23455 réponses à ce sujet

[LiarasShield]

still it is fine just ending the triliogy when the main hero and villian bite the dust no need to push it any further

[LiarasShield]

endless sequels where the main protagonist and antagonist are dead will only hurt this series let alone probably a god awful mmo that they might make it better it ends with the extended dlc where we get a victory that matters and finish it let it be done then all side stories can be books and comics and so they can focus on dragon age but I have to warn any of you dragon age players they once again are making the same promises or stating that your choices and actions will shapoe your own ending or player experience so I hope for you all who loved dragon age don't get screwed over like a fair amount of us mass effect 3 fans

Modifié par LiarasShield, 04 mai 2012 - 05:49 .

[Holger1405]

3DandBeyond wrote...

This is one where we might agree if destroy did not also mean that no matter how you played the game (the old saved Geth and Quarian thing), the outcome of destroy was the same thing.  The Shepard I played would at least stop and question this as (my only) right decision.  It means I am destroying the very things that put the lie to what the Star Kid is saying.  I destroy EDI and Geth, but their existence and my influence on them exemplified the fallacy in the kid's logic.  In destroying the abhorrent reapers, I destroy what I have in essence created or at the very least nurtured.  I made that nurturing meaningless.  This is the way I see Shepard. 

The Shepard I played always wanted to destroy the reapers.  There were even instances in the codex where others tried controlling or even joining with other things (I do not have the direct quote-at least one was in ME1) and it isn't put in the best light.  Shepard continually rejects the notion of control in all things.  And Synthesis has its own issues-it goes further than control and while not strictly genocidal, it does result in the death of what is.

This is my take on it, an opinion.

Well, imho EDI is not a Synthetic life form, she is basically a computer, so maybe her Body was destroyed, (In my imagination not even that) but not her consciousness,
My Shepard (so I) also always wanted to destroy the reapers. That I have to destroy the Geth to achieve that  almost make my reconsider. In the end, after 10 minutes of thinking, I did it anyway. And I will not choose different in any of my future Playthrough.

I personally think this was Mass Effect at its best, a really hard decision right on the end.

I see why People have a Problem that there is no other option, a option that can save everyone, but imho that wouldn't fit the Mass Effect storyline.   

But as you said, that's a matter of Opinion.  

Edit: typo
 

Modifié par Holger1405, 04 mai 2012 - 07:00 .

[LiarasShield]

And how can you say that isn't the story of mass effect when you can save everyone in mass effect 2 I mean you played that so how did that make any sense that you just said

[LiarasShield]

anywho I hope this extended dlc will be the ending for this series things usually get progressively worse when they get dragged on forever and ever

[Voodoo-j]

If nothing else comes of this - 777 (Not sure if there has ever been a why you don't like our game ENDING thread this long before, its the first one I've been inclined to look for in over 20 years of gaming.) why are sevens supposed to be lucky? and .. Happy Star Wars Day.. may the 4th be with you.

Modifié par Voodoo-j, 04 mai 2012 - 06:40 .

[mannyclouds]

Holger1405 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

This is one where we might agree if destroy did not also mean that no matter how you played the game (the old saved Geth and Quarian thing), the outcome of destroy was the same thing.  The Shepard I played would at least stop and question this as (my only) right decision.  It means I am destroying the very things that put the lie to what the Star Kid is saying.  I destroy EDI and Geth, but their existence and my influence on them exemplified the fallacy in the kid's logic.  In destroying the abhorrent reapers, I destroy what I have in essence created or at the very least nurtured.  I made that nurturing meaningless.  This is the way I see Shepard. 

The Shepard I played always wanted to destroy the reapers.  There were even instances in the codex where others tried controlling or even joining with other things (I do not have the direct quote-at least one was in ME1) and it isn't put in the best light.  Shepard continually rejects the notion of control in all things.  And Synthesis has its own issues-it goes further than control and while not strictly genocidal, it does result in the death of what is.

This is my take on it, an opinion.

Well, imho EDI is not a Synthetic life form, she is basically a computer, so maybe her Body was destroyed, (In my imagination not even that) but not her consciousness,
My Shepard (so I) also always wanted to destroy the reapers. That I have to destroy the Geth to achieve that  almost make my reconsider. In the end, after 10 minutes of thinking, I did it anyway. And I will not choose different in any of my future Playthrough.

I personally think this was Mass Effect as it best, a really hard decision right on the end.

I see why People have a Problem that there is no other option, a option that can save everyone, but imho that wouldn't fit the Mass Effect storyline.   

But as you said, that's a matter of Opinion.  
 

[mannyclouds]

freaking internets
keeps swallowing what i say

[Voodoo-j]

Its not just "synthetic" but I believe the holo said AI. I could be mistaken, I only played the ending once and watched the other 2.

