23455 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

@Orion1836,
Fantastic post (and I thank you for your brave service).

Your points are the main points-I would perhaps only disagree in the post in that I believe all outcomes should have been made possible, even if difficult to attain (this means should include happy as well as truly tragic).

Other than that, you hit all the right notes. The ending disagrees with words Bioware gave players the ability to give Shepard to say as well as choices they allowed us to allow Shepard to make. Shepard becomes spineless and gutless and brainless and heartless. S/he ceases to be the character we have played for 2.99 games.

The other area that your post touched on is that we didn't need to be told the reapers' motivations, well they didn't need to interject the kid to make stuff up, we'd already been given a reason. The kid says something completely different from what was said in other albeit minor areas of the game.

The harvesting cycle coincides with the reapers' reproductive cycle and reproduction requires energy. For 50k years the reapers basically hibernate beyond the edge of the galaxy to conserve energy and to hide. They harvest advanced organics partly as a type of food (more like a power source) and it can be presumed that due to their nature they need the most advanced organics for their brain power. Consider that every reaper creature has their basic life essence sucked out of them (the organic sludge) and they become like mindless drones. And the organic sludge gets stored for later use. The Human reaper of ME2 was in effect one of their "babies".

They never specifically said this was reproduction but in creating the human reaper they had been harvesting the human colonies and if you look to nature, there's a couple of main reasons bears come out of hibernation-to eat and to make babies. In fact they eat so they can make babies. And all animals that hibernate do so to conserve energy when food is scarce. The energy the reapers need is most likely the intelligence of the organic being as well as the organic essence itself.

This of course is beside the point. The point you made was one that totally removes the player from being emotionally invested in the story anymore. The reapers were the antagonists, until they weren't and the kid at the last minute did the switcheroo. His choices (because we have no proof they are not his choices) cannot in any way be something a paragon Shepard would choose, if made to choose one. That Shepard would shoot him/herself first after trying to tell Hackett to go to plan B and hope it will be enough.

[Thanatos144]

Satanic Racist wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Called for overuse of question marks.  Please refrain from doing so, as one is sufficient for us to recognize a question even ones as silly and self-serving as these.

Ending-the end of something.

Beginning-the part where something begins or starts.  By your logic all of those things you mentioned are really the beginning of the game, so the whole game is the freaking beginning.  I got what, over 20 beginnings??????????????  I think I owe Bioware money now, because they never promised 20 beginnings.

Grow up.

Please take your own advice-you dispense enough of it here.  You know, I've seen people here called a lot of things by you, but every single one of those things applies more appropriately to you.

Actually I haven't and would take kindly to you not lying about me. I
have maybe called people three or four things...Rage trolls.....I inferred many of you were ignorant...Childish tantrum throwers and entitled brats. While I have not been the most nice of people I am not
the raving lunatic you wish to paint me as.

Coming from the retard who can't tell the difference between suing and prosecuting.

I am sorry did you think you cant sue someone for a criminal offense????????????

[Thanatos144]

Satanic Racist wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

Actually I haven't and would take kindly to you not lying about me. I
have maybe called people three or four things...Rage trolls.....I inferred many of you were ignorant...Childish tantrum throwers and entitled brats. While I have not been the most nice of people I am not
the raving lunatic you wish to paint me as.

Perhaps now I should cry and be like you and say WAAAAAH, you just called me a liar.  You have continually insulted people.  Apparently, you think it's ok if you call someone a troll, but then you've cried when someone calls you that.  You insult people's intelligence, their education (though you appear to have none yourself).  You repeatedly come back here merely to insult and to enflame and were you on any of the other forums I've moderated, you would be banned.  And not because I dislike your opinions-you have a right to those.  What you don't have a right to do is exactly what you have done and how you have been doing it. 

Truth is, your comments, all of them are so far from the truth all you are is laughable.

Again lets air the truth shall we???? I have insulted very few on
here..Actually you and three others. I have pointed out inaccuracies and falsehoods ....Thats not insults that's letting the truth be heard.

You have insulted the few who are making you look like an even bigger fool than you already are, that's the same as insulting everyone in this conversation (excluding me) . The only liar here is you, nimrod.

Who I insult are miscreants like yourself ...I figure your limited
intelligence only allows you to understand childish statements if they are
above 3 syllables. But thanks for playing retread.

[Thanatos144]

3DandBeyond wrote...

