Author Topic: Mass Effect 3: You Invaded the Wong Planet [SPOILERS]  (Read 96136 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ace

  • Truth of Babel
  • 212
    • http://www.lordofrigel.com
Re: Mass Effect 3: You Invaded the Wong Planet [SPOILERS]
That's where the suicide mission was well done, it could be grimdark or "WE ALL SURVIVED! YAYS! POWAH OF LOVE!" depending on the effort you spent. From Bioware's stats it's pretty clear that most people lost a lot of people on the suicide mission and so on average it played out right.

The war assets really needed to behave that way, with a few bits of Shepard radioing whether it'd be better to use the biotic squad, Krogan, or Geth Primes for some things. Although sure Anderson was supposed to be running the war effort, they're there because of Shepard and it would have been nice for them to ask Shepard for final field approval after being given Anderson's options.

Hell, even if it was the same outcome and just "pick what cutscene" during scene swaps in the London bit it would have felt nice.
Ace
Self-plagiarism is style.
-Alfred Hitchcock

 

Offline newman

  • 211
Re: Mass Effect 3: You Invaded the Wong Planet [SPOILERS]
That's pretty much my gripe with it, well said. If you're making a trilogy all built on player choice then I expect endings that reflect those. But I'm repeating sentiments that have been rehashed to death, and when I find myself in agreement with the majority it's time to withdraw for some quiet introspection :P
You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in ruttin' command here! - Jayne Cobb

 

Offline achtung

  • Friendly Neighborhood Mirror Guy
  • 210
  • ****in' Ace
    • Freespacemods.net
Re: Mass Effect 3: You Invaded the Wong Planet [SPOILERS]
The BSN sure knows how to stick it to bioware:

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10658883
FreeSpaceMods.net | FatHax | ??????
In the wise words of Charles de Gaulle, "China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese."

Formerly known as Swantz

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Mass Effect 3: You Invaded the Wong Planet [SPOILERS]
The BSN sure knows how to stick it to bioware:

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10658883

**** I was just posting that!

 

Offline TrashMan

  • T-tower Avenger. srsly.
  • 213
  • God-Emperor of your kind!
    • FLAMES OF WAR
Re: Mass Effect 3: You Invaded the Wong Planet [SPOILERS]
Yea that part makes no sense. Hell I'd have been happier with the Joker and the Normandy making the ultimate sacrifice in the battle. I still wouldn't be happy because frankly, I'm sick and tired of all the fashionable trendy grimdark, but at least it would have made some sense. But I'm also tired of listening to the "we don't want a happy ending just one that makes sense" argument too. I agree that a grimdark ending that made sense would have been better, yes, but if I've made sure to make all the right choices in 3 games over 5 years then damn it yes, I want a happy ending and I don't care if it's not cool or edgy these days. If I want to get depressed I'll watch the news, not play a space opera game.

I'm the opposite. If I want happy sunshine bunnies, ther'es palynety of kiddy cartoons I can watch.

What *I* want is for my Shepard to try his best and still fail to get the super-happy ending. And since Shep is smart and caring, the only way for that to happen is if there is no happy neding. If there was, Shep would achieve it. Not to menion that such a "perfect" completely undermines the reapers as a threat. It turns them into a joke even more than they already are. The tone of the ending as it is fits perfectly.

Player choices do matter. Just no so much in the final decision. And there is no "but they should".
Nobody dies as a virgin - the life ****s us all!

You're a wrongularity from which no right can escape!

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Mass Effect 3: You Invaded the Wong Planet [SPOILERS]
Ok Trash but that's like your opinion dude ;).

The problem is not the GRIMDARK tone of it. Considering the threat of the Reapers, it is appropriate. The bigger problem relies in the tonal shift, as far as I can gather. People are speaking about how the ending is actually a defeat, that Shep concedes to the reaper master and accepts his logic and his three solutions. The whole 2.95 parts of the trilogy were about how shep and co. were fighting against "inevitability", dust against "cosmic wind", how they were fighting against fatalism, a sort of nihilism. And to what? To end up caving to the devil maskeraded as an innocent victim's logic. That's a kind of betrayal to the whole series.

