23455 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

Netherspin wrote...

Just out of curiosity, could someone please list some (or better - all possible) logic and lore violations in the ending?
I promise I won't go into a "you're all wrong because so and so and so" spree, I'd just like to see if I myself can't see the red thread in it and explain it away to my own satisfaction.
Again, I do actually like the ending, and while not buying into it, I'd like to at least know what the fuzz is about.

Just read back through these threads, but one main lapse in logic is consistently repeated.  It makes no sense for some omnipotent (self-appointed one) being to "think" that the only way to save advanced organics from synthetics destroying them is to destroy them.  And that's not the worst lapse. 

Many complaints have to do with pulling this star-child (I know it's a VI) out of the air as being over the reapers, controlling them so to speak.

Other lapses in logic have to do with the Mass Relays.  The DLC for ME2, The Arrival, makes it clear that destroying them (I don't recall it specifying any good way to destroy them) would mean the end to life in a system.  How then can any organic life survive the relays all being destroyed?  If the destruction is limited in nature, how did it chase the Normandy and so on?

Joker ends up with some teammates on an unknown world.  Surprisingly, this means he must somehow super quickly extract them from Earth, in the midst of cataclysmic battle, and run away.  Joker would not run.  It was clear that at some point he had recriminations about doing so once before and so would not leave like this, ever.  I didn't choose EDI for the final mission, but if you did it makes even less sense, if possible that Joker would run.

More illogic used seems to be the writer's belief that the only way for organics and synths to ever get along is by full synthesis, the end or epitome of evolution as the god-star-child thingy says.  But, any player that ended the Geth/Quarian war by having them help each other knows this is just plain stupid.  It totally removes any sense at getting the Geth and Quarian together.  All of this goes back to the first illogical point.  The god-kid hologram says the created will always destroy the creator-something to that effect.  Ok, this is again just plain stupid and I expect more from omnipotent, supersmart beings.  I don't know about you, but I didn't kill my parents.  And humans at least may have read, "I, Robot" and may at least have some understanding of hoped for laws of robotics.

• A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
• A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
• A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Of course, it makes sense that the unscrupulous might circumvent any such laws, but if humans can come up with this, then why not a super-brainiac god-imp VI?

Shepard would never, ever, ever just accept all this crap and go ahead and make a choice.  At the very least Shepard would protest, would seek to find another way.  He/she wouldn't just go, "ok, Let's Make a Deal time.  Door no.1, 2, or 3."  No way.

With the inevitable destruction of the relays, all fleets are stranded at Earth.  Except for the Normandy and those you didn't get as War Assets.  I don't know but I'm thinking this might pose some problems.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 14 avril 2012 - 08:35 .

[Thanatos144]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Netherspin wrote...

Just out of curiosity, could someone please list some (or better - all possible) logic and lore violations in the ending?
I promise I won't go into a "you're all wrong because so and so and so" spree, I'd just like to see if I myself can't see the red thread in it and explain it away to my own satisfaction.
Again, I do actually like the ending, and while not buying into it, I'd like to at least know what the fuzz is about.

Just read back through these threads, but one main lapse in logic is consistently repeated.  It makes no sense for some omnipotent (self-appointed one) being to "think" that the only way to save advanced organics from synthetics destroying them is to destroy them.  And that's not the worst lapse. 

Many complaints have to do with pulling this star-child (I know it's a VI) out of the air as being over the reapers, controlling them so to speak.

Other lapses in logic have to do with the Mass Relays.  The DLC for ME2, The Arrival, makes it clear that destroying them (I don't recall it specifying any good way to destroy them) would mean the end to life in a system.  How then can any organic life survive the relays all being destroyed?  If the destruction is limited in nature, how did it chase the Normandy and so on?

Joker ends up with some teammates on an unknown world.  Surprisingly, this means he must somehow super quickly extract them from Earth, in the midst of cataclysmic battle, and run away.  Joker would not run.  It was clear that at some point he had recriminations about doing so once before and so would not leave like this, ever.  I didn't choose EDI for the final mission, but if you did it makes even less sense, if possible that Joker would run.

