375 réponses à ce sujet

[Code_R]

I love this idea. People are arguing if it would be plausible as if this standard ending is worth preserving.

Modifié par Code_R, 20 juin 2012 - 06:58 .

[Merwanor]

Had this been a choice for the ending, then they would not have this mess at all. Not an option to say no, and to refuse the bs that the starchild spews out of its mouth was what ruined the whole game for me. So out of character that it makes me sad to think how anyone could actually feel the current ending is fitting for Shepard.

And if saying no would ultimatly backfire and just have the Reapers win, then fine, would be a much better ending, and at least fit the character I have built through 3 games.

Modifié par Merwanor, 20 juin 2012 - 07:03 .

[Hadeedak]

Bad King wrote...

Isn't that basically the control ending?

Except with a living or sort of preserved Shepard, yes. And more monologueing from our hero.

[Samuel_Valkyrie]

SirCroft wrote...

The writing could use some polish, but it's pretty good and would work for me. Kudos.

Ouch! Right in the gut! That smarts!

But, in all honesty, yeah, the writing could use some polish. But then again, I don't often write these Superman speeches. My characters tend to be more subtle, and less in-your-face when I arite them. And they tend to talk in sentences with no less than 25 words.

My aim was to write this in the character of Paragon Shepard. An individual who doesn't use big words, and is straight to the point. Honest, and direct. And most of all, with a pure and honest belief in freedom, and that there is always a solution that can satify all parties involved. Paragon Shepard does not accept that, sometimes, you cannot save everybody. He will try his damn hardest to save them all. And as such, I wrote him (because my Paragon Shepard is male)

Also, while I'm quite capable of wrting emotional scenes, writing a text that rouses its audience, make them stand up and cheer, is not something I have any experience in, at all. So, I'm more than happy that so many people here actually did feel somewhat like that.

[Samuel_Valkyrie]

Hadeedak wrote...

Bad King wrote...

Isn't that basically the control ending?

Except with a living or sort of preserved Shepard, yes. And more monologueing from our hero.

Maybe a bit. But, to me (like I just explained), Paragon Shepard is an honest believer of freedom. Controlling them would be something that goes against everything Shepard stands for. Yes, he will fight them, of necessary, but if there is the slightest chance that they can all live out there lives in relative peace, Shepard HAS to try for that. 

In my mind, he doesn't consider either the Catalyst, or the Reapers, as monsters. he sees them as adversaries, but as intelligent, rational beings, and with those, you can communicate, and, therefore, reason. Which is exactly what Shepard does. As Shepard has always done.

[Doctor Uburian]

blacqout wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

blacqout wrote...

Doctor Uburian wrote...

blacqout wrote...

No, it doesn't work for me.

The Catalyst has seen countless cycles. Shepard might see the Geth and Quarians currently working together, but the Catalyst has seen hundreds of conflicts that didn't end peacefully. He's arguing from a position that Shepard, and a large portion of the ME fanbase apparently, cannot understand.

For Shepard to sway the Catalyst would completely undermine the entire series.

Actually, i don't think that it would undermine the series, just because the appearance of the catalyst already did that. 

The catalyst is not omnipotent, and even if it is, it can't be trusted.

The Catalyst was written as omnipotent and sincere. Sorry, but it's true. The alternative is that BioWare made an unwinnable game.

For a 30 year old man to lecture such a being on the nature of the galaxy and all the life that resides within it, is an absolutely ludicruous proposition. 

Omnipotent and sincere my ass. It's a damned computer AI program's avatar.

Bioware did make an unwinnable game. That's the fact, Jack.

"Now get the hell out of our galaxy. And stay out!" -- I prefer the renegade interrupt though with Shepard survival.

The goal is to stop the Reapers, and that happens. You have an unusual definition of "unwinnable".

We would only have cause to call the Catalyst's honesty to question if BioWare wrote one in. That there is no way to ascertain the fact for sure, and certainly no reward for doing so - that pretty much does mean that BioWare wrote the exchange as being truthful. 