BlueStorm83 wrote...

--- I was just playing the multiplayer today, and someone in my group hadn't beaten the game yet. We didn't give him any spoilers; it's better for him to go into it blind and be let down on his own. But there was also a Canadian girl in the group too. And she sounded MAD cute. That's all, I suppose. Sadly, there's no happy ending to the game where Shempard meets a cute canadian girl over mutiplayer and lives happily ever after.

--- I did watch an earlier posted 1 hour and 31 minute video about the inadequacies of the ending. It raised a lot of valid points about ME2, too. But the problems with ME2 were, in my opinion, forgivable and even justifiable as fleshing out and adapting earlier established ideas. The Starboy is actually a direct contradiction or established ideas, themes, and game lore. As well as a contradiction of things that he himself says. (He says that to stop the cycles he created the cycles, basically.)

--- And guys, really, just stop taking Thanatos' bait. He's not here to learn, discuss, debate, or express any viewpoints. He's just here to troll. He's the kid in the back seat who keeps putting his hands an inch from your head going "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"

The star kid and that whole scene is basically what creates all the problems with the ending. I could get past everything I think if not for that whole area of the game.  It would have been so nice if the Crucible had been a weapon and if Shepard had been the Catalyst that it needed to act.  That the test of the Crucible was in actually surviving and getting there with "humanity" or whatever you would call the spirit of an advanced organic, intact.

It's kind of like what I thought was something that rang true throughout the game and does in real life-Javik said it, that the problem was Shepard still thought s/he could succeed with honor still intact-paraphrasing.  And in many instances Shepard may say to others something that also may be said on the first mission done for Garrus-going after that Salarian doctor.  Shepard says you can't control how others will act but can only control how you do (after Garrus spares the doctor and the doctor commits suicide).  I thought that maybe the fact that Shepard always seemed to see the quality of life as more important than just survival, and all those comments on how special Shepard was, that Shepard would be the Catalyst and the weapon would come online for him/her.

And I figured that didn't mean it had to completely destroy reapers, but maybe it would make them vulnerable.  And the war assets could attack, Shepard could get back into the battle, and then the real war would begin.

Instead, we got the kid, who may not be a kid, who may be lying, who has been and done evil over many cycles, and who is the least intelligent super intelligent being ever in a video game.  And Shepard wants to out-dumb him.

This I dont get from you guys......You are perfectly fine with VIs and AIs throughout the game but when they have to use one cause they made the Reapers in essence retard killers who dont even remember being created
you all get pissed......Now I understand it seems lazy to some but they
really didnt have a choice. As Sovereign showed the reapers might be all powerful but they in essence were like football linebackers really good
at their job but not great thinkers.

[3DandBeyond]

fvegeth wrote...

When I first played Mass Effect, I liked
it. Then Mass Effect 2 was released and I loved it so much I though the
sequel couldn’t have been better than that. But I was wrong. While
playing ME3 I kept thinking it was the best game I had ever played.
Still, there are a few details in the endings that left me somehow
perplexed.

• Synthesis: This is the ending I
  prefer, but I just don’t understand why the only way to keep peace
  between the organics and the synthetics is to merge the DNAs. I played
  the 3 chapters of the saga, always striving to make the species
  cooperate, but in the end the only way to solve the problem was,
  basically, to become new specie. Why? I thought we were better than the
  Protheans…
• How about the Krogans?: One of the main
  themes of the whole saga was the not always peaceful cooperation among
  the species, whereas in the end the whole problem seems to be the
  dichotomy Organics vs. Synthetics. How about the Krogans? And the
  Rachni?
• Strange things happen: I wonder why in the
  end the very same explosion can or cannot destroy London or the entire
  Earth depending on your effective military strength… Wouldn’t it have
  been better if the Reapers simply destroyed the city before the
  explosion, if your effective military strength was low? And where the
  heck was the Normandy going instead than participating in the battle?
  And what are all the species supposed to do now that the Mass Relays
  have been destroyed and thus - I guess - they are trapped in the Solar
  System?
• Take the Earth back: I wish there were more
  missions on the Earth, so that I could have the feeling I was really
  doing something to take it back. May I hope in some future DLC?
   What
  about the crew?: In the end, I would have liked to know what happened
  to my crew and my companions. Did they survive? How did they cope with
  their captain’s disappearance? And so on and so forth…
• Consequences:
  The “Galaxy at war” system doubtless has its pros, ‘because it allows
  you to combine the multiplayer, the other apps and the single player
  campaign, but I did not like to have all of my choices showed just like
  mere numbers on the screen. I wish each of the allies I had in the 3
  chapter played a bigger role on screen during the final battle and I
  wish I could know what happened to them after it.

