23455 réponses à ce sujet

[Redbelle]

AmstradHero wrote...

Holger1405 wrote..
Second, the Reapers didn't kill everyone. They erase only advanced organic species, so this organic species can't create synthetic life that, in the end, according to Star Child's logic, will destroy every Organic species and in doing so, erase all organic live from the galaxy. 

So they're not killing organic life because they're only killing SOME organic life? Sorry, but that's illogical.

Yep, any vulcan science officer would point out the illogical part........ But have you ever heard of the concept of starting a fire in a forest to burn it down so it'll grow back better?

Some species of plant grow so strong that they strangle out the other plants. Destruction via fire levels the field for all species. The SC's logic is not exactly the same but similar........ The Reaper's kill off the advanced races that have galactic travel capability, leave the younger races, thus when it comes to the next harvest they'll still have races to turn into more Reapers. It's like throwing the little fish back into the sea so they will become big fish........(although such a practice also encourages fish with 'grow small' genes to thrive over the ones that grow big and are then removed from the population but that's another discussion).

Think of it this way. Reapers want more Reapers. They need organic species to make Reapers. Kill every organic race in the galaxy and no more Reapers.

However.......

It's the advanced races that potentially will create synthetics that will wipe out the organic life the Reapers need. Therefore the Reapers have a vested interest in controlling synthetics and stepping in for a harvest everytime a race gets close to making AI. Which in ME equates to around 50 000 yrs.

However......... (Last one I promise)...... If you continue a complex system that is rigged to pump out a desired result, it is possible through repitition that the complexities will eventual lead to instabilities that deny the desired result. While the Geth are not true AI, because they operate as a hive intelligence, they are still synthetics who appeared before the Reapers could step in. Earth's moon base developed an AI that became a very curvy robot. The Protheans altered the Reaper signal to delay another harvest.......... clearly the Reapers system was shown to be cracking at the beginning with ME1.

Modifié par Redbelle, 08 mai 2012 - 09:46 .

[chomicze]

As for Thanatos:


For thinking part of this forum:
For me, Matrix trilogy ending was much better. Why? Maybe because after second, not good part, my expectations were low. But even then, they brought closure to what's happening. We know FOR SURE, that Neo is dead, war is over and Sion's people are alive and well. It was also an example of sacrifice. Neo knew, when he was going to final battle, that he has to die. He did it anyway, and it matters.

ME is different medium, which can give us wide variety of possible endings. And it wouldn't be hard to make endings enjoyable for all. Implement our major decisions throughout the series (which are in our savegames) and create, I don't know, ten different outcomes? With all that we cared about. Characters, what happened to the galaxy and other things, that are mentioned again and again in this thread. Without scenes from a hat, last minute character and grandpas telling stories (o.O).
That's my opinion.

[3DandBeyond]

I guess where I'm coming from is a place of having seen way too many Deus ex type things in SF and everywhere else. Whether it is God in the Machine or sentience in one supreme machine, ghosts in the machine or even an actual machine, the story line is as old as the pimples on God's butt. Wizard of Oz was basically a story of god in the machine, since all of these are about the man behind the curtain or the one thing pulling the strings. It's tired and it's not original. It's also done better elsewhere. There was Forbidden Planet, where the god was actually people's own minds, their IDs creating reality. And so on.

What this means is that such things are way too flimsy and obvious and if not done well, are really lame. This version of the man behind the curtain was not done well. It was introduced too late in the game to fit with the rest of the story. It had no meaning to it, if it was trying to tell you the meaning of life-or some other super special decoded message.

The game shuts down when Shepard hits the beacon. In a very few short minutes it expects you to ignore the game you have been playing, a game that pitted advanced organics against evil nightmarish things that loom large, and it turns into the Wizard of Oz. Instead of you wanting to go home, you want the bad guys to go away. "Please, oh please can you help me, little glowing boy?" Might as well have been Dorothy asking the question. The wicked witch of course was there, too. It was the reapers.