I mean, I wouldn't have mind having a GRIMDARK ending if at least there was a shout against this nihilism. Instead we have a faint "but but that's not nice of you!" from Shep. I mean wtf. Even Braveheart had a better ending than Mass Effect 3. That whole movie was popcorn hilarious material, but at least the grimdark ending where the hero is butchered by the King's whim is toned correctly by both picturing the evil dood's plans as failures (the princess having Gibson's son in her belly) and his infamous shout of freedom. Heck I don't know why my brain came up with that frakkin example, but I think it's not a bad one.

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Mass Effect 3: You Invaded the Wong Planet [SPOILERS]


LOL

 

Offline TrashMan

  • T-tower Avenger. srsly.
  • 213
  • God-Emperor of your kind!
    • FLAMES OF WAR
Re: Mass Effect 3: You Invaded the Wong Planet [SPOILERS]
Ok Trash but that's like your opinion dude ;).

Just as his is his. And yours is yours.
Shocking, I know!

But just goes to show you that "what would be a better ending" or "what would be a better game" are both highly debatable. change X might make some people happy, but it will also make some people mad. You can't win. It is inevitable. Like dust strugling against comsmic winds. :P


Quote
The problem is not the GRIMDARK tone of it. Considering the threat of the Reapers, it is appropriate. The bigger problem relies in the tonal shift, as far as I can gather. People are speaking about how the ending is actually a defeat, that Shep concedes to the reaper master and accepts his logic and his three solutions. The whole 2.95 parts of the trilogy were about how shep and co. were fighting against "inevitability", dust against "cosmic wind", how they were fighting against fatalism, a sort of nihilism. And to what? To end up caving to the devil maskeraded as an innocent victim's logic. That's a kind of betrayal to the whole series.

Tonal shift? Very debatable. Peopel will have different ideas what the teon is or if the tonal shift is appropriate. After all, hte galactic apocalypse is coming. IF that is not a casue for a tonalshift, nothing is.

And no, the ending is not a defeat. The cycle is broken no matter what. It is "defeat" to those who don't like any of hte 3 optiosn and want their own vision of the ending. Shep not having a 4th option? Big deal. Shep having to accept that he can't always find a perfect solution? Again, big deal!
Since when does he protagonist have to be alwas right? Since when must the antagonist be always wrong? Or are the players ego's so fragile that tehy cannot stand the idea the Shep can't punch out the reapers?

What you say is not betraly..not in that sense anyway.
Nobody dies as a virgin - the life ****s us all!

You're a wrongularity from which no right can escape!

 
Re: Mass Effect 3: You Invaded the Wong Planet [SPOILERS]
Even Braveheart had a better ending than Mass Effect 3. That whole movie was popcorn hilarious material, but at least the grimdark ending where the hero is butchered by the King's whim is toned correctly by both picturing the evil dood's plans as failures (the princess having Gibson's son in her belly)
Something similar, e.g. Shepard banging the kid's mum and then rubbing it in his face, sure would've improved the ME3's ending...
Anyway, I agree partially with what you're saying about the concession to nihilism and all the other bad -isms, but you could say that the red ending is a rejection of the Reapers' terms. Of course, the fact that it includes the gethocide makes it unpalatable, but the developers certainly are entitled to try to implement their vision of Hard Choices, even if brute force artificial obstacles are the only way they know how to do it.

Btw. another thing I find interesting about the ending, in particular about the revelation of the Reapers' true purpose, is how badly it fits in what's been established about them in the rest of the trilogy. The most irritating is of course the claim that their purpose is incomprehensible, while the only incomprehensible thing about it is it's shear stupidity. But even if a periodic mas liquefaction was the only way to stop the possible extermination of all other life by a single synthetic race, it still wouldn't fit the rest of the series, where the Reapers are constantly being portrayed as mean villains, and not as a methodological solution. But I guess that's what you get when you write two games without thinking what the ending is going to be.
The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Mass Effect 3: You Invaded the Wong Planet [SPOILERS]

LOL

And where is that supposed to be from?
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Mass Effect 3: You Invaded the Wong Planet [SPOILERS]

LOL

And where is that supposed to be from?

deviantart+photoshop. Nice trolling though, a pity that was too easy to track it.