Synthesis seems at first to be the least obtrusive, but it is perhaps the most obtrusive and as such it is equally as abhorrent as the other choices.  It also is the least sensible in terms of just plain making it happen.  And on top of it they threw in the gratuitous "Shepard must die" thing.  Consider that the Citadel/Crucible beam goes from being a destruction or control beam to a "change all DNA in the galaxy beam" and that's a logic problem.  But the point is also that nothing our Shepards did in the game ever was an "I surrender" action, until these last moments of the game.  Shepard knows or should know that there are other ways to get people (even if some are synthetic) to cooperate.  Gee, what did Shepard just do to get the fleets to Earth?  But then Shepard took the stupid pill.

The whole ending is a sequence of stuff that can only make sense if Shepard is given the option to ask a one word question, "why?" that can be used whenever the kid says anything.  To which the kid only has to use a one word answer, "because."  This is what it boils down to.  Choose Control and Shepard can control the reapers (somehow) but must die.  Why?  Because.  Choose Synthesis which supposedly magically changes DNA and Shepard must die in order to create the "other" DNA.  Why?  Because.  Choose Destroy and if your EMS is not high enough well Shepard must die.  Why?  Because.  But wait, not only must Shepard die, but Shepard must get close enough for a little square target to show up that makes his/her gun magically work. 

Given that pistols can sometimes shoot great distances, it makes complete sense that Shepard must get close in order for the magic pistol to hit the thing s/he is clearly aiming at.  And then, since the stupid pill is really working, Shepard walks toward the thing that will go boom.  Why?  Because-and in order to explain this we will say, it's because Shepard must die.  Usually people stand back from things that will go boom, but this must happen so Shepard will die.  But wait.  If the amazing player overseer plays something called multi-player (not known to Shepard) to boost their EMS, then the boom that should kill Shepard might not.  This makes the most sense of all.  MP and EMS have no bearing at all upon what the fleets are doing or how the fighting is going-they only effect what the Crucible choices do.

Ultimately, all those war assets are boiled down to numbers, nothing more, because they are out of sight and out of mind, not mine, but the devs.  It's like they didn't matter at all and beyond the minimums needed to get the choices, they really don't, nor do your friends.

The whole ending has Shepard do things for no good reason.  The kid could be the devil in disguise and when he tells Shepard anything, all Shepard seems to do ultimately, is to say, "okey dokey."  The only "protest" at all comes when Shepard is told that people are being transformed for ascension and that is completely devoid of any feeling at all.  The kid just said something incredibly crazy and Shepard says people would rather not have that happen.  Ok, a "hell, no" would be more sensible.  There's so much that is wrong with the whole thing.

[Voodoo-j]

I hate when someone puts in a 1/2 decent post, something that's respectable, and in turn you reply with calculated reasoning, and then they reply with, oh your view is stupid.

I'm done responding to the 2% remarks, even the few that show some sign of reason.

Incase there was any question (I should clarify) the 2% I speak of is not the representation of those that like it.  It's the representation of the one person whose posts are 2% reason, 98% troll.

It's just a trap to troll you in.

So my response, obvious troll is obvious, just like the ending is obviously not like the games in the past that Bioware has produced. I've been mislead from what Bioware has told me would be the ending, and from what they have implied.

With this game they changed the type of games they make.
That's their decision, I do not like those type of games and will not support a company that produces them. It's that simple.
SIMPLE
All the lengthy discussions in this thread have meaning, but not towards the end decision.

It's based off what I just said.
Either they decide to be one type of game producing company or another.
They need to decide fast.

Modifié par Voodoo-j, 01 juin 2012 - 01:30 .

[Thanatos144]

Voodoo-j wrote...

I hate when someone puts in a 1/2 decent post, something that's respectable, and in turn you reply with calculated reasoning, and then they reply with, oh your view is stupid.

I'm done responding to the 2% remarks, even the few that show some sign of reason.

It's just a trap to troll you in.

So my response, obvious troll is obvious, just like the ending is obviously not like the games in the past that Bioware has produced. I've been mislead from what Bioware has told me would be the ending, and from what they have implied.

