Also, if the Citadel is sentient why did they need Sovereign to activate the mass relay? Couldn't the god just have opened the relay and signaled the Reapers?
Spoiler!
It's a good question. I'm sure there are other questions like this. To me that's the kind of question that might lead to interesting speculation within the story's framework rather than accusations directed at Bioware.
Things were different then. Back then they were simply following their normal plan. Perhaps the Catalyst can't actually perform such acts. It's not presented as a puppet master but someone whose plan the Reapers are fulfilling. And the plan is something that's considered inevitable, like the Reapers say. You can't stop them from coming even if you shut down the Citadel relay, as we eventually see ourselves. But it's a good question, why isn't Citadel designed in such a way that it can be opened from the inside even if the Catalyst's power to affect its surroundings isn't that great? Perhaps it was somehow necessary in order to conceal the Citadel's true nature. Perhaps it doesn't "open its eyes" at all before the Crucible arrives.
Perhaps it simply doesn't wish to manipulate the history beyond the grand plan. It allows the eventuality that the Reapers will no longer be the final answer. It gives the universe a chance to get to where Shepard ends up. This is just pure speculation.
But really, I think the idea is that the arrival of the Reapers is simply inevitable. No need to come out into the open and direct the Citadel from the inside, probably leading to everyone leaving the place. Turns out it was nothing more than the quickest way in, you can't just lock the doors into the galaxy.
At the end of ME3 two things have changed: (1) the Catalyst says that it's the first time an organic has reached that place and that means the old plan doesn't work anymore (a really good question to focus on could be what this means exactly), and more importantly (2) the Crucible, the work of many cycles of extinct civilizations, is finally in place, which changes how the Catalyst "sees" things. So at that point things are definitely different.
That it is a terrible, alien choice based on inhuman logic is understandable considering what Shepard is dealing with. The Catalyst is not good or evil or benevolent or malevolent or even wise in any human sense. Not a god in any such sense either. But it is the tool that you need to stop the Reapers and the only way to make the nightmare end.
The article you link to doesn't appear to offer anything new to the discussion. Much of it is criticism of storytelling techniques and we just have to accept the (1) neither of us are idiots and (2) we nevertheless disagree in our judgments about the ending's naturalness or artistic merit.
I think I'll mostly just be repeating myself at this point. I'd respond that there's no way of "showing" that the war is unwinnable other than to experience it right to the end and that's not an option to those making military evaluations in an uncertain situation. Again, I'm completely convinced that the war is unwinnable and that clearly the characters in the story are as well. You can disagree with this, of course, and say that they were wrong, but let's be clear that within the parameters that Bioware presents, the Crucible really was their only hope, even if you yourself would have written a different story. I think that's an understandable criticism of the story but it's not something that illogical within the story that is actually told.
I think that's a discussion that you can have but it's not really something you can use as evidence of Bioware's incompetence as writers. You can certainly criticize the whole idea of the Crucible. What made it more interesting to me was that it had been planned for many cycles, not just by Protheans. And just the alien unsettling uncertainty about it. They're trapped inside a nightmare and here's this thing they don't fully understand. And once it's in place, it changes the Catalyst, making all the options available. All along they have been at the very edge of their understanding of the universe. Is the fact that Shepard talks to the Catalyst really such a huge game changer that it takes you out of the story? I just don't think so.
To me it's clunky writing only on the surface. It doesn't introduce as much as some say it does: it gives (1) the reason why the Reapers do it and (2) the three ways that you can use the Crucible. Would it have been so radically different if Shepard had simply been presented with a VI interface rather than an old AI?
As for why the Reapers don't "lock down" the mass relays and stop the Crucible. Well, I suppose if they were in the position to do that, they would have, but obviously they were not in control of the Crucible or the relays. I don't know why you assume that they could lock down the relays. Has something like ever been referred to?
I'm not sure destroying the relays would have been a sound plan for the alliance even if it was possible. It would only leave the forces more vulnerable. The Reapers can move through "dark space", they have all the time in the world, they are the ones who don't need the relays. And the relays are extremely difficult to destroy, and there are no guarantees that you'd be able to catch a significant number in an explosion.
I have to repeat that I don't understand the idea of going down fighting on your own terms, when you consider the stakes. Shepard is forced to make an impossible choice under impossible conditions, I agree with that, but to me it's clear that she has to do it. That's the plan. She can't just sit down and cross her arms and let the chips fall where they may.
Look at it this way. She can sacrifice her own life in the hope that it will end the war even if she can't know what will actually happen. That's just her life. She has to try it. If nothing happens, they've only lost her, and she's pretty much at the end of her road anyway. In that case the war will simply go on. Possibly sacrificing every advanced species by not following the plan in the hope that they'll somehow win a war they themselves have evaluated as unwinnable with conventional means, that's just not an option.
