|
sassassin posted:Old lady accidentally litters? Eradicate civilisation.
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:Look, you romance Diana Allers, you're not exactly one to talk about horrifying futures. I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite poontang on the Citadel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Monstrosities? Horrific? Glorified cosmic roombas ruled by a defective program? These are terms of those who don't get it, and are incapable of getting it. The players, like Shep, are inherently in the dark. There is no permutation of ways to play ME that proves the Reapers wrong. Oh, get off your high horse. You are basing your whole argument on Leviathan, which is basically the testament to the fundemental brokeness of the ending. What does it tell you that the Catalyst and his thesis literally had so little basis in the preceeding narrative, that a whole new chapter needed to be retconned in an attempt to justify it? (Nevermind the fact that you had to pay for the privilege of getting a more sensible story, and that it reduced the Reapers to be the end-result of some almightly idiots forgetting to program their AIs with the laws of robotics.) In the vanilla game, all you get is the Catalyst telling you about the dangers of synthetics, despite the facts that what you have been shown about the motivations the obvious example of his thesis, the Geth, doesn't fit this story, and more importantly (since this is about a video game after all) what you have done as a player has either resulted in peace between the Geth and the Quarians, the out and out destruction of the Geth, or the Geth fighting on your side to preserve other lifeforms. What you are told, by the self-admitted leader of your enemy no less, runs contrary to what you have been shown and done. Utritum fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Dec 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
It was never about organics and synthetics come on
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
I don't see why people think it's all about organics and synthetics, when the only people who really talk about the relationship between organics and synthetics are the game's primary antagonists, and they only do that when you ask them what their motivation is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
Organics and synthetics are a shorthand for intergenerational conflict, not a thing in and of itself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
Utritum posted:Oh, get off your high horse. You are basing your whole argument on Leviathan, which is basically the testament to the fundamental brokeness of the ending. No, I'm basing it off what Leviathan says, what the Catalyst says, what Javik says (remember, his people got blindsided dealing with their own Synthetic War), how closely the Gs and Qs came to war and how likely the Qs are going to gently caress things up, etc. Like it or not, but the game provides a lot more backing for what the Reapers do making sense. Shep (or the players playing him) sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "Nuh uh gently caress you dad we're totes spehshul snowflakes la la la I can't hear you!" does nothing. Utritum posted:What does it tell you that the Catalyst and his thesis literally had so little basis in the preceeding narrative, that a whole new chapter needed to be retconned in an attempt to justify it? It was always there. The first game starts in a universe where a Creator/Created war is known to all, and its revealed later that such a war is common in the history of the galaxy. Utritum posted:In the vanilla game Immaterial. Utritum posted:what you have done as a player has either resulted in peace between the Geth and the Quarians, the out and out destruction of the Geth, or the Geth fighting on your side to preserve other lifeforms. What you are told, by the self-admitted leader of your enemy no less, runs contrary to what you have been shown and done.: What have you done? You either brokered a fragile peace convenience at gunpoint*, had the Created wipe out their Creators, or let the Creators commit genocide. * Because the Creators in our totally proof we're different has a great track of good, rational decisions...
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
It would be kind of funny if the player had been allowed to argue that not one AI they've encountered throughout the entire trilogy has posed any real threat to organics, only for the Catalyst to counter by pointing out the window, at the Reapers. Checkmate 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
There was that gambling AI that threatened to blow you up in the first game!
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Immaterial. Come on. Don't tell me you are actually arrogant enough to defend the practice of selling supposedly vital parts of a story in chunks. EDIT: For the record, I agree with the previous posts about the story being about intergenerational conflicts. The problem is that the story suddenly drops that so it can throw around some high-faluting ambiguity about the singularity. Like if Babylon 5 suddenly turned into Battlestar Galactica in the middle of its last episode. Utritum fucked around with this message at 10:32 on Dec 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
GenericOverusedName posted:There was that gambling AI that threatened to blow you up in the first game! Computers are dumb as heck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
It's pretty bizarre to defend the story of Mass Effect 3 by appealing to the DLC. It's like defending the Star Wars prequels by appealing to all those ridiculous EU books.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Utritum posted:Like if Babylon 5 suddenly turned into Battlestar Galactica in the middle of its last episode. Actually the last ten minutes of the last episode of the Battlestar Galactica reboot and the last ten minutes of Mass Effect 3 have a frightening amount of stuff in common. Most namely that they're both really dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
GenericOverusedName posted:There was that gambling AI that threatened to blow you up in the first game! It was quietly stealing money so it could get off the Citadel until you rumbled it. You monster 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
2house2fly posted:It was quietly stealing money so it could get off the Citadel until you rumbled it. You monster I offered to let it go, but it decided to blow itself up instead. It's not my fault it was really stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
Artificial "intelligence" indeed 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
And technically EDI did go a little crazy with the neurotoxin stuff on Luna...
