23455 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

Malditor wrote...

Sequel or spin off is what I figure to be honest, perhaps already in production which prevents any major change to the ending.

Good luck with that.  Fiscally at this point that may not be feasible.  And the ME games they talked about as possibilities were said by them to not be sequels, but a prequel and one more like a big sidequest.  The blah ending of ME3 makes any such content less than exciting.

[Malditor]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Malditor wrote...

Sequel or spin off is what I figure to be honest, perhaps already in production which prevents any major change to the ending.

Good luck with that.  Fiscally at this point that may not be feasible.  And the ME games they talked about as possibilities were said by them to not be sequels, but a prequel and one more like a big sidequest.  The blah ending of ME3 makes any such content less than exciting.

Possibly for some, though others would buy it, and I'd put money even some of the most dissillusioned would buy it too.

[3DandBeyond]

Noelemahc wrote...

The relays blew up makes it so everyone dies? I don't see that.

You didn't play Arrival, did you? It seemed that its purpose was twofold: to establish Harbinger as the Ultimate Big Bad of the trilogy (hah, fat chance) and to show to us what exactly happens when a relay explodes. Okay, also why Shepard is on Earth in ME3's beginning, except that if you didn't play Arrival, you're on Earth in ME3's beginning anyway. Good job, BioWare!

Sequel or spin off is what I figure to be honest, perhaps already in production which prevents any major change to the ending.

Spinoff more likely at this point, IMHO.

Probably, in the end, the rift is there are those of us that played the game as a game. And while we really liked the depth and breadth of the game, we didn't become emotionally envolved in it. Therefore when it ended how it did we didn't have anything to get upset about really.

While I accept the existance of your viewpoint and its validity, it also contains an interesting Catch 22.

If you play it as a game, it's not art, and therefore the ending can be changed, but those who play it as a game generally don't care if the ending is changed or not.

If you play it as a story, it IS art, so the ending cannot be changed (by BioWare's logic, at least), but those who play it as a story generally want the ending to be changed or replaced.

Oops.

Circular logic begins to make sense.

The Arrival is the only context that we, or more correctly Shepard has for mass relays exploding. And Shepard saw that one killed 300k Batarians and a star system, the whole star system.  Shepard is not told the relays will have some small limited happy explosion or an implosion and do no damage.  All that Shepard knows is they will be destroyed, and in the past that meant the destruction as in the Arrival.  Shepard might want to ask a question at that point, at least.

[Malditor]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Malditor wrote...

Perhaps you don't understand what I mean about inflexible about wanting another option for the ending. By wanting anything other than what was already there for an ending you want another option, even if that option is no options at all.
The problem with any ending they could have come up with is that it would be impossible for them to make it fit everyone's choices along the way. They would have to categorize them, full paragon/renegade and a mix of both. People would still say those endings didn't fit how they played, and they would be right. I don't dispute that the ending could have been done another/better way. But you seem to insist that if people like it then they are accepting a substandard game. That's not a fair assessment, because the quality of the game is subjective.

Probably, in the end, the rift is there are those of us that played the game as a game. And while we really liked the depth and breadth of the game, we didn't become emotionally envolved in it. Therefore when it ended how it did we didn't have anything to get upset about really.

The fact that you didn't get that involved emotionally is part of the point here.  Stories do involve you emotionally.  They are supposed to.  It explains why you don't care about the kid being there instead of Harbinger.  You are exactly not the kind of person such games are geared to-they want players to be emotionally invested on some level.  That doesn't mean you should love everyone or everything, but that you care for bad or good about things.  Even action movies intend for you to be emotionally involved and you are not the main character making choices.

And it's not impossible to create a variance for the endings that does not seem contrived.  There are not a lot of complaints about ME2's ending (there may be some) and it was a set ending with one main choice.  The major impact the player had on it was as to who might die and what happened to the base.

ME3 shouldn't have an open ending, but could have had more variety.  I don't say an endless one, but at the very least some different cutscenes (though not a real fix).

I will state it simply you can create many variables that lead to some cutscenes that would work and still provide enough variety.

