385 réponses à ce sujet

[the red boon]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Is OP affiliated with this guy?

I had to stop watching it in the first 5 seconds and it would make sense if that was the OP he does seem fire and brimstone like.

[DarkSpiral]

the red boon wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Is OP affiliated with this guy?

I had to stop watching it in the first 5 seconds and it would make sense if that was the OP he does seem fire and brimstone like.

I'm prettu sure the dude in the video was making fun.  If he wasn't, and actually believed he arguments made sense, then he's an idiot.

Minty, while coming across as arrogant and dismissive, actually makes sense in his/her opinions, regardless of whether I agree with them or not.

[Jarys]

I hear using the term 'checkmate' makes you automatically correct. Anyways, I'll reply today, and by this time tomorrow you'll be past page 20. Also, nothing you have written has not already been said.

You are not a unique, all-knowing snowflake, whose knowledge will crush our movement with its logic. Sorry mate.

[Kloborgg711]

Talk about a superiority complex.

[Conduit0]

Drak41n wrote...

By the time a person is rationalizing things to make sense of a story, a hiccup has occurred in the telling.

You're absolutely right, writers should never trust the audiance to be capable of putting 2 and 2 together them selves.

[Geraro]

DarkSpiral wrote...

Minty, while coming across as arrogant and dismissive, actually makes sense in his/her opinions, regardless of whether I agree with them or not.

Minty's explanation of why synthesis was the right way to go makes sense in exactly the same way that Saren's arguements did.

Regardless of whether or not you think the endings were crap, synthesis is what the Reapers have been trying to force onto organics throughout the series.

[Drak41n]

piemanz wrote...

Drak41n wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Drak41n wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Tzupi88 wrote...

People who liked the ending/are ok with the ending: They don't stand to gain ANYTHING from this debate no matter what ends up happening, and therefore it doesn't make sense for them to invest so much time opposing group nr. 2 above. If Bioware ignores this whole thing, the ending they like/are ok with is still there. If Bioware caves in and gives group nr. 2 something new, they don't lose anything since they still have the ending that they liked/were ok with. Hell, they might like the new ending MORE than the old one. Economically, they do diddly squat. They were happy with the product and have no complaints.

If they change the ending, it would no longer be the ending we enjoyed would it.

Wait, why?  How would an alternative ending in a game that suppose to have alternative endings diminish and render meaningless the one you chose?  I'm curious.

That depends on what the choices are. If theres an ending that's lets my shep live for instance then i'm going to chose it, not because i prefer it but because i'd be stupid to chose an option that results in suicide when there's an option to live.

This is the problem, adding new endings could effectively invalidate the endings already in the game.

I don't agree with that.  My problem with the choices is that they don't make sense.  What's the point of resisting the reapers only to utlimately agree with them and homogenize all life by either destroying synthetic life, sythesising with it or merely delaying the cycle.  The fact that Shepard is willing to sacrifice him self is poignant and would have inherent meaning in terms of his role as a selfless hero if the decisions made sense.  But they don't.  At least, that's my biggest problem with how the ending panned out.  It's nonsensical.  I would appreciate a decision that allows Shepard happily ever after, but I don't need it.

I also want a bit of closure.  And I really want to know the how, what and why of what joker is doing.  It makes NO sense in context of the information we're given.

The point is you have no option, you're losing the war with the Reapers, thats the grim reality, the crucible is your last hope. It doesn't matter that you wan't Shep to go commando and kick Reaper ass because this time it's not going to happen, they're just too strong.

When Shep meets the catalyst, he/she is close to death anyway and in the middle of a war he/she is losing, thats not a strong position to be in, you can't expect to have happily ever after.

Beleive it or not the ending does make sense. but i'd be intrested to know which part you think doesn't.

Why does Shepard trust star child?  We know next to nothing about him.  All we know is that he's the reason for the reapers and he says almost precisely the same thing that a reaper we killed earlier said.  Why does Shepard take its words as gospel?  There is exactly no reason to believe this person.  Two of the choices are philosophically identical: homogenize life in the galaxy.  Either destroy synthetic life or make all life a synthetic hybrid.  If you choose either of these you agree with the Reapers.  Biological and synthetic life cannot co-exist.  One must necessarily end for the other to flourish.  This conclusion should only make sense to Shepard if his experience resonates with this conclusion.  My shepard's experience didn't.   He discovered that the geth were actually willing to co-exist with their creature and, in fact, the quarians, not the geth, sought genocide.  He should have challenged these conclusions.  He didn't.