I wanted something different. I am sick of being given the same old story wrapped in a different package. I didn't need something that called into question (once more) what the greater power is that's out there.

Mass Effect was never about some greater power that was going to come and save the day. It was always about the power within each of us (as Shepard) and the characters in the game. It was about them coming of age, learning better ways, and better things to aspire to. I'm not saying that I don't believe or that people in the game don't believe in a creator or some deity, but I am saying that that was not what this game was all about. It was about the power of people to learn and do the right thing, in spite of the fact that doing the right thing might be painful or not help them get to their goal. You could choose of course to go against all of this. And even that was choosing to use the power inside of your character, the force of will and effort.

But what happens is the kid rides in on not a white horse to save the day, but a grey horse to confuse the heck out of you, and to give you quasi-good choices and then let's you hobble on off with out so much as a pat on the back. Worst "god in the machine" ever.

[Archonsg]

Lets clear a few thing up, and Bioware I hope you are reading. 
You have already made a mess, and seems set to make up yet a larger mess but here's some sticking points you might want to address:


-Will long-distance superluminal travel still be possible post-Ending? (will Tali or Wrex or Garrus see their homeworlds again? Will everyone starve?)

Galactic civilization will rebuild. The mass relays were not necessary for interstellar flight. Remember, what does it say in the Codex about the speed of ships? That's right, 12 lightyears per (day? hour? minute?). And that's only the cruising speed, not the maximum speed.

People have never needed to research basic FTL improvements before because they have mass relays. With the relays gone, new technology will increase that speed. Additionally, the element zero cores of the dead/controlled Reapers can be used to improve FTL drives. Starflight will continue using conventional FTL. 


First off, the estimated size of our Galaxy from NASA :
imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980317b.html

That's right, about 100,000 light years across.

Now how fast are current FTL technology?
masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:FTL

About 12 light years in a day cruising speed.

Now, it is also pretty important to point out that there is a codex entry in regards to fuel consumption and EZO drive core size in regards to speed, under Codex Secondary > Ships and Vehicles > FTL Drives  in that the amount of EZO and power required goes up exponentially to the Mass being moved. Thus very large or fast ships are prohibitively expensive. (you won't have a super freighters traveling at like speeds of the Normandy) 

So logically, what would be the theoretical "maximum" speed if the given cruise speed is 12 Light Years per day? Double? Tripple? Quadruple? Even if we say "10 x" that of cruise speed which is improbable, going at 120 light years per day, if you do not need to refuel, every ship in your flotilla travels at 120 lyd, travel in a straight line and going through the galactic core, you still will take a greater part of 2 years and a few months to get from one end to the other of the galaxy.

A point of note, The Tikkun System where Rannoch is, is almost 3/4 of the galaxy's distance from Earth's Sol system in a straight line. 
Now, if you factor in "realistic" fuel usage, traveling from system to system salvaging, mining and foraging for materials for the "long march home", you are looking at something more towards 20 or more years of travel from Sol to Tikkun.

20 years. In a "best conditions" setting. Think about it

Note that most if not all ships equal to the Normandy's mass are now downed if we go by the ending's own shockwave, and anything larger would suffer different degrees of damage. How many Quarian "live ships" whose functions are food production to survive intact must be taken into consideration. That and the need to feed their Turian allies.

Why is this important?
Time. 

You see, with time, you can get help, can get back in touch with other planets, can transfer aid to each other but time is the one thing you don't have. The galaxy's best and brightest scientists are stuck in some other system since I sincerely doubt Hacket would move civilians into a hostile battle zone.

And time is needed for said scientist to figure out how reaper tech / relays actually works. 
Its like taking today's laptop, blowing it up, find whatever pieces you can, then send it back 20 years and expecting our computer science geeks to come up with a  working replica in less than a month. 



Next:

-Did the mass relays pull an Arrival and go supernova?

