397 réponses à ce sujet

[TheSneric]

Agreed. This ending is way better than what we got. wtf were you thinking bioware?

[Kabraxal]

ReachEtaruN74 wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

ReachEtaruN74 wrote...

The current ending is defined by a moral dilemma which the course of gameplay can prove to be incorrect. The catalyst says that conflict between synthetic and organic is inevitable because (and this is the important part) the synthetics must realize their superiority and cast down the inferior organics.
Based off a paragon playthrough (i have not yet finished a renegade playthrough) the geth have always wanted peace with the creators (quarians) but have been unable to even pursue the option because the creators have forced them into conflict at every turn.
After a successful (paragon) resolution, even with the immense superiority that (as defined by the catalyst) must cause conflict, the geth instead find creative ways to assist the quarians. This is an impossible situation by the catalyst's logic. Thus the "deep moral dilemma" of the current ending is moot.

Also, relays cannot go from being the most destructive force in the galaxy (even surpassing Reapers) when they explode in Arrival to harmlessly disassembling themselves at the end of 3. They are destroyed, not disassembled. The destruction of the relays (of which the citadel is among them if you remember) would be absolutely devastating to the entire galaxy.

The lore does not fit for this to be the original ending. It feels forced, rushed and unnatural.

Or maybe... the reason why Shepard can say the catalyst is wrong is because he has personal experience with synthetic life forms that prove it wrong???

Yes thank you for reading and repeating what I just said in fewer words from a slightly different perspective.

I don't think I meant to reply to you... tired and must have hit the wrong reply or just read something wrong Sorry :S

[ReachEtaruN74]

If you don't want to believe that the Dark Energy theory is or is not the "original" ending, no one cares. This isn't about whether or not it "truly is" the actual canon original ending. We are using the term to describe what is commonly understood as the "original" ending. This forum is meant to primarily discuss the lore involved in the current and "original" ending along with some auxiliary ramifications of each.
If you have a bone to pick with the term "original" go start a new thread please. The clutter is distracting.
Let's keep this civilized. Tyvm.

[Malachite73]

I don't know about you guys, but I think something that would have helped the current ending is this:

They show a group of battered and weary soldiers on earth fighting husks. They look up into the sky and see the citadel explode in a spectacular array a various colors.... then, bacon begins raining all over earth. The Reapers reveal that every cycle they come to our galaxy to harvest all the bacon, and were afraid that other organic life would eat it, so they wiped them out. After some ambassadors explain that the Reapers may take large quantities of bacon with them back to dark space, the Reapers agree to end the cycle. The end.

[Sajuro]

pomrink wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

pomrink wrote...

You don't know this ending would be bad. We have less then a page of detail. Calling it bad at this point while ignorant is ill thought out and frankly just seem like one is trying to be contrary. And in some occasions one thing being wrong does validate another.

I'm not saying it would be a bad ending in and of itself. I'm saying that, based on the fact that there's been so little attention to it, it would be a bad ending. If they'd devoted a lot of time to it, then it could very well be good.

And, one thing being wrong validates another wrong thing? Okay man...

Don't twist words. Did not say another wrong thing. Said another thing. A lot of time was devoted to this. Before it was scrapped.

Ok, if you can't call the original ending bad because we don't have enough information, how could you know it would have been better than the ending we have now? And not, 'anything is better than this ending!' since that doesn't help flesh anything out. Also, I think in English Grammar when you assign value to something (wrong thing) and compare it without assigning value to the other it could be interpreted as having the same value as the first.
Unless you were trying to go for one of the logical fallacies BSN likes to wave around.

[ReachEtaruN74]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

So what are you saying? You aren't concerned with the original, you just don't like the one that was chosen? Or are you saying that the original is better?

This is an appropriate question for you since this seems to be your area of expertise as you have the most to say about it.

What is the original ending? I'm assuming you have some proof as to what it is or isn't that merits the extreme criticism that you are subjecting this forum to.

[WeAreLegionWTF]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Anyone who thinks Dark Energy would have been a good ending, please explain to me where this is referenced as important in the games.

Ever.

Because it isn't.

It's mentioned twice.

actually it pops up often in the codexes. Particulairly how biotics and assorted other technology works.

[Costello_Anasazi]

Anything is better than this matrix style metaphysical non ending that we have got. I really hope they fix it.

This is ment to be the end of the mass effect games and for many people 70 or so hours of game play. The ending just isn't worth it and really leave the story on a low note which it shouldn't as up to this point is been a great and epic tale.

But if I was that kid I wouldn't be asking for another story about the Shepard I'd be asking why grampa tells such damn long stories with such an unrelated ending. So grampa Shepard did this and this and this and it was all for nothing cause then he destoryed the mass effect relays and nobody could travel anywhere.

[cgvhjb]

Malachite73 wrote...

Amen... why would they throw out Drew Karpyshyn's ending. The Dark Energy idea is brilliant.

nvm, yea I would have been okay with this ending instead

Modifié par cgvhjb, 10 mars 2012 - 10:01 .