More illogic used seems to be the writer's belief that the only way for organics and synths to ever get along is by full synthesis, the end or epitome of evolution as the god-star-child thingy says.  But, any player that ended the Geth/Quarian war by having them help each other knows this is just plain stupid.  It totally removes any sense at getting the Geth and Quarian together.  All of this goes back to the first illogical point.  The god-kid hologram says the created will always destroy the creator-something to that effect.  Ok, this is again just plain stupid and I expect more from omnipotent, supersmart beings.  I don't know about you, but I didn't kill my parents.  And humans at least may have read, "I, Robot" and may at least have some understanding of hoped for laws of robotics.

• A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
• A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
• A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Of course, it makes sense that the unscrupulous might circumvent any such laws, but if humans can come up with this, then why not a super-brainiac god-imp VI?

Shepard would never, ever, ever just accept all this crap and go ahead and make a choice.  At the very least Shepard would protest, would seek to find another way.  He/she wouldn't just go, "ok, Let's Make a Deal time.  Door no.1, 2, or 3."  No way.

With the inevitable destruction of the relays, all fleets are stranded at Earth.  Except for the Normandy and those you didn't get as War Assets.  I don't know but I'm thinking this might pose some problems.

LMAO You are using Asimov's three laws of robotics? The reapers are Not human or maybe is it just that they didn't read caves of steel LOL.  Common!

[ChickenMan77]

Although I don't buy into it..Indoctrination would be such a mind blowing Philllip K Dick-ian sci-fi plot twist.I would have to tip my hat ....and If Bioware planned it from the get go , they would have the biggest pair of cojones in gaming history for knowingly shipping a game ending that is awful...I mean I don't believe they could have that amount intestinal fortitude ..I mean they are mostly Canadian..no offense

[3DandBeyond]

jeweledleah wrote...

dear maker.

paragraphs.

you do not need to copy paste every single reblog notice from tumblr.

indoctrination theory as appealing as it is - has been disproven.

releasing unfinished game and charging full price for it is not brilliant, its bad business practice. this is not an MMO we're talking about, this is supposedly a single player game that many people play offline and never get DLC's for.

Yep and how is Indoctrination an ending?  It isn't.  If Shepard were indoctrinated then the reapers are still there, Earth is a mess, as are a lot of other home worlds. 

The main problem with games today is devs are too quick to look at multiplayer as the be all, end all.  Single player campaigns are suffering from this.  But, this is so destructive to gaming as a whole.  I won't pay for an MMO.  Period.  And, I've seen some games that only feature multiplayer (no sp campaign) go down in flames.  Other games get the sp chopped even more to make room for mp features.  Some of the very things that draw players in are just being cut out.  A great many mp parts to games are starting to look all alike with a bit of variation.  As it is the mp in this game is pretty good by comparison, but given the choice I'd rather drop the mp and have a totally great sp game.  I'd buy DLC for additional stories and so on. 

[3DandBeyond]

[quote]Thanatos144 wrote...


[/quote]LMAO You are using Asimov's three laws of robotics? The reapers are Not human or maybe is it just that they didn't read caves of steel LOL.  Common!

[/quote]

Duh!  Oh and you really think I thought they were human?

I was just pointing out that any super smart being would know that the 3 choices given are not the only choices.  I said if humans could figure this out in a book written many years ago, then any all-powerful intellect could figure out that failsafe devices could be used to keep synthetics from destroying their creators.  Star Wars had restraining bolts.

Even without such things to restrain synthetics, a super brain could figure out that evolution is the natural order of things and evolution is what creates order out of chaos, not synthesis.  Of course, the super brain is really a super unfeeling computer itself, because most organics aren't really looking for order, it's the synthetics that are.  EDI had way more sense than this, and so did Legion.

You keep posting here about how wonderful the endings are, and that you like them.  In your own words, you make sense of them.  Indoctrination isn't an end.  So, if these are really endings, explain them-in your own words.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 14 avril 2012 - 08:55 .

[Thanatos144]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...