The only other option, beyond subscribing to reaper philosophy, is to justify the Reapers perception of organics.  Namely that they are short sighted.  By sending the reapers away Shepard mortgages the future for the present.  They cycle is not broken.  I think this is an appropriate choice to be included because it's very human to take the 'easy' way out, but it shouldn't be the sole alternative to subscribing the the reapers point of view.

Beyond that, there are story telling elements that bother me.  I don't understand the who, what, and why of what joker is doing.  I don't understand how his crew got there - we're not told.  You can only conclude he abandoned shepard before he blew the relays, and before that he somehow collected at least some of the crew from the surface.  How?  Why?  When?  None of that is clear.  It doesn't make sense.  There's no explaination or clue for it.

How did Anderson get to the citadel before Shepard?  Why can Shepard breath in space?

How did my other, less cataclysmic choices impact the universe?  I don't need to know every detail.  I would like to have an idea of what happens to my companions, but whatever.  My real complaints are with the stuff I already mentioned.

Modifié par Drak41n, 15 mars 2012 - 05:52 .

[dallicant]

If the ending for ME3 actually was artistic or intellectual, I'd be the last to complain. However, it comes out of left field and forces the player to accept the Catalyst's assertions at face value, even if the player's experience provides (admittedly non-conclusive) evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore, the scenes of Joker in mass relay transit are illogical. Also, sixteen distinct endings were promised. While what qualifies as distinct may be up to debate, most users have not found the different endings to be sufficiently distinct.

Unless the problems with the ending are addressed, I will not be purchasing any future BioWare products after Mass Effect 3. I will vote with my dollars and buy from the competition. Admittedly, the ME series is the only BioWare product that I have purchased, but this is still one less customer they will be have in the future.

[GoblinSapper]

If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.

[C Trayne]

so your saying your entirely pleased with the ending and have no further questions that could or should have been answered??
-you were ok that you had no say in anything shepard said to the god child?
-you were ok that no matter what choices you've made in the game u get the same 3 endings?
-you were ok with the normandy and your crew abandoning you for some unknown reason?
-you were ok they end up on some unknown world with no way of leaving?
-you were ok with the fact that the relays are now destroyed and thousands of random species are trapped in our system?

well more power to u then because i know i want some answers

[Illabean]

Looks very logical. However after reading that I am a "guaranteed asset", I feel like accepting the challenge and not buying anything more unless the ending is changed.

[kunzite]

dallicant wrote...

If the ending for ME3 actually was artistic or intellectual, I'd be the last to complain. However, it comes out of left field and forces the player to accept the Catalyst's assertions at face value, even if the player's experience provides (admittedly non-conclusive) evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore, the scenes of Joker in mass relay transit are illogical. Also, sixteen distinct endings were promised. While what qualifies as distinct may be up to debate, most users have not found the different endings to be sufficiently distinct.

Unless the problems with the ending are addressed, I will not be purchasing any future BioWare products after Mass Effect 3. I will vote with my dollars and buy from the competition. Admittedly, the ME series is the only BioWare product that I have purchased, but this is still one less customer they will be have in the future.

Actually, on the issue of Joker in mass transit....I have a theory on that. After rewatching the coloured explosions of doom....it doesnt appear that there are any ships other than Reaper ships in orbit when the Crucible fires. Is it possible that the fleet was ordered out of the system to avoid being caught in the blast just prior to the Crucible being fired? If so, then it might explain the Normandy being in mass transit. Though I have no concrete evidence, other than the scene I mentioned

[pottypenguin]

A little self righteous are we? Please tell me this is Newt Gingrich our countries number one intellect clearing up our illogical displeasure of ME3s ending. We’re sorry we made fun of your moon base in hopes that one day God boy with his space magic will save us from our synthetic creations by destroying us with his synthetic harbingers.

Yes you did use some actual human behavior in your enlightened essay to show us inferior, ignorant, brainwashed peons that the only correct conclusion is yours. May we except it and become a hive mind in your image. May no one ever question the status quo again and be sheep. BAAAAAAAAAAAA.