The fact that she isn't presented with perfect choices under perfect conditions, that's just life. She is barely conscious and she has to make that kind of choice! Unfair! Crazy! Yes, life is unfair and crazy and you never get perfect conditions. I fully agree that it's an insane situation. But as I was playing it, too late at night, a bit tired, I was there, I was with the story right to the end. It didn't occur to me to rebel against the whole situation. I guess I was fortunate that it fit my playthrough of the game. I just lunged forward and hoped for the best. Very gut-level. So for me it worked, and it's not because there was something there that I didn't understand.
And it turns out that the Catalyst was right, at least as far as the Crucible is concerned. It's impossible to verify the idea that synthetics will inevitably wipe out the organics, but the game doesn't ask you to accept that part. You can choose outcomes that will end the war but in the Catalyst's view eventually lead to more conflicts and ultimately the extinction of all organic life.
Really the desperation of the whole situation has to be appreciated. Just the rush toward the beam of light in London shows just how dire the situation was. Events were just rushing forward like in a nightmare.
I will answer a few of your questions.
Spoiler!
1. It doesn't matter what the avatar of the god/AI is. It could be Santa Clause and I would still dislike it as a plot ending device.
2. The whole Reapers locking down mass relays thing was specifically told in ME1. That was their plan. Take control of the Citadel, kill the leadership and shut down the mass relays to isolate systems. They are in control of the Citadel at the end act of 3 so why can they not use it? Bioware doesn't address it so I have no way of knowing. But to me it comes across as a plot hole albit, one I am willing to overlook.
3. I'll end it with this. The reason you don't understand the going down fighting argument is because we don't see eye to eye on the choices that we're given at the end. You see a valid solution to Reapers. To me the 3 choices are all completely unacceptable. All of them. They go against what I believe my character is fighting for. So what alternatives are left?
As you said, the Crucible was THE gamble and to me it failed. But I am not given the only other option I have left. It doesn't matter if it's the smart decision or the right decision. What matters is that it is the only choice available to me now that everything else (in my mind) has failed. You say that Shepard has to make one of those choices because the stakes are so high and I am saying I cannot because of the same reason. You are saving the galaxy while I am dooming it. That's the difference in our opinions. I for one think it's great that 2 people can play the same game and get a totally different experience. I just wish the ending had concluded the journey in a more satisfying way.
1. It doesn't matter what the avatar of the god/AI is. It could be Santa Clause and I would still dislike it as a plot ending device.
2. The whole Reapers locking down mass relays thing was specifically told in ME1. That was their plan. Take control of the Citadel, kill the leadership and shut down the mass relays to isolate systems. They are in control of the Citadel at the end act of 3 so why can they not use it? Bioware doesn't address it so I have no way of knowing. But to me it comes across as a plot hole albit, one I am willing to overlook.
3. I'll end it with this. The reason you don't understand the going down fighting argument is because we don't see eye to eye on the choices that we're given at the end. You see a valid solution to Reapers. To me the 3 choices are all completely unacceptable. All of them. They go against what I believe my character is fighting for. So what alternatives are left?
As you said, the Crucible was THE gamble and to me it failed. But I am not given the only other option I have left. It doesn't matter if it's the smart decision or the right decision. What matters is that it is the only choice available to me now that everything else (in my mind) has failed. You say that Shepard has to make one of those choices because the stakes are so high and I am saying I cannot because of the same reason. You are saving the galaxy while I am dooming it. That's the difference in our opinions. I for one think it's great that 2 people can play the same game and get a totally different experience. I just wish the ending had concluded the journey in a more satisfying way.
Spoiler!
(1) I think it matters quite a bit what it is that you're talking to if we're trying to judge how natural the plot device is. It's not Santa, it's not an angel, it's the Catalyst who we (a) knew was in the Citadel, (b) who we knew was necessary to direct the Crucible and (c) whose exact nature no one had been able to find out. It just turns out it's very old like the Citadel itself (not a surprise), self-aware (unexpected but nothing new as a concept), and talks to Shepard instead of, for example, leaving a note with instructions on how to use the Crucible.
I don't get why you call it "avatar of god". It's not an avatar of anything and it's not a god. Of course such a thing could inspire quasi-religious awe like Shepard and Legion discuss with regard to the Reapers, but calling it god is just rhetoric and ridicule.
(2) That was what someone thought their plan would be. Has it been confirmed that it's actually even possible to shut down the relays? They just thought the Reapers might be able to do it. But if it's confirmed that it's actually possible, then that's a good question to ask.
I think we both agree that questions like these will always remain even if it's in the context of the best ending in the history of the world. There will inevitably be gaps in our knowledge.
