325 réponses à ce sujet

[Legendaryred]

Rane7685 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Rane7685 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

^The fact that Shep can live after the destroy option means that the kid was being less then honest. I wouldnt fully trust everything that green goober said. Think about it, Shep is as much synthesis as about anyone you are going to get. If he could supposedly survive after taking out all synthetics... Either the kid was straight up lying or Shep had surgery on himself and with all the dead bodies up there, did a few transplants...

Seriously, think about it.

The kid never actually said you would die if you picked the destroy item it said it would destroy all synthetic life and reminded you that you were PARTIALLY synthetic. 
stilla.

Remember in ME2? There is a LARGE chunck of his body, including nueral implants in his brain that are synthetic.  If that laserbeam truely destroys synthetics, Shep should be dead, period.  If that beam is accurate and smart enough to figure out what is geth through-out the entire galaxy, it sure as hell can find all the extra crap in Shep's body.

Aye but perhaps those pieces of tech are redundant now. The human body is capable of healing esp with medical advances many years in the future. As an example if you break your leg you get a cast to keep you walking around while it heals. When it heals you no longer need the cast. In ME2 the implants might have been needed to 'get you off the ground' so to speak but as time goes on these pieces of tech have a diminishing level of importance

Not sure abou tthat, DR. Chakwas in ME3 runs a scan on you and says "The bonding between your implants and yourself is stronger than ever".

[KelbornX]

 Personally, I think the ending fits.  Whatever you do it breaks the cycle.  Which was really the big picture all along.  

The only thing I have an issue with is not knowing wtf Joker was doing running away, and how Javik ended up back on the Normandy after supposedly being killed with everyone else runing for the Conduit with me.

I choose the Synthesis ending for two reasons:  

• There will probably never be another one of this synthetics destroying organics cycle ever again (because everything is now hybrid).
• Shepard dies.

IMO, Shepard needed to die.  There'd be nothing for him/her after the war.  Also, the games are done.  This is the end.  It's fitting that it would be the end of Shepard as well.  A final sacrifice to break the cycle.  Anything else would just be too cliche.  If I wanted everyone to home and live happily ever after I'd just watch any random SciFi movie.  

Modifié par KelbornX, 12 mars 2012 - 06:49 .

[Meltemph]

Rane7685 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Rane7685 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

^The fact that Shep can live after the destroy option means that the kid was being less then honest. I wouldnt fully trust everything that green goober said. Think about it, Shep is as much synthesis as about anyone you are going to get. If he could supposedly survive after taking out all synthetics... Either the kid was straight up lying or Shep had surgery on himself and with all the dead bodies up there, did a few transplants...

Seriously, think about it.

The kid never actually said you would die if you picked the destroy item it said it would destroy all synthetic life and reminded you that you were PARTIALLY synthetic. 
stilla.

Remember in ME2? There is a LARGE chunck of his body, including nueral implants in his brain that are synthetic.  If that laserbeam truely destroys synthetics, Shep should be dead, period.  If that beam is accurate and smart enough to figure out what is geth through-out the entire galaxy, it sure as hell can find all the extra crap in Shep's body.

Aye but perhaps those pieces of tech are redundant now. The human body is capable of healing esp with medical advances many years in the future. As an example if you break your leg you get a cast to keep you walking around while it heals. When it heals you no longer need the cast. In ME2 the implants might have been needed to 'get you off the ground' so to speak but as time goes on these pieces of tech have a diminishing level of importance

WAT?  Shep was clinicly dead, the amount of synthetics in his body has to be quite...substantial, and not even ignorign the fact that you just compared synthetic biology...to a CAST.  That would be the equivalent of having reconstructive ankle surgery and then no longer needing the pins in your ankle(Trust me, I still need those pins).

Or not needing a pacemaker anymore.  Seriosuly how did you make that leap of logic?

Modifié par Meltemph, 12 mars 2012 - 06:59 .

[Meltemph]

KelbornX wrote...

 Personally, I think the ending fits.  Whatever you do it breaks the cycle.  Which was really the big picture all along.  

The only thing I have an issue with is not knowing wtf Joker was doing running away, and how Javik ended up back on the Normandy after supposedly being killed with everyone else runing for the Conduit with me.

I choose the Synthesis ending for two reasons:  

• There will probably never be another one of this synthetics destroying organics cycle ever again (because everything is now hybrid).
• Shepard dies.