And i meant omniscient. He was able to choose a form that Shepard was familiar with. I see no reason to doubt that he knew what had been going on the galaxy.

He has seen countless cycles played out, presumabely in which synthetics and organics had been engaged in some sort of war. We're told that the same patterns played out in each cycle, and the Protheans were themselves in such a conflict. Concrete detail on anything that came before that wouldn't be appropriate.

For Shepard to not only argue, but actually pursuade this being, would be dumber than the ending we got. 

The goal of the player (for me at least) was not only to defeat the reapers, you also need to save the galactic civilization, and your friends.

If you can't save them, it is an unwinnable game.

Modifié par Doctor Uburian, 20 juin 2012 - 07:22 .

[blacqout]

Doctor Uburian wrote...

blacqout wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

blacqout wrote...

Doctor Uburian wrote...

blacqout wrote...

No, it doesn't work for me.

The Catalyst has seen countless cycles. Shepard might see the Geth and Quarians currently working together, but the Catalyst has seen hundreds of conflicts that didn't end peacefully. He's arguing from a position that Shepard, and a large portion of the ME fanbase apparently, cannot understand.

For Shepard to sway the Catalyst would completely undermine the entire series.

Actually, i don't think that it would undermine the series, just because the appearance of the catalyst already did that. 

The catalyst is not omnipotent, and even if it is, it can't be trusted.

The Catalyst was written as omnipotent and sincere. Sorry, but it's true. The alternative is that BioWare made an unwinnable game.

For a 30 year old man to lecture such a being on the nature of the galaxy and all the life that resides within it, is an absolutely ludicruous proposition. 

Omnipotent and sincere my ass. It's a damned computer AI program's avatar.

Bioware did make an unwinnable game. That's the fact, Jack.

"Now get the hell out of our galaxy. And stay out!" -- I prefer the renegade interrupt though with Shepard survival.

The goal is to stop the Reapers, and that happens. You have an unusual definition of "unwinnable".

We would only have cause to call the Catalyst's honesty to question if BioWare wrote one in. That there is no way to ascertain the fact for sure, and certainly no reward for doing so - that pretty much does mean that BioWare wrote the exchange as being truthful. 

And i meant omniscient. He was able to choose a form that Shepard was familiar with. I see no reason to doubt that he knew what had been going on the galaxy.

He has seen countless cycles played out, presumabely in which synthetics and organics had been engaged in some sort of war. We're told that the same patterns played out in each cycle, and the Protheans were themselves in such a conflict. Concrete detail on anything that came before that wouldn't be appropriate.

For Shepard to not only argue, but actually pursuade this being, would be dumber than the ending we got. 

The goal of the player (for me at least) was not only to defeat the reapers, you also need to save the galactic civilization, and your friends.

If you can't save them, it is an unwinnable game.

No. The goal of the player is to stop the Reapers, with as little damage to galactic civilization as possible. That's the aim that forms the basis of the third game. Your entirely personal, made-up goals for Shepard do not render the game unwinnable.

Just so you know, despite what you think, Mass Effect 1 was totally winnable too.

Modifié par blacqout, 20 juin 2012 - 07:28 .

[Samuel_Valkyrie]

*Sigh*

OK, here's the problem: What Shepard tries to do, is save humanity, and, by extension, the entire galactic civilization. In order to do that, you have to stop the Reapers from doing exactly that. But stopping the Reapers was always but a means to an end, namely the end of saving galactic civilization.

Furthermore, stopping the Reapers can be done by different means. You can destroy them. You can control them. You can change what it is they are focused on destroying, thereby taking away their target, leaving them nothing to destroy.

OR, what I propose, you can reason with them, and talk them into stopping.

Since it seems you missed it, let me quote what I said earlier:

Well, I disagree with the statement that the Catalyst was written as omnipotent(omniscient) and sincere. I am of the opinion that the character was trying to convince you of this. But, let's assume it is.

In which case, You, Shepard, are the first to reach this place. You are special. A new situation has come to be, and the Catalyst does not know how to proceed. You are special. The Catalyst hands the responsibility of the situation over to you.

Now, you get to pick one of three options.