I’m sorry but your thread is as invalid as any other that you dismiss. There would never be this feeding of negativity towards the ending if some people didn’t find it displeasing in the first place. Why does it seem that a majority went to the hive mind of disliking the ending opposed to the hive mind of your conclusion. In any polarizing issue hive minds go both ways.

I get it though, your above it all. Your so intelligent and used such undeniable logic you can’t be wrong and that is exactly why you are wrong. You took complex human behavior twisted to benefit your righteous conclusion then through in your own personal philosophies (not facts but a belief structure your brain pieced together) to justify the outcome. It’s funny how it’s always the others persons fault and never our own. As humans we have an infinity for self justification and no one is immune from falling prey to it.

I’m sorry but you must be as a narcissist, or have a god complex, or just have the need to feel superior to everyone else as a defense mechanism for some severe inadequacy issue. I didn’t cover everything in your post and I don’t care to. There are so many more important things in this world than a game.

I have a personal investment in this universe but I’ve detached myself as well as I could. I see no harm in anyone liking or disliking the ending as long as they treat each other with respect. If Bioware takes on that mentality of self justification as they’ve been doing through DA2, SW MMO, and continue it with ME3 they may suffer some negative affects in sales and support. They provide a service that we support and a little fan service at a temporary cost to their pride will serve them better then sticking their head in the sand

[s.nebulous]

piemanz wrote...

That depends on what the choices are. If theres an ending that's lets my shep live for instance then i'm going to chose it, not because i prefer it but because i'd be stupid to chose an option that results in suicide when there's an option to live.

This is the problem, adding new endings could effectively invalidate the endings already in the game.

If it's the same ending that then procedes to spoon feed me crap I don't need to know, then i will just find that insulting.

So you would use metagaming to pick the “perfect” ending and therefore there should not add more options. No endings should invalid another; this is not a real problem.

[Drak41n]

Conduit0 wrote...

Drak41n wrote...

By the time a person is rationalizing things to make sense of a story, a hiccup has occurred in the telling.

You're absolutely right, writers should never trust the audiance to be capable of putting 2 and 2 together them selves.

This probably doesn't deserve a response, but I'm bored.

Your example is terrible, but if you flip it, it's perfect.

You know what 2 + 2 equals.  In that situation you provide certain facts that invite a conclusion.  It's clear what the writer wanted to accomplished.  Good writing steers the audience to the conclusion, or the message, without the writer ever explicity stating it.  They don't have to say 4 because they've given you the tools to make that leap yourself.  That's understanding, and without it a story is meaningless.

When a writer says 4 that doesn't really tell you anything.  He's done a poor job.  There are literally an infinite number of ways to rationalize the answer 4.  That's why I said by the time someone has to rationalize the story for it to make sense a hiccup has occurred.

Modifié par Drak41n, 15 mars 2012 - 06:04 .

[piemanz]

Drak41n wrote...

Why does Shepard trust star child?  We know next to nothing about him.  All we know is that he's the reason for the reapers and he says almost precisely the same thing that a reaper we killed earlier said.  Why does Shepard take its words as gospel?  There is exactly no reason to believe this person.  Two of the choices are philosophically identical: homogenize life in the galaxy.  Either destroy synthetic life or make all life a synthetic hybrid.  If you choose either of these you agree with the Reapers.  Biological and synthetic life cannot co-exist.  One must necessarily end for the other to flourish.  This conclusion should only make sense to Shepard if his experience resonates with this conclusion.  My shepard's experience didn't.   He discovered that the geth were actually willing to co-exist with their creature and, in fact, the quarians, not the geth, sought genocide.  He should have challenged these conclusions.  He didn't.

The only other option, beyond subscribing to reaper philosophy, is to justify the Reapers perception of organics.  Namely that they are short sighted.  By sending the reapers away Shepard mortgages the future for the present.  They cycle is not broken.  I think this is an appropriate choice to be included because it's very human to take the 'easy' way out, but it shouldn't be the sole alternative to subscribing the the reapers point of view.