[Benchpress610]

Voodoo-j wrote...

If nothing else comes of this - 777 (Not sure if there has ever been a why you don't like our game ENDING thread this long before, its the first one I've been inclined to look for in over 20 years of gaming.) why are sevens supposed to be lucky? and .. Happy Star Wars Day.. may the 4th be with you.

There have been longer threads, but none that have grown as fast as this one. 777 pages in a little less than two months is pretty remarkable. Who knows how long this one will go? At least we can thank BioWare for keeping it stickyed.

[Holger1405]

Voodoo-j wrote...

Its not just "synthetic" but I believe the holo said AI. I could be mistaken, I only played the ending once and watched the other 2.

No, Star Child definitely says "Synthetic life".

[sbricca]

Holger1405 wrote...

Well, imho EDI is not a Synthetic life form, she is basically a computer, so maybe her Body was destroyed, (In my imagination not even that) but not her consciousness,
My Shepard (so I) also always wanted to destroy the reapers. That I have to destroy the Geth to achieve that  almost make my reconsider. In the end, after 10 minutes of thinking, I did it anyway. And I will not choose different in any of my future Playthrough.

I personally think this was Mass Effect as it best, a really hard decision right on the end.

I see why People have a Problem that there is no other option, a option that can save everyone, but imho that wouldn't fit the Mass Effect storyline.   

But as you said, that's a matter of Opinion.  
 

I think this ending can fit for a book not for a game, for this type of game, an RPG...
Regardless that, you have had no so hard decisions...shepard doesnt know any consequences of the action he takes at the end...Shepard trust  all the words of the kid..
In the real world..do you trust someone who tried to kill you for 5 years?

For what shepard knows, all the words of the child could be lies, and those really look like lies. 
I played the ending 5 times, and all the times the last 10 min seem odd compared to the rest of the game
 

[Voodoo-j]

Maybe it was because that's the only ending that doesn't show EDI getting out of the Normandy with Joker. Either way it definitely ends the Geth. But honestly my opinion is leaning towards that you are being lied to and it only takes out the reapers. 




Ahh I remember it stated it would end Shepards life as well due to the cybernetics.. so that should easily include EDI, but again I think it's all lies.

Modifié par Voodoo-j, 04 mai 2012 - 07:13 .

[mannyclouds]

Holger1405 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

This is one where we might agree if destroy did not also mean that no matter how you played the game (the old saved Geth and Quarian thing), the outcome of destroy was the same thing.  The Shepard I played would at least stop and question this as (my only) right decision.  It means I am destroying the very things that put the lie to what the Star Kid is saying.  I destroy EDI and Geth, but their existence and my influence on them exemplified the fallacy in the kid's logic.  In destroying the abhorrent reapers, I destroy what I have in essence created or at the very least nurtured.  I made that nurturing meaningless.  This is the way I see Shepard. 

The Shepard I played always wanted to destroy the reapers.  There were even instances in the codex where others tried controlling or even joining with other things (I do not have the direct quote-at least one was in ME1) and it isn't put in the best light.  Shepard continually rejects the notion of control in all things.  And Synthesis has its own issues-it goes further than control and while not strictly genocidal, it does result in the death of what is.

This is my take on it, an opinion.

Well, imho EDI is not a Synthetic life form, she is basically a computer, so maybe her Body was destroyed, (In my imagination not even that) but not her consciousness,
My Shepard (so I) also always wanted to destroy the reapers. That I have to destroy the Geth to achieve that  almost make my reconsider. In the end, after 10 minutes of thinking, I did it anyway. And I will not choose different in any of my future Playthrough.

I personally think this was Mass Effect at its best, a really hard decision right on the end.

I see why People have a Problem that there is no other option, a option that can save everyone, but imho that wouldn't fit the Mass Effect storyline.   

But as you said, that's a matter of Opinion.  

Edit: typo
 

it is revealed at the cerberus base that edi was a ai that became self
aware on the earths moon during the events of mass effect 1. after a
while cerberus gets their hands on it and combines it's  programing
with reaper tech. so yho is proven wrong in this instance due to the
game stating otherwise.

while there is allot of people out there
that want the happy rainbows ending. the vast majority went into that
last battle expecting shep to die (i sure ashell did). what the problem
is that in the previous games and trough most of the third one shep was
a symbol of defiance, he defied the council when they told him not to
go to illios, the alliance when he went after the collectors, he's been
defying the reapers since day one, and as with the suicide mission when
people thought it couldn't be done he still done it. so why did this
abosulute badass no mater if he's a para or a rena, suddenly decide to
laydown and go ok, when in the past no matter how inteligent that being
thought s/he/they/it were shep would find away to prove them wrong.

what
the majority of us want is the badass shep para or rena, back instead
of the sniveling runt they made him. seriously it's like they took out
everything about shep and threw it out and put in a new character
discised as shep.