IMO, Shepard needed to die.  There'd be nothing for him/her after the war.  Also, the games are done.  This is the end.  It's fitting that it would be the end of Shepard as well.  A final sacrifice to break the cycle.  Anything else would just be too cliche.  If I wanted everyone to home and live happily ever after I'd just watch any random SciFi movie.  

How did you make sense of the fact that such a device existed in the ME universe and that it could effect the entire galaxy.

I'm not saying that you being ok with the philosophy of the ending is wrong at all. I am asking you how you made sense of the tech(Plot device, the crucible and what it could do) or did you just accept it at face value and ignroe the implications of that tech? If you just ingorned the implications of the tech, then I understand your stance on the ending. But at least for me it is the fact that, that specific plot device did not fit with the rest of the game, based on the information the game gave us(codex/lore/current tech in the game, including the reapers). I could not ignore the plot device and I think for a lot of people that is the problem.

Thing is, you dont even have to get philisophical about the ending... The lasers dont make sense. To me it isnt even about the philosophy behind the laser beams, it is the fact that they exist and that they(the writers) thought this was the best way to take care of the reaper threat 

[staindgrey]

KelbornX wrote...

IMO, Shepard needed to die.  There'd be nothing for him/her after the war.

Liara and a whole bunch of little blue babies beg to differ. 


On topic, though, I chose "renegade" because no cost was too great to get rid of the Reapers. TIM wanted to control them; my Shepard didn't. She was broken over such a long fight, trying to stay sane after being revived from death and fighting day in and day out for a supposedly lost cause. She saw her chance to finally end the Reapers, no questions asked, no possible fallout in which she failed to control them and no alteration to the organics she wanted to save. There was no choice. End the Reapers.

That said... Gah. I won't go on another rant over how the ending undermined everything in the series and how it broke so many rules of conventional narrative crafting. I'll just stop the post here and walk away.

[Tony208]

Synthesis is the absolute worst because you're forcing trillions of people to evolve in to who knows what. That's worse then the reapers making all the cycles follow along the paths of reaper tech. At least they only drew a dotted line to the mass relays and didn't change your DNA.

The big picture all along? That would be stopping the reapers. And the ending failed because Shepard all of a sudden lost free will and caved in to one of the three bs choices the ai god child presented.

Modifié par Tony208, 12 mars 2012 - 07:02 .

[retailavenger85]

KelbornX wrote...


IMO, Shepard needed to die.  There'd be nothing for him/her after the war.  Also, the games are done.  This is the end.  It's fitting that it would be the end of Shepard as well.  A final sacrifice to break the cycle.  Anything else would just be too cliche.  If I wanted everyone to home and live happily ever after I'd just watch any random SciFi movie.  

I respectfully disagree with that point, I understand why some people would feel that way about their Shepards, but my Shepard had Kaidan waiting for her. 
Also, I don't understand how the video game format differs from a movie format. If anything, I'm more likely to want my video games to end on a happy(ish) note (especially one I've put so much time and customization into).  For 5 years I've connected with my Paragon FemShep, and I feel she deserves to live. 
But that's why the games were built up to be so awesome, we both should have gotten the ending we wanted for our Shepards. 

Modifié par retailavenger85, 12 mars 2012 - 07:02 .

[Clamatowas]

Biotic Sage.

I have only one point to make. When the Citadel and all the Relays are destroyed.  The Term Mass Effect means nothing... You just removed what makes Mass Effect, well Mass Effect.


To say it in another way so you all get it:

 It would be like at the end of Harry Potter, Harry wakes up to find him self under the stairs and it was all just a dream. (there is no such thing as magic) his life sucks,  -the end.

Or at the end of Star-wars the force and technology was taken away from all life. Spinning them into a Dark age.

That is what they did to us, they took away what Mass effect was.

That's what the community means when they say, "It was all for nothing."

They mean the entire entire story is null, and there is no reason to ever visit again.




I feel like I just realized I am the star on the Truman Show. It was all fake, none of it mattered.
-The end

Modifié par Clamatowas, 12 mars 2012 - 07:10 .

[Meltemph]

retailavenger85 wrote...

KelbornX wrote...


IMO, Shepard needed to die.  There'd be nothing for him/her after the war.  Also, the games are done.  This is the end.  It's fitting that it would be the end of Shepard as well.  A final sacrifice to break the cycle.  Anything else would just be too cliche.  If I wanted everyone to home and live happily ever after I'd just watch any random SciFi movie.  