You pick one of my Interrupts instead.

Now, you argue that the Catalyst is working from a position that is, virtually, ununderstandable. But the point the Catalyst makes, is that said situation has ALREADY BEEN CHANGED. The posiiton that he holds, is no longer tenable. Which is why he has to leave the decision to someone else, namely you, Shepard.

You argue that there is a possibility for a new status quo, one where organics and synthetics can live beside one another in relative peace.

The Catalyst has no rebuke, because he has already found that his own position, I repeat, is untenable.

I agree with you that the Catalyst works on a plane that we do not understand. Which is the strength of this argument, not its weakness. We do not fully understand what motivates him, and therefore, his decision to allow Shepard to at least give this statue quo he proposes a chance, is as unfathomable, but therefore, not in spite of it, within the realm of the character.

EDIT: Also, don't forget, this is an OPTION. The other choices are still available, and if ou prefer one of those, you still have every opportunity to do so. This is merely an addition to these choices, not a replacement.

Modifié par Samuel_Valkyrie, 20 juin 2012 - 07:33 .

[Doctor Uburian]

blacqout wrote...

No. The goal of the player is to stop the Reapers, with as little damage to galactic civilization as possible. That's the aim that forms the basis of the third game. Your entirely personal, made-up goals for Shepard do not render the game unwinnable.

Just so you know, despite what you think, Mass Effect 1 was totally winnable too.

May be for you, but for me, the friends, and the civilizations came first.

I never played Mass effect for the action, i played it for the characters and its livid universe. That's what i want to save.

And, on Mass effect 1, almost the entire crew, and Shepard, survived.

Modifié par Doctor Uburian, 20 juin 2012 - 07:39 .

[blacqout]

It's stupid. It's really not very well thought out to assume that Shepard, with his limited frame of reference, is anywhere near equipped to reason with and and convince the Catalyst that his millions of years of observation is incorrect. We're given enough information during the game to assume that it's not lying.

And again, no. Stopping the reapers isn't a means to an end. It's the end. Saving various galactic civilizations from themselves was a means to this end... you might remember the missions helping the Geth and Quarians and Turians and Krogans resolve their little tiffs.

It shouldn't be an option, because the very notion is ridiculous.

[blacqout]

Doctor Uburian wrote...

blacqout wrote...

No. The goal of the player is to stop the Reapers, with as little damage to galactic civilization as possible. That's the aim that forms the basis of the third game. Your entirely personal, made-up goals for Shepard do not render the game unwinnable.

Just so you know, despite what you think, Mass Effect 1 was totally winnable too.

May be for you, but for me, the friends, and the civilizations came first.

I never played Mass effect for the action, i played it for the characters and its livid universe. That's what i want to save.

And, on Mass effect 1, almost the entire crew, and Shepard, survived.

No, not for me, but for everyone that purchased and played Mass Effect 3. Doing "whatever the hell it takes to stop the Reapers" was, specifically, the task Anderson assigned him during the game's opening.  Shepard himself says "each of us need to be prepared to die for humanity... anything less, and we've already lost". 

I'm sorry, but you're just mistaken. Shepard has his/her mission, and he/she carries it out. The game is winnable. Your made-up secondary objectives do nothing to change that. 

[danby]

Would this be a purple explosion?.......theres no explosion?!  How is joker going to be running away from the battle this time though?  Hes going to stay!!!     What kinda crazy ass ending are you proposing here.  An ending without psuedo philsophy or gaping plot holes!!?!  I just don't get you kids now a days.

[Doofe2012]

GOD YES! This is everything I wanted in the ending. How awesome of a twist would it have been for the Catalyst to offer us those choices only for us to reject them?

[Doctor Uburian]

blacqout wrote...

Doctor Uburian wrote...

blacqout wrote...

No. The goal of the player is to stop the Reapers, with as little damage to galactic civilization as possible. That's the aim that forms the basis of the third game. Your entirely personal, made-up goals for Shepard do not render the game unwinnable.

Just so you know, despite what you think, Mass Effect 1 was totally winnable too.