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
Utritum posted:Come on. Don't tell me you are actually arrogant enough to defend the practice of selling supposedly vital parts of a story in chunks. I'm not speaking to that practice, one way or another. What I am speaking to is the immaterial nature of outdated content. Portal used to end with Chell passing out, free. Then it ended with her being dragged back into the facility. The original free-from-Aperture ending? Don't bring it up, it doesn't exist. The same is true of Mass Effect. I consider the DLC stories to be reinforcement of the existing story concept that some players either didn't pick up on, or foolishly dismissed. Don't like/believe what the Catalyst said? Here's the creators of the Reapers saying it, and a dude whose empire was distracted by a Creator/Created war saying it. Hell, the devs even gave you an option to reject/disbelieve what the Catalyst says. Sure, it winds up with your species and every species you know getting pulped, forcing the next cycle to make the choice, but still.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
Irrelevant to whether or not DLC is a good practice I think the context in which ME3 and specifically its ending was written is more important to criticizing it as rushed, incomplete feeling, and poorly forshadowed at best. It's not as awful as people made it out to be to me but it's really, really not good, it's incoherent even with the context of the DLC and Extended Cut, and just is not a good ending to an otherwise competent game and great trilogy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
ill be real with you guys i still havent beat me3 i got me1 the day it came out, beat it + dlc's maybe 10-20 times. same with me2. got me3 at midnight when it came out, stopped playing before the final mission, haven't touched it since is it worth beating yet
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:ill be real with you guys All commentary on the plot aside, the final mission is pretty fun video gaming and you should play it if you enjoy Mass Effect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:All commentary on the plot aside, the final mission is pretty fun video gaming and you should play it if you enjoy Mass Effect. i remember all the hubub about the final mission choices - how did they change them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:i remember all the hubub about the final mission choices - how did they change them? They didn't really change much, they just kind of expanded them (the original endings were super abrupt.) They also added one weird one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
Dumb question: Does Balak show up post Priority: Tuchanka, or before it? He hasn't shown up for me, and I did do Bring Down The Sky...
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 06:36
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Dumb question: Does Balak show up post Priority: Tuchanka, or before it? He hasn't shown up for me, and I did do Bring Down The Sky... Post. He shows up after the coup.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 06:42
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I'm not speaking to that practice, one way or another. What I am speaking to is the immaterial nature of outdated content. Portal used to end with Chell passing out, free. Then it ended with her being dragged back into the facility. The original free-from-Aperture ending? Don't bring it up, it doesn't exist. No, it's not. DLC is optional content that is something you need to pay for and, in all honesty, should not be considered in the context of Mass Effect 3's ending. This is exactly the same defence that grognards like to make of film series like the Matrix or Star Wars - 'it all makes sense if you read the novels', or, in this case, 'it all makes sense if you get the DLC'. Portal is different because, from what I can tell, it is a mandatory patch and update that all users received. You'd think it would be obvious storytelling 101 - if you have to write additional stories to make your main plot make sense then you've hosed up somewhere along the way.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 08:01
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:No, it's not. DLC is optional content that is something you need to pay for and, in all honesty, should not be considered in the context of Mass Effect 3's ending. I reject that line of thought entirely. The only acceptable way to discuss Mass Effect is to incorporate all the DLC into the discussion. I don't care if you didn't download it (or ignoring it since it put another two OI CREATOR/CREATED RELATIONS IS KINDA A THING IN THIS GAME, FOLKS signs into the game), it's out there and it's part of the story. Reject any of it, and you're referencing your own fan fiction, not the real game. And I'm pretty sure I can install Portal with my Orange Box disks and tell Steam not to update. Voila, the only way to discuss Portal is having her escape the facility at the end. Milky Moor posted:You'd think it would be obvious storytelling 101 - if you have to write additional stories to make your main plot make sense then you've hosed up somewhere along the way. Given how a lot of people legitimately thought the whole Creator/Created thing came out of nowhere - or that the deliverer of that message was incorrect or wrong, it would seem to me that the DLC served a bonus purpose aside from more adventures - making the underlying theme of the game as blatantly obvious as humanly possible to ensure that everyone understood.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 08:54
|
|
|
Or maybe - and this is more accurate - the main theme was poorly communicated and did come out of nowhere given that it was created at the eleventh hour by two people who sequestered themselves off from the development team? You realise that Mass Effect is not a real history, right? When the vast majority of people think the ending is disappointing and incoherent, it's not the fault of the majority for 'not getting' Bioware's art - Bioware evidently hosed up in actually telling the story and establishing that creator/created was the central focus and conflict of their epic cinematic space action hero video game romance simulator trilogy. edit: Also, appealing to Javik - the one character whose running theme and joke is that his prejudices make him out of touch with the rest of the galaxy? 