I respectfully disagree with that point, I understand why some people would feel that way about their Shepards, but my Shepard had Kaidan waiting for her. 
Also, I don't understand how the video game format differs from a movie format. If anything, I'm more likely to want my video games to end on a happy(ish) note (especially one I've put so much time and customization into).  For 5 years I've connected with my Paragon FemShep, and I feel she deserves to live. 
But that's why the games were built up to be so awesome, we both should have gotten the ending we wanted for our Shepards. 

while I dont think Shep had to die, I dont see anything wrong with the protagonist giving his life to save the galaxy... That said, the WAY you do it matters.

[Qutayba]

Biotic Sage wrote...

1. "Obviously the Catalyst is wrong in thinking that synthetics will always destroy organics because look at what's happening with the Quarians and the Geth!  They are getting along!"

2. "Nothing mattered!"

3. "Bioware got lazy!"

I don't like the endings, but I'm going to half agree with you.  I'll actually take your points backwards.

First of all, I don't think Bioware was lazy.  I think they thought it out very carefully and gave it a sincere try.  Those who claim that this was a Bioware conspiracy to damage our psyches need to get some perspective.  However, I also suspect the writers fell pray to group-think, and the need to keep the ending "secret," reagrdless of leaks perhaps limited their chance to "test" the idea on others.  The basic idea behind the ending is intriguing in and of itself, and it is an idea that has popped up in the series before.

Second, yes, lots of things mattered throughout the game.  It's why we all love the game - I think there's common ground there for everyone here.  The question is, does it matter for THAT decision?  Behind the scenes, some numbers matter.  There are some calculations that determine whether the Earth is destroyed, etc.  However, without meta-gaming, there's no way to change that outcome - it derives from an opaque statistic, and not organically from either the story or the characters.

Throughout the game, in some dialogues, Shepard actually says the same thing no matter which dialogue choice you choose.  I don't have a problem with that: giving us the dialogue wheel in those cases allows us to feel more engaged in the conversation, even when the conclusion is pre-determined.  However, in many ways, that's what the final decision amounts to, and that's the last place such a short cut should be taken.  What differences there are remain abstract, we don't actually get to see those differences - other than the vague possibility that Shepard survives in the red ending (and why just the red ending?  Is there something inherent in that decision that makes it more survivable other than the arbitrary decision to vaporize him in the other two endings?)

But I think what bothers me most is that the final decision is based on a Big Idea.  It's an interesting Big Idea, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the characters, Shepard or his allies.  Most of the other big decisions in the series are grounded in practical and personal concerns - liking Wrex adds a dimension to the genophage question, it's not just an abstraction.  Other than the red ending, you're not told about any of the concrete consequences for anyone.  As Ron Moore told his writing staff for the finale of BSG: "It's the characters, stupid!"  The end of BSG had some goofy Big Ideas, but the ends of the character arcs were satisfying and cathartic.

And your last/first point about the Catalyst's logic.  He might actually be right.  It makes a lot of sense, and it's persuasive even.  But it is the villain's logic, and it seems uncharacteristic for Shepard to just say, "OK, you win,  I'll pick one of your options.'  And what exactly is the Catalyst saying: essentially that life is going to be annihilated by synthetics one way or the other.  So either you die now, or you die later, it doesn't really matter.  There is no meaning, no purpose for life other than to be, or not to be, according the the Catalyst's design.  It's the premise of an unfeeling, aloof god - a clockmaker, and nothing more.  Life in the universal continues, but life in the particular ceases.  (The theological dimension is a whole additional post, so I'll leave it there, for now ).

But Shepard would say it DOES matter (both paragon and renegade), wouldn't s/he?  Humanity is worth fighting for.  The galactic alliance is worth fighting for.  Hell, even the geth are worth fighting for.  They have inherent worth as they are.  They have meaning as they are.  Even if it's messy, and conflict-prone, and sometimes downright nasty, life is worth preserving, as it is.

The kicker is that the Catalyst claims that creatures rebel against their creators: yet the life of every cycle is in some ways the guided creation of the Reapers/Catalyst.  Why doesn't Shepard rebel, and call god on his bullhokey?