May be for you, but for me, the friends, and the civilizations came first.

I never played Mass effect for the action, i played it for the characters and its livid universe. That's what i want to save.

And, on Mass effect 1, almost the entire crew, and Shepard, survived.

No, not for me, but for everyone that purchased and played Mass Effect 3. Doing "whatever the hell it takes to stop the Reapers" was, specifically, the task Anderson assigned him during the game's opening.  Shepard himself says "each of us need to be prepared to die for humanity... anything less, and we've already lost". 

I'm sorry, but you're just mistaken. Shepard has his/her mission, and he/she carries it out. The game is winnable. Your made-up secondary objectives do nothing to change that. 

As i remember:

On Mass Effect 1, i stopped the invasion to save the galaxy, and your crew.

On Mass Effect 2, i stopped the collectors to save the galaxy and your friends again.

On Mass Effect 3, i was expecting the same thing. Stop the reapers to save everyone. If you can barely save them, you can't win.

That's just my opinion, of course.

Modifié par Doctor Uburian, 20 juin 2012 - 07:52 .

[blacqout]

Doctor Uburian wrote...

blacqout wrote...

Doctor Uburian wrote...

blacqout wrote...

No. The goal of the player is to stop the Reapers, with as little damage to galactic civilization as possible. That's the aim that forms the basis of the third game. Your entirely personal, made-up goals for Shepard do not render the game unwinnable.

Just so you know, despite what you think, Mass Effect 1 was totally winnable too.

May be for you, but for me, the friends, and the civilizations came first.

I never played Mass effect for the action, i played it for the characters and its livid universe. That's what i want to save.

And, on Mass effect 1, almost the entire crew, and Shepard, survived.

No, not for me, but for everyone that purchased and played Mass Effect 3. Doing "whatever the hell it takes to stop the Reapers" was, specifically, the task Anderson assigned him during the game's opening.  Shepard himself says "each of us need to be prepared to die for humanity... anything less, and we've already lost". 

I'm sorry, but you're just mistaken. Shepard has his/her mission, and he/she carries it out. The game is winnable. Your made-up secondary objectives do nothing to change that. 

As i remember:

On Mass Effect 1, i stopped the invasion to save the galaxy, and your crew.

On Mass Effect 2, i stopped the collectors to save the galaxy and your friends again.

On Mass Effect 3, i was expecting the same thing. Stop the reapers to save everyone. If you can barely save them, you can't win.

That's just my opinion, of course.

No, on Mass Effect 1 it's fully possible to lose two crew members. The game is still winnable. 

On Mass Effect 2 it's fully possible to lose 11 crew members. The game is still winnable. 

On Mass Effect 3 it's fully possible to lose 1 crew member. The game is still winnable.

Shepard carrying out his objective is not at all dependant on the survival of his crew.

Modifié par blacqout, 20 juin 2012 - 07:55 .

[Doctor Uburian]

blacqout wrote...

Doctor Uburian wrote...

blacqout wrote...

Doctor Uburian wrote...

blacqout wrote...

No. The goal of the player is to stop the Reapers, with as little damage to galactic civilization as possible. That's the aim that forms the basis of the third game. Your entirely personal, made-up goals for Shepard do not render the game unwinnable.

Just so you know, despite what you think, Mass Effect 1 was totally winnable too.

May be for you, but for me, the friends, and the civilizations came first.

I never played Mass effect for the action, i played it for the characters and its livid universe. That's what i want to save.

And, on Mass effect 1, almost the entire crew, and Shepard, survived.

No, not for me, but for everyone that purchased and played Mass Effect 3. Doing "whatever the hell it takes to stop the Reapers" was, specifically, the task Anderson assigned him during the game's opening.  Shepard himself says "each of us need to be prepared to die for humanity... anything less, and we've already lost". 

I'm sorry, but you're just mistaken. Shepard has his/her mission, and he/she carries it out. The game is winnable. Your made-up secondary objectives do nothing to change that. 

As i remember:

On Mass Effect 1, i stopped the invasion to save the galaxy, and your crew.