No, they didn't. (i'm paraphrasing here, please don't interpret this too hard) They overloaded, they didn't rupture. ]We really didn't mean to imply that the whole galaxy had been destroyed. People interpreted the ending in ways we really didn't expect. 

WHAT THE FRACK is there to interpret?
Final moments of a Mass Relay

Didn't rupture? 

rup·ture noun[/i] \\ˈrəp(t)-shər\\ 
Definition :  breaking apart or the state of being broken apart

If the relays didn't rupture what exactly did we see in EVERY variation of the ending?

Either :
1) He is in denial
2) He is in damage control mode and trying to cover up the fact and doing a ****** poor job at it (likely)
3) He doesn't know what the frack they put in the ending (most likely) 

Bioware, you got your job cut out for you. 
Either you are going to RETCON the whole Relay exploding thing, in which case why the hell not RETCON space-child god from the machine?
Or, you are going down the route of saying "Seriously guys, the Relays just overloaded, they didn't blow up or anything!"
Really?

That's just two, of the many many glaring concerns.
So while some people might say this is "canon" because its stated as "fact" for the Mass Effect universe, your ending cut scenes and logic check is dismally at odds with what is already known both in the "real world" and lore of the game.

So if you want to make what you said "canon" fix it. 
Retcon or come up with a better excuse.

Modifié par Archonsg, 08 mai 2012 - 10:13 .

[Redbelle]

Shepards a soldier who shoots Reapers. Give me a red, green or blue bullet over another ending that ends because someone gets alot of light to do something.........

I swear anime is rife with it. And now it's invading the game development community?

Got a evil demon from the abyss? Nooooooo problem sir, even a hellspawn will flee at the sight of radiating Red innocence. Not got much innocence? For a limited time only we can supply you with Blue purity and for a slightly higher amount, we can offer the creme de le creme of light shows............. the Green japanese school girl in a sailor outfit. Put one of these on display and no evil shall come within spitting distance of your home.

I know it looks impressive but Shepards a soldier who shoots things. A conduit at the end (with destruction option), just isn't a satisfying end of trilogy encounter for me.

Modifié par Redbelle, 08 mai 2012 - 10:01 .

[PPF65]

My favorite moment was when I thought Grunt was dead fighting the Rachni-Reapers, and he came out of the cave anyway. I actually cried a little bit.

But look at this:

For these reasons, I haven't played the ME3 single player since my first playthrough. I played ME2 about 4 times through before touching another game when it first came out. ME3... I don't want to play the story mode. The ending, and knowing what is waiting at the end, just ruined the story.

Also, Bioware, you lied.

We were told that the ending wouldn't be an A,B or C choice. But it was. We were told that our choices would matter, but in the end, the only real choice that matters in the end is the color that the galaxy explodes in.

This game was 9/10 until the last 20 or so minutes. But that last part, that ending, was so disgustingly bad, that I give the game 2 out of 10 at best. Bioware, you KNOW you can do better. You've do it before. Mass Effect 1 was so much better. Dragon Age: Origins was incredible!! SW:KotOR ate up hours of my time across multiple play throughs. Neverwinter Nights was brilliant.

Dragon Age 2 and ME2 were lesser games overall, but they were still good, and I played them through many times, and loved it every time.

I can't even touch ME3's singleplayer after just one playthrough... and I most certainly didn't buy it for the multiplayer. Bioware... you can do better. You should have done better. I believed that this game was going to be the best game on the XBox 360 (the system I played the game on). But now... there are so many more games I would rather play. ME3 is a failure as a work of art, because the ending alone is so bad that anything worthwhile in the rest of the game counts for NOTHING.

[Voodoo-j]

Archonsg wrote...

Lets clear a few thing up, and Bioware I hope you are reading. 
You have already made a mess, and seems set to make up yet a larger mess but here's some sticking points you might want to address:


-Will long-distance superluminal travel still be possible post-Ending? (will Tali or Wrex or Garrus see their homeworlds again? Will everyone starve?)