i personally reject all 3 endings, in the
ending in my head shep told godkid to shove off found a way off the
citadel via a codiac that was in one of c-sec's hangers, flew back to
the normandy where he took command of the fleets as the other races
refused to acknowledge hacketts orders as they were here to follow
shepard. so shep took the helm and lead the might of the galaxy against
the reapers. after a week of solid fighting there was only the normandy
left and all but joker, an unnamed crew member still alive with edi
fading away. shep then puts on his back up armour gets out onto the
hull of the ship omni blade out then orders joker to fly the normandy
right into harbringers face screaming "FLY ME CLOSER JOKER I WANNA HIT
HIM WITH MY BLADE"

[3DandBeyond]

mannyclouds wrote...

it is revealed at the cerberus base that edi was a ai that became self
aware on the earths moon during the events of mass effect 1. after a
while cerberus gets their hands on it and combines it's  programing
with reaper tech. so yho is proven wrong in this instance due to the
game stating otherwise.

while there is allot of people out there
that want the happy rainbows ending. the vast majority went into that
last battle expecting shep to die (i sure ashell did). what the problem
is that in the previous games and trough most of the third one shep was
a symbol of defiance, he defied the council when they told him not to
go to illios, the alliance when he went after the collectors, he's been
defying the reapers since day one, and as with the suicide mission when
people thought it couldn't be done he still done it. so why did this
abosulute badass no mater if he's a para or a rena, suddenly decide to
laydown and go ok, when in the past no matter how inteligent that being
thought s/he/they/it were shep would find away to prove them wrong.

what
the majority of us want is the badass shep para or rena, back instead
of the sniveling runt they made him. seriously it's like they took out
everything about shep and threw it out and put in a new character
discised as shep.

i personally reject all 3 endings, in the
ending in my head shep told godkid to shove off found a way off the
citadel via a codiac that was in one of c-sec's hangers, flew back to
the normandy where he took command of the fleets as the other races
refused to acknowledge hacketts orders as they were here to follow
shepard. so shep took the helm and lead the might of the galaxy against
the reapers. after a week of solid fighting there was only the normandy
left and all but joker, an unnamed crew member still alive with edi
fading away. shep then puts on his back up armour gets out onto the
hull of the ship omni blade out then orders joker to fly the normandy
right into harbringers face screaming "FLY ME CLOSER JOKER I WANNA HIT
HIM WITH MY BLADE"

I'd pay real money for this.  In fact, it is something that I'd have little problem understanding and accepting.  When you go to the war assets console in the tech area, it says (if your EMS is good, though I don't know if it says it no matter what), that your odds are even against the reapers, so even without the Catalyst/Crucible lovefest, you still could have a chance.

Of course, I also want a chance at a bunnies and puppies ending. 

[Holger1405]

mannyclouds wrote...


i personally reject all 3 endings, in the
ending in my head shep told godkid to shove off found a way off the
citadel via a codiac that was in one of c-sec's hangers, flew back to
the normandy where he took command of the fleets as the other races
refused to acknowledge hacketts orders as they were here to follow
shepard. so shep took the helm and lead the might of the galaxy against
the reapers. after a week of solid fighting there was only the normandy
left and all but joker, an unnamed crew member still alive with edi
fading away. shep then puts on his back up armour gets out onto the
hull of the ship omni blade out then orders joker to fly the normandy
right into harbringers face screaming "FLY ME CLOSER JOKER I WANNA HIT
HIM WITH MY BLADE"

Well I don't know if this ending would achieve better ratings from the Fan base as the existing one, but it is originally.

However, seeing the Normandy blowing up Harbinger would be a nice DLC moment.

[Holger1405]

sbricca wrote...

I think this ending can fit for a book not for a game, for this type of game, an RPG...
Regardless that, you have had no so hard decisions...shepard doesnt know any consequences of the action he takes at the end...Shepard trust  all the words of the kid..
In the real world..do you trust someone who tried to kill you for 5 years?

For what shepard knows, all the words of the child could be lies, and those really look like lies. 
I played the ending 5 times, and all the times the last 10 min seem odd compared to the rest of the game

I didn't get this odd feeling but I can see where it come from.

@ lying
Shepard trusted Vigil on Ilos, he had to trust a lot of unreliable sources. Also She/he was already down, unconscious on the ground. Star Child brought him/her up to his level. So why mistrust Star Child when it simply could leave Shepard down there with no chance to achieve anything? 

Plus, he didn't had another choice, But that is the Problem for most of the People here, isn't it? 

[Holger1405]

Voodoo-j wrote...

Ahh I remember it stated it would end Shepards life as well due to the cybernetics.. so that should easily include EDI, but again I think it's all lies.