On Mass Effect 2, i stopped the collectors to save the galaxy and your friends again.

On Mass Effect 3, i was expecting the same thing. Stop the reapers to save everyone. If you can barely save them, you can't win.

That's just my opinion, of course.

No, on Mass Effect 1 it's fully possible to lose two crew members. The game is still winnable. 

On Mass Effect 2 it's fully possible to lose 11 crew members. The game is still winnable. 

On Mass Effect 3 it's fully possible to lose 1 crew member. The game is still winnable.

I only lost 1 squd member on ME1

I didn't lose any squad member on ME2

I didn't lose any squad member in ME3, but their fate is unknown, especially for Tali and Garrus, and the galactic society is destroyed.

For me at least, i did not win the game. 

I don't really care for Shepard himself, i only care for the crew as a whole.

Modifié par Doctor Uburian, 20 juin 2012 - 07:58 .

[Samuel_Valkyrie]

blacqout wrote...

It's stupid. It's really not very well thought out to assume that Shepard, with his limited frame of reference, is anywhere near equipped to reason with and and convince the Catalyst that his millions of years of observation is incorrect. We're given enough information during the game to assume that it's not lying.

And again, no. Stopping the reapers isn't a means to an end. It's the end. Saving various galactic civilizations from themselves was a means to this end... you might remember the missions helping the Geth and Quarians and Turians and Krogans resolve their little tiffs.

It shouldn't be an option, because the very notion is ridiculous.

Well, clearly, you're in a minority here. If it shouldn't be an option, because the notion is ridiculous to, by that same logic, all the other options should not be options either. More people find those options far more ridiculous than this one. 

But, as I said, it is an option. If you are fine with the other options, again, nothing is stopping you from chosing either of those. This is an added option, one that, contrary to most proposed solutions given on this forum, actually preserves the original choices, rather than wiping those away completely.

But your issue, I think, with the entire premise of this thread, namely that the ending needs to be changed, altered, or something of that nature. And that, I cannot change. Nor are either of us, you or me or anyone, willing to change our positions on that. Which is fine. So let that be the end of this part of the discussion, and allow others to continue to toot my horn in admiration of my work, yes?

[InHarmsWay]

blacqout wrote...

Doctor Uburian wrote...

blacqout wrote...

Doctor Uburian wrote...

blacqout wrote...

No. The goal of the player is to stop the Reapers, with as little damage to galactic civilization as possible. That's the aim that forms the basis of the third game. Your entirely personal, made-up goals for Shepard do not render the game unwinnable.

Just so you know, despite what you think, Mass Effect 1 was totally winnable too.

May be for you, but for me, the friends, and the civilizations came first.

I never played Mass effect for the action, i played it for the characters and its livid universe. That's what i want to save.

And, on Mass effect 1, almost the entire crew, and Shepard, survived.

No, not for me, but for everyone that purchased and played Mass Effect 3. Doing "whatever the hell it takes to stop the Reapers" was, specifically, the task Anderson assigned him during the game's opening.  Shepard himself says "each of us need to be prepared to die for humanity... anything less, and we've already lost". 

I'm sorry, but you're just mistaken. Shepard has his/her mission, and he/she carries it out. The game is winnable. Your made-up secondary objectives do nothing to change that. 

As i remember:

On Mass Effect 1, i stopped the invasion to save the galaxy, and your crew.

On Mass Effect 2, i stopped the collectors to save the galaxy and your friends again.

On Mass Effect 3, i was expecting the same thing. Stop the reapers to save everyone. If you can barely save them, you can't win.

That's just my opinion, of course.

No, on Mass Effect 1 it's fully possible to lose two crew members. The game is still winnable. 

On Mass Effect 2 it's fully possible to lose 11 crew members. The game is still winnable. 

On Mass Effect 3 it's fully possible to lose 1 crew member. The game is still winnable.

Shepard carrying out his objective is not at all dependant on the survival of his crew.

Actually it is possible to lose all 6 squad members in ME3. VS can die during the stand off. Tali can die during the Rannoch arc. Everyone else can die during the charge to the conduit.