Galactic civilization will rebuild. The mass relays were not necessary for interstellar flight. Remember, what does it say in the Codex about the speed of ships? That's right, 12 lightyears per (day? hour? minute?). And that's only the cruising speed, not the maximum speed.

People have never needed to research basic FTL improvements before because they have mass relays. With the relays gone, new technology will increase that speed. Additionally, the element zero cores of the dead/controlled Reapers can be used to improve FTL drives. Starflight will continue using conventional FTL. 


First off, the estimated size of our Galaxy from NASA :
imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980317b.html

That's right, about 100,000 light years across.

Now how fast are current FTL technology?
masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:FTL

About 12 light years in a day cruising speed.

Now, it is also pretty important to point out that there is a codex entry in regards to fuel consumption and EZO drive core size in regards to speed, under Codex Secondary > Ships and Vehicles > FTL Drives  in that the amount of EZO and power required goes up exponentially to the Mass being moved. Thus very large or fast ships are prohibitively expensive. (you won't have a super freighters traveling at like speeds of the Normandy) 

So logically, what would be the theoretical "maximum" speed if the given cruise speed is 12 Light Years per day? Double? Tripple? Quadruple? Even if we say "10 x" that of cruise speed which is improbable, going at 120 light years per day, if you do not need to refuel, every ship in your flotilla travels at 120 lyd, travel in a straight line and going through the galactic core, you still will take a greater part of 2 years and a few months to get from one end to the other of the galaxy.

So the question now is how fast is reaper ftl?

Wasn't there a reference at the end of the Arrival about how much longer it takes the reapers to get here? 
If there was a way to figure it out..

Shepard then states that, given the story, she chose to destroy it and Kenson will confirm that. She says that would stop the Reaper’s invasion as it would take months or even years at standard FTL speeds to reach another relay. Kenson continues by describing what she and her team call “the Project”. The Project is a plan to crash a nearby asteroid into the Relay, thereby destroying it before the Reapers arrive. She finishes by saying that the resulting explosion could destroy the system. As the two take a seat, you can get some questions answered. 

What was the time line for ME3 - a year after the arrival?  how far is the next closest relay?

6 Months

Travel to the Bahak System in the Viper Nebula it will be at the very bottom of the Galaxy Map, near the Local Cluster, Aratoht is the second planet. 

So closest relay is the exodus cluster - which looking at the map and a rough estimate, 2 1/2 to 3 years travel to cross the galaxy with reaper tech.

Modifié par Voodoo-j, 08 mai 2012 - 11:28 .

[Lord Emporer]

For me the real problem with the ending is the plot holes. If the EC somehow someway can fill these massive gaps then ok. also i am not one of the gammers that saw some of the problems affer beating the game when i got to my ending selection i saw the problems and it was thour trying to find a out that i incidentally found my favorite ending....bleeding to death.
what i am really hopping for out of the EC is for something like "the death of Supper Man" in 93.

[daveyeisley]

Love the "Titanic gets a new paintjob" reference

Also, somebody please get Mr. Norris to deal with Bubbles... my brain cells are screaming (silently) as they die from exposure to intellectual vacuum...

Bottom line is, we need new endings.

BW may not wish to admit the ending was botched. They would re-earn some respect if they did, but as long as they fix the ending (not 'clarify' it), the situation might be salvageable.They need to change their minds.... they have done it before, and I daresay at this juncture, it would be most prudent to do so yet again.

Please. New Endings.

[Yoda31]

I join most here to say that I was very disappointed with the ending especially since Sheppard spends all this time fixing things getting the races to unite as one and in the end means absolutely squat....

I mean what is the sense in going through all that if in the end all your work is undone,,,Plus I said it before and I will say it again how on gods good green earth squad mates who were dead in the final moments before you get beamed up to the citadel all of a sudden appear on the Normandy who by the way leaves the battle...???