Milkfred E. Moore fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Dec 25, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 09:26
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:No, it's not. DLC is optional content that is something you need to pay for and, in all honesty, should not be considered in the context of Mass Effect 3's ending. This is exactly the same defence that grognards like to make of film series like the Matrix or Star Wars - 'it all makes sense if you read the novels', or, in this case, 'it all makes sense if you get the DLC'. They don't offer Star Wars novels as supplementary materials while watching The Empire Strikes Back in the cinema. That's a pretty poor analogy. DLC isn't pretty, particularly in this case, but those aren't the same thing at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 10:40
|
|
Dan Didio posted:They don't offer Star Wars novels as supplementary materials while watching The Empire Strikes Back in the cinema. That's a pretty poor analogy. Matrix series and the Animatrix then.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 10:42
|
|
|
I mean, not that this discussion really matters. Mass Effect 3 is going to be remembered as the game with the horrible, nonsensical ending regardless.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 10:44
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:Matrix series and the Animatrix then. Not made by the same creative crew and doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion. I don't remember people recommending the Animatrix as a fix to the Matrix's issues. Mass Effect 3's DLC is pretty interesting in this context and probably shouldn't be lazily dismissed, that said, it shouldn't have been required to 'understand' Mass Effect 3 itself, if that's how people feel. Wasn't my issue, or really what I took away from that content, but it's a pretty common complaint. EDIT: Huh, apparently the Wachowski siblings did contribute to Animatrix. Never knew that. Huh. Shirkelton fucked around with this message at 10:53 on Dec 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 10:45
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Old lady accidentally litters? Eradicate civilisation. yeah but they're also a gigantic mary sue so everything will be fine
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 11:02
|
|
|
Whorelord posted:yeah but they're also a gigantic mary sue so everything will be fine Yeah, Control just makes it official that Shepard's pretty much in charge of all policy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 11:05
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:Or maybe - and this is more accurate - the main theme was poorly communicated and did come out of nowhere given that it was created at the eleventh hour by two people who sequestered themselves off from the development team? But the end result, regardless of developmental origin, was entirely coherent with the rest of the game. I played 1 and 2 completely blind and clearly saw the underlying theme was the conflict between organic life and synthetic life. It permeated both games. Milky Moor posted:You realise that Mass Effect is not a real history, right? When the vast majority of people think the ending is disappointing and incoherent, it's not the fault of the majority for 'not getting' Bioware's art No, I just think it speaks to the ability for a small subset of gamers to be obnoxious over things they don't understand. We get it, some gamers have gently caress-you-dad issues. Good on Bioware for not changing their game because of it. Milky Moor posted:edit: Also, appealing to Javik - the one character whose running theme and joke is that his prejudices make him out of touch with the rest of the galaxy? His running theme is how wrong our characters were about things they have no idea about. Shep is proven wrong about the Reapers by the Catalyst, just as Liara is proven wrong about the Protheans by Javik.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 11:07
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I reject that line of thought entirely. The only acceptable way to discuss Mass Effect is to incorporate all the DLC into the discussion. I don't care if you didn't download it (or ignoring it since it put another two OI CREATOR/CREATED RELATIONS IS KINDA A THING IN THIS GAME, FOLKS signs into the game), it's out there and it's part of the story. Reject any of it, and you're referencing your own fan fiction, not the real game. Different people get different narratives and it's pointless discussing the 'true' events because the games were designed to have different events happen to different shepards. Fallout 3 is the best example of this I can think of - my wanderer left the vault and hosed around for months before even starting to find his dad, and only grudgingly did so to open up more fun side quests. If you're going to say you don't care if I got any DLC, then frankly I want you to know that I don't care about the 'right' way to play the game, and the interactive nature of the medium is kind of more on my side than yours. My point is that you can't say 'you aren't looking at all the facts' when the entire point of DLC is that it's extra content. The ge you play at the time you play it is the experience you have, and for a ton of people, Leviathan wasn't part of their experience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 11:23
|
|
|
If DLC is suddenly necessary content to get the full experience, then studios probably shouldn't charge you for it. And let's just disregard the fact that Leviathan wasn't released until well after Mass Effect 3 was done and dusted for a lot of people (it was about six months afterwards). It's not like Javik who essentially came with the game. quote:No, I just think it speaks to the ability for a small subset of gamers to be obnoxious over things they don't understand. ...so Bioware made the Extended Cut to appease a 'small subset' of gamers? What's it like being one of the few to truly 'understand' Mass Effect? Why do you think you are the one who truly 'got it' when virtually everyone else got a different response? Come on, buddy, try harder. You haven't even mentioned entitlement yet. Milkfred E. Moore fucked around with this message at 11:40 on Dec 25, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 11:34
|
|
|
Being completely fair to Mass Effect 3 here, if the Reaper motivation was also just 'harvest species so new species get a chance to evolve and survive' without the organic/synthetic weirdness, it'd be markedly better. Of course, that would also make them a rehash of Freespace's Shivans, so...
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 11:47
|
|
|
That's not a big deal. Lots of fun sci-fi is chock full of rehashing. Though I'd replace "so new species get a chance to evolve and survive" with "destroy advanced species so that can't get strong enough to take us on but leave primitives so they can evolve and we might turn them into a new reapers later". More malevolent. And that's pretty much what I thought it was going to be after ME2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 11:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
Milky Moor posted:Being completely fair to Mass Effect 3 here, if the Reaper motivation was also just 'harvest species so new species get a chance to evolve and survive' without the organic/synthetic weirdness, it'd be markedly better. Of course, that would also make them a rehash of Freespace's Shivans, so...
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 14:06
|
|