It's not that Shepard trusts the catalyst, he/she simply has no other option. Look at it this way, there are really 4 options, the 3 choices the catalyst gives you and the last is to do nothing, just die, right there on the citadel. Since it's already been established in the game that the crucible is 'the only hope' it's safe to assume that doing nothing will result in the extinction of every race, and the Reaper cycle will continue.

The peace your shep experienced with the geth and the Quarians only proves that they could co-exist at that particular point in time, it doesn't prove that the geth wouldn't advance and at some point in the future destroy their creators. Besides that's besides the point, the Reapers beleive they have the answer to a problem the think exists and they have the means to do something about it, so you experience with the geth is meaningless, other than maybe influencing your final decision.

Drak41n wrote...

Beyond that, there are story telling elements that bother me.  I don't understand the who, what, and why of what joker is doing.  I don't understand how his crew got there - we're not told.  You can only conclude he abandoned shepard before he blew the relays, and before that he somehow collected at least some of the crew from the surface.  How?  Why?  When?  None of that is clear.  It doesn't make sense.  There's no explaination or clue for it.

How did Anderson get to the citadel before Shepard?  Why can Shepard breath in space?

How did my other, less cataclysmic choices impact the universe?  I don't need to know every detail.  I would like to have an idea of what happens to my companions, but whatever.  My real complaints are with the stuff I already mentioned.

This is all really just padantics that really shouldn't need explaining. But joker and crew could be explained by the fact theres an order to retreat given over comms just before Shep enters the conduit, the normandy would have had time to pick the crew up while shep was on the citadel.

Modifié par piemanz, 15 mars 2012 - 06:17 .

[Awesomesaur]

Deltoran wrote...



Why do people still bother to listen to this Minty guy, this is just another
one of his politely worded, at least somewhat thought out
insult-and-attempt-to-discredit the retake movement threads. Not sure what he
hopes to accomplish by these threads but its a waste of type...and frankly, so
is my response.

i know Mintycool, he's a good friend of mine and still is. we are in vent practically every day. while he does believe what he said, he is doing this for attention and he is succeeding. for that i dont agree with him but it is working.

but back to why i am writing, we were both extremely excited to play through this
game. he made the choice to carefully navigate the gaming news websites to not
see any spoilers. hell, he even skipped out on all e3 coverage. which was his
choice and i respect that. i made a similar choice but  minus the e3/demo,
i played the crap out of that.

when the game was released, filled with glee i decided to play as much as i
could. i needed to get through it due to the fact that i only had a day off of
work and also had to write a paper for school. it is true what he said, i have
been so emotionally invested in this series (more so than him) that there was
no way i could even concentrate on my paper with the game looming overhead. so
i finished the game, and immediately started to txt him at 10:07pm my time on
the 8th.

i NEEDED to talk to him about it. i then waited until monday or tuesday, and
then he beat it. when he got on i believe i asked him what he thought of it
before i even said my opinion. he LOVED it. said he couldnt remember so good of
a game in a long time. i instantly started to tear this down, explaining how
upset i was. what i thought was wrong, what didnt make sense. and now reading
this... i see he took some of what i said and turned it against me... this
hurts.. a lot, i really mean that. even had a heated discussion in vent. but i'll get over it.

what i wont get over is the ending. i may come to accept it someday but i still
feel the sense of betrayl that bioware/ea has placed on my head as a 1 tonne
slab of concrete weighing me down. after i beat it i was depressed the next
day, the depression has gone but i am left with an extremely bitter taste in my
mouth. i havent been able to play another game since i beat it. for someone who
plays a few hours every day it has been almost a week without videogames... i
feel lost.

i'm in a new/ish area so games were my only escape, all the "friends"
i've made here in real life aren't really friends or the ones that were have
transferred to other schools. so without videogames theres only youtube.. i've
tried psyching myself into a game i could play but nothing works. it's as if a
piece of my gaming self died along with shepard during that non-existent
"falling action" and "resolution". you know that stuff that
generally comes after the "climax".. after the hero dies... i loved
video games, but it feels like that love wont come back any time soon

i lived, loved, ate and breathed as shepard for over 460 hours. i knew it was
coming to an end but not like this

Modifié par Awesomesaur, 15 mars 2012 - 06:13 .

[dallicant]

kunzite wrote...

dallicant wrote...

