57139 réponses à ce sujet

[SS2Dante]

Dwailing wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...


The guide is a third party creation.  I'm sure they are given input and help from Bioware, but Prima saying Synthesis is the "best" ending is a guess and subjective. 

Didn't know that. I'm relieved. Thnaks for the correction !

And as @Fingertrip said, the Destroy Ending where Shepard breathes is actually more difficult to get.  You have to have an EMS over 4,000 or 5,000 depending on if you have "From Ashes" or not.  That means you MUST play some multiplayer to get that much EMS. 

Yeah, read it too. Nope, you don't have to play the MP. "There is always another way"
Bioware pissed me off pretty much with this thing. I don't like MP and I'll never play it (matter of taste). Mass Effect is a SP game above of all !!!

Got the best ending though...

Eh, I actually love the ME3 multiplayer.  You should try it some time, it is a lot of fun.  And as for being able to get the best ending without multiplayer, I'm beginning to wonder if the endings are like Halo 3's. (This was brought up earlier)  In Halo 3, after the post credits sequence, the game normally ends.  However, if you finish the game on legendary, you see the Forward Unto Dawn floating towards an unknown planet, the same planet that Halo 4 will take place on.  Maybe the endings are like this as well.  You don't HAVE to get to 4000 EMS in order for Shepard to survive, it's just that if you do that, you are assured of his survival.  I know there are probably a few issues with this, but I just thought I should put it back out there.

Edit: Just to clarify, I am assuming that you chose Destroy.

I theorised earlier that the game could even have two different "realities" simultaneously.


If you picked control or synthesis it's literal, and you win.

If you picked red it was an indoctrination attempt and you win.


Both of these can be real at the same time



As someone said to me earlier in the thread:

http://paulhorton.fi...reeves-whoa.jpg

(man wish I knew how to get images to show up)

[Uncle Jo]

Dwailing wrote...


Eh, I actually love the ME3 multiplayer.  You should try it some time, it is a lot of fun.  And as for being able to get the best ending without multiplayer, I'm beginning to wonder if the endings are like Halo 3's. (This was brought up earlier)  In Halo 3, after the post credits sequence, the game normally ends.  However, if you finish the game on legendary, you see the Forward Unto Dawn floating towards an unknown planet, the same planet that Halo 4 will take place on.  Maybe the endings are like this as well.  You don't HAVE to get to 4000 EMS in order for Shepard to survive, it's just that if you do that, you are assured of his survival.  I know there are probably a few issues with this, but I just thought I should put it back out there.

Edit: Just to clarify, I am assuming that you chose Destroy.

Yes sure. I chose destroy. No way I'm gonna buy the Star brat bull***t. Just too bad that wasn't a dialogue option before you shoot at the tank with the quote "See ya in hell suc**r !!"

And thanks for the explanation. But still, not being able to see Shep breathing in an already confusing ending and just assuming he's alive, it's a bit too much for my poor brain (or did I miss your point ?)

[Tr0n01d]

1776 : Declaration of independence and independence war.

[Uncle Jo]

SS2Dante wrote...


I theorised earlier that the game could even have two different "realities" simultaneously.


If you picked control or synthesis it's literal, and you win.

If you picked red it was an indoctrination attempt and you win.


Both of these can be real at the same time



As someone said to me earlier in the thread:

http://paulhorton.fi...reeves-whoa.jpg

(man wish I knew how to get images to show up)

Two "good" endings simultaneously ? That's interesting. I have to go to my soccer-training. I wish you still here when I come back

[Simon_Says]

SS2Dante wrote...

I theorised earlier that the game could even have two different "realities" simultaneously.


If you picked control or synthesis it's literal, and you win.

If you picked red it was an indoctrination attempt and you win.

Both of these can be real [u]at the same time

So basically Schrödinger's Gun?

[Rifneno]

Dwailing wrote...

OK, I think we've ALL occasionally gone overboard. However, in many cases Rifneno is only responding to the tone set by the jerk who comes in here and baselessly asserts that IT is not true without presenting any evidence. I've seen it with waldstr18. That guy was extremely disrespectful, and while I will not go out of my way to attack him myself, I cannot control when someone else responds to him in the same manner. To top it all off, he acts like a jerk, and then gets mad when someone else responds in kind. If you can't take what you're giving out, then you shouldn't behave like that. Additionally, I've always thought of Rifneno as being more sarcastic than anything else. Yeah, he's probably crossed a few lines, but like I said, I think we've all gotten frustrated with idiots who come in and say that IT is not true without actually presenting any evidence as to WHY they think it's not true.