Reapers destroyed totally
Reapers not destroyed

And shades of gray in between

Friends survive
Friends die

And shades of gray in between

Love Interest survives
Love Interest dies

Shepard survives
Shepard dies

The galaxy/Earth survives
The galaxy/Earth destroyed

And some shades in between

War assets intact
War assets decimated

Shades of gray in between

In my opinion you can rotate these as choices are made and one happening doesn't mean another can't or won't.
For instance the galaxy could be saved, but the fleets/assets totally destroyed.  Earth destroyed/reapers destroyed.  Shepard survives long enough to see galaxy destroyed and reapers win.

And what I've also said is that they did run out of time, but could have made and awesome epic ME3 in 2 parts-the race to build up forces and then the race to save the galaxy.

I know this won't happen and all, but I am just saying that it could be done.  It just needed more time and a bigger game. I would have gladly paid for that.

You have no right to say this game isn't something meant for me or people like me. I enjoy games that offer the diversity in experience that this game has. Just because I don't cry when a team member dies doesn't mean I missed out on anything. If a team member dies and I don't want them to, I go back and try a different tactic to stop it from happening.

[akenn312]

Malditor wrote...

akenn312
I think there are reasons behind them refusing to change the ending choices that we aren't aware of. I do agree it could/should have been done in a more comprehensive fashion as most people won't make their own connections/conclusions on what it all means.
It seems society as a whole is rejecting ambiguous endings all together. This is evidenced by movies being made without the "happily ever after" endings that don't really tie anything together. It seems people prefer even to see an end where the evil couldn't be defeated as opposed to some crazy ending where the hero gets the superhuman ability to kill it off when whole groups of cops/fighters were unable. If nothing else, only because it give continuity to the story.

I don't see these choices as ambiguous or not easy to comprehend. I just see them as a forced way to create the Reapers as the anti-heroes of the story with a mission that is meant to save us from ourselves. That's probably what is making most people reject the 3 choices. The story has not convinced the player well enough that the Catalyst is a conduit for galactic peace or force that can end the conflict rather than Shepard or the galactic alliance as it stands has already done. The Catalyst's reasons for it's first solution to harvest organics every 500,000 years is not logic that people can get behind to say that made sense. So now his choices seem even more suspect and basically idiotic.

The problem is they have made the Reapers the clear cut flawed ultimate evil in the galaxy. So at the last ten minutes suddenly inserting a ghostly childlike character that is supposed to make you shift the belief from them being the ultimate evil to beings with a misunderstood noble purpose is not going to fly.

Again with the Geth and Cerberus this could make sense, but with the Reapers they can't pull this off because they have given us no previous hint or character that they hold a noble purpose for harvesting and their control over organic & synthetic life. Just saying 'You can't comprehend is not enough."

Actually the Rannoch mission and the EDI storyline causes this problem of disbelief most of all. The Geth making peace with the Quarians and the EDI storyline shows that organics and synthetics do not need the Reapers cycle of control to end the organic & synthetic conflict. These parts of the story shut down all reasoning for the Reapers purpose and verifies even more that the Reapers should be completely shutdown for their dangerous flaw in logic. One could believe more that without their meddling we might have had this peace come about faster.

Chaos is unpredictable so the Catalyst cannot ever predict at 100% percent certainty that organics and synthetics will always destroy each other. Hence the flawed AI stuff. EDI and the Geth have visualy shown that calculation to be false so now the choices (At least one of them) should allow organics and synthetics to take the major risk to live as is within the Chaos of life's cycle without the Reaper threat.

The main problem with the choices are none of them allow Chaos to flow as it naturally should wihtout the Reapers impact. This should be a reward for players that fought for that within the game. Life is chaos and you cannot control life's cycle. This is not just a society issue it's a inherent fact of our being. When we see a concept like the endings it naturally feels wrong. The Reapers are the figure heads of trying to control life and natural free will. Shepard is the figurehead of fighting for free will to allow life to flourish as it is meant to. There is no logical reason to sacrifice yourself for the Reapers cause, doing so makes no sense other than to end the game. Not saying all three choices need the allow chaos to go on but at least one choice should. 