In some ways the red ending allows you to do this, but at the abitrary cost of some of your friends.  Yeah, fine, there should be consequences, but it feels random.  The blue ending of domination forces you to concede that TIM was right.  And the green ending is downright magical.

Well, I'm probably beating a dead horse.  But the endings all felt nihilistic to me - humans must submit to the cold emptiness of the cosmos.  There is no meaning worth fighting for.  And Shepard is not a nihilist, whatever else s/he may be.

Modifié par Qutayba, 12 mars 2012 - 07:10 .

[Asuukuru]

Biotic Sage wrote...

1. "Obviously the Catalyst is wrong in thinking that synthetics will always destroy organics because look at what's happening with the Quarians and the Geth!  They are getting along!"

This does not disprove the Catalyst's assertion.  Just because they happen to be working together at the moment doesn't mean that an organic genocide at the hands of synthetics isn't an inevitable eventuality.  Hell, they could get along for hundreds of years, thousands of years, but if they eventually end up destroying organics then the Catalyst assertion holds.  No obviously, the Quarian/Geth situation doesn't prove anything either, it doesn't prove the Catalyst right.  But don't use it as emprical evidence that the synthetic uprising eventuality scenario is false, because that is illogical.  Another thing on this argument that people say: "The Quarians started it!"  It doesn't matter who "starts it."  I'm sure that if the inevitability is true, then it can play out in a number of different ways.  The point is that the ultimate result is the same: organics dead at the hands of synthetics.  Now I personally reject this, which is why I chose the destruction ending, but there is nothing to prove or disprove the assertion other than my own beliefs and way of thinking.

While it doesnt disprove the catalyst's assertion, it doesnt support it either. You cant assume the ultimate result of an organic vs. synthetic war would always benefit synthetics. There is nothing to suggest the war would always tilt that direction. Its just as likely that the organics could defeat the synthetics, or that maybe one species of organics decides to to command all other alien species, synthetic and organic alike. There is no way of making any kind of assumption of the future. So really his entire argument for giving you the choices he is giving you is completely invalid. Even if you accept the VI's logic, it still would not fit Shepard's personality to simply say, ohh so those are my only options, let me pick one without questioning everything.

Going to the Shepard personality though, it doesnt make sense Shepard would simply accept what the VI is telling him. If Shepard simply accepted the choices what he was told, then he would have never proved to the Council that Saren was a traitor. He was told to drop his absurd accusations. He would also not have tried to stop Sovereign, becuase he was told he would lose and it was inevitable he would lose. On the second game, Shepard would never have fought the Collectors, because fighitng the Collectors and winning was impossible. Shepard is all  about doing the impossible and finding another way of doing things. Even the entire idea of bulding the Crucible and uniting the galaxy doesnt fit with Shepard quietly agreeing to the options presented to him.

As for the second points. this entire point is reductio ad absudum. You are oversimplifying human connections and comparing them to a video game, which is rather asinine. After people die, their lives matter because other people give it meaning. In a video game, AI cant give your life meaning, becuase they are not real. Not only that, but your decisions matter because you are alive and are affected by your decisions. Once you die, you are dead, it doesnt matter what happened to your decisions, you will never live a second without having to deal with the consequences of your decisions. in a game such as this however, or much like with any other story, the reader doesnt die at the end of the story, which is why most stories have epilogues, to give closure to the reader. Romeo nad Juliet didnt end with Juliet killing herself, just like the Lord of the Rings didnt end with the ring being destroyed. because people want to know what happens next. 

And the third point, yeah i dont really think Bioware was being lazy. i dont agree with people that claim as much, so there is no point on me reading or arguing that point. 

[retailavenger85]

Meltemph wrote...

retailavenger85 wrote...

KelbornX wrote...


IMO, Shepard needed to die.  There'd be nothing for him/her after the war.  Also, the games are done.  This is the end.  It's fitting that it would be the end of Shepard as well.  A final sacrifice to break the cycle.  Anything else would just be too cliche.  If I wanted everyone to home and live happily ever after I'd just watch any random SciFi movie.  

I respectfully disagree with that point, I understand why some people would feel that way about their Shepards, but my Shepard had Kaidan waiting for her. 
Also, I don't understand how the video game format differs from a movie format. If anything, I'm more likely to want my video games to end on a happy(ish) note (especially one I've put so much time and customization into).  For 5 years I've connected with my Paragon FemShep, and I feel she deserves to live. 
But that's why the games were built up to be so awesome, we both should have gotten the ending we wanted for our Shepards. 

while I dont think Shep had to die, I dont see anything wrong with the protagonist giving his life to save the galaxy... That said, the WAY you do it matters.