I appreciate the defense. And yes, I've jumped the gun and snapped at some that didn't deserve it. Uncle Jo and EpyonX3 for instance. I have and do apologize for those misunderstandings. Which is what they were, misunderstandings on my part. People are constantly coming in here and spitting in our proverbial faces for having a different opinion. If I bother responding, it's not to wipe my face off and ask "Good sir, how have I offended you so?", it's to spit back in their face. Within reason of course. Snark and sarcasm are fun, downright flaming isn't. For the group of people that do spit in our faces, I make no apologies and really couldn't care less what anyone thinks (except moderators of course, but since they didn't do anything about the guy posting religious hate speech a few hundred pages back, I seriously doubt they care about sarcasm).

That said, anyone who thinks I'm a "fanatic" clearly isn't paying attention. I've never had, nor will I have, a problem with someone having a different opinion. I have a problem with them coming to the thread for people who believe IT and disrespecting us for it. I've always been clear on that. If someone finds me a fanatic (suspiciously close wording to a certain someone else I might add), that's their problem.

MegumiAzusa wrote...

You know the one geth picking up the gun and Shep then saying that it looks just like Legions gun was with high probability Legion itself?
It later just got more programs added to it's platform.

I'm not sure why so many people came to that conclusion. There really wasn't any clue besides the gun, and I'm sure there's plenty of that model of rifle.

[Eli Parker]

I'm replaying Mass Effect 3 and during the dream sequences I thought of a theory.

The shadows represent the souls of the fallen and/or the souls that depends on Shepard. The shadows tries to surround the child in order to save Shepard from the child and to try to stop Harbinger from taking over Shepard's mind.

This might have been said, and if so my bad.

[MaximizedAction]

Off-discussion but on topic:
So I just read Gamble's twitter discussion about Synthesis being the best ending acc. to him.

And once again I find myself at the much too common crossroads:
Is IT true or is this really just the face-value ending as-is?

I understand, that what Bioware says should be the law. After all, it's they're creation.
But then there's the in-game evidence for IT, that follows naturally and logically from the game. So they put the evidence (even if not necessarily for IT) that something's wrong. But comparing this to what Bioware keeps claiming as law seems not to coincide with the game.

So it comes down to simple logic vs. legitimate fallacies.

And I come full circle to three-weeks-ago - me telling Bioware: www.youtube.com/watch.

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 26 avril 2012 - 04:41 .

[Earthborn_Shepard]

Anyway, I found the perfect definition for what we have right now: http://tvtropes.org/...in/GainaxEnding

[SS2Dante]

Simon_Says wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

I theorised earlier that the game could even have two different "realities" simultaneously.


If you picked control or synthesis it's literal, and you win.

If you picked red it was an indoctrination attempt and you win.

Both of these can be real [u]at the same time

So basically Schrödinger's Gun?

Exactly.

Man, I love that site. You get lost in there.

[Earthborn_Shepard]

and kind of this: http://tvtropes.org/...yFinaleSyndrome

[WinterCrow]

@ Rifneno. If the wording is 'suspiciously' close to that someone we both know it's because my english is that limited, and it's been long without practising. Couldn't find a better word for an agressive devotion. I just dislike agressive behavior in a forum, it just makes no sense to me. It's actually way better for the entire debate to ignore those trolls you mention.

Anyway, since I skipped a few pages... back when you guys were discussing about reused assets and new ones, did anybody find anything relevant about all the 'corpses' we see up in the Citadel? they certainly look like dummies, and both male and female have the exact same face, with onle one armor model for each. Bioware might have been 'lazy' somewhere in the game, but that much lazyness just can't be real.

Do the model or texture names mean anything?

[Simon_Says]

Mystical Taurus wrote...

Has anyone come up with a reason why, if you take the endings at face value, the Star Kid even offers Shepard any choices at all? I know he says the Crucible changed him and opened up new possibilities, presumably the possibility of Synthesis. He obviously hates Destroy. Control, at face value, will delay the Reapers X years from doing their jobs, and so nothing good comes of that from his point of view. So since he favors Synthesis, why not just have some poor indoctrinated slob jump in the beam? Why even allow Shepard to make the decision?

Because, essentially, the dream sequence is still Shepard's, not an illusion fabricated by the reapers. The Catalyst being the most obvious exception.

Because Shepard's psyche isn't being surgically rewritten like Paul Grayson's was.

Because the Reapers need Shepard to submit to indoctrination.

The Catalyst offers two 'positive' choices to make that illusion of choice more believable. The Catalyst acknowledges destruction because not doing so would make Shepard suspicious. They have to convince Shepard to choose Control/Synthesis and give themself up.