(3) I think you misunderstand my position slightly. It's not that I see valid solutions in the sense that they're what I would have liked to encounter and was happy to choose one. Not at all. Happiness is definitely not what I felt. I see messy solutions with terrible consequences and much uncertainty. Where we're actually different is that I accepted that situation and made my impossible choice. And on an emotional level, I accepted the hollowness that I felt as right and natural rather than as a failure of the story to make me feel a certain way. At best it's bitter sweet. Shepard's death feels bad. The ultimate outcomes feel distant. It didn't feel heroic at all. It was just the last thing she could do and it's like I go with Shepard. I don't get to enjoy the fruits of my actions. I don't have the right to demand comforting choices or that I'll be made to feel good by a piece of art.
Still, it was cathartic. It still feels sad.
Many critics protest that it's not that they can't accept a mixed or sad ending, but so much of what I read leads me to think that behind all the reasoning there is a feeling that the choices just weren't good enough on an emotional level. They are not acceptable solutions when looked at from a distance. It's true that Shepard is in a situation that should make you want to protest - but that's within the story.
Again, I'll say that there's always room for criticism and that the above is not directed at anyone particular. They're just thoughts. Even though I see an element of mass hysteria in some of the uproar, I think the fact that so many appear to have been left so unfulfilled by the ending suggests that the writers failed on some level. Maybe they were too economical with the ending and should have filled things out more.
Last edited by Henry Fool; 03-27-2012 at 03:33 PM.
Not having Legion as a squad member was a huge mistake, he is awesome
plus they never explained why he bolted a piece of Shepherd's armor to himself. when you ask him straight out why in ME2, he doesn't answer you. i was hoping for more backstory from him in ME3, but was quite disappointed
that was another Bioware copout, not including any ME2 characters as squadmates. of course i was never expecting most of them to be included, but Mordin, Legion, and Grunt should have been no brainers. instead we get a jersey shore wannabe and a ship AI. lame
Yea and no Miranda, basically makes me feel like ME2 was a lot of wasted time.
That makes no sense at all. Clearly you enjoyed the characters and the game, but it's all for nothing because Bioware didn't deliver every single thing you personally would have wanted in the next game. You got to meet the characters but you didn't get to play them. Miranda was in the game, her story continued. They aren't all tied to Shepard forever. The ME2 mission was done.
I think some people just enjoy their gloomy disappointment. This is why Bioware's clarifications won't help much, because once you've decided that the game is a terrible disappointment, you can come up with an endless list of reasons. One guy wanted this character, another guy wanted some other character, and it's a such a cop out that everyone didn't get to play every character they personally wanted.
In this video, Jim Sterling (of the shamefully pro-ME3 Destructoid and the Escapist) sees the fact that people get just as upset over ME than they do over Star Wars as a sign that the medium has taken a big step forward. "This medium has become mature enough to provoke the most infantile responses on the planet, and that's really quite awesome."
I love that every gaming publication that I have any respect for was very positive about ME3. Eurogamer doesn't hand out 10/10 very often, for example. Destructoid's review specifically praised the ending. But go to Metacritic and compare the critical scores to the fan scores - it's the most laughable thing ever. The critics think it's one of the best games of the year, which it without question is, whatever you think of the final minutes, yet the majority of the fan mob think that it's literally one of the worst.
For PC and Xbox, the average user score is 3.7. Think about what sort of game gets 37% these days, given how games are rated.
Yeah, not crazy at all. There's certainly no mass hysteria or any kind of negative group think happening at all. It's not like there are thousands of fans all referencing the same two articles and YouTube videos. No no, it's simply sophisticated clear-headed individuals who all just happened to come to similar conlusions all on their own.
I think the first 39:45 is by far the best game of the year (and possibly my favourite game of all time) but the last 15 minutes is very poor. I still rate the game very highly overall and encourage others who are on the fence (like CaptainCrunch in this thread) to play it. My opinion about the ending is not "infantile" or whatever other belittling word you'd like to use to describe it. I arrived at my position rationally and intelligently.
I love that every gaming publication that I have any respect for was very positive about ME3. Eurogamer doesn't hand out 10/10 very often, for example. Destructoid's review specifically praised the ending. But go to Metacritic and compare the critical scores to the fan scores - it's the most laughable thing ever. The critics think it's one of the best games of the year, which it without question is, whatever you think of the final minutes, yet the majority of the fan mob think that it's literally one of the worst.
For PC and Xbox, the average user score is 3.7. Think about what sort of game gets 37% these days, given how games are rated.
Yeah, not crazy at all. There's certainly no mass hysteria or any kind of negative group think happening at all. It's not like there are thousands of fans all referencing the same two articles and YouTube videos. No no, it's simply sophisticated clear-headed individuals who all just happened to come to similar conlusions all on their own.