So add that in with the Normandy fleeing, disappearing squad mates and bad closure with characters at the end and here we all are. 

Modifié par akenn312, 19 mai 2012 - 08:47 .

[Redbelle]

Just checked the MP global leaderboards and if you scroll down to the bottom it shows 422054 ppl as registered for ME MP.

Whew!

Modifié par Redbelle, 19 mai 2012 - 08:16 .

[3DandBeyond]

Malditor wrote...

Possibly for some, though others would buy it, and I'd put money even some of the most dissillusioned would buy it too.

You misunderstand part of that, I meant fically for the company.  They may well be putting extra money into the EC (which does signify an acceptance that something was wrong) that may not now be available for other projects.  And there are indications that even though initial sales of ME3 were brisk, the game itself has fallen somewhat off a bit of a cliff.  Returns did happen and it needn't take every fan to make an impact on sales.  Subscriptions to Bioware's SWOTOR have been pulled.  People are not jumping on fan-based items and things that seemed certain for release are not being hyped right now.  What that means is that satellite projects for ME are somewhat on the back burner and kind of wait and see-this pushes financial gains down the road and slows the development of new content.

But, if they do have real plans for new things, they are being very quiet about them-this is antihype.  And that's not good for an industry that lives on hype.  I don't mean to imply they will fail or anything like that.  I just mean that they are feeling a bit burned by all this and are reticent it seems to even utter the words, Mass Effect, in public.  They could turn this around and it just shows the damage they've done to themselves.  There's a certain leak paranoia that seems to exist, but smart companies use leaks as free advertisement and to drive hype.  Their seeming disdain for fans began over the From the Ashes day one DLC (that was supposed to be included within the game originally) and the whole leaked ME3 ending debacle.  They don't seem to have been having much fun with the release of ME3.  It should have been a time of great hype and fun for all, but it's just never seemed so.  The leaked ending could have spawned a lot of excitement.  Instead, they got mad and that's not a good place to be at.

[3DandBeyond]

Malditor wrote...

You have no right to say this game isn't something meant for me or people like me. I enjoy games that offer the diversity in experience that this game has. Just because I don't cry when a team member dies doesn't mean I missed out on anything. If a team member dies and I don't want them to, I go back and try a different tactic to stop it from happening.

I am saying that authors do not write stories for people to not become involved with the characters.  It is writing 1.01.  They specifically write characters that they work to get you to identify with or to have some non-ambiguous feelings about.  Now there can be minor characters that matter little, but authors want you to care one way or another about the major characters because they take you along with them for the ride.

I never said you had to cry.  I specifically said that that does not mean you have to love a character, but you have to have some investment of feeling on some level with the character of a story in order to buy into the story.  I'm also just saying it's why you don't care about the star kid being substituted at the last minute as the antagonist.  Because you had no emotional consideration within the game.  You played it as a game and not a full story with emotional attachment.  Antagonists are those that on some level you hate.  Protagonists are those that on some level you identify with or care about, you might love them, they might be flawed and do bad things, but as a whole you care what happens to them.

I'm not saying you aren't allowed to play such games or insinuating you have no right (I know you didn't say this).  I am just saying that you are not in the demographic that such story laden games are written for.  The emotionally invested player buys everything and becomes a rabid fan.  No DLC is too minor or expensive.  ME toothbrush?  They buy it.  That is who a game like this is written for and that is exactly who became the most disappointed.  The were in the game emotionally and ready to open their wallets for anything.

Companies pay big money to run studies of who buys the products they sell-you would not fit well into the demographics for this game.  Doesn't mean you don't like it and can't play it.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 19 mai 2012 - 08:41 .

[daveyeisley]

Aside from the list oh other questions that need to be answered....

Here is one that I personally think the whole premise of Mass Effect is based on at this point, due to the Catalyst:

Why does the Catalyst, or the civilization he came from, care about organic life in the first place?