Also without the mass relays, galactic civilizations will collapse and billions will die.

[Gravbh]

Doctor Uburian wrote...

blacqout wrote...

Doctor Uburian wrote...

blacqout wrote...

No. The goal of the player is to stop the Reapers, with as little damage to galactic civilization as possible. That's the aim that forms the basis of the third game. Your entirely personal, made-up goals for Shepard do not render the game unwinnable.

Just so you know, despite what you think, Mass Effect 1 was totally winnable too.

May be for you, but for me, the friends, and the civilizations came first.

I never played Mass effect for the action, i played it for the characters and its livid universe. That's what i want to save.

And, on Mass effect 1, almost the entire crew, and Shepard, survived.

No, not for me, but for everyone that purchased and played Mass Effect 3. Doing "whatever the hell it takes to stop the Reapers" was, specifically, the task Anderson assigned him during the game's opening.  Shepard himself says "each of us need to be prepared to die for humanity... anything less, and we've already lost". 

I'm sorry, but you're just mistaken. Shepard has his/her mission, and he/she carries it out. The game is winnable. Your made-up secondary objectives do nothing to change that. 

As i remember:

On Mass Effect 1, i stopped the invasion to save the galaxy, and your crew.

On Mass Effect 2, i stopped the collectors to save the galaxy and your friends again.

On Mass Effect 3, i was expecting the same thing. Stop the reapers to save everyone. If you can barely save them, you can't win.

That's just my opinion, of course.

So basically you wanted a happy ending. Despite all the rage of "that's not what our complaint is!" from the re-takers, that actually is your complaint.

Also for the OP, what happens when you tell off starkid and he responds in kind with a "no" of his own? You just sit there while the reapers smash what's left of the fleet because you decided to take your ball and go home. The reapers win, but at least you said no. Congrats.

[Doctor Uburian]

Gravbh wrote...

So basically you wanted a happy ending. Despite all the rage of "that's not what our complaint is!" from the re-takers, that actually is your complaint.

Also for the OP, what happens when you tell off starkid and he responds in kind with a "no" of his own? You just sit there while the reapers smash what's left of the fleet because you decided to take your ball and go home. The reapers win, but at least you said no. Congrats.

Of course, i want a happy ending. 

As a single person and a human, that's what i want.

[blacqout]

InHarmsWay wrote...

Actually it is possible to lose all 6 squad members in ME3. VS can die during the stand off. Tali can die during the Rannoch arc. Everyone else can die during the charge to the conduit.

Also without the mass relays, galactic civilizations will collapse and billions will die.

The Virmire Suvivor was the only one i was aware of, but okay... so? I don't see how that alters the fact that Shepard's success has never, ever, been reliant on the survival of his crew. It actually just reafirms the fact. 

The last part is pure conjecture on your part. Several BioWare writers and posters have given entirely plausible scenarios and explanations for the survival of galactic civilizations.

[Hyperion II]

I wrote something like that as a fanfic ending. Good job, OP. I agree completly.

[blacqout]

Samuel_Valkyrie wrote...

blacqout wrote...

It's stupid. It's really not very well thought out to assume that Shepard, with his limited frame of reference, is anywhere near equipped to reason with and and convince the Catalyst that his millions of years of observation is incorrect. We're given enough information during the game to assume that it's not lying.

And again, no. Stopping the reapers isn't a means to an end. It's the end. Saving various galactic civilizations from themselves was a means to this end... you might remember the missions helping the Geth and Quarians and Turians and Krogans resolve their little tiffs.

It shouldn't be an option, because the very notion is ridiculous.

Well, clearly, you're in a minority here. If it shouldn't be an option, because the notion is ridiculous to, by that same logic, all the other options should not be options either. More people find those options far more ridiculous than this one. 

But, as I said, it is an option. If you are fine with the other options, again, nothing is stopping you from chosing either of those. This is an added option, one that, contrary to most proposed solutions given on this forum, actually preserves the original choices, rather than wiping those away completely.