Agreed. if there were going to be multiple endings, I was going to do a runthrough of the whole trilogy as a Paragade DudeShep who ends up sacraficing himself...
I just wish we had had the options. 

[Garrand]

People who are aware of the photoshoping lulz that went on and then still try to defend it as something other than laziness are hilarious. "SOP for devs" isn't a logical argument either - standard operating procedure for a lot of people these days is to eat fast food instead of cooking, that doesn't make the choice any less lazy.

[Al-the-Catman]

Very interesting thread, for the most part. (Say your peace, don't disturb it!)  Any way, here are a few things I want to mention again that I think need to be addressed unless they are red herrings...

1. Klencory is famously claimed by the eccentric volus
billionaire Kumun Shol. He claims that a vision of a higher being told
him to seek on Klencory the "lost crypts of beings of light." These
entities were supposedly created at the dawn of time to protect organic
life from synthetic "machine devils."
--ME1 
--Another piece of tech from a prievous cycle or more Prothean life support pods?

2. The presence of dark energy  in the Haestrom & Arrival missions in ME2.

3. Theory of hallusinations/indoctrination by game's end.

4. Party members on the Normandy, & why it was using the ME relay in the 1st place (voided if 3 is true or a game glitch for who should still be on the Normandy).

5. Pet peeve  unrelated to ending but still: Tali's pic that should of at least been  a photoshop mod of Ms. Sroka.

Thats my 2 cents for now...

[JeffFah3y]

Monkie13 wrote...

I just finished my ME3 with synthesis ending.

I have to say it didn't do any justice for the series by ending it in a weirdest/unexpected way.
Let me put this in a more easier/funnier way.

Imagine you watched LOTR Fellowship of the Ring and the Two Tower and is watching the ending of Return of the King as follows.

Frodo tossed the ring into the lava and caused the Middle Earth to collapse and create whole knew universe. You never get to find out what happened to any of the surviving fellowship members and you don't get to know what happened to Middle Earth in general. But there is an old hobbit telling his grandchild about the story so you know world is at peace. THE END

That's how i felt and thought whatever i did till the ending were irrelevant. Now I'm wondering what the hell happened to my teammates i brought to the final mission, Garrus and Tali. Damn it Garrus we are storming that bar like we talked about before. And, sorry tali looks like you will never get to see how your world will develop after creating co-existent life style with geth.

My thoughts exactly.  In Return of the King, there were short but adequate scenes of closures for most characters.  We didn't get anything like that.

I don't want a change to the endings.  I think what's done is done.  What I think most of us really wanted to see was how our choices affect the galaxy afterwards.

Some examples:

1. The Rachni - in my game, I let them go.  Did they rise again to endanger the galaxy or did they become a part of a new galactic alliance? What happened to them?

2. The Krogan - was my curing the genophage endangering the galaxy later? That is what was hinted at when i made my choice and I want to know if I was really shooting myself in the foot.

3.  My LI - I chose Ash.  I wanted to know what I could expect from our future.  What if I chose Liara? or Tali? What type of life would Shepard have given the LI he stuck with?  If Shepard died, how did they live after?

4. My squad - for a game to develop a group devoted to their leader, I want to know what they did with their lives afterwards.  We influenced their destiny, I think we're owed the chance to see what became of our influence.

These are the answers I am looking for.  And no, I don't want to figure them out for myself.  Bioware sold me with the premise that what I choose affects my story.  We were promised to write our own story, we deserve to know the epilogue of the story we created.

[Shadow Wing]

taylortexas wrote...

 There's also the complete loophole in the logic of crafting a race of synthetic genocide machines which will destroy all organic life to prevent them from being wiped out by their own synthetic creations. A man is going to go buy a gun so that he can kill himself. You want to save him, so instead you buy a gun first and kill him. Different means to an end: he dies, and in this scenario all organic life is wiped out. 