If that doesn't get answered, we simply can't understand the Catalyst.

[Malditor]

I am firmly in the demographic, I read book series and play game series regularly.

[darkway1]

daveyeisley wrote...

Aside from the list oh other questions that need to be answered....

Here is one that I personally think the whole premise of Mass Effect is based on at this point, due to the Catalyst:

Why does the Catalyst, or the civilization he came from, care about organic life in the first place?

If that doesn't get answered, we simply can't understand the Catalyst.

I haven't got a clue but I'll have a guess......organics seem to be the key to stoping the "dark energy" plot...hence the human reaper in Mass2.....but the end of Mass3 drops this story plot sooooo....??????

[Noelemahc]

The Arrival is the only context that we, or more correctly Shepard has for mass relays exploding. And Shepard saw that one killed 300k Batarians and a star system, the whole star system. Shepard is not told the relays will have some small limited happy explosion or an implosion and do no damage. All that Shepard knows is they will be destroyed, and in the past that meant the destruction as in the Arrival. Shepard might want to ask a question at that point, at least.

Pretty much the TLDR of all those numerous "Why the heck should we trust what the Catalyst says" threads. Here is the Big Poobah of the enemy who claims all responsibilites for all that the Reapers did, and he says "OK, shoot thing totally unpurposeful thing to kill me and mine; touch this obviously lethal thing and control them instead of me; or go jump into this energy stream and turn everyone into robots; oh, and the relays might also blow up".

This is the point where you might actually genuinely want to do an Isaac Clarke and tell it to go frell itself (warning, NSFW language, heavy Dead Space 2 spoilers). The point of contention is that what Shepard did in the endings of ME1 and ME2 was EXACTLY THIS. Why she is deprived of that ability in the third game, via, say, asking Hackett to demolish the Citadel as it apparently houses Space Hitler, even if it means Shepard's certain death, because it might stump the Reapers and help the Alliance secure a conventional victory (which, if you united the Quarians and the Geth is more than plausible numerically) -- that is what a lot of players would like to know. Why we cannot do that?

And this is discounting the fact that the very existence of the Catalyst, Starchild, Illustrious Leader, whatever -- it invalidates the entire frakking plot of the original game. Sort of makes you wonder if the ME3 team even remembered what it was about outside of the little cameos they were setting up for a random selecton of characters they so generously decided not to kill via Twitter or e-mail.

I am firmly in the demographic, I read book series and play game series regularly.

Not the point he was making, dude (you're a dude, right?). You're not the kind that buys Metal Gear games to learn of Snake's fate, you're the kind that buys them because they're awesome puzzle games with shooting elements. Not the kind that would ever buy Planescape Torment, what with its "talking is more important than fighting" philosophy. You don't get invested in the story, you're not in this for emotional feedback and seratonin, all you want is adrenaline.

I know it's not fair to segregate by that factor, as the segregation is actually the other way around -- there are games story-buffs don't touch because they have zero plot despite whatever great gameplay they might offer. They don't have a rich backstory and expanded universe to enjoy between and/or after the shooting in the game; and so they don't draw these players in. Just like there are gamers that enjoy shooters and strategy games regardless of plot, because they satiate their desire for adrenalin (Gears of War is the ultimate example here, as its story is an excuse plot at best; in the past, Contra, Doom and Quake fit the bill flawlessly) or brain-teasing (X-COM, Frozen Synapse).

But there are also gamers that can appreciate both. And games that provide both. Mass Effect was one such game. Mass Effect 3 fails catastrophically on the story-enjoyment front while delivering very good on the action front, far better than its predecessors. But the core demographic OF THE MASS EFFECT GAMES came in on the first game, they came in for an RPG. For the story. For the proverbial blue babies, as it turned out.

It's very hard to view this as anything other than a betrayal of the long-time fans. An intentional betrayal, as apparently "the game is as it was supposed to be", according to official sources.

Why does the Catalyst, or the civilization he came from, care about organic life in the first place?

If that doesn't get answered, we simply can't understand the Catalyst.

