Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Since, once again this is the crux of your argument, I'll repeat myself: don't care.
No it wasn't, I was addressing the logical pitfall of your statement, and you actively and completely ignored and did not respond in any way to anything else I talked about.
Like this whole section.
Spoiler:
Vaktathi wrote:Ok, lets go back to the direct narrative once again. The fact that the ending plays out with largely no regards to your previous choices or decisions (and is pretty much entirely simply based on volume of content completion of the last leg of the trilogy) is extremely disconnecting, particularly in that they only affect the different buttons you get to push. The game's ultimate ending is entirely disconnected from the narrative of the rest of the game, and your option to control the reapers or synthesize a new paradigm is dependent on...how big a fleet you bring to earth? And that this is largely determined simply by a certain level of ME3 content completion and has nothing to do with *how* you accomplish any of that? That's an issue.
You can fundamentally disprove the Reapers logic by negotiating peace between the Geth and the Quarrians or not but the ending doesn't change You can doom the Krogan to slow death or not, doesn't change how the end plays out. You can save the Rachni or not, doesn't change how the game ends. Your encounter with the Illusive Man has no effect on how the game ends. The survival and makeup of the Galactic Council is utterly irrelevant to the game's outcome. Bringing the Batarians back into the fold changes nothing. The fate of the Shadow Broker changes nothing. At best these things simply change the War Assets number slightly, and the *only* thing that changes is the buttons that you are allowed to push.
The platform scene is completely independent of the rest of trilogy beyond what doors you get the choice to open, and even that can be accomplished without anything from ME1 or ME2 playing into that and only completing certain parts of ME3, the choices and decisions being largely irrelevant. (in a game where the overriding narrative had always ostensibly relied heavily on player decisions).
This is of course also ignoring the awkwardness of the hamfisted in "readiness rating" dependent on playing multiplayer...
Lets put it in another perspective.
What made this ending work in Deus Ex was that your choice was the answer to a fundamental question that was continually asked throughout the entire story "How should society be governed?/how should civilization operate?" Through control of all-encompassing AI in the hands of a privileged secret cabal? by the people operating at local cooperative levels without AI or Cabals? Through a new paradigm with a new human/AI hybrid God?
Throughout the Mass Effect series, your goal is the stop the Reapers from obliterating and killing all existing sentient life in the galaxy, largely through military means. Even setting aside the absurdity of the circular logic their premise is built on, you aren't presented with the parallel of the above question as the central focus of the story until the very end of the last game, at which point the narrative shifts on a dime from "stop the reapers militarily" to "answer a god-like AI's philosophical quandary".
The idea of "Organics vs Synthetics" was not the core overriding narrative theme through the game, in fact, you spend a whole lot more time fighting organics than you do synthetics, and the synthetic threat comes almost exclusively as a result of the Reapers actions (including the Heretic Geth who otherwise were content to sit off not bothering anyone).
Thus, in Deus Ex you answer a question fundamental throughout the whole narrative, in ME3 the narrative snap-focuses to a narrow tangent line in the last 10 minutes, a tangent that was almost entirely a self-referencing problem with the opposing entity in the first place, and that you could fundamentally prove an unnecessary question by the the players actions, long before the question is ever directly put them (but doing so has no real effect either).
Ultimately, we started the discussion on why the ME3 ending was narratively disconnected from the rest of the ME trilogy story through direct parallels to the exact same scene in another game, direct hints to a different ending dropped in ME2 about a different ending, statements from the writer of the first two ME games that they were going towards a different ending originally, and the fact that nothing about the ultimate ending is dependent on any of the decisions made throughout the rest of the narrative only a certain level of content completion to unlock different buttons. There's a lot there to cause people to feel like the ME3 ending was inappropriate and disconnected relative to the rest of the trilogy's narrative and that there are reason for that feeling beyond just "well you're just complaining".
Melissia wrote:I'm bored of this conversation.
Probably because you keep ignoring most of it only to tell us how much you don't care about (as opposed to anything actually being wrong with) one particular argument.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/22 23:20:28
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Yodhrin wrote: Foreshadowing requires intent on the part of the writer.
No it doesn't. You only require some indication or forewarning of future events. And we got that.
Honestly at this point, I'm wondering if you guys are arguing in good faith, so I'm going to bow out before I piss the mods off again.
So you are saying that author 1 predicted author 2's story and foreshadowed for real, as in actually predicted the future?
No but it is possible that author 2 took some elements from author 1 and turned those elements into foreshadowing (retrospectively) of events that they were writing.
As narrative elements, it doesn't matter whether you planned the foreshadowing or not, if the link is there then it can be foreshadowing.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Yodhrin wrote: Foreshadowing requires intent on the part of the writer.
No it doesn't. You only require some indication or forewarning of future events. And we got that.
Honestly at this point, I'm wondering if you guys are arguing in good faith, so I'm going to bow out before I piss the mods off again.
So you are saying that author 1 predicted author 2's story and foreshadowed for real, as in actually predicted the future?