If the ending for ME3 actually was artistic or intellectual, I'd be the last to complain. However, it comes out of left field and forces the player to accept the Catalyst's assertions at face value, even if the player's experience provides (admittedly non-conclusive) evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore, the scenes of Joker in mass relay transit are illogical. Also, sixteen distinct endings were promised. While what qualifies as distinct may be up to debate, most users have not found the different endings to be sufficiently distinct.

Unless the problems with the ending are addressed, I will not be purchasing any future BioWare products after Mass Effect 3. I will vote with my dollars and buy from the competition. Admittedly, the ME series is the only BioWare product that I have purchased, but this is still one less customer they will be have in the future.

Actually, on the issue of Joker in mass transit....I have a theory on that. After rewatching the coloured explosions of doom....it doesnt appear that there are any ships other than Reaper ships in orbit when the Crucible fires. Is it possible that the fleet was ordered out of the system to avoid being caught in the blast just prior to the Crucible being fired? If so, then it might explain the Normandy being in mass transit. Though I have no concrete evidence, other than the scene I mentioned

Maybe, but it doesn't seem like there'd have been enough time.  Shepherd's not shown to give any kind of warning, he just jumps into the beam of light.  Perhaps it can be inferred, but what's actually shown suggests there was no warning.

[Conduit0]

Geraro wrote...

DarkSpiral wrote...

Minty, while coming across as arrogant and dismissive, actually makes sense in his/her opinions, regardless of whether I agree with them or not.

Minty's explanation of why synthesis was the right way to go makes sense in exactly the same way that Saren's arguements did.

Regardless of whether or not you think the endings were crap, synthesis is what the Reapers have been trying to force onto organics throughout the series.

It really does make sense when you stop and think about it. Organic life hits an unavoidable evolutionary plateau when it reaches sapience as evolutionary forces give way to intelligence and ingenuity that allow organics to become the masters of their enviroments. However, synthetics have no evolutionary plateau, they will continue to evolve as technology advances. Just look at the Reapers as an example, they are to us as we are to insects.
If synthetic life is allowed to continue to evolve long enough it is not unreasonable to think that they would eventually come to regard organic life as inferior and unnecessary. Then either through malicious intent or simple indifference destroy all organic life in the Galaxy.

[Drak41n]

Right, another point is in terms of the message of game, the choices don't make sense.  Our choices are intolerance or procrastination.  That's the message they wanted us to take away from Mass Effect?  That tolerance is doom to failure?  Our only hope for galactic peace is to make everyone the same?  What's the point of encourating species to work together and make peace with the synthetics if the utlimate conclusion to the game is "Well, that was nice while it lasted, but really you're just naive, the reapers were right all along."  It's a very dark message.

At least, that's what bothering me.  The logical conclusion of the choice is that the reapers are RIGHT.  Very bothersome because they're very very bad.  They make monsters.  They are the monsters.  We are we forced to become like them?

Modifié par Drak41n, 15 mars 2012 - 06:18 .

[thoreauscabin]

Yawn, boring thread. Can't believe it got to this many pages. lol @ everyone getting upset over this guy's smug, self-important opinion.

ME3's ending sucked, but so what? It's not going to be changed. Maybe don't pre-order/first day purchase Bioware games next time and move on to something else. I've already started a new character in Skyrim.

Modifié par thoreauscabin, 15 mars 2012 - 06:21 .

[piemanz]

Drak41n wrote...


Right, another point is in terms of the message of game, the choices don't make sense.  Our choices are intolerance or procrastination.  That's the message they wanted us to take away from Mass Effect?  That tolerance is doom to failure?  Our only hope for galactic peace is to make everyone the same?  What's the point of encourating species to work together and make peace with the synthetics if the utlimate conclusion to the game is "Well, that was nice while it lasted, but really you're just naive, the reapers were right all along."  It's a very dark message.

At least, that's what bothering me.  The logical conclusion of the choice is that the reapers are RIGHT.  Very bothersome because they're very very bad.  They make monsters.  They are the monsters.  We are we forced to become like them?

It is dark, but I don't see the synthesis ending as agreeing with the Reapers, it's more of a comprimise. If they were right, and synthetic will always turn on their creators then this will no longer be a problem while still allowing for individuality and freedom. And the Destruction option destroys them so i can't see how that's agreeing with them. Yes it will also kill the geth, but hey, the quarians still exist and they know how to make the geth.