Bioware has some major work to do..

[LiarasShield]

Holger1405 wrote...

Voodoo-j wrote...

Per an unofficial q&a the relays are gone.. dead .. done blowd up.
They did so as an overload which did not destroy the systems they were in.
I posted the link a few pages back..

Of course the relays are destroyed, I was referring to the relays Systems.  

oh then yes I'm sorry then I did read the post wrong I thoughy you ment the relays themselves but again it did say in arrival that if a relay explodes it destroys a entire solar system and the events of arrival still happen even if shepard doesn't participate in them so why would it be different?

[sbricca]

i didnt read the last few pages, but ..i'm thinking about EC...
they (BW) are in trouble, now, to do this dlc because a lot of people enjoy the ending and much more dont.
So, they persist to say "no explanation,only clarify" then today i read on twitter "we're just showing you what you had to infer previously. Not a change or an addition. Just more to visually process".
If the EC is only cinematic, i think they are going to show not what happened after our choice (this one changes for everyone..as we like but thisshould be much more than a clarifycation) but what happened many many years ago, when the catalys has been created, this could  help us to understand, for every one, the consequences of ABC. So they hope to make us all happy...all of us
This is only an idea...(i dont like it, but i think is neutral...is fair....)
Because there surely are some causes which bring the catalyst to his logic....i think, maybe are in the EC (brrr brrr)



Sorry for english, if someone who understood me  wants translate ...

Modifié par sbricca, 09 mai 2012 - 12:10 .

[LiarasShield]

no you're fine your english was good enough ^^

[Holger1405]

AmstradHero wrote...

Holger1405 wrote...
First, the Geth aren't programmed to attack organics, The Geth heretics follow Saren and Sovereign because they considered Sovereign a God like creature.

Wrong. Check Legion's dialogue in ME3. The Reapers changed the programming of the Heretics by introducing a miscalculation that causes them to follow the Reapers and make them hostile to organics.

That may be, I honestly didn't remember this dialog. (will pay more attention in my next play through.) However, it doesn't chance the fact that there is a reason Legion named them Heretics. According to his dialog with Shepard in ME2, (quote) "they Heretics asked the old Machines to give them the future." And the rest of the Geth collective considered this treason. So according to ME2 the Heretics clearly followed the Reapers on free will.

AmstradHero wrote...

Holger1405 wrote..
Second, the Reapers didn't kill everyone. They erase only advanced organic species, so this organic species can't create synthetic life that, in the end, according to Star Child's logic, will destroy every Organic species and in doing so, erase all organic live from the galaxy. 

So they're not killing organic life because they're only killing SOME organic life? Sorry, but that's illogical.

Of course the killing organic life, but only advanced Organic life. You stated that the Reapers "trying to kill everyone" and I contradict this statement.
This is why your statement that the Repars are "the very cause of the problem that they claim to be fixing" is wrong, and, much more important, THIS is the whole Point of Star Child.

Star Child's logic determinate the action of the Reapers. In his logic, advanced Organic life must be "Harvested" so they will not create Synthetic life, because these Synthetics will ultimately rebel against their creators, and then wipe out ALL Organic live.
The Reapers, only attacking advanced Organic civilization, are his "Solution."

AmstradHero wrote...

Holger1405 wrote...
Why do you think that synthesis is suppose to be the optimal ending? I think it is up to the Player to decide which ending is optimal for her/him.

By game mechanics and the dialogue presented to the player. Synthesis is the "hardest" ending to achieve, and is presented by the game as being "the best". Whether players believe that is something else, but that is the logic as provided by the game/designers.

In my Opinion is Destruction with Shepard surviving the hardest ending to achieve. Also I never got the feeling that the Game a.k.a Bioware pushed me in a direction regarding the final choice.

AmstradHero wrote...