With this game they changed the type of games they make.
That's their decision, I do not like those type of games and will not support a company that produces them. It's that simple.
SIMPLE
All the lengthy discussions in this thread have meaning, but not towards the end decision.

It's based off what I just said.
Either they decide to be one type of game producing company or another.
They need to decide fast.

In other words you cant explain why you hate it.....You could have just
said that but I know it is hard for you not to try and silence those
who challenge you.

[Voodoo-j]

Incase there was any question (I should clarify) the 2% I speak of is not the representation of those that like it.  It's the representation of the one person whose posts are 2% reason, 98% troll.

I have no issue explaining myself to anyone that has a different view and is reasonable, most likely they would have read a portion of this thread and would not need further explanation, but again anyone that is reasonable.

Modifié par Voodoo-j, 01 juin 2012 - 01:42 .

[Redbelle]

<double post> and boy was it a long one

Modifié par Redbelle, 01 juin 2012 - 01:36 .

[Redbelle]

Thanatos144 wrote...

This I dont get from you guys......You are perfectly fine with VIs and AIs throughout the game but when they have to use one cause they made the Reapers in essence retard killers who dont even remember being created
you all get pissed......Now I understand it seems lazy to some but they
really didnt have a choice. As Sovereign showed the reapers might be all powerful but they in essence were like football linebackers really good
at their job but not great thinkers.

It's a complicated question.

Technically the SC can not be categorised as a VI or an AI. It also cannot be categorised as memory engrams emprinted on circuits, a soul that built the citadel to house it's spirit etc etc. The dialogue is there to support the notion that the SC is aware and interaction with it can allow us to argue it could be alive but the dialogue is similar to that of the Reapers. The SC will tell you things without actually telling you anything important.......... and if you hammer away at a certain point he plays the 'You wouldn't understand card'.

This being created the Reapers? I wasn't expecting to meet the creator, singular. Ok, we have met the progenitor of the Reaper race. The master behind the curtain is revealed he's shorter than I imagined. No matter, he must have motivations that drove him to take this villanous action of, what essentially amounts too, commiting genocide when the 50k yrs egg timer goes ping and tells the Reapers it's time to get the advanced organics out the oven cause they should be done by now.

Let's compare villans for a moment.......

The Reapers:

<Their origins are completely unknown; the first Reaper known to have communicated with organic life, referred to by Saren Arterius as Sovereign, claimed that the Reapers have neither beginning nor end. Even their true name is a mystery. Sovereign also reveals that the Reapers were the original creators of the Citadel and the mass relay
network. These massive constructs exist so that any intelligent life in
the galaxy would eventually discover them and base their technology
upon them – all part of a scheme to harvest the galaxy’s sentient life
in a repeating cycle of purges that has continued relentlessly over
countless millennia.
<lifted from Mass Effect Wiki>>

These guys can be boiled down to a simple premise. "We want to kill you to make more of us". This is a brilliant villan statement due to it's simplicity. It gives no clue as to why they want to do the things they want to do. The Reapers use of the phrase 'You wouldn't understand if we told you', simply adds to the their mystery and being as tall as skyscrapers with the firepower to level the horizon means that we the player can't really argue.


Now, The Cataylst:

At first a structure to be built, then a being who apparently has no connection with that structure because he dwells in the citadel. Onwards from there.

<The Catalyst serves as the architect and overseer of the Reapers and their cycle of destruction. As it explained to Commander Shepard,
the Catalyst was tasked with solving a dire problem: the inevitable
creation of synthetic intelligence by advanced organic civilizations,
and the equally inevitable conflict that results. It chose to resolve
this problem by putting in place a system which would prevent any
advanced civilization from reaching that point.
The Catalyst's solution took the form of the Reapers.
Space-faring organic species would be harvested, with millions of bodies
and minds from each race being processed and converted into new
Reapers, even as the Reapers themselves worked to destroy their
civilizations. By doing this, the Reapers preserved the harvested races,
while allowing more primitive races to advance and ensuring that the
threat of complete annihilation of organics by synthetics was averted> <lifted from Mass Effect Wiki>>

(Just to say that on the surface wiki makes the whole thing sound very simple, but read on).
The catalyst's mission statement? 'The time has come to kill you all and make you into what killed you to go on and kill more like you, to save you from a worse fate than dying at the hands of artificial/synthetic life cause I'm pro-organic and anti-synthetic'.