Option A: It's a synthetic of a race that destroyed their organic creators, gooed them for Reaper fuel and Said That It Was Good. AKA the original Cylons.
Option B: It's an organic that uploaded itself to take over the Reapers because he'd seen what they do to organics, and was trying to stop them, but then his brain broke under the digitization strain and he went on doing their same job with a new excuse for the gooification. AKA the Iron Savior concept.
Option C: It's a lie, he's frakking with Shepard. Reapers exist and do what they do because they CAN. Their origin is irrelevant and they themselves might not remember it anymore due to obscenely old age. AKA The Matrix.
Option D: Space Magic, "you don't need the answers to the Mass Effect universe", etc. AKA Mac Walters.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 19 mai 2012 - 09:57 .

[Malditor]

I doubt the demographic is only for those who also get emotionally invested in the story or care only about the story. They want people who like a continuing experience. Though I get what you are saying in general.

[Redbelle]

I still think the Indoctrination ability Reapers and their thralls possess might be key to the Reaper cycle. It basically makes you want to serve Reapers and through servitude the majority of ppl want to become Reapers.

Also, we saw in ME2 that dead Reapers still indoctrinate. So all those dead Reapers could still indoctrinate whoever come for them, e.g. to pick up their mass effect cores for faster inter galactic travel now the relays are gone. Which makes them want to serve and in this case restore Reapers to life or bring new Reapers into existence.

How do you fight something that pours itself into your mind and pushes you out?

[Noelemahc]

I doubt the demographic is only for those who also get emotionally invested in the story or care only about the story.

Totally not what I said. I said the original ME1 demographic was mostly made up of people that were in it for the story. If you'll recall, it was HATED initially for being a TPS. Then some people came around because everything else was awesome, and some TPS players came onboard because it looked kinda cool, and the fandom mushroomed out.

But that's still no excuse to alienate the people who ARE in this for the story. As gameplay improved in the move from ME1 to ME2, RPG players got shafted with its serious downgrade of the Paragon/Renegade system and the combat system overhaul (which included turning lots of skills into a few metaskills), and story-followers got shafted with the fact that its plot was a series of loosely connected vignettes united by a metaplot that could fit on a paper napkin without omissions or summarizations. And ME3, while it fixed the RPG elements to an extent (in exchange for excising most of the things that made the Para/Rene system unique - it's only superficially the same by now as Reputation matters, while Para and Rene seem to affect ONLY the scars and whether you might be locked out of one of the two magical "I WIN" dialogue options, of which there are so few, that several of the most important ones are actually MORE dependant on plot flags than scores), crippled the storytelling aspect severely.

Me, personally, I accepted most of that SPECIFICALLY because the stories in the vignettes were so awesome that they overshadowed how contrived the metaplot was (outside of Lazarus, most of the stuff in ME2 could've been done without involving Cerberus at all and without breaking lore) or how all the RPG elements were cut down to actual role-playing via dialogue trees. And tolerated my way through the second half of ME3 because I hoped it would get better after this lackluster part. OK, maybe after this lackluster part. Maybe the ending cinematic would compensate for that dri-- WHADDAYA MEAN, THE CREDITS ARE ROLLING?!

How do you fight something that pours itself into your mind and pushes you out?

By turning them into bits small enough so that whatever doodad indoctrinates us, stops working? Also, we don't even know if Destroyers can indoctrinate, or it's the exclusive domain of the Sovereign-class Reapers.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 19 mai 2012 - 10:14 .

[juhi95]

http://www.oxm.co.uk...before-release/

Read it everyone! It explains Drew Karpyshyn's ending.Which I think way better than the ending we get.

[3DandBeyond]

Malditor wrote...

I am firmly in the demographic, I read book series and play game series regularly.

You're just not getting it.  You may play games and read books but that doesn't mean you'd buy or are targeted to buy romance novels or Harry Potter.  It's the same thing.  Companies don't just target someone that plays games (because someone that likes an RPG might not buy a sports game), it's also about genres and the specific type of game.  You may like stories, but maybe not deep character driven ones.