LMAO You are using Asimov's three laws of robotics? The reapers are Not human or maybe is it just that they didn't read caves of steel LOL.  Common!

Duh!  Oh and you really think I thought they were human?

I was just pointing out that any super smart being would know that the 3 choices given are not the only choices.  I said if humans could figure this out in a book written many years ago, then any all-powerful intellect could figure out that failsafe devices could be used to keep synthetics from destroying their creators.  Star Wars had restraining bolts.

Even without such things to restrain synthetics, a super brain could figure out that evolution is the natural order of things and evolution is what creates order out of chaos, not synthesis.  Of course, the super brain is really a super unfeeling computer itself, because most organics aren't really looking for order, it's the synthetics that are.  EDI had way more sense than this, and so did Legion.

You keep posting here about how wonderful the endings are, and that you like them.  In your own words, you make sense of them.  Indoctrination isn't an end.  So, if these are really endings, explain them-in your own words.

The man wrote them in the 30's and spent a lifetime breaking them in every story. If the end didnt make sense to you I fail to see how thats biowares fault. 

Modifié par Thanatos144, 14 avril 2012 - 09:01 .

[Dratkin]

This guy has managed to sum up everything in his video.
Please please watch it.

[Thanatos144]

Explaining the endings is easy. each choice you make sends a energy out through the whole galaxy and it uses the relays for this as a consequence the relays are destroyed. Shepard reaching the horrible end is easy as well ...She/He can not handle the energy without dieing. The person you see taking a breath is bioware trying to appease some they knew would ball at her/his death.

[jeweledleah]

3DandBeyond wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

dear maker.

paragraphs.

you do not need to copy paste every single reblog notice from tumblr.

indoctrination theory as appealing as it is - has been disproven.

releasing unfinished game and charging full price for it is not brilliant, its bad business practice. this is not an MMO we're talking about, this is supposedly a single player game that many people play offline and never get DLC's for.

Yep and how is Indoctrination an ending?  It isn't.  If Shepard were indoctrinated then the reapers are still there, Earth is a mess, as are a lot of other home worlds. 

The main problem with games today is devs are too quick to look at multiplayer as the be all, end all.  Single player campaigns are suffering from this.  But, this is so destructive to gaming as a whole.  I won't pay for an MMO.  Period.  And, I've seen some games that only feature multiplayer (no sp campaign) go down in flames.  Other games get the sp chopped even more to make room for mp features.  Some of the very things that draw players in are just being cut out.  A great many mp parts to games are starting to look all alike with a bit of variation.  As it is the mp in this game is pretty good by comparison, but given the choice I'd rather drop the mp and have a totally great sp game.  I'd buy DLC for additional stories and so on. 

I play MMO's mostly because they are designed acertain wayfrom ground up and they can be a lot of fun, but... focus on multiplayer in what used to be single player games is driving me to distraction.  I still haven't forgiven Valve for Portal 2 (great single player campaign, sure, but so damn short... meat of the game is in co-op.. something I will not get to experience :/)  and Blizzard died to me when they announced that Diablo 3 is online only. (thank the maker for Torchlight, I'll still get my doze of dungeon crawling awesome where i can actualy chose whether I want to be online or offline)

multiplayer seems to be the most profitable model though for quick buck with minimum effort.  blech.

[CuCulin05]

Loved the game.

Story had me on the edge of my seat right up until that magic elevator to the star child part.

Won't repeat what ye have already heard ad nauseum, but everything before that ... beautiful.

Read the indoctrination theory, i think it was a wonderful idea and a missed opportunity.

Also read the mass effect 3 slide epilogue ending and i think there is some great ideas in that for ye as well.

[LKx]

Dratkin wrote...

This guy has managed to sum up everything in his video.
Please please watch it.

pretty much (but i'd be ok even if Shepard dies in all the endingS)

[Biotic Budah]

I've said this before and I'll keep saying it until we get something better.

Say I go on a walk. 99% of that walk is awesome until I step into a pile of crap. Bioware/EA tells me I stepped in Bull Crap. The fact that I now know what kind of crap I stepped in does not make me feel any better about it.