Now compare that statement to the reapers 'We want to kill you to make more of us'. Which is the easier to understand villan? Lets not kid ourselves here in any way, shape, or form. The catalyst claims to have made the Reapers who, we should all have come to understand through our playthroughs, enslaved and slaughtered countless and unwilling trillions across time and space. The catalyst is therefore not a hero character. Additionally it is not as tall as a skyscraper and can't shoot 'Frikken laser beams' out of it's nose. It does however coin the Reapers phrase 'You wouldn't understand if I told you'. Sry SC but if you were an organic or made by organics then your reasoning should be able to adequately explain your logic. Wiki managed it, sort of. So why can't the SC.

Next, why use the Catalyst at all? Part of the Reapers big bad status comes from the mystery behind their origins. And while they may not be the greastest thinkers they do not require much in the way of thinking as they can steamroll their way through fleets of ships and control the minds of others while they line them up to goo them.

Modifié par Redbelle, 01 juin 2012 - 01:43 .

[3DandBeyond]

Thanatos144 wrote...

This I dont get from you guys......You are perfectly fine with VIs and AIs throughout the game but when they have to use one cause they made the Reapers in essence retard killers who dont even remember being created
you all get pissed......Now I understand it seems lazy to some but they
really didnt have a choice. As Sovereign showed the reapers might be all powerful but they in essence were like football linebackers really good
at their job but not great thinkers.

The problem is they didn't foreshadow this at all and it breaks with good storytelling.  When you read a book or see a movie, there are characters that are the main characters in the story.  You may have a hero who is the one you identify with the most-he takes you along for the ride.  You live things through his/her eyes and in doing this the writer/creator helps to draw you in emotionally and mentally.  The hero is the protagonist.

In good v. evil stories, there's a clear antagonist.  This is they guy that you are fighting against.  You hate him, your goal is always to defeat him.  The antagonist can be one person or a group of people.  You are set up to be emotionally and mentally against the antagonist. 

ME was very clear from the start on these 2 points.  Shepard was the protagonist, the reapers the antagonist.  In ME, Sovereign was the reaper at large and Saren was his henchman-they were linked from the start.  Everything you did as Shepard was to get to Saren to stop what Sovereign stood for.

In ME2, the collector's were working for the reapers and the goal was to destroy the collectors (also in the Arrival to prevent the reapers from even getting to the galaxy too soon) in order to stop their harvesting (for the reapers) of human colonies.  The goal was also to figure out just why they were doing it and it led further into the notion that the reapers were on the way-Harbinger was directly controlling the collectors.  The reapers were never out of the picture completely.

ME3 put the reapers front and center, of course.  They were there and everything they did hit you emotionally and mentally, constantly.  They were frightening and they were doing frightening things.  They were also the biggest, baddest evil ever encountered.

In the last moments of the game the antagonist (reapers) were substituted with some glowing boy that is not a boy, but a VI or AI or whatever.  And people can't even agree as to whether he is the antagonist or not.  In my mind, he can't be anything good (from the view of people that don't like everyone being killed) because he controls and brought the reapers to the galaxy, so he must be the antagonist.  But, because he wasn't the one we'd been fighting and seeing kill people, I feel nothing for him.  He wasn't a part of the story.  He's nothing.  I don't care that he's an AI or VI at all.  He could be a real puppy or he could be a rock, for all I care.  To fit into the story, if he was to be there at all, he needed to be something that related to the reapers in a way that draws the player in emotionally.  He could have looked like Mordin or like Harbinger (the way Sovereign had his VI on Virmire).  But, I think they intended to make him ambiguous for some reason that was never explored at the end.

The other VIs and AIs have context within the story-their stories get told.  Legions and the geths stories are played out in many ways through all 3 games.  EDI evolves very clearly through 2, but is also foreshadowed by other AIs such as the one that was stealing money on the Citadel in ME1.

The star kid isn't part of the story, and many of us have made the case that even the real kid doesn't fit in so well.  Shepard shows more feeling over his death than over shooting Anderson.

A story is a ride-the writer wants the reader/viewer/player to remain emotionally connected to the characters through to the end.  Just consider if Shepard had been killed by Harbinger's beam in London and Corporal Tom Evans was sent up the conduit and met Anderson and TIM and was going to decide what would happen to everybody.  Who's Tom Evans?  Good question.  Just like the star kid, he's nobody you've evern heard of before.  And you'd be wondering what the heck he's doing there.