Modifié par piemanz, 15 mars 2012 - 06:29 .

[Conduit0]

Drak41n wrote...


Right, another point is in terms of the message of game, the choices don't make sense.  Our choices are intolerance or procrastination.  That's the message they wanted us to take away from Mass Effect?  That tolerance is doom to failure?  Our only hope for galactic peace is to make everyone the same?  What's the point of encourating species to work together and make peace with the synthetics if the utlimate conclusion to the game is "Well, that was nice while it lasted, but really you're just naive, the reapers were right all along."  It's a very dark message.

At least, that's what bothering me.  The logical conclusion of the choice is that the reapers are RIGHT.  Very bothersome because they're very very bad.  They make monsters.  They are the monsters.  We are we forced to become like them?

If you don't agree with the Reapers you can destroy them, granted that means sacrificing the Geth, or you can take the control option and assume your Shepard plowed the Reapers into the sun.

[Geraro]

Conduit0 wrote...

It really does make sense when you stop and think about it. Organic life hits an unavoidable evolutionary plateau when it reaches sapience as evolutionary forces give way to intelligence and ingenuity that allow organics to become the masters of their enviroments. However, synthetics have no evolutionary plateau, they will continue to evolve as technology advances. Just look at the Reapers as an example, they are to us as we are to insects.
If synthetic life is allowed to continue to evolve long enough it is not unreasonable to think that they would eventually come to regard organic life as inferior and unnecessary. Then either through malicious intent or simple indifference destroy all organic life in the Galaxy.

I agree with the 95% that the lack of closure is crappy but THIS is why BW is clever. Not because they reused footage with different colours for a symbolic ending is symbolic effect, or because they are sitting behind their cones of silence right now, but because they have managed to set up a situation where players have come to competely different logical conclusions based on the same experience.

But back to the debate - you have even used the Reapers own arguments here "Just look at the Reapers as an example, they are to us as we are to insects". If I (or my Shep proxy) thought that synthetic life > organic life I would have finished the conversation with Soverign on Virmire and said "You have totally convinced me guy, you are salvation through destruction. Point me in the direction of your flesh melting tubes and I will do the rest." Why should Shep have an sudden epiphany about the ultimate failure of organic life because Starkid tells him basically the same thing that Sovereign and Harbinger were been banging on about?

In any case, machine logic is unlikely to come to such a conclusion that it is necessary to wipe out all organic life. The geth's decision to stop chasing the Quarians after they fled Rannoch is an example of this machine logic. Once the Quarians no longer threatened them, the Geth let them go as the potential ramifications of wiping out the creator race was uncalculable. Synths may do exactly what the Reapers are doing -> destroy technologically advanced organics as they may pose a threat, but wiping out all organic life is very unlikely to appeal to machine logic which would almost certainly look for a preferable hedge like the Reapers currently do (50K wipeouts) than an absolute destruction.

[Tony208]

Conduit0 wrote...

Geraro wrote...

DarkSpiral wrote...

Minty, while coming across as arrogant and dismissive, actually makes sense in his/her opinions, regardless of whether I agree with them or not.

Minty's explanation of why synthesis was the right way to go makes sense in exactly the same way that Saren's arguements did.

Regardless of whether or not you think the endings were crap, synthesis is what the Reapers have been trying to force onto organics throughout the series.

It really does make sense when you stop and think about it. Organic life hits an unavoidable evolutionary plateau when it reaches sapience as evolutionary forces give way to intelligence and ingenuity that allow organics to become the masters of their enviroments. However, synthetics have no evolutionary plateau, they will continue to evolve as technology advances. Just look at the Reapers as an example, they are to us as we are to insects.
If synthetic life is allowed to continue to evolve long enough it is not unreasonable to think that they would eventually come to regard organic life as inferior and unnecessary. Then either through malicious intent or simple indifference destroy all organic life in the Galaxy.

We have never reached that point in our world so all these theories are just theories. What we do know is in the universe of Mass Effect, synthetics can and do get along with organics (EDI, Geth). And the only instance of unwarranted synthetic on organic crime are the Reapers.