Holger1405 wrote...
No, Star Child admit that his solution, created by his logic, didn't work anymore. So he presented new "Possibilities" to the Player, possibilities they didn't follow Star Child's logic. That means the soundness of Star Child's logic means noting to the validity of the choices presented to the Player.
 
Furthermore, Star Child's flawed logic would only undermine the choices of the Player when this choices maintain the, according to Star Child's logic existing, status quo. But you have two choices, Destruction and Control, who clearly contradicts his logic.

Control IS the status quo. Destroy is the state that led to the creation of the status quo. These are known abd states according to the child's logic. The fact that they are offered is illogical based on the premise.

Again, only when you consider Star child's logic as fact and his predictions as inevitable.
Imho the Cycle is the status quo, and Control as well as Destruction contradict this status quo.
Destruction for obviously reasons, Control because the Controller is changed. 
 

[daveyeisley]

Catalyst Logic -

1. If organic civilization is allowed to develop unchecked, they will create a synthetic intelligence that will wipe out all organic life permanently.

This is such a broad, generalized assumption that even a rudimentary VI would spot the flaw. Nevermind an advanced entity with untold millennia to process this premise.

Nothing anywhere could possibly prove that:

a) Organic civilization would always create synthetic intelligence.
Any synthetic intelligence would inevitably conclude that organic life must be eliminated.
c) Any synthetic intelligence would always surpass the capabilities of organic life and gain the ability to eliminate its creators.

These are absolutes. They canot be proven, and force the dismissal of other possible outcomes. Hence any conclusions based on them also fail to account for other outcomes.

2. The solution to preserving organic life is to harvest advanced civilizations before they can create a sufficiently advanced synthetic intelligence.

Really? This is the 'best' solution that the Catalyst could come up with?

The idea of monitoring and/or guiding the development of synthetic intelligence, or assisting organic civilization directly to prevent the afore mentioned assumed outcomes was apparently dismissed? On what basis? Surely the basis for dismissal would have been more flawed than the premise for this solution?

And this is not to even consider the right of both organic civilization and synthetic intelligence to self-determinate. There is no truth or proof or even evidence to suggest that any synthetic intelligence will be unable to conclude that organic life is beneficial , valuable, and equally entitled to self-determination.

Indeed, I could postulate that it is more likely synthetic intelligence would conclude that aggression and violence are counter-productive and wasteful, and thereby attempt to avoid this in its own action as well as to assist organics with the problems that cause organics to act in such manner - but now we would be speculating and have no basis on which to make a true conclusion.

If we question the absolutes involved in #1:

- What if organics simply do not develop synthetic intelligence?

If we allow that (a) is true:

- The possibility exists that synthetic intelligence may achieve peaceful
coexistence with organic civilization. (If neither is given this chance,
of course, then yes... the probability becomes zero.)

If we allow that (a) and ( are true -

- What of the possibility that organic life would evolve beyond the
capabilities of synthetic intelligence? Even my limited imagination can
see ways for this to happen. The universe consists of more than mathematics, and even the ultimate synthetic intelligenceI would not grasp/process these qualities as inherently as organics do.

- What if organics are able to successfully defend themselves from synthetic aggression?

My limited, flawed, inefficient organic mind is able to take these possible outcomes into account. They simply destroy the logic of the Catalyst's 'solution'.

You may offer that the Catalyst took into account data from the outcomes of many cycles and each confirmed his conclusion. I counter that his solution contributed to this outcome in every cycle save the first, and challenge the validity of enforcing the solution as anything other than a 'last resort'.

If the solution was used as a 'last resort', then why were other methods to avoid this outcome dismissed permanently? Even if alternative methods failed in one cycle, it does not follow they would fail in all cycles.

So now I have wasted brain power challenging this element of the game that was shoved into my face right when my expectations were at their highest. In the end, the Catalyst did not need to be a sapient entity. It did not need to speak to Shepard.