[LKx]

Another pretty well formed rant toward me3, from a cute girl this time:

[SyntheticPhylum]

I only finished ME3 a few days ago, even though I got the CE on a 'Midnight Madness' launch-day-thingie, but I had reasons for that. At any rate, I thought that the game was fantastic (wait for it!), until the last few minutes. Yes, I'm with many other people on this one. ME3, and hell, the whole series, is the definition of Epic Story, and worth every penny I put in it (buying both ME1 AND 2 for both PC & XBox, as well ALL the DLC for the XBox version and ALMOST all for the PC)... up until the ending. It's almost like we can SEE where EA told BioWare that they had enough time/money to finish the series and they needed a release product RIGHT NOW, or they were cut off. Anyway, on to specifics...

The Shepard I know/played would never have settled for the options she was given at the end of ME3. She had just finished building up a MASSIVE armada composed of every sufficiantly-evolved race in the galaxy, even to the point of RESURRECTING a couple of them (Rachni & the Last Prothean: Of COURSE the Salarians, given time/opportunity, could make enough cloned Protheans to rebuld the race, even including genetic drift to avoid inbreeding! Hell, they made/cured the Genophage, cloning oughta be easy!) in the process. The options she was given were weak in the extreme. 1: Destroy all synthetic life, INCLUDING the Geth, who you spent a good chunk of game-time saving, including ending a war 300 years in the making and letting Legion install the final key to true Geth sapience. 2. Control the Reapers, making you no better than the Illusive Man. And remember, kids; Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. And, finally, 3: Organic & Synthetic synthesis. Congratulations! You've solved the problem that made all Husks stupid & ugly! Now every little bit of the universe has glowing circuits beneath their skin! And, no matter what choice you make, you die, and the Mass Relays all go ka-blooey... Which Does Not Work, unless you're George Lucas. It was well-established in ME canon, with Arrival, that destroying a Mass Relay pretty much destroys the system it is in. Destroying all of them in sequence? THIS galaxy would NEVER have life in it again. If someone tried to argue that the Catalyst had the power to contain said destructive energies, then WHY would it need the Reapers in the first place? That much power, and it would wipe out organic life with a simple twitch in its programming! In a nutshell, the options we were given not only go against the grain of the story we all participated in, but they violate the established physical laws of the universe we were presented as our playground these last 3 games.

Now, if I was one of the writing team, what I would have done was to work a branching end-game storyline using data acquired from the player's savegame, like we were assured the game was going to do, and made Shepard the Prime Defendant in the case of proving to the Catalyst that it was wrong, and that organic life had developed enough to break the cycle it perceived. Hell, the sequence could use footage from all three games at pivotal moments, or better yet, create footage based on those moments/decisions in a 'flashback' format, with the player making a speech choice based on what the Catalyst pulled out of Shepard's brain! Given the path that my characters always play (While I make some Renegade choices, I always pretty much play Paragon), my Shepard could have saved the 'verse, kept the Mass Relays opened, and had the Catalyst shut down the Reapers and share their tech with the entire Galaxy... or maybe even had the Reapers re-programmed to help organic life, though that ending would be a little too 'hippy.' Either way, I'd like to think that would be a much better ending than what we were given. And I don't think the patch would be too big... 

I also had a problem with the emphasis that Multi-player had on the main game. I DON'T DO MULTIPLAYER. When I want multi-player, I go play an MMO (Sadly, my computer can't handle SWTOR, or I'd be spending money on THAT). And I really didn't like the fact that to 'improve' the ending of ME3, it seemed that I HAD to go play in the multi-player 'Galaxy At War' thing. I have this game on the 360, which means I have to spend MORE money to do this. I only have a Silver Membership, and I generally plan to keep it that way. Now, if BioWare changed the ending to something more like my idea, I might CONSIDER spending the money and playing the multi-player sequence. Sadly, my current multiplayer experience is a bunch of foul-mouthed kids who hide in corners and camp respawn points while calling you a '****.' This would likely damage my ME3 experience more than a little bit, so making that part almost mandatory for the 'best experience' in your game was a bit of an oops. Some of us would be happier if multi-player ME3 never existed, or that it wasn't such an apparently pivotal part of the core game. In my experience, the single-player game usually suffers when the multi-player game is amplified. Look at the recent Modern Warfare games as an example: a single-player game that you can finish in a day or two. What's the fun in that?

