict" premise is a bit of babbling because the idea of a stiff distinction between organics and synthetics is challenged since ME1 and largely falls by ME2. Even if we assume it works for most practical purposes (sure) then a universal conflict is not exactly what we see and not exactly what the in-universe science says (ME: Revelation chapter 8, ME: Initiation chapter 10). Of course the thing saw a lot more than us but it could very well have been programmed with a bad premise it never challenged. Who says there's an organic-synthetic conflict? Maybe he's making it up in order to prevent you from choosing destroy?
|
|
inherit
2754
0
Member is Online
Apr 28, 2024 22:25:00 GMT
5,958
Son of Dorn
Fortifying everything.
6,273
Jan 11, 2017 14:17:27 GMT
January 2017
doomlolz
Dragon Age Inquisition
|
Post by Son of Dorn on Mar 3, 2020 17:52:02 GMT
The thing is with Marvel movies is that they're really hybrid movies with superheroes sometimes as window dressing the only Marvel movies I would even consider superhero movies are Captain America: Civil War and all 4 of The Avengers films. Marvel has the phases which has helped them a movie Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 1 probably wouldn't been the hit that it became if they made that film in phase 1 but building up the audience and fan trust let them turn a fourth string team into a big hit, and that is what DC should've done with Suicide Squad 1 you build up the audience and fan trust where the second and third tier characters and teams can be used. You don't make a movie about a group of supervillains that 90% of audiences have never heard of and have little or no interest in until you either introduce them in other movies or you built enough trust and good will that audiences and fans will go with it even if you make a lot of radical changes to it, in the original comics The Guardians of the Galaxy were set in the distant future NOT in the present day and were basically Marvel's version of DC's Legion of Super-Heroes of teenage/young adult superheroes who battled evil 1,000 years in the future.
I actually got angry watching Suicide Squad. The level of incompetence in that film was genuinely frustrating to no end. I hope all creators of various media, be it movies, TV and in this case games, takes note of the cavalcade of failures at work here and learn what not to do when trying to reprise old properties, bring back old characters or assemble ensemble casts. It would be nice, but I highly doubt it.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
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 Mar 3, 2020 18:21:15 GMT
I actually got angry watching Suicide Squad. The level of incompetence in that film was genuinely frustrating to no end. I hope all creators of various media, be it movies, TV and in this case games, takes note of the cavalcade of failures at work here and learn what not to do when trying to reprise old properties, bring back old characters or assemble ensemble casts. It would be nice, but I highly doubt it. I know they won't, but ultimately, they'll suffer financially for it as well. Even Sonic the motherlovin' Hedgehog's filmmakers took that dose of reality to heart when everyone saw the abominable man-hog they crafted.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
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 Mar 3, 2020 18:28:25 GMT
The problem with the Catalyst is that its "organic-synthetic conflict" premise is a bit of babbling because the idea of a stiff distinction between organics and synthetics is challenged since ME1 and largely falls by ME2. Even if we assume it works for most practical purposes (sure) then a universal conflict is not exactly what we see and not exactly what the in-universe science says (ME: Revelation chapter 8, ME: Initiation chapter 10). Of course the thing saw a lot more than us but it could very well have been programmed with a bad premise it never challenged. Who says there's an organic-synthetic conflict? Maybe he's making it up in order to prevent you from choosing destroy?
BioWare doubled down on this idea with the Leviathan DLC, which now brings in yet another character to tell us that there is indeed some sort of inevitable conflict, birthing the whole Intelligence to Reaper path to begin with.
|
|