And Shepard certainly should not have trusted or believed anything it said after "I control the Reapers".

Please. Change. The Endings.

[daveyeisley]

After reading a post in another thread, I was struck by a bit of prose that describes how I felt when I saw the ending to ME3.

I didn't beat the game... it beat me.

[Yoda31]

This probably was mentioned before but I was curious...I just finished watching on you tube why this ending might have been an indoctrination in an effort to explain it, the stuff going on in the citadel was a battle in Sheppard`s mind it was an interesting video and would explain a lot, I was wondering what you guys thought...

[Holger1405]

daveyeisley wrote...

Catalyst Logic -

1. If organic civilization is allowed to develop unchecked, they will create a synthetic intelligence that will wipe out all organic life permanently.

This is such a broad, generalized assumption that even a rudimentary VI would spot the flaw. Nevermind an advanced entity with untold millennia to process this premise.

Nothing anywhere could possibly prove that:

a) Organic civilization would always create synthetic intelligence.
Any synthetic intelligence would inevitably conclude that organic life must be eliminated.
c) Any synthetic intelligence would always surpass the capabilities of organic life and gain the ability to eliminate its creators.

These are absolutes. They canot be proven, and force the dismissal of other possible outcomes. Hence any conclusions based on them also fail to account for other outcomes.

2. The solution to preserving organic life is to harvest advanced civilizations before they can create a sufficiently advanced synthetic intelligence.

Really? This is the 'best' solution that the Catalyst could come up with?

The idea of monitoring and/or guiding the development of synthetic intelligence, or assisting organic civilization directly to prevent the afore mentioned assumed outcomes was apparently dismissed? On what basis? Surely the basis for dismissal would have been more flawed than the premise for this solution?

And this is not to even consider the right of both organic civilization and synthetic intelligence to self-determinate. There is no truth or proof or even evidence to suggest that any synthetic intelligence will be unable to conclude that organic life is beneficial , valuable, and equally entitled to self-determination.

Indeed, I could postulate that it is more likely synthetic intelligence would conclude that aggression and violence are counter-productive and wasteful, and thereby attempt to avoid this in its own action as well as to assist organics with the problems that cause organics to act in such manner - but now we would be speculating and have no basis on which to make a true conclusion.

If we question the absolutes involved in #1:

- What if organics simply do not develop synthetic intelligence?

If we allow that (a) is true:

- The possibility exists that synthetic intelligence may achieve peaceful
coexistence with organic civilization. (If neither is given this chance,
of course, then yes... the probability becomes zero.)

If we allow that (a) and ( are true -

- What of the possibility that organic life would evolve beyond the
capabilities of synthetic intelligence? Even my limited imagination can
see ways for this to happen. The universe consists of more than mathematics, and even the ultimate synthetic intelligenceI would not grasp/process these qualities as inherently as organics do.

- What if organics are able to successfully defend themselves from synthetic aggression?

My limited, flawed, inefficient organic mind is able to take these possible outcomes into account. They simply destroy the logic of the Catalyst's 'solution'.

You may offer that the Catalyst took into account data from the outcomes of many cycles and each confirmed his conclusion. I counter that his solution contributed to this outcome in every cycle save the first, and challenge the validity of enforcing the solution as anything other than a 'last resort'.

If the solution was used as a 'last resort', then why were other methods to avoid this outcome dismissed permanently? Even if alternative methods failed in one cycle, it does not follow they would fail in all cycles.

So now I have wasted brain power challenging this element of the game that was shoved into my face right when my expectations were at their highest. In the end, the Catalyst did not need to be a sapient entity. It did not need to speak to Shepard.

And Shepard certainly should not have trusted or believed anything it said after "I control the Reapers".

Please. Change. The Endings.

I agree to almost everything you say.
May question is, why did the wrong, flawed logic of the Star Child makes the ending bad?
 