They already had the perfect head reaper guy and didn't need the star kid.  Harbinger was the oldest reaper.  He was the force behind the collectors.  He wanted Shepard's body.  He could have been that badass behind it all.  And he might have known everything, something Sovereign hinted at.  Sovereign did seem to know what he and the reapers were doing and why.  He just didn't feel the "ants" of the galaxy would or needed to understand.  The reapers use their mystique as much as their presence to overcome the galaxy.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 01 juin 2012 - 01:40 .

[Thanatos144]

Redbelle wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

This I dont get from you guys......You are perfectly fine with VIs and AIs throughout the game but when they have to use one cause they made the Reapers in essence retard killers who dont even remember being created
you all get pissed......Now I understand it seems lazy to some but they
really didnt have a choice. As Sovereign showed the reapers might be all powerful but they in essence were like football linebackers really good
at their job but not great thinkers.

It's a complicated question.

Technically the SC can not be categorised as a VI or an AI. It also cannot be categorised as memory engrams emprinted on circuits, a soul that built the citadel to house it's spirit etc etc. The dialogue is there to support the notion that the SC is aware and interaction with it can allow us to argue it could be alive but the dialogue is similar to that of the Reapers. The SC will tell you things without actually telling you anything important.......... and if you hammer away at a certain point he plays the 'You wouldn't understand card'.

This being created the Reapers? I wasn't expecting to meet the creator, singular. Ok, we have met the progenitor of the Reaper race. The master behind the curtain is revealed he's shorter than I imagined. No matter, he must have motivations that drove him to take this villanous action of, what essentially amounts too, commiting genocide when the 50k yrs egg timer goes ping and tells the Reapers it's time to get the advanced organics out the oven cause they should be done by now.

Let's compare villans for a moment.......

The Reapers:

<Their origins are completely unknown; the first Reaper known to have communicated with organic life, referred to by Saren Arterius as Sovereign, claimed that the Reapers have neither beginning nor end. Even their true name is a mystery. Sovereign also reveals that the Reapers were the original creators of the Citadel and the mass relay
network. These massive constructs exist so that any intelligent life in
the galaxy would eventually discover them and base their technology
upon them – all part of a scheme to harvest the galaxy’s sentient life
in a repeating cycle of purges that has continued relentlessly over
countless millennia.
<lifted from Mass Effect Wiki>>

These guys can be boiled down to a simple premise. "We want to kill you to make more of us". This is a brilliant villan statement due to it's simplicity. It gives no clue as to why they want to do the things they want to do. The Reapers use of the phrase 'You wouldn't understand if we told you', simply adds to the their mystery and being as tall as skyscrapers with the firepower to level the horizon means that we the player can't really argue.


Now, The Cataylst:

At first a structure to be built, then a being who apparently has no connection with that structure because he dwells in the citadel. Onwards from there.
<The Catalyst serves as the architect and overseer of the Reapers and their cycle of destruction. As it explained to Commander Shepard,
the Catalyst was tasked with solving a dire problem: the inevitable
creation of synthetic intelligence by advanced organic civilizations,
and the equally inevitable conflict that results. It chose to resolve
this problem by putting in place a system which would prevent any
advanced civilization from reaching that point.
The Catalyst's solution took the form of the Reapers.
Space-faring organic species would be harvested, with millions of bodies
and minds from each race being processed and converted into new
Reapers, even as the Reapers themselves worked to destroy their
civilizations. By doing this, the Reapers preserved the harvested races,
while allowing more primitive races to advance and ensuring that the
threat of complete annihilation of organics by synthetics was averted> <lifted from Mass Effect Wiki>>

(Just to say that on the surface wiki makes the whole thing sound very simple, but read on).
The catalyst's mission statement? 'The time has come to kill you all and make you into what killed you to go on and kill more like you, to save you from a worse fate than dying at the hands of artificial/synthetic life cause I'm pro-organic and anti-synthetic'.

Now compare that statement to the reapers 'We want to kill you to make more of us'. Which is the easier to understand villan? Lets not kid ourselves here in any way, shape, or form. The catalyst claims to have made the Reapers who, we should all have come to understand through our playthroughs, enslaved and slaughtered countless and unwilling trillions across time and space. The catalyst is therefore not a hero character