Anyway, this is all just my opinion. If you want more you'll have to ask a 'people-person.'

[Dratkin]

I would be ok with shepard dying in the all as well but I think whether he lives or dies the galaxy should acknowledge all the things that shepard has done for them all and what a huge difference he has made on everyone's lives.

[Dratkin]

Here is my explanation of the ending. All of the endings are lame.

[Dratkin]

Agree with CuCulin05. Up until the ending ME3 is the best in the series by far to me.
That is one of the thing that pisses me off so much about the end. We have this awesome game that we love to play and when it ends it is like someone saying to a little kid "NO YOU CANT HAVE THIS". It is almost downright insulting. Thank you Bioware for the other 99.9% of the game that rocked. I have nothing good to say about the end so I will stop there.

[noivoieidoi]

Blue Liara wrote...

Here is my critique of the ending with regards to the Star Child / God Child and his ridiculous full of holes Circular Reasoning.

As someone who has a degree in Philosophy. I can tell you that there is no quicker way to invalidate an argument or philosophical belief then to use the circular logic BS that the Star Child invokes.

CIRCULAR LOGIC

Here is a quick description of circular logic from wikipedia:
"Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.[1] A circular argument will always be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and will not lack relevance. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion it doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted."

For example, Birds can fly, because birds can fly. This doesn't seem to make sense. It would make sense if the statement went, Birds can fly because their wings create enough lift that when they move at a certain pace etc etc....

Now lets examine what the star child says,
Basically he says:
"the created will always rebel against their creators" Without them to stop it (the reapers) the synthetic will wipe out all organic life. So in order to "save" organic life they have to destroy it.

That is it that is his whole reasoning for wiping out organic life. He wipes out organic life to save it. This is complete and utter circular nonsesne. With this logic you can say anything and claim it to be true. I could say the world is made of cheese, because the world is made of cheese. My premise is my conclusion, so I prove nothing. I offer no evidence for my conclusion. It is absolute nonsense. This is the kind of thing a child says when they want something and cannot justify it. Appropriate then that the star child is a child. He has the reasoning and intelligence of one.

If we translate what the star child is saying into circular Logic mode. And by translate I mean reveal what he is really saying it would go like this:

"Synthetics will always destroy organics, because synthetics will always destroy organics"

This clearly is nonsense. Lets examine what the dialogue would go like if Shepard were allowed to ask him why Synthetics will always destroy organics:

Star Child: "The created will always rebel against their creators"
Shepard: "Why?
Star Child: "Because the created will always rebel against their creators"

Pretty self-explanatory how non-sensical this is.

But Wait there is more.

MEANINGLESS UNIVERSE

Not only does the Star Child's logic not make any sense, but he essentially is claiming that the universe and all life synthetic and organic has absolutely no purpose.

Let's say for a moment that the star child is right with the belief that synthetic life will always destroy organic life.

So the ony way to stop this from happening is to make syntetic life that is powerful enough to wipe out organic life so that synthetic life does not wipe organic life.

This implies that the purpose of organic life is to advance up to a point where it can create synthetic life that has the power to destroy it. (This is so non-sensical it gets tough to write sometimes).

So organic life is essentially meaningless because it exists only to eventually be destroyed by synthetic machines.

Do not think that this is ok because Synthetic life now has a greater purpose. Nope.

It would appear based on the fact that the most intelligent form of Synthetic Life are the reapers that the purpose of synthetic life becomes simply to wipe out organic life.

Taking this all together it would seem that the only purpose of life in the universe is to try to and destroy each other. It is twisited and sick, if you ask me.

The purpose of life is destruction. If organic life does not destroy eachother they will eventually create synthetic life that will be kind enough to destroy them.