Modifié par Simon_Says, 26 avril 2012 - 04:57 .

[MaximizedAction]

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

Anyway, I found the perfect definition for what we have right now: http://tvtropes.org/...in/GainaxEnding

Nice. As usual, "All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again"

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

Anyway, I found the perfect definition for what we have right now: http://tvtropes.org/...in/GainaxEnding

And what we hope for is a good version of this http://tvtropes.org/...angesEverything

[SS2Dante]

Simon_Says wrote...

Mystical Taurus wrote...

Has anyone come up with a reason why, if you take the endings at face value, the Star Kid even offers Shepard any choices at all? I know he says the Crucible changed him and opened up new possibilities, presumably the possibility of Synthesis. He obviously hates Destroy. Control, at face value, will delay the Reapers X years from doing their jobs, and so nothing good comes of that from his point of view. So since he favors Synthesis, why not just have some poor indoctrinated slob jump in the beam? Why even allow Shepard to make the decision?

Because, essentially, the dream sequence is still Shepard's, not an illusion fabricated by the reapers. The Catalyst being the most obvious exception.

Because Shepard's psyche isn't being surgically rewritten like Paul Grayson's was.

Because the Reapers need Shepard to submit to indoctrination.

The Catalyst offers two 'positive' choices to make that illusion of choice more believable. The Catalyst acknowledges destruction because not doing so would make Shepard suspicious.

He meant an explanation for why the starchild shows you destroy if you take it literally.

And nooooope.

[CmnDwnWrkn]

Simon_Says wrote...

Mystical Taurus wrote...

Has anyone come up with a reason why, if you take the endings at face value, the Star Kid even offers Shepard any choices at all? I know he says the Crucible changed him and opened up new possibilities, presumably the possibility of Synthesis. He obviously hates Destroy. Control, at face value, will delay the Reapers X years from doing their jobs, and so nothing good comes of that from his point of view. So since he favors Synthesis, why not just have some poor indoctrinated slob jump in the beam? Why even allow Shepard to make the decision?

Because, essentially, the dream sequence is still Shepard's, not an illusion fabricated by the reapers. The Catalyst being the most obvious exception.

Because Shepard's psyche isn't being surgically rewritten like Paul Grayson's was.

Because the Reapers need Shepard to submit to indoctrination.

The Catalyst offers two 'positive' choices to make that illusion of choice more believable. The Catalyst acknowledges destruction because not doing so would make Shepard suspicious. They have to convince Shepard to choose Control/Synthesis and give themself up.

But why do the Reapers NEED to indoctrinate Shepard in the first place?  Why not attempt to indoctrinate him, and if that doesn't work, kill him?  Or stasis and pod him?  Is Shepard immortal?

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

Mystical Taurus wrote...

Has anyone come up with a reason why, if you take the endings at face value, the Star Kid even offers Shepard any choices at all? I know he says the Crucible changed him and opened up new possibilities, presumably the possibility of Synthesis. He obviously hates Destroy. Control, at face value, will delay the Reapers X years from doing their jobs, and so nothing good comes of that from his point of view. So since he favors Synthesis, why not just have some poor indoctrinated slob jump in the beam? Why even allow Shepard to make the decision?

Because, essentially, the dream sequence is still Shepard's, not an illusion fabricated by the reapers. The Catalyst being the most obvious exception.

Because Shepard's psyche isn't being surgically rewritten like Paul Grayson's was.

Because the Reapers need Shepard to submit to indoctrination.

The Catalyst offers two 'positive' choices to make that illusion of choice more believable. The Catalyst acknowledges destruction because not doing so would make Shepard suspicious. They have to convince Shepard to choose Control/Synthesis and give themself up.

But why do the Reapers NEED to indoctrinate Shepard in the first place?  Why not attempt to indoctrinate him, and if that doesn't work, kill him?  Or stasis and pod him?  Is Shepard immortal?

Because Shepard alive and Indoctrinated would be a incredibly powerful weapon in the Reapers hands. If Shepard says run the entire fleet will most likely follow him, if he says fight they will do so. He got the fleet together, he is the center of the resistance against the Reapers so if he became a Reaper agent the damage he could cause would be war ending.

As for trying and then killing him if it fails? Who says the first thing Shepard wont see if he wakes up from Indoctrination will be Harbinger looming over him saying "Impressive Shepard, but it is all in vain" (or similar) the question would then be what distracts Harbinger long enough for Shepard to get away...hmm I wonder if there is a ship or two who could take a few shots at Harby, like the Normandy

Wouldnt even be impossible that the Normandy could distract Harbinger with blast form the Thanix cannon. After all a Reaper has to take power away from its kinetic barriers to land on the surface of a planet and a Thanix cannon is known to be more effective against Reapers than conventional weaponry.