No but it is possible that author 2 took some elements from author 1 and turned those elements into foreshadowing (retrospectively) of events that they were writing.
As narrative elements, it doesn't matter whether you planned the foreshadowing or not, if the link is there then it can be foreshadowing.
True it can work backwards, but I thought the initial argument was "I saw these things coming from the first game." That is the bit that is wrong.
True it can work backwards, but I thought the initial argument was "I saw these things coming from the first game." That is the bit that is wrong.
I wouldn't say it is wrong, per se. Different people will see different things as foreshadowing or read into what a character does or says in a different way. So it is possible that Melissia did see certain elements in the first game and took them to mean things other than what the initial author intended. In this sense, if what Melissia interpreted from the first game had more in common with the elements in ME3 than what the initial author had intended (ie Dark Matter plot), then it would be a valid viewpoint to say that these elements were hinted at in previous games.
Like a lot of art, peoples opinions will depend heavily on their own personal interpretations and points of view.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/22 23:37:30
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Yodhrin wrote: Foreshadowing requires intent on the part of the writer.
No it doesn't. You only require some indication or forewarning of future events. And we got that.
Honestly at this point, I'm wondering if you guys are arguing in good faith, so I'm going to bow out before I piss the mods off again.
[Edited to tone my comment down, I overreacted].
Not arguing in good faith? That's exactly how I'd describe your contributions to the discussion, so that's rather hypocritical of you to complain about. Only one person has been moderated here.
True it can work backwards, but I thought the initial argument was "I saw these things coming from the first game." That is the bit that is wrong.
I wouldn't say it is wrong, per se. Different people will see different things as foreshadowing or read into what a character does or says in a different way. So it is possible that Melissia did see certain elements in the first game and took them to mean things other than what the initial author intended. In this sense, if what Melissia interpreted from the first game had more in common with the elements in ME3 than what the initial author had intended (ie Dark Matter plot), then it would be a valid viewpoint to say that these elements were hinted at in previous games.
Like a lot of art, peoples opinions will depend heavily on their own personal interpretations and points of view.
So the Indoctrination Theory is equally valid?
The oily black shadow hallucinations, whispering voices and eery dreams...they're all listed in the Codex as symptoms of indoctrination. Is it a coincidence that a variation of the Destroy ending (high EMS) has Shepard apparently breathing/waking up, buried under rubble?
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/06/23 15:27:30
Coincidence? I don't believe that's a coincidence at all, as I'm under the impression that the "Shepard lives" ending is due (in part) to high Paragon status.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Psienesis wrote: Coincidence? I don't believe that's a coincidence at all, as I'm under the impression that the "Shepard lives" ending is due (in part) to high Paragon status.
No, it's purely connected to galactic readiness and EMS.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Psienesis wrote: Coincidence? I don't believe that's a coincidence at all, as I'm under the impression that the "Shepard lives" ending is due (in part) to high Paragon status.
No, it's purely connected to galactic readiness and EMS.
And the Destroy Ending.
Staying true to Shepard's original mission, achieving what she set out to do long ago on Eden Prime: destroy the Reapers, save the galaxy. Not falling prey to Indoctrination (Synthesis) or the temptation to seize power and become a God (Control).
Can you tell which ending I chose yet?
For what its worth, I did enjoy Mass Effect 3 overall. I just didn't think it was a fitting ending to the trilogy. Too many plot holes and internal inconsistencies (if canonically Shepard is not indoctrinated, in the process of indoctrination and is somehow completely immune to indoctrination, then why the feth did the writers have her suffer the symptoms of Indoctrination as described in the games' in game lore Codex???). And as Vaktathi said, the overall storyline of the trilogy went on an abrupt tangent when the writer was replaced.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/06/23 22:24:24
Psienesis wrote: Coincidence? I don't believe that's a coincidence at all, as I'm under the impression that the "Shepard lives" ending is due (in part) to high Paragon status.
No, it's purely connected to galactic readiness and EMS.
And the Destroy Ending.
Staying true to Shepard's original mission, achieving what she set out to do long ago on Eden Prime: destroy the Reapers, save the galaxy. Not falling prey to Indoctrination (Synthesis) or the temptation to seize power and become a God (Control).
Can you tell which ending I chose yet?
Getting the gist, yeah
I always thought Destroy was the best. Yes it did mean sacrificing the Geth, which is sad. The Geth joined with everyone else, however, fully understanding that it could mean their total destruction. In a choice between the Geth dying so that others might live and everyone being forcibly changed on a genetic level... Well, the loss of one race is the smaller price to pay.
(My Shepard was never going to try to control the Reapers. What evidence does she have that she actually could?)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/23 22:26:47
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
See, I'm not entirely we can really trust any of the endings. Given that Shepard was experiencing the symptoms of Indoctrination, its reasonable to posit that theres a degree of "Unreliable Narrator".
Melissia chooses to subjectively interpret post-hoc the first two games as foreshadowing the ME3 ending written by writer #2 (Crucible) despite all the evidence to the contrary that those games were written with the Dark Matter thingy ending in mind.
