|
Post by Mister Buch on May 10, 2012 0:04:59 GMT 1
[Posts moved from 'Felicitations' thread.]
I'm the one guy on Earth who likes the ending. The doctors say it's Stockholm syndrome or something, I dunno.
But seriously, I love the bit with the Ghost Child. I think it's a clever thematic thing - by showing the creator of the Reapers and the fact that he was only ending an even older 'cycle' there are all kinds of fascinating suggestions about the series-long themes of Gods / creators, inevitable revolution and Promethean punishment... and the enormity of the cosmos.... ehhh, just me. xD
I don't like the lack of choice, confusing vagueness or the random plot holes, though!
EDIT: Or the bit where the Normandy crashes and your guys don't go home.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on May 10, 2012 0:50:17 GMT 1
Exactly. Well put.
|
|
|
Post by Knightfall on May 10, 2012 1:07:27 GMT 1
I keep going back and forth on the ending. I think if this is genuinely the ending BioWare set out to make, then I can live with it. But if it was the product of creative differences and ensuring they could release more DLC, then I don't care for it.
Judging by how at least one of the writers (one of the few who have been with the series since the beginning) came out against it tells me something fishy went on at the end of the production, which still has me looking at the ending suspiciously.
Suspiciously.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on May 10, 2012 1:09:54 GMT 1
And I guess no matter how much I defend it, I can't deny that my first reaction at the end of the game was to call you and ask 'what the fuck' was up with the ending. So.
|
|
|
Post by Knightfall on May 10, 2012 1:13:02 GMT 1
That was pretty much my reaction, too. I think we both hated it, liked it, hated it, liked it, etc. I'm pretty indifferent about it at this point, but I'd like to know what really happened behind the scenes there.
It's just... weird. I think after all the superb moments throughout the game, I wasn't expecting to be blindsided quite like that.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on May 10, 2012 1:18:24 GMT 1
Yeahhhhh. Actually come to think of it, I'm pretty sure my exact words were: "I think I like it. But what the fuck just happened?" And then three hours of sheer shock. Now the shock is over, and I'm pretty sure I know what the fuck happened, but yeah.
Interesting what you said aboutnot expecting it. Maybe the big difference between us is that I had been warned by everyone, and I was expecting the absolute worst.
|
|
Aerecura
Commander
Calliope Queen
Posts: 244
|
Post by Aerecura on May 10, 2012 3:07:40 GMT 1
I'm the one guy on Earth who likes the ending. The doctors say it's Stockholm syndrome or something, I dunno. But seriously, I love the bit with the Ghost Child. I think it's a clever thematic thing - by showing the creator of the Reapers and the fact that he was only ending an even older 'cycle' there are all kinds of fascinating suggestions about the series-long themes of Gods / creators, inevitable revolution and Promethean punishment... and the enormity of the cosmos.... ehhh, just me. xD I don't like the lack of choice, confusing vagueness or the random plot holes, though! EDIT: Or the bit where the Normandy crashes and your guys don't go home. The thing is that I actually liked the concept of the Ghost Child standing for these mythical forces. Shepard's story is larger-than-life anyway, so I don't mind them introducing that sort of idea. My problem is with how they handled it. The logic just didn't jive for me - I felt like I got introduced to an entirely new character fives minutes before game over, and I hate it when that happens. Why is the Ghost Child's explanation so nonsensical? Why are the mass relays blown up in each ending? Why does Shepard only live if you destroy the Reapers (isn't that like rewarding the Renegade choice, although calling it the Renegade choice is simplifying things a bit)? And for the love of Christ, what happens to your crew? Do Tali and Garrus breed a new super-race of adorable spiky mask-breathers on the mystery planet? (Screw biology and all...) I also wasn't expecting the ending. I hadn't spoiled it for myself, but I suspected Shepard was going to die. However, the ending made me feel like her death just...didn't hold much meaning.
|
|
|
Post by Tillian Panthesis on May 10, 2012 4:26:56 GMT 1
I wish I have that "It raises too many questions" clip on me, but I'm on my iPhone right now. So... Glovar!
Honestly, considering how mind screw this ending is and the questionable elements behind the scene (speculating!), it's safe to say its not worth to bother with it. Just pretend the whole thing never happen. The more you think about this, the more hazarded it causes your health. Trust me, you better off this way and bluntly admit the Bioware fucked it up big time.
|
|
|
Post by lieden on May 10, 2012 5:14:18 GMT 1
Argh! Come on, guys, the ending was sloppy! I could live with whatever concepts they went for (it's not as if the rest of the ME trilogy wasn't rife with clichés). But this was just sub-par.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on May 10, 2012 12:31:18 GMT 1
Well I got a few people to humour me that time. I like it. It's sloppy, sure. I don't love it. But the conversation with the Catalyst - I'm all in favour of that. Anyway, we seem to have gone way off topic. And I seem to be arguing something I swore I wouldn't argue about again. xD
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on May 10, 2012 12:51:04 GMT 1
*must...resist...getting into ...it...again*
DOH!
The catalyst was the right thing in the wrong game. Way more than Starchild I had a problem with the Crucible. The Crucible was the very essence of what Hitchcock coined as a MacGuffin. The whole game is a Macguffin hunt as a result. Without the Crucible, there is no Starchild therefore the Crucible is the problem.
The only proper fix from a narrative standpoint is to remake the game. Here's a plothole no one talks about. Why did the Reapers leave the Citadel alone? The Citadel has the keys to the engine of the Galaxy the relay network. Honestly did Casey Hudson and well everyone (including me for a bit) forget that Vigil said that the Reapers shut down the relays from the Citadel so that the galaxy was isolated? Sovereign was trying to manually interface with the Citadel to fix it in ME 1, after all the Protheans only buggered with the keepers not the Citadel itself. On that note the victory fleet should have been paralyzed after the Citadel was moved to Earth.