In conclusion:


The purpose of organic life is to create synthetic life

The purpose of synthetic life is to destroy organic life.

Therefore life in the universe is essentially devoid of any real meaning as what meaning can be found in a universe where life's only purpose is eternal genocide.

CONCLUSION
So as I have demonstrated here we can clearly see a that:
The Star Child's argument is a giant pile of BS because it uses circular logic that is nonsensical because the conclusion of his argument is assumed in the premise, "the created will always rebel against thier creators, because the created will always rebel against their created.

If the Star Child's arguments were true then we would have a completely meaningless universe because the only purpose of all life synthetic and organic would be eternal self-inflicted genocide.

Therefore since the Star Child's logic is flawed and even if it were not it would present a purpose to the ME universe that is totally devoid of meaning the Star Child is an unsalavagble part of the ME ending and MUST be removed.

I wrote this post because I am very disheartened with the ending of ME3 and I am even more dissapointed that Bioware are decideding to not change the endings and instead offer clarity and closure.

I wrote this to demonstrate that you CANNOT clarify and or explain away the Star Child and his CIRCULAR REASONING BS.

It is nonsesncial and stupid. It is childish (pardon the pun). Please tell me your opinions and let me know what you think. Post this to other forums if you feel like it is worth reading so people will know why a Clarification of the ending is not enough and a rewrite is needed.

Citadel – Catalyst: ‘the created will always rebel against the creators’. Statement. No explanation given, therefore nothing to analyze form a logical point of view.
Meaningless universe: nobody proved the opposite so far, therefore nothing to analyze from a 'meaningful' point of view.
(Conclusion) Premises are false, therefore the argument is a fallacy.

[noivoieidoi]

aprilryan515 wrote...


The illusive child

One of the very first things we're presented with, is a sucker punch.

A spaceship, seemingly nothing out of the ordinary, smooth sailing turns in to jagged movement, out of sync with the line of flight. Immediately thinking, oh no, not a rushed game release. Then you, ofcause realise that it's just a child playing with a toy. Nothing is what it seems. Ok, ME3, so that's how we play. You want us to pay attention to detail even more.

Then, throughout the story your guilty conscience is haunting you. In nightmarish dreams you blame is overwelming for not being strong enough to save this child. Not strong enough to stay on Earth and fight. You're desperately trying to catch up so that you can protect the child, protect the Galaxy.
Finally when you do, you're shrouded by flames and burn up. Am I too late, didn't I get ready for the fight in time, is all my effort in collecting War Assets, negligible. All the heartache and sacrifices made to unite the races and make them overcome their differences, in vain. I hope not.

Once you get to the Citadel everything is turned upside down. The evil that you've been fighting across the Galaxy is the good guy in all this. In the form of the child, they try to convince you, that the best outcome to the war would be to control them, to save them. To save an ever growing threat to the Universe... An attempt to trick you into believing that they have humanities best interests in mind. But then you remember your dreams. How in the final moments when you save the child, you burn. Perhaps this child symbolizes something different than what you initially thought. If you think you can control the Reapers you're wrong. If you save the Reapers you will die... You will burn.

Snap out of it. They are manipulative, and their existence revolve solely on pure domination in the Universe. The Reapers must be destroyed, no matter the consequences.

This is why this branch towards the end game is brilliant.
This is why this branch towards the end game is disappointing. ( 'cause it's the only one).

That seems to make sense, because they ARE manipulative (indoctrination). But how can you be sure? All your choices mean a great deal of damage, but destroying the Reapers will have the direst consequences, is a reset - the galaxy will most probably start over from somewhere close to year 0. Are you willing to risk that? Are you sure that organic life, which will supposedly flourish again in a distant future, is any better than the Reapers or pure synthetics? The existence of the Reapers is in itself kind of a guarantee for the organic life: this is their ‘food’. Unless the Citadel is destroyed: they seem to harvest the advanced civilizations the same way the birds migrate - an instinct. Since the Citadel is the one that programmed that instinct, simply destroying it will complicate things.
 