You may like Mario Kart, but that doesn't mean you'll buy Modern Warfare.  It's not an insult, it's just that writers don't write characters with emotional impact for people that don't get impacted emotionally.  It wouldn't make sense to do that.

The point I'm making that someone before was explaining is for you little blue children might not matter so a game tailored to you wouldn't include such a sappy thing.  For others, this is an awesome little bitty story that made the game incredibly deep-it seemed deeper than it maybe was, in fact.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 19 mai 2012 - 10:26 .

[3DandBeyond]

darkway1 wrote...

daveyeisley wrote...

Aside from the list oh other questions that need to be answered....

Here is one that I personally think the whole premise of Mass Effect is based on at this point, due to the Catalyst:

Why does the Catalyst, or the civilization he came from, care about organic life in the first place?

If that doesn't get answered, we simply can't understand the Catalyst.

I haven't got a clue but I'll have a guess......organics seem to be the key to stoping the "dark energy" plot...hence the human reaper in Mass2.....but the end of Mass3 drops this story plot sooooo....??????

I can only keep pointing to their reproductive cycle.  I do think the catalyst kid and the reapers need the diverse, ever better DNA in some warped pursuit of synthesis and perfection.  All of that is repeatedly stated in the game (except the warped part). 

[akenn312]

 Sorry but Drew Karpyshyn's already shut that down as being the ending they were going to do before he left. They were kicking around that but ultimately they canned it. They wanted to go this direction in some way. Execution is more the issue here. They did'nt have a clear set idea how to end this before the 3rd game was made.

So sorry he is not our hidden savior

Link to his comments on the whole issue.
http://drewkarpyshyn...?p=381#more-381

Modifié par akenn312, 19 mai 2012 - 10:24 .

[Lord Kable]

"Listening" but not hearing it seems.

The MAJORITY of players would prefer a different ending altogether, not an extended video sequence. What a waste of time that is. Whoever at Bioware is reading fans comments and summarising must be on school work experience or something. People do NOT want two characters talking a bit more at the end. They want the story to either carry on (through dlc) or Shepard's fate to be revealed. They want to know whether the indoctrination theory was correct or if the story was just rushed at the end and left massive holes.

Personally, I was looking forward to dlc which extended the whole single-player experience and the story, like Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 did. It looks like instead, fans will be getting multiplayer dlc instead. I enjoyed the multiplayer, don't get me wrong, but I've always loved Mass Effect for the amazing story experience.

This has probably been said a million times, but if every fan voices their opinions, maybe Bioware will "get it." As it stands, I don't think they do. Amazing how EA Games who now own Bioware, who are the most money-hungry gaming company I can think of doesn't alter the ending and keep punting out DLC to make a fortune. 

Bethesda on the other hand listen to fans, look at Falout 3. Many kicked off because of the bad ending and it was changed, followed by further DLC that extended the experience and made them a hell of a lot of money. Listened to the fans AND made money on it! Where is the sense in not listening to fans here?

[Malditor]

I did read Harry potter and read the dark tower series. Also read the lord of the rings. Played Mario cart and CoD4 and up.

[3DandBeyond]

Lord Kable wrote...

"Listening" but not hearing it seems.

The MAJORITY of players would prefer a different ending altogether, not an extended video sequence. What a waste of time that is. Whoever at Bioware is reading fans comments and summarising must be on school work experience or something. People do NOT want two characters talking a bit more at the end. They want the story to either carry on (through dlc) or Shepard's fate to be revealed. They want to know whether the indoctrination theory was correct or if the story was just rushed at the end and left massive holes.

Personally, I was looking forward to dlc which extended the whole single-player experience and the story, like Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 did. It looks like instead, fans will be getting multiplayer dlc instead. I enjoyed the multiplayer, don't get me wrong, but I've always loved Mass Effect for the amazing story experience.

This has probably been said a million times, but if every fan voices their opinions, maybe Bioware will "get it." As it stands, I don't think they do. Amazing how EA Games who now own Bioware, who are the most money-hungry gaming company I can think of doesn't alter the ending and keep punting out DLC to make a fortune. 