Well, no again,   it stated that Shepard is Part synthetic, it also stated clearly, in the beginning of the conversation, that Shepard is a Organic.    

[chomicze]

So, if he's part synthetic then in destroy ending, these parts are destroyed. So how the hell he breaths? (If we've got enough EMS)

[Holger1405]

chomicze wrote...

So, if he's part synthetic then in destroy ending, these parts are destroyed. So how the hell he breaths? (If we've got enough EMS)

Star Child stated that "Synthetic life" is gone be destroyed. Not Synthetic parts, not Synthetic materials only Synthetic life, a.k.a Geth and Reapers.

[Archonsg]

chomicze wrote...

So, if he's part synthetic then in destroy ending, these parts are destroyed. So how the hell he breaths? (If we've got enough EMS)

Because that scene was unnecessary and inconsistent?

[3DandBeyond]

Holger1405 wrote...

chomicze wrote...

So, if he's part synthetic then in destroy ending, these parts are destroyed. So how the hell he breaths? (If we've got enough EMS)

Star Child stated that "Synthetic life" is gone be destroyed. Not Synthetic parts, not Synthetic materials only Synthetic life, a.k.a Geth and Reapers.

Now, you've done it--lots of questions, ha ha.

One thing I will insert here is that the kid says to Shepard, "even you are partly synthetic".  This leaves the question open, since in my opinion there's no reason for the kid to draw attention to that if that part of Shepard would not be destroyed.  In weighing this, I have to think the only reason for saying it (he says it after saying destroy would wipe out all synthetic life, including the Geth) is because that part of Shepard would be destroyed.  Just another piece of the ambiguous pie.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 04 mai 2012 - 09:01 .

[3DandBeyond]

Here is speculation I can see as a possibility, but again it is full of holes. But, it's just to show that everyone creates a lot of "maybes".

The creator will always rebel (destroy) the creator. We think the kid, whoever he really is, created the reapers. Perhaps, it is impossible for him to destroy the reapers and he is acting out of fear of them. Maybe, the advent of Sovereign and then Harbinger, is the foretelling of his own doom, but he has no power himself to act against them.

Maybe, he needed the Crucible to create the option to destroy them. And, just maybe he needs you to make it work-you have to do it. It may also be a reason he specifically had them target advanced organics-those who would fight back, in the hopes they would figure it all out and help him avoid his own annihilation. Maybe. He said he needed Shepard to make it work (paraphrasing). And his statements may have only been directed at Shepard to try and explain what was happening to him. Kind of like the Elcor who have to explain their emotions or in Star Trek, the Next Generation-there was that race of people that spoke in stories to explain things.

[sbricca]

Holger1405 wrote...


@ lying
Shepard trusted Vigil on Ilos, he had to trust a lot of unreliable sources

Vigil doesnt drive the reapers army...reapers dont belong to him and he didnt try to kill Shepard for most of the time..

HOLGER1405 wrote...


. Also She/he was already down, unconscious on the ground. Star Child brought him/her up to his level. So why mistrust Star Child when it simply could leave Shepard down there with no chance to achieve anything? 

Yes, i agree....why he gives to shepard this chance to destroy him?!! WHY?? this doesnt make sense...


also i demonstrated 2 gaming hours ago on Rannoch that synths and organics can live together, without control, destruction or synthesis...and i dont tell one word about that, only for having a little little debate....


where is the power plug of this child?!?

Modifié par sbricca, 04 mai 2012 - 10:19 .

[Voodoo-j]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Here is speculation I can see as a possibility, but again it is full of holes. But, it's just to show that everyone creates a lot of "maybes".

The creator will always rebel (destroy) the creator. We think the kid, whoever he really is, created the reapers. Perhaps, it is impossible for him to destroy the reapers and he is acting out of fear of them. Maybe, the advent of Sovereign and then Harbinger, is the foretelling of his own doom, but he has no power himself to act against them.

Maybe, he needed the Crucible to create the option to destroy them. And, just maybe he needs you to make it work-you have to do it. It may also be a reason he specifically had them target advanced organics-those who would fight back, in the hopes they would figure it all out and help him avoid his own annihilation. Maybe. He said he needed Shepard to make it work (paraphrasing). And his statements may have only been directed at Shepard to try and explain what was happening to him. Kind of like the Elcor who have to explain their emotions or in Star Trek, the Next Generation-there was that race of people that spoke in stories to explain things.

Ok so it states it will destroy all synthetic life the open question of does that affect Geth/Edi/Shepard.
So another big Huh to throw into that.. 

"So the reapers will be destroyed"
"Yes"
"But the peace will not last, soon your children will create synthetics"  

So this bring up a question that I havn't seen addressed yet : Geth/AI are not considerd synthetics?
If Shepard is part sythentic how are Geth/AI not synthetic?