Now, why am I not so sure about this logic? They are manipulative, OK. So, you don't trust the Catalyst (you assume the Catalyst and the Reapers are the same thing). Then why would any of the choices presented be anything else than deceiving choices? Will it willingly give you a way to destroy it? Probably it is an elaborate lie, with one purpose - to shift your attention, from finding another way, to choosing your preferred way to die. All 3 solutions have dramatic consequences for the galaxy. That would be the subtle way to distract you from seeing the big picture.


My point: you'll have to make your choice based on one of the two premises - you trust the Catalyst or not - but not both of them. If you go with the premise that you are deceived, then you can't choose any of the 3 paths.

Modifié par noivoieidoi, 14 avril 2012 - 10:49 .

[SyntheticPhylum]

As an addition to my previous comment, for the people out there who are content with the ending as it stands, or want to keep the options, BioWare could add something like my suggestion to the current game as a 'WTF' moment from Shepard, who like I said, wouldn't accept the 3 options we were given as they stood. Insert it as a play-induced 4th option, perhaps, where he/she tells the Catalyst interface that it's options stink because its hypothesis has become obsolete.

Modifié par SyntheticPhylum, 14 avril 2012 - 10:43 .

[3DandBeyond]

SyntheticPhylum wrote...

I only finished ME3 a few days ago, even though I got the CE on a 'Midnight Madness' launch-day-thingie, but I had reasons for that. At any rate, I thought that the game was fantastic (wait for it!), until the last few minutes. Yes, I'm with many other people on this one. ME3, and hell, the whole series, is the definition of Epic Story, and worth every penny I put in it (buying both ME1 AND 2 for both PC & XBox, as well ALL the DLC for the XBox version and ALMOST all for the PC)... up until the ending. It's almost like we can SEE where EA told BioWare that they had enough time/money to finish the series and they needed a release product RIGHT NOW, or they were cut off. Anyway, on to specifics...

........

Sorry to cut off your post, but I wanted to say just how right it was.  You dealt with everything within it.  My Shepard, just like yours would not have just gone and made what s/he would know was a no choice-choice.  Shepard would not give up so easily. 

I do want to correct some misunderstanding about this multiplayer.  You are pitted against other players-it's more coop, unlike a lot of other games.  That doesn't mean it's sunshine and roses at all, but it is more fun than those I've played recently against other real people.  You do get to listen to real people's kids crying in the background, players talk about their bad colds and drainage (really, and graphically describing it), and you get the annoying "I'm only in this for myself" attitude where they steal kills and purposely don't heal you even if you just healed them five times and died healing them the last time.  But, it can be fun.  I just don't like being almost forced to play it either.  And, I'm am truly finding it hard to play the game again in order to get more assets so MP isn't a necessity.  With 100% readiness, I am at 6300 or so EMS-got the "good" ending.  I don't have a reason to play it again, but I keep stupidly thinking something might change (not really, but I can't wake up from this dream or indoctrination).

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 14 avril 2012 - 11:04 .

[AmstradHero]

Thanatos144 wrote...

Explaining the endings is easy. each choice you make sends a energy out through the whole galaxy and it uses the relays for this as a consequence the relays are destroyed. Shepard reaching the horrible end is easy as well ...She/He can not handle the energy without dieing. The person you see taking a breath is bioware trying to appease some they knew would ball at her/his death.

Hang on, I'll fix that for you:

Explaining the endings is easy. Each choice you make is irrelevant, because all the use space magic to fail to solve the stated problem and as a consequence the relays are destroyed. Shepard reaching the horrible end is easy as well... she/he has to die because Mac Walters/Casey Hudson incorrectly believed this to be "artistic". The person you see taking a breath is another piece of space magic.

[AmstradHero]

noivoieidoi wrote...
Citadel – Catalyst: ‘the created will always rebel against the creators’. Statement. No explanation given, therefore nothing to analyze form a logical point of view.

Statements can't be analysed? Uh, That's what analysis is. Analysing a statement or series of statements to determine their meaning or evaluate the consistency of their internal logic is what analysis is.

noivoieidoi wrote...
Meaningless universe: nobody proved the opposite so far, therefore nothing to analyze from a 'meaningful' point of view.