They Solution of Star Child, the Cycles, are a atrocity against organic races (and so against the Player) and you fought three Games to stop them. In the end you faced, well, whatever it is, and it tells you his reason for this massacre, reasons you, as a organic, could never have accepted.
But that was basically clear from Game 1.  

I myself, was disgusted by his logic and considered them plain wrong, still he presented my, not gave me, just presented my, three choices to Stop him, his logic and the Reapers. (Plus I could shot TIM.)  So, I'm fine with that.

Modifié par Holger1405, 09 mai 2012 - 02:28 .

[Colonel Sheppard]

Question for all you guys. Are any of you going to buy any future DLC or games in this universe when we all know the galaxy went kaboom and all the races got stranded in the SOL system and starved to death? Or knowing that two wackos, running the game projects, will take unilateral control of the story at any point and add illogical, contradictory content in them?

I'm not sure where the problem started, but after EA messed up the Command and Conquer ending, I have a sneaking suspicion that EA had a hand in messing up this once great franchise. The ending was not the only problem I had with this game but was definitely the icing on the cake. I put up with lack of Steam, 1st day installation problems, jersey shore pop culture crap in the game, multiplayer bugs, etc, etc, but the ending was unbearably illogical and contradictory. Did the two guys taking unilateral control at the end even keep up with the story line of the 3 games till the end? Seems like they had preconceived endings that they tried to forced into the game without regards to everything that preceded it.

[daveyeisley]

You're seriously asking why this makes the ending bad?

While that brings a whole load of questions to mind about the value judgements going on in your mind.... the only thing that matters is.... why do you consider it anything other than bad?

Were you expecting and satisfied with the final content of such a well-thought-out and internally consistent story relying on shoving dislogic down your throat along with a choice that is based on said dislogic, without any exposition on the full consequences of the choice, or the ability to question and/or reject the choice based on this flawed logic?

Or do you enjoy being spoonfed poorly thought out, inconsistent logic as a basis for a choice you cannot reject, or even question the ramifications of?

[daveyeisley]

duplicate

Modifié par daveyeisley, 09 mai 2012 - 02:47 .

[daveyeisley]

You know what, Holger... nevermind... I think it is safe to say, your expectations were simply much lower than a large majority of fans who played the whole trilogy. The ending worked for you, and thats your opinion.

I vehemently disagree and have a lot of reasons why I wasnt satisfied.... thats my opinion.

I dont think you will ever be able to offer an explanation for your satisfaction that will make sense to me. Feel free to try, but I really doubt it. We simply went into this with very different expectations.

I was very, very disappointed... and even if there had been a mechanism to call the Catalyst on his BS, it wouldnt have improved things much. There was still no good reason to tack on genocide and murder to the destruction of the reapers. There was no good reason why shepard absolutely must die in every other choice. There was no good reason the ending cinematics left so many questions unanswered, and failed to personalize the resolution based on past player choices.

Im happy for you that these things didn't bother you. I expected a lot more from the storytellers who wove this epic.

Modifié par daveyeisley, 09 mai 2012 - 02:59 .

[darkway1]

Basically NO,I wont be buying any DLC and I won't be buying any EA/Bioware products on day one any more..........the whole experience has left me a little bitter to be honest,day one DLC,false advertising,false game reviews,3 weeks after the game gets release the game gets reduced to half price,the ending demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the franchise,it's lore,it's fans and Bioware seems totally ignorant to the mess the ending has created.

It's all in BIOWARE'S hand's now,they at one point had access to take what ever they wanted from my wallet.........no more,produce something I really want and I will buy it if the price is right.

[daveyeisley]

not sure what is up with the forums eating posts and then duplicating them when I try to repost.... apologies to all.

Modifié par daveyeisley, 09 mai 2012 - 03:00 .

[Dublinguy65]

Jeez people are still debating this? Get a life and move on. Yeah the ending sucked, but in the end it's just a friggin GAME. Small minds get disturbed by trivial things.