[ReachEtaruN74]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

ReachEtaruN74 wrote...

This is an appropriate question for you since this seems to be your area of expertise as you have the most to say about it.

What is the original ending? I'm assuming you have some proof as to what it is or isn't that merits the extreme criticism that you are subjecting this forum to.

Oh ho ho, nice one. I asked first.

Oh here I was assuming that you were attempting to rationally contribute to an informed debate about the pros and cons of the current and "original" (for which we are using as short hand for the Dark Energy theory as I explained earlier) plot progressions and obviously you must either be trolling or in the wrong forum.

[Malachite73]

cgvhjb wrote...

Malachite73 wrote...

Amen... why would they throw out Drew Karpyshyn's ending. The Dark Energy idea is brilliant.

If you don't mind me asking, what was his ending? 

It's explained in this article:

http://www.ign.com/b...lers.250066288/

Keep in mind this was written 2 years ago.  They threw out the ending they originally had planned from the start of ME1 and ME2 and changed it to the new one when they started ME3. 

The basic idea is that dark energy is comsuming the universe, and the Reapers are trying to find a way to stop it,.  They wipe out organic life because it speeds up the process of the dark energy spread, and assimilate species they think can help them further the stop of dark energy.

[Malachite73]

He was in a forum earlier debating that the dark energy ending is in no way hinted at in the previous games. He doesn't think the IGN article is legitimate, so I can only assume he has come here to troll.

[Knightly_BW]

Yes, I liked that ending way much better. Still need to finish game however I know possible out comes of ME3 from spoilers.

Also it makes sense from Tali's loyalty mission conversations. Quarians were already worried about Dark Energy.

[ReachEtaruN74]

Malachite73 wrote...

He was in a forum earlier debating that the dark energy ending is in no way hinted at in the previous games. He doesn't think the IGN article is legitimate, so I can only assume he has come here to troll.

I figured as much. It's obvious that such a question posed in a "prove it" format is only meant to be combative and in no way constructive.

[Malachite73]

ReachEtaruN74 wrote...

Malachite73 wrote...

He was in a forum earlier debating that the dark energy ending is in no way hinted at in the previous games. He doesn't think the IGN article is legitimate, so I can only assume he has come here to troll.

I figured as much. It's obvious that such a question posed in a "prove it" format is only meant to be combative and in no way constructive.

Yeah, here is the old forum:

http://social.biowar...33958/3#9737592

He just wants to argue.  He gets to make up what can be used as facts, so you'll never win.

Don't feed the trolls people.

Modifié par Malachite73, 10 mars 2012 - 10:13 .

[ReachEtaruN74]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

ReachEtaruN74 wrote...

I figured as much. It's obvious that such a question posed in a "prove it" format is only meant to be combative and in no way constructive.

Rather telling how you refuse to answer the question...

Apparently, there was already a forum that you posed this question to. On this forum, they generously attempted to answer your question and you just were contrary... or do I need to "prove" that?
As I said, this forum isn't about the validity of whether it is or isn't the "real" ending. It is about the pros and cons of the available options. ... I should keep track of how many times I have said this.

[ReachEtaruN74]

ReachEtaruN74 wrote...



The conversation between Tali, Shepard, and Kal'Reegar establishes the danger/importance of dark energy.
3:20
Shepard: "What does that dark energy buildup mean? Is it something we should worry about?"
3:26
Tali: "Hopefully it's an isolated, some rare phenomenon. If dark energy can destabilize solar material..."
Tali: "Probably not something to worry about now, but resources are scarce enough in the galaxy without stars suddenly going dead."

This is foreshadowing as it seems to have no direct connection to anything else. Otherwise it would be pointless banter. Pointless banter doesn't have galaxy wide implications.

Also it would make sense for the geth following the Reapers to be researching the data on that star if the Reapers were looking for a way to stop the buildup of dark energy. Unfortunately, you don't really get to ever ask the geth following the Reapers about this as the only opportunity for this would have been in Mass Effect 3.

[Malachite73]

ReachEtaruN74 wrote...

ReachEtaruN74 wrote...



The conversation between Tali, Shepard, and Kal'Reegar establishes the danger/importance of dark energy.
3:20
Shepard: "What does that dark energy buildup mean? Is it something we should worry about?"
3:26
Tali: "Hopefully it's an isolated, some rare phenomenon. If dark energy can destabilize solar material..."
Tali: "Probably not something to worry about now, but resources are scarce enough in the galaxy without stars suddenly going dead."

This is foreshadowing as it seems to have no direct connection to anything else. Otherwise it would be pointless banter. Pointless banter doesn't have galaxy wide implications.

Also it would make sense for the geth following the Reapers to be researching the data on that star if the Reapers were looking for a way to stop the buildup of dark energy. Unfortunately, you don't really get to ever ask the geth following the Reapers about this as the only opportunity for this would have been in Mass Effect 3.

No those don't count... Mass Effect 2's conversations don't count because you can skip through them.  If you do that, you never hear anything about dark energy, so your wrong obviously.