I choose to subjectively interpret the ME3 as Indoctrination. It has about as much evidence and "foreshadowing" as the Crucible did.
If the Indoctrination Theory is absolutely 100% not true, Shepard is somehow immune to Indoctrination and the replacement writer didn't want to give the impression that it might have credibility, then it was bad writing. Its as if the writer forgot that in game Lore had already established certain things as symptoms - oily black shadows, whispering voices, hallucinations and dreams - and just chose to throw them for dramatic effect, ignorant of their signifiance.
And Melissia referenced Tolkien and said something about "Intent isn't important". Yes, its true that when he wrote his first stories, in particular the Hobbit, he did not intend at the time to create an entire universe. He did not intend or plan the ending of the LOTR from the very beginning. But he didn't leave the original books intact. As the Middle Earth universe grew, he went back and revised and retconned earlier books to remove plot holes and internal inconsistencies to bring them in line with later books, so that the entire series made sense.
That is something that Mass Effect sorely needs. The original 2 games were written with ending A in mind, but then the writer was replaced and his successor went with a tangential ending B instead. That leaves a large degree of plot holes and foreshadowing in the first two games pointing to an ending that was cut.
Same thing with GRRM (Game of Thrones) and the R+L=J thing. Its been so heavily foreshadowed, that for it to not be true would be to render large parts of his writing nonsensical.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyway, back on topic.
This Mass Effect Andromeda. Its set in a new galaxy right? With a Wild West vibe? Earth is saved, the Reapers are defeated and the galaxy is at peace; so humanity is now reaching out and exploring the rest of the universe? That seems like it might be inspired in part by Wild West in Space stories, like Firefly, and Stargate Universe (in terms of isolation, being on the frontier beyond the edge of known space). Those are two shows I loved. And both were cancelled far too early.
If thats the general theme of the game, then I revise my first impression of the trailer. I like it! Space Cowboys in Space.
Andromeda: The Final Frontier.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/06/23 22:51:17
Same thing with GRRM (Game of Thrones) and theR+L=J thing. Its been so heavily foreshadowed, that it to not be true would be to render large parts of his writing nonsensical.
It's... um.... probably not true.
This Mass Effect Andromeda. Its set in a new galaxy right? With a Wild West vibe? Earth is saved, the Reapers are defeated and the galaxy is at peace; so humanity is now reaching out and exploring the rest of the universe? That seems like it might be inspired in part by Wild West in Space stories, like Firefly, and Stargate Universe (in terms of isolation, being on the frontier beyond the edge of known space). Those are two shows I loved. And both were cancelled far too early.
Yes. Yes. Maybe. Maybe. Probably not. Maybe.
That is to say, Andromeda might be concurrent to the stories being told in the original trilogy, but be so far away (another galaxy is pretty freakin' far) that what goes on back in the Milky Way just isn't at all relevant. At least, not yet.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Psienesis wrote: News flash: Everything dies. This is the natural end of all life. That you thought you had a real choice in your actions is one of the greatest jokes of existence. Free will? Your mind is a computer that functions on chemical reactions. Your sense of free will is an illusion. You are, in fact, simply reacting based on primate evolutionary cues.
"The 75mm gun is firing. The 37mm gun is firing, but is traversed round the wrong way. The Browning is jammed. I am saying "Driver, advance." and the driver, who can't hear me, is reversing. And as I look over the top of the turret and see twelve enemy tanks fifty yards away, someone hands me a cheese sandwich."
Psienesis wrote: News flash: Everything dies. This is the natural end of all life. That you thought you had a real choice in your actions is one of the greatest jokes of existence. Free will? Your mind is a computer that functions on chemical reactions. Your sense of free will is an illusion. You are, in fact, simply reacting based on primate evolutionary cues.
I would agree with the premise if we lived to be twenty, as it stands I think just because we will eventually die, doesnt mean we dont have any "real" choice, because standing on a landmine at 17 sucks a lot more than dying in your sleep at 107.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
Ravenous D wrote: 40K is like a beloved grandparent that is slowly falling into dementia and the rest of the family is in denial about how bad it is.
squidhills wrote: GW is scared of girls. Why do you think they have so much trouble sculpting attractive female models? Because girls have cooties and the staff at GW don't like looking at them for too long because it makes them feel funny in their naughty place.
Trailer looks... interesting. Part of me's thinking it won't feel as strong as the first three games story - wise, but it looks like they're trying a few new things, which is getting my hopes up. It looks like they might try varying up the planets a bit, which also sounds kind of cool in my opinion.
Faithful... Enlightened... Ambitious... Brethren... WE NEED A NEW DRIVER! THIS ONE IS DEAD!
2000 l 
2000 l 
2000 l 
1500 l 
1000 l 
1000 l 
Blood Ravens (using Ravenguard CT) 1500 l 
1500 l
Faithful... Enlightened... Ambitious... Brethren... WE NEED A NEW DRIVER! THIS ONE IS DEAD!