I'm not sure if that what the catallyst meant, he talks about order and chaos, the war with the "created synthetic life" with organic life will cause chaos and will include the deaths of less evolve creatures, essentially the catallyist is picking a side (synthetic) and pre-empting the war to make it more systematic but more importantly avoid wiping out less evolve species and giving them a chance to evolve. Its cleaning up the galaxy um..cleanly...rather than wait for the eventual chaotic war that could cause the death of species whos 'time' isn't up yet, the reapers just does it orderly.  

[Bowie Hawkins]

The reason why all three endings of the game are badly done is simple: No matter what you choose, you destroy the entire galactic civilisation that you have been fighting to protect against the Reapers. This is why people feel cheated - we were hoping for an ending that didn't involve destroying every Mass Effect relay in existence, with the resultant isolation of all systems from each other.

[Dreogan]

Bowie Hawkins wrote...

The reason why all three endings of the game are badly done is simple: No matter what you choose, you destroy the entire galactic civilisation that you have been fighting to protect against the Reapers. This is why people feel cheated - we were hoping for an ending that didn't involve destroying every Mass Effect relay in existence, with the resultant isolation of all systems from each other.

I strongly disagree. The reason all three endings are badly done is they are nonsense. Easily rejected, ripped apart, and returned to Bioware for restructuring. If Bioware refuses, then this Trilogy ends without an ending, and I see absolutely no reason to trust them when they claim they know what they're doing with the next Mass Effect.

Error: Undefined.

Modifié par Dreogan, 12 mars 2012 - 07:40 .

[Hunter_Wolf]

Shepard's time was supposed to end but I agree with many others. My Shepard was going to have a son who isn't trusting enough to let James get on in up Ashley. Hell no, get that Jersey Shore Prince Jr. off my Ashley!

[Shadow Wing]

Bowie Hawkins wrote...

The reason why all three endings of the game are badly done is simple: No matter what you choose, you destroy the entire galactic civilisation that you have been fighting to protect against the Reapers. This is why people feel cheated - we were hoping for an ending that didn't involve destroying every Mass Effect relay in existence, with the resultant isolation of all systems from each other.

People are alive though, in the end that was what Shepard was fighting for right, to survive and not be wiped out. Technology wise they got sent back a few centuries but they are alive.

[Qutayba]

Shadow Wing wrote...
I'm not sure if that what the catallyst meant, he talks about order and chaos, the war with the "created synthetic life" with organic life will cause chaos and will include the deaths of less evolve creatures, essentially the catallyist is picking a side (synthetic) and pre-empting the war to make it more systematic but more importantly avoid wiping out less evolve species and giving them a chance to evolve. Its cleaning up the galaxy um..cleanly...rather than wait for the eventual chaotic war that could cause the death of species whos 'time' isn't up yet, the reapers just does it orderly. 

Yes, you're right.  The Reapers are destroying/encapsulating particular life forms (those on the verge of the technological singularity) in order to save life in general.  The argument is that if the Reapers didn't do this, there would end up being no life at all because the machines don't need organics and would just destroy everything.

It's an interesting theory, but I'm not convinced Shepard would buy it.

[Rane7685]

Meltemph wrote...

Rane7685 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Rane7685 wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

^The fact that Shep can live after the destroy option means that the kid was being less then honest. I wouldnt fully trust everything that green goober said. Think about it, Shep is as much synthesis as about anyone you are going to get. If he could supposedly survive after taking out all synthetics... Either the kid was straight up lying or Shep had surgery on himself and with all the dead bodies up there, did a few transplants...

Seriously, think about it.

The kid never actually said you would die if you picked the destroy item it said it would destroy all synthetic life and reminded you that you were PARTIALLY synthetic. 
stilla.

Remember in ME2? There is a LARGE chunck of his body, including nueral implants in his brain that are synthetic.  If that laserbeam truely destroys synthetics, Shep should be dead, period.  If that beam is accurate and smart enough to figure out what is geth through-out the entire galaxy, it sure as hell can find all the extra crap in Shep's body.

Aye but perhaps those pieces of tech are redundant now. The human body is capable of healing esp with medical advances many years in the future. As an example if you break your leg you get a cast to keep you walking around while it heals. When it heals you no longer need the cast. In ME2 the implants might have been needed to 'get you off the ground' so to speak but as time goes on these pieces of tech have a diminishing level of importance

WAT?  Shep was clinicly dead, the amount of synthetics in his body has to be quite...substantial, and not even ignorign the fact that you just compared synthetic biology...to a CAST.  That would be the equivalent of having reconstructive ankle surgery and then no longer needing the pins in your ankle(Trust me, I still need those pins).