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Mass Effect 3: You Invaded the Wong Planet [SPOILERS]
Even Braveheart had a better ending than Mass Effect 3. That whole movie was popcorn hilarious material, but at least the grimdark ending where the hero is butchered by the King's whim is toned correctly by both picturing the evil dood's plans as failures (the princess having Gibson's son in her belly)
Something similar, e.g. Shepard banging the kid's mum and then rubbing it in his face, sure would've improved the ME3's ending...
Anyway, I agree partially with what you're saying about the concession to nihilism and all the other bad -isms, but you could say that the red ending is a rejection of the Reapers' terms. Of course, the fact that it includes the gethocide makes it unpalatable, but the developers certainly are entitled to try to implement their vision of Hard Choices, even if brute force artificial obstacles are the only way they know how to do it.

I kinda envisioned the ending in a different form. If we are to maintain the choices at the end (no matter how ridiculous the synthesis ending is but whatevah), I'd rather have just one machine (not this Monty Hall shenanigan), with the choice of bringing SYNTHESIS as paragon, and CONTROL as renegade. The kid would have given you these two choices. You could choose these two and abide to the kids' logic. However, there would remain a third hypothesis, the DESTROY one, which would be "found" by Shepard alone "Hey, I get ya kid, but what happens if I blow this sh*t right out of the blue?" "NOOOO Don't do it, thousands of civilizations will perish FOREVER into oblivion! All our efforts will have been for nothing!", and then shep just shoots the damn machine while saying "Your time is over, Reapers. GET OFF MAH LAWN". Renegade interrupt?

Quote
Btw. another thing I find interesting about the ending, in particular about the revelation of the Reapers' true purpose, is how badly it fits in what's been established about them in the rest of the trilogy. The most irritating is of course the claim that their purpose is incomprehensible, while the only incomprehensible thing about it is it's shear stupidity. But even if a periodic mas liquefaction was the only way to stop the possible extermination of all other life by a single synthetic race, it still wouldn't fit the rest of the series, where the Reapers are constantly being portrayed as mean villains, and not as a methodological solution. But I guess that's what you get when you write two games without thinking what the ending is going to be.

The reapers were always designed as having an ulterior "good" goal. Drew's first idea was to have it somewhat related with dark energy. And they are not incoherent at all.

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: Mass Effect 3: You Invaded the Wong Planet [SPOILERS]
We had to kill organic life to save it.

Nope, not incoherent.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

  

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Mass Effect 3: You Invaded the Wong Planet [SPOILERS]
We had to kill organic life to save it.

Nope, not incoherent.

That's pretty extreme commander. Actually that would be very incoherent. Gladly, that's not the ME3 plot. Nice try.

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: Mass Effect 3: You Invaded the Wong Planet [SPOILERS]
That's pretty extreme commander. Actually that would be very incoherent. Gladly, that's not the ME3 plot. Nice try.

And how, then, would you describe it? Hint: it will still not work. Batts and I already discussed this. If the Reapers are truly trying to save us from ourselves in their own way, the entire idea of them going into combat is ludicrous; they have already lost somewhere between four and twenty species for all eternity before you've finished the first hour of the game. (Sovereign and the "several" capital reapers lost in the Battle of Palaven.) They spent hundreds of years fighting the Protheans, the losses they must have taken, the species cast into oblivion, must number in the hundreds. What was the point, then, of saving them in the first place?

If every cycle costs them but one capital-class Reaper, they'll never break even. If every cycle costs them 1.anything, they will eventually run out. The ideas that have been presented about their scheme don't logically track. We may be doomed, but we have already won.

And things in the game occur that would put the lie to their theories about why we need saving from ourselves.

You might need to go reread the thread, we've already discussed this at length, it doesn't work.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Mass Effect 3: You Invaded the Wong Planet [SPOILERS]
That's pretty extreme commander. Actually that would be very incoherent. Gladly, that's not the ME3 plot. Nice try.