Bethesda on the other hand listen to fans, look at Falout 3. Many kicked off because of the bad ending and it was changed, followed by further DLC that extended the experience and made them a hell of a lot of money. Listened to the fans AND made money on it! Where is the sense in not listening to fans here?

Exactly, if a player bought all the DLC for Fallout 3, it was more than or somewhere equal to the price of the orginal game.  People loved and still want to love ME, but the ending makes it near impossible.  Give people a great game and they will buy almost anything, especially one that hooks you like these.

[3DandBeyond]

Malditor wrote...

I did read Harry potter and read the dark tower series. Also read the lord of the rings. Played Mario cart and CoD4 and up.

That's what is called an example and not regarding your specific tastes-something I know nothing about.   Someone else said it far better-you seem to be in games for the adrenaline and not the dopamine or endorphines.  People don't write romance stories for you, because you aren't all about the love of the characters.  You like the story, the action, the play, but maybe the characters are not as important.  You don't feel much for them-that's what you've said.  They die, oh well.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 19 mai 2012 - 10:34 .

[LiarasShield]

LiarasShield wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

My whole issue is that we have been fighting and uniting the gtalaxy for all three games to destroy and beat the reapers so that the galaxy can live on or continue so that we may have a brighter future

But the thing is that we encounter the catalyst he is the creator of the reapers that have been destroying organic civilizations for thousands or millions of years and has used twisted logic to validate his need to have the reapers continously destroy most organic life every 50 thousand years now how can you see the catalyst as not being evil when he has had the reapers destroy and harvest people from other races so that they can destroy their own races so how the collectors who were once protheans ended up destroying or harvesting the remaining protheans beside javik

Think of it this way why would the main bad guy or villian give you ways to destroy his forces or for you to beat him unless he was trying to trick you or cause more damage to you or your forces

What makes me even more mad is not only can shepard not counter the creator of the reapers false logic but gives in and submits to the creator of the reapers choices that he wants shepard to make Instead of shepard beating the reapers and wether dieing as a hero or making a great sacrifice under his or her own steam and in 2 out of the 3 ending the reapers live and fly offf and in all the endings your forces are trapt around our damaged solar system with the relays destroyed and having them all trapt there and leave it at that as a cliff hanger yeah that isn't cool

But yes essentially in all the endings the reapers win because 2 out of the 3 they still live and fly away and even in destroy all our relays are destroyed and all our forces are trapt around our dying solar system In the end the reapers still have the last laugh

And Come to think of it was that the catalysst real appearance or was he only playing to shepards senses or could it be hologram and that the catalyst is very far away like how harbigner was controlling the collectors from far away in dark space then that means wether we beat the reapers or not the catalyst will continue to make new reapers and send them through dark space every 50 thousand years

This could spand endless sequels with randomly new heroes and news races every 50 thousand years or so but playing a series where you never beat the main villian or it never ends yeah that would be my breaking point I don't want to see this great series end up like final fantasy with endless sequels that hold really no true point or where different final fantasy hold no true collective to the previous ones that came before

But yeah how can anyone not see the catalyst who created the reapers that have been destroying us and trying to destroy everyone in the galaxy as not being evil or someone or something that would try to deceive you or make you go down the paths that he want so that the reapers still win or survive it almost feels like a small portion of the fanbase forgot the whole purpose of why we united the galaxy to fight the reapers in the first place

I can't state this much more if you can't see where the major flaws are or that you love the endings then why are you here bubbles you got what you wanted and supposedly claim to be satisfied no need to come back here no more lol

These endings are really almost as teriible as final fantasy XIII-2 ending here

Just hope extended dlc will do something cause god this feels like a bad sore that just won't go away

How some of you can keep defending the catalyst or seeing the creator of the reapers as a good guy instead of a enemy is beyond me it really is

[Lord Kable]

Guys, the Extended cut coming out that everyone keeps saying "wait for" has NO further voicing from Shepard, Miranda, Grunt, Tali or any others, just Anderson and EDI. Make of that what you will