No one has proved that the universe isn't meaningless so therefore the argument that the Star Child says the universe is meaningless (as proved by the circular logic argument) is false?
I'm sorry, that makes no logical sense.
You're saying "because no one has proven ~A, A cannot be true". That's not even remotely coherent.

noivoieidoi wrote...
(Conclusion) Premises are false, therefore the argument is a fallacy.

Incorrect. Your logic is utterly flawed, therefore you have no argument.

[3DandBeyond]

AmstradHero wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

Explaining the endings is easy. each choice you make sends a energy out through the whole galaxy and it uses the relays for this as a consequence the relays are destroyed. Shepard reaching the horrible end is easy as well ...She/He can not handle the energy without dieing. The person you see taking a breath is bioware trying to appease some they knew would ball at her/his death.

Hang on, I'll fix that for you:

Explaining the endings is easy. Each choice you make is irrelevant, because all the use space magic to fail to solve the stated problem and as a consequence the relays are destroyed. Shepard reaching the horrible end is easy as well... she/he has to die because Mac Walters/Casey Hudson incorrectly believed this to be "artistic". The person you see taking a breath is another piece of space magic.

AmstradHero, you are right.  I was actually hoping Thanatos144 would explain how this is all logical and everything and adheres to the rest of the story before Shepard got hit by the reaper beam.  I understood what is presented as an ending, but along with others I do not think that someone writing this could do it with a straight face.  The circular logic alone is pitiful.  I leave it again open to Thanatos to explain the logic of all of it, the star-god-imp-child-VI, its logic in determining how things should play out, the reaper's role, and so on.  I want someone to try and actually make some cohesive sense out of it all.  Explain the end-Joker's scene.  Explain how Joker's actions follow what we all know Joker would or wouldn't do.  Explain why Shepard had to go to all the trouble in the first place with trying to unite all of the disparate factions, if it never mattered or if he/she would quickly decide to kill them all without so much as a pause.

[Netherspin]

AmstradHero wrote...

noivoieidoi wrote...
Citadel – Catalyst: ‘the created will always rebel against the creators’. Statement. No explanation given, therefore nothing to analyze form a logical point of view.

Statements can't be analysed? Uh, That's what analysis is. Analysing a statement or series of statements to determine their meaning or evaluate the consistency of their internal logic is what analysis is.

noivoieidoi wrote...
Meaningless universe: nobody proved the opposite so far, therefore nothing to analyze from a 'meaningful' point of view.

No one has proved that the universe isn't meaningless so therefore the argument that the Star Child says the universe is meaningless (as proved by the circular logic argument) is false?
I'm sorry, that makes no logical sense.
You're saying "because no one has proven ~A, A cannot be true". That's not even remotely coherent.

noivoieidoi wrote...
(Conclusion) Premises are false, therefore the argument is a fallacy.

Incorrect. Your logic is utterly flawed, therefore you have no argument.

Think you're reading more into this than was ment. Analyzed is indeed a poor choice of words for the first conclusion. Indeed the statement can be analyzed, but imposing ones own logic on the premises of the statement is meaningless since the premises is never made known.
I myself believe it to be overwhelming historical evidence that leads the catalyst to this conclusion. Could be the keeper race has fought multiple and terrible galatic wars at the cost of multiple unadvanced organic races when the various generations of their species have developed AI's which eventually went rogue. The Geth/Quarian peace is a direct result of an indeed unique individual and could easily be unprecedented and inconcievable to the reapers. It's pure gesture, but then we've still got the clarifying DLC to come.

What's stated in the 2nd paragraph is not "because no one has proven ~A, A cannot be true" but rather. Noone has proven A to be the case, so your premise A (life being meaningful), is founded only in your conviction. and therefore any argument build upon this premise is poorly founded at best.

Edit: Also to everyone going on about space magic - take a look at Clarkes 3rd law.

Modifié par Netherspin, 14 avril 2012 - 11:59 .