I think the first 39:45 is by far the best game of the year (and possibly my favourite game of all time) but the last 15 minutes is very poor. I still rate the game very highly overall and encourage others who are on the fence (like CaptainCrunch in this thread) to play it. My opinion about the ending is not "infantile" or whatever other belittling word you'd like to use to describe it. I arrived at my position rationally and intelligently.
If that's directed at me, I think I've made it clear many times over that I have no problem with people not liking it. I just had long civilized discussion about it right here. What Sterling (not me) calls infantile and what so many writers are rolling their eyes at is the angry campaign of activism against it, which is completely weird.
The reason I'm posting here is that this is one place on the internet where I feel like I'm talking to normal adults. Go to a gaming website and you'll see that there's a giant negative feedback loop going on all over the place with people whipping each other to new heights of hyperbole. Every single thing is inflated by crazed rhetoric, every opinion is considered final and demonstrated as if they were dealing with mathematical equations. There's simply a list of items that everyone endlessly recycles. There's a YouTube video that supposedly explains everything, there's a Google document. An outsider looks at it and he'll think it's nuts and worthy a few jokes.
If that's directed at me, I think I've made it clear many times over that I have no problem with people not liking it. I just had long civilized discussion about it right here. What Sterling (not me) calls infantile and what so many writers are rolling their eyes at is the angry campaign of activism against it, which is completely weird.
I suspect that the activism reflects not only ME3's ending but also how people feel about Origin, lack of sales, and DLC prices. If you're going to avoid the standard industry practices of making your games available on multiple chanels and making bundles/sales/complete edition etc. available, you should expect to have to meet a VERY high standard.
People will put up with that stuff for the right product (you could argue that Blizzard is similar in that their stuff isn't on Steam either), but you're treading a tightrope if you choose to go that route.
Me and every other stable adult with enough interest in the game that I had to find out what the uproar was about. I may well be in the minority in that I liked the ending, I don't know, but I certainly am not in the minority in my views on the "retake Mass Effect" campaigning and the widespread, inflated, over-the-top criticism.
Personally, I do feel that the fan community didn't give itself enough to time to come to terms with the game. People played through it within a couple of days, someone started to shout, others joined, and now anyone who finishes the game with any misgivings about the ending and goes to read what others think will be inundated by the whole thing - that is if they weren't already predisposed to hating it before they got there just because it has now become an objective fact that it sucks worse than anyone could have imagined.
I'm happy to be in the minority about this, if that's the case. I thought the ending was natural enough and I'm not at all easy to please usually. I just think the community reaction is a shame given that they are great games and that the trilogy is kind of a historic accomplishment.
I've thought more about the ending. I chose 'green' ending as frankly I thought it was the most high concept sci fi to go with the 2001 vibe. Then I watched the indoctrination video. Now part of me wishes I had done the red ending. I mean what if it didn't kill all synthetics?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
I suspect that the activism reflects not only ME3's ending but also how people feel about Origin, lack of sales, and DLC prices. If you're going to avoid the standard industry practices of making your games available on multiple chanels and making bundles/sales/complete edition etc. available, you should expect to have to meet a VERY high standard.
People will put up with that stuff for the right product (you could argue that Blizzard is similar in that their stuff isn't on Steam either), but you're treading a tightrope if you choose to go that route.
Yeah, you're right, and we already saw the anti-Bioware backlash during Dragon Age 2, with (the same) people bombing Metacritic with 20% reviews much like they do now with ME3. Some small incident of someone getting locked out of their game because of a forum post got inflated, and so on. There was some gay stuff, some writer got harrassed online. And the day-one DLC that already had activists campaigning against Bioware before the game was out. And then there was the final ME book that was genuinely incompetent and written by someone who didn't know the universe and didn't care enough to do his homework before writing it. They just haven't had any PR victories lately.
So there was already a significant amount of ill will towards Bioware building. But that just makes me more suspicious about some of the more strident criticism of ME3 that I see. I don't trust this kind of group sentiment.
And it's absolutely true that Bioware is suffering from guilt by association to EA. A standard view is that EA has ruined Bioware.
Getting the game going was a chore, once again. Sign on Origin, sign on some confusingly designed community website to get one DLC, search for 25 minutes where the hell you can actually purchase the From Ashes DLC on Origin, pay through PayPal, notice that you have been charged but nothing's happening, go online to see what's going on, waste your time until 40 minutes later you go back to the Origin and notice that you have just been added 800 Bioware points with no notification of any kind, spend those ####ing points to buy the DLC - and launch and then get stuck for another 20 minutes (at least) because Origin appears to updating either itself or the game, again with no notification of any kind, and you don't want to pull the plug on it before it's done. I'm sure there was more.
It always feels like you're jumping through hoops to get a Bioware/EA game working. A pirate has none of those problems.