Or not needing a pacemaker anymore.  Seriosuly how did you make that leap of logic?

Its not illogical we are talking about a hypothetical future. Hell if you want to be pedantic you cant bring people back to life either. Ok so you still need the pins but in 2184 would there be no medical advances that might mean you no longer need those pins. Is that entirely inconceivable. Let me try another analogy;

When a baby is born it requires care breast milk etc. If you simply birthed a baby and bailed it would die. It is completely dependant. However as it grows it becomes better equipped to take care of itself. The implants could be analgous to this care. Shepard died and required extensive surgery/implants to resurrect him. As he recovered his/her body became less reliant on said implants to the point where it was essentially functional without them.

Perhaps now whilst still posessing said implants they might serve an auxilliary function now. Not crucial for life support but assist. Im not saying that when Shep destroys it all he wont experience a loss of function, memory loss, motor control etc. It just may no longer be fatal

[Rane7685]

Meltemph wrote...

KelbornX wrote...

 Personally, I think the ending fits.  Whatever you do it breaks the cycle.  Which was really the big picture all along.  

The only thing I have an issue with is not knowing wtf Joker was doing running away, and how Javik ended up back on the Normandy after supposedly being killed with everyone else runing for the Conduit with me.

I choose the Synthesis ending for two reasons:  

• There will probably never be another one of this synthetics destroying organics cycle ever again (because everything is now hybrid).
• Shepard dies.

IMO, Shepard needed to die.  There'd be nothing for him/her after the war.  Also, the games are done.  This is the end.  It's fitting that it would be the end of Shepard as well.  A final sacrifice to break the cycle.  Anything else would just be too cliche.  If I wanted everyone to home and live happily ever after I'd just watch any random SciFi movie.  

How did you make sense of the fact that such a device existed in the ME universe and that it could effect the entire galaxy.

I'm not saying that you being ok with the philosophy of the ending is wrong at all. I am asking you how you made sense of the tech(Plot device, the crucible and what it could do) or did you just accept it at face value and ignroe the implications of that tech? If you just ingorned the implications of the tech, then I understand your stance on the ending. But at least for me it is the fact that, that specific plot device did not fit with the rest of the game, based on the information the game gave us(codex/lore/current tech in the game, including the reapers). I could not ignore the plot device and I think for a lot of people that is the problem.

Thing is, you dont even have to get philisophical about the ending... The lasers dont make sense. To me it isnt even about the philosophy behind the laser beams, it is the fact that they exist and that they(the writers) thought this was the best way to take care of the reaper threat 

Isnt the point supposed to be that we dont understand how the mass relays work. The codex represents the knowledge of the galactic civilisation. As I understand it the codex is information Shepard has access to not us outside of the universe. As such I believe knowledge of the relays was limited to a mysterious porting ability. The lasers were an unknown feature of the relays and their relationship to the crucible.

[Drenick18]

I think the ending was fine. My only disappointment was that I wanted a few final moments with the crew and my squad. I WANTED my squad with me on the catalyst, I'm sure a lot of people wanted to as well, especially your romanced squadmate. say a few farewells, a few renegade/paragon options here and there, before making the final decision (kill, assimilate or combine blah blah blah).

Not contesting any of OP's assertions, I think they're all correct. My only problem is what I said above. I could care less about what happens to galactic civilization, I only care about my squad and the crew of the Normandy. just wanted a bit of closure is all.

A few epilogues wouldn't hurt as well, aside from the old guy and kids talking about the Shepard legend.

[yukon fire]

"I've seen some fair criticisms of the endings (most that I disagree with but they are fair), and then I've seen some criticisms that have not been thought out at all.  Here are the three that annoy me every time I see them"

Sorry some of us annoy you, you can take the endings as you wish and go as deep as you want with them. Some of us despise them. So if you wanna read in to the deeper meaning of things do it but give the rest of us "annoyers" a break we spent the last couple hours dealing with things at muzzle velocity to have the ending taken out of our hands and dictated by some overused and poorly executed plot device (that damn kid) is unacceptable after 3 games countless hours and a significant financial investment. For me Mass Effect was for fun not some Starbucks deep thought pretentiousness, its escapism and with the way things are out there alot of people were looking for just that, instead the got to the end and felt like crap, so thanks.