And how, then, would you describe it? Hint: it will still not work. Batts and I already discussed this. If the Reapers are truly trying to save us from ourselves in their own way, the entire idea of them going into combat is ludicrous; they have already lost somewhere between four and twenty species for all eternity before you've finished the first hour of the game. (Sovereign and the "several" capital reapers lost in the Battle of Palaven.) They spent hundreds of years fighting the Protheans, the losses they must have taken, the species cast into oblivion, must number in the hundreds. What was the point, then, of saving them in the first place?

Several assumptions that you are taking here that are not entirely corroborated by the game. The first assumption is that every race will be "awarded" by ascending to only one Reaper. They could ascend to more than one. The second assumption is that the kind of backlash we are witnessing in this war was prevalent throughout the previous cycles. There are multiple clues to hint that this was not the case at all. Normal cycles usually were broken with a quick attack over the Citadel, the breaking up of any hierarchy, division and conquest. Javik himself was pleasantly surprised to know Shep had "killed a Reaper", hinting that he himself in his own lifetime had never witnessed such an event (this was the dialogue I had, you can correct me if you find a counter to it).

Sovereign was killed because of an anomaly in the previous cycle, which made it possible for Shep and co. to stop the quick surprise attack from the Reapers. There was also a huge benefit to the findings of the Thanix Cannon, although I did not pay attention to how much exactly this was an advantage.

The Reapers were forced to a different war strategy this time around. There's also the issue of the Rachni wars having been started by Reapers' influence. There is this giant plot hole of what the hell were they thinking in leaving the galaxy alone for so long, but it is also probable that that war signed to the Reapers that this cycle was still "easy" enough, and perhaps it was still not time, let Sovvy do his thing.

Quote
If every cycle costs them but one capital-class Reaper, they'll never break even. If every cycle costs them 1.anything, they will eventually run out. The ideas that have been presented about their scheme don't logically track. We may be doomed, but we have already won.

Yes, but again the assumption that only one human reaper would be produced. And you are also assuming that most cycles would be as damaging to the Reapers just like this one. Logic dictates that actually, most cycles would have been fairly easy for the Reapers to cull.

Quote
And things in the game occur that would put the lie to their theories about why we need saving from ourselves.

The Geth vs Quarian does not falsify the Catalyst. If anything, it confirms it. The only way the organics had managed to make peace with the synthetics was because of the presence of the Reapers. If such a threat did not exist, the peace also wouldn't. We can discuss this further. Even if we take for granted that the Geth are all angels, it does not falsify the threat of tech singularity from other angles. Like foreshadowed by the Heretics themselves, by OverLord, by the Moon AI, etc., etc.

Quote
You might need to go reread the thread, we've already discussed this at length, it doesn't work.

Thanks, I'll happily oblige to your condescending advices. Oh wait, I had already read it.

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Mass Effect 3: You Invaded the Wong Planet [SPOILERS]

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Mass Effect 3: You Invaded the Wong Planet [SPOILERS]


Thanks for your feedback! We are listening!

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Mass Effect 3: You Invaded the Wong Planet [SPOILERS]
...

This thread is heading toward lock territory pretty fast.

Luis: "Logic dictates" no such thing. Narrative implies it, but that's a different beast. You have your theories, which are corroborated by ingame evidence, but so do Battuta and NGTM1R.

Until there's some more canon info, all we have is speculation. Do not try to impose your religionopinion onto others by calling the other guy's religionopinion stupid.

All three of you, I would ask you to keep it civil. I just know that that's futile, but I have to try anyway.
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Mass Effect 3: You Invaded the Wong Planet [SPOILERS]
Come on E, aren't you overreacting? Where was I mean? I was even acknowledging Trashman's opinions.

 I tried to express why I think NG's and Battuta's take on the matter might not apply well here, and perhaps I'm amazingly wrong, but in no way I said their opinions were "stupid". The most I did was to say that the meme "I created synthetics to kill organics so synthetics won't kill organics" is not the ME3 plot.

Really I am at a loss here. So I shouldn't have said "logic dictates". Fair enough. Is that lockable material here? Wow.