As the Citadel was the nexus of control for the Galaxy from both the Reaper and organic standpoint it makes better narrative sense to have the main battle be there. And since the Reaper's main advantage had always been surprise and hitting cluster by cluster with overwhelming force, I see little reason to not have the Reaper's overall power been vastly overstated throughout. What if the real twist was that they were weaker than advertised and could only win by taking Galaxy piecemeal the way they always had? What if Cerberus wasn't in the game at all?
There was a lot about the last act that really broke the lore, but one of the bigger sins was shifting the focus from the Citadel to the homeworlds. That was NOT how the Reapers operated. We KNOW this. Narratively the game is broken because of this.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on May 10, 2012 12:59:17 GMT 1
One thing - technically the main battle IS at the Citadel. It's in Earth's orbit, the whole London section is an attempt to get onboard, and it's where you strike the final blow and end the game.
But yeah, good point about them not attacking the Citadel first. I think Earth (since they were unable to jump directly to the Citadel) was simply on their way, or they went out of spite / fear of humans.
But the Citadel definitely should have been their next stop - and yes the moment the Citadel arrived on Earth they should have invaded it..... you're right!
I certainly don't think that or having a macguffin 'broke' the lore, though. It's a story about giant robots. You're allowed a macguffin and a plot hole here and there. See The Avengers.
And more than that - moving the main battle to Earth was no sin. The first game had its battle at the Citadel - to repeat it would have been dull and disappointing. To set it on Earth itself is a hundred times more satisfying - it's where this chapter starts, it's thematically revelant ---- and it's Earth. We've never been there in these games but always wanted to.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on May 10, 2012 14:00:21 GMT 1
Problem is that it does do serious harm to the lore. Again, I'm going back to Vigil, still our best source for how the Protheans fell. When the reapers invaded, they came in through the Citadel, used the Citadel to disable the relay network for non Reapers then conquered the galaxy piecemeal at their leisure. Everything Sovereign was working towards in ME 1 was simply to get to the Citadel so he could interface directly with the structure so he could manually do what the keepers were no longer doing. Let the Reapers in and disable the relay network. This means the relay network could still be hijacked from the Citadel.
As soon as the Citadel fell in ME 3 it should have been impossible for the victory fleet to get into position to attack. Hence my assertion that the lore is broken. It might have been dull, but the central iconic location of Mass Effect was not Earth, but the Citadel. In terms of chess the Citadel is the King. Lose the king, and lose the game. This is as true for the Reapers as it is for the organics. Frankly I'm kind of disgusted that there are these long protracted fights for places like the Hanar and Elcor homeworld, (neither very strong races militarily) but the fall of the Citadel is handwaved in with a single throwaway line as if the council suddenly stopped bothering to care about their capital and left...or something. I mean there was a large fleet and larger infantry there. The Cerberus raid sure as hell woke the council up.
And once in the Citadel the only living things there are Anderson, Shepard, TIM and the Keepers? Not one cannibal to for security? Not even a husk? And blank walls moving conveniently to let you through to the control room? There is quite a lot of wrong going on here.
Sorry, just finished the game for the second time a couple of nights ago.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on May 10, 2012 14:20:19 GMT 1
I hugely disagree. Both games of the other two games have plot holes much bigger than this. ME2 is so full of holes that it's almost incompatible with the other two. They don't 'break' or 'ruin' the lore.
I think you're exaggerating a lot here. That... isn't meant to be as patronising as it sounds. For instance, the doors open autmatically in the endgame. Well yeah, but you could argue that for every room in every game. Every enemy Shepard ever made could have locked the doors.
I give up. I like the ending. (And I love the game.)
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on May 10, 2012 14:38:32 GMT 1
I hugely disagree. Both games of the other two games have plot holes much bigger than this. ME2 is so full of holes that it's almost incompatible with the other two. They don't 'break' or 'ruin' the lore. I think you're exaggerating a lot here. That... isn't meant to be as patronising as it sounds. For instance, the doors open autmatically in the endgame. Well yeah, but you could argue that for every room in every game. Every enemy Shepard ever made could have locked the doors. I give up. I like the ending. (And I love the game.) I love the game too, but you are reaching a bit more than me here. I've expounded on the main plot hole of ME 2 already. Shepard's death and resurrection. There really was not any other of any serious value there. We had to work with that, and overall the integrity of the plot was maintained within the flex of the new rules. They made an attempt to explain and justify it. It was a crap setup and explanation but there was effort. In the endgame of ME 3 we have a suddenly teleporting Citadel, inability of the Reapers to disable the Relays and no security whatsoever inside the bloody place once you get there. People who believe in indoctrination theory have a point about the whole dreamlike quality there. But it is too incompatible with everything else to be strictly true. Except that clearly wasn't a door in the Citadel, but a wall that opened up like in Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves. Other doors were lockable in Me 1, 2 and 3, they had to be bypassed and could be, but they were still clearly doors. I just find it profoundly weird that a centrally important control panel is located literally down the hall from a charnal pit. I still miss that hacking and decryption was lost between 1 and 2. Me 1 despite some of it's warts was fairly tightly written. It also was a MacGuffin hunt but much more cleverly disguised. Most games are in fact MacGuffin hunts. The big key element is in the writer's ability to disguise it from the player. Bah! We have been down this on some level or another but please don't mistake my disdain for the final act for dislike of the game. Far from it. There are big shoes for anyone else this year to fill if they want GoTY
|
|