Modifié par Raistlin Majare 1992, 26 avril 2012 - 05:10 .

[Simon_Says]

SS2Dante wrote...

He meant an explanation for why the starchild shows you destroy if you take it literally.

And nooooope.

Actually it still works even at face value. It's a spin on the Goldilocks pricing effect.

Basically, when you're offering a choice, making one choice appear massively more expensive than the others will make those other choices appear far more appealing, even if the objective cost of those choices is still rather high. In this case, the Catalyst obviously has spun destruction to be massively negative compared to the ramifications of the other two. All synthetics die, Shepard dies, the problem that the reaper cycle allegedly solves still exists. Makes control and synthesis seem rather good in comparison, doesn't it.

QI did a segment on it.

[Vahilor]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Off-discussion but on topic:
So I just read Gamble's twitter discussion about Synthesis being the best ending acc. to him.

And once again I find myself at the much too common crossroads:
Is IT true or is this really just the face-value ending as-is?

I understand, that what Bioware says should be the law. After all, it's they're creation.
But then there's the in-game evidence for IT, that follows naturally and logically from the game. So they put the evidence (even if not necessarily for IT) that something's wrong. But comparing this to what Bioware keeps claiming as law seems not to coincide with the game.

So it comes down to simple logic vs. legitimate fallacies.

And I come full circle to three-weeks-ago - me telling Bioware: www.youtube.com/watch.

But only cause Gamble thinks synthesis is the best ending.. the customers do not have to agree with him..and even he needs to listen to his customers and his fanbase.... cause hey that guy needs his job and BW needs to make money to pay him... so only he is on the synthesis trip (and we don't even know if he is only trolling us) it doesn't have to be the best ending...

And only cause BW says it is law.. the fanbase has not to take it when it is totaly out of content... and BW has to take the consequences...

WOuld be the same as if McD now starts to sell vegetarian food only... cause the big boss is a vegetarian.. than MCD will lose all meat hungry burger eating people and will lose a lot of money ^^

[Simon_Says]

Synthesis is actually a pretty good deal, if you don't think about the ethics of it too much. Especially if you got transhumanist leanings.

[EpyonX3]

Eli Parker wrote...

I'm replaying Mass Effect 3 and during the dream sequences I thought of a theory.

The shadows represent the souls of the fallen and/or the souls that depends on Shepard. The shadows tries to surround the child in order to save Shepard from the child and to try to stop Harbinger from taking over Shepard's mind.

This might have been said, and if so my bad.

I don't know about the Shadows keeping him away from the child, but I agree that the shadows are basically faceless people that shepard let die while he's out playing politics.

The child retains his form because Shepard actual had contact with him. Everyone in the dream is dead. The last dream with Shepard holding the child is a bad sign, telling Shepard that he was going to die.

[Vahilor]

Simon_Says wrote...

Synthesis is actually a pretty good deal, if you don't think about the ethics of it too much. Especially if you got transhumanist leanings.

If you don't think at all it is.. otherwise it stinks a lot like Space magic and pressing somthing on the whole Galaxy without asking them...
And I didn't even need to think a lot about it... it was fishy when I first heard it out of Space Brats mouth...

[balance5050]

EpyonX3 wrote...

Eli Parker wrote...

I'm replaying Mass Effect 3 and during the dream sequences I thought of a theory.

The shadows represent the souls of the fallen and/or the souls that depends on Shepard. The shadows tries to surround the child in order to save Shepard from the child and to try to stop Harbinger from taking over Shepard's mind.

This might have been said, and if so my bad.

I don't know about the Shadows keeping him away from the child, but I agree that the shadows are basically faceless people that shepard let die while he's out playing politics.

The child retains his form because Shepard actual had contact with him. Everyone in the dream is dead. The last dream with Shepard holding the child is a bad sign, telling Shepard that he was going to die.

Almost all the whispers you hear are from people that you "actually" had contact with, why wasn't the boy Kaiden or Ashley? someone you had WAY MORE contact with. 

It just had to be that kid playing with a model Normandy, (faux reality beginning).

[EpyonX3]

Simon_Says wrote...

Synthesis is actually a pretty good deal, if you don't think about the ethics of it too much. Especially if you got transhumanist leanings.

Yeah this is why I think Synthesis is a blend of Renegade and Paragon.

Renegade because you change everyone's DNA against their will and paragon because there's peace without killing anyone else after that point.

Since the reapers are still around, the relays can be rebuilt.