But your issue, I think, with the entire premise of this thread, namely that the ending needs to be changed, altered, or something of that nature. And that, I cannot change. Nor are either of us, you or me or anyone, willing to change our positions on that. Which is fine. So let that be the end of this part of the discussion, and allow others to continue to toot my horn in admiration of my work, yes?

No. If it's an option, why wouldn't i take it? It will result in a more favourable outcome for my Shepard. 

It would be extremely poor writing and story telling for BioWare to include a scenario such as the one you are proposing. A mortal man with such limited experience lecturing an omniscient being, millions, maybe billions of years old, on the state of the galaxy. It's just laughable. 

The people for your idea are either stupid, or just so blinded by inconsolable rage at the original ending that they're not thinking straight. Sorry.

[Versus Omnibus]

blacqout wrote...

It's stupid. It's really not very well thought out to assume that Shepard, with his limited frame of reference, is anywhere near equipped to reason with and and convince the Catalyst that his millions of years of observation is incorrect. We're given enough information during the game to assume that it's not lying.

And again, no. Stopping the reapers isn't a means to an end. It's the end. Saving various galactic civilizations from themselves was a means to this end... you might remember the missions helping the Geth and Quarians and Turians and Krogans resolve their little tiffs.

It shouldn't be an option, because the very notion is ridiculous.

And the Catalyst being unable to continue what it has been for who knows how long just because a half-dead organic reached it's doorstep is more realistic?

[Samuel_Valkyrie]

Gravbh wrote...

Doctor Uburian wrote...

blacqout wrote...

Doctor Uburian wrote...

blacqout wrote...

No. The goal of the player is to stop the Reapers, with as little damage to galactic civilization as possible. That's the aim that forms the basis of the third game. Your entirely personal, made-up goals for Shepard do not render the game unwinnable.

Just so you know, despite what you think, Mass Effect 1 was totally winnable too.

May be for you, but for me, the friends, and the civilizations came first.

I never played Mass effect for the action, i played it for the characters and its livid universe. That's what i want to save.

And, on Mass effect 1, almost the entire crew, and Shepard, survived.

No, not for me, but for everyone that purchased and played Mass Effect 3. Doing "whatever the hell it takes to stop the Reapers" was, specifically, the task Anderson assigned him during the game's opening.  Shepard himself says "each of us need to be prepared to die for humanity... anything less, and we've already lost". 

I'm sorry, but you're just mistaken. Shepard has his/her mission, and he/she carries it out. The game is winnable. Your made-up secondary objectives do nothing to change that. 

As i remember:

On Mass Effect 1, i stopped the invasion to save the galaxy, and your crew.

On Mass Effect 2, i stopped the collectors to save the galaxy and your friends again.

On Mass Effect 3, i was expecting the same thing. Stop the reapers to save everyone. If you can barely save them, you can't win.

That's just my opinion, of course.

So basically you wanted a happy ending. Despite all the rage of "that's not what our complaint is!" from the re-takers, that actually is your complaint.

Also for the OP, what happens when you tell off starkid and he responds in kind with a "no" of his own? You just sit there while the reapers smash what's left of the fleet because you decided to take your ball and go home. The reapers win, but at least you said no. Congrats.

It's a risk that Shepard is willing to take. That Shepard has taken a lot of times. During Rannoch, for instance. It's a huge gamble, and Shepard knows this. But, he also feels that it is the only right thing to do. Because, so he feels, it's the actual truth.

But, as I said earlier, the Catalyst cannot do that. He cannot say 'no', because he is already in a position which is untenable, which is the entire reason he gives you, Shepard, the player, the option of chosing. If he could make the call on his own, he would have done so already, and he wouldn't need a 'puny human' in the first place.

But, mostly, plot armour. It's the story that is being told, and that's the end of it. The Catalyst won't say 'no', because I wrote him saing 'yes'. Yes, I'm willing to admit that. In the entire game, things happen and characters react without you having any influence at all, and a lot of times it is out of character, for the only reason to move the story along. I'm doing nothing here that the writers of the game haven't done themselves already. Which many, MANY writers do, all the time. In fact, there isn't a single story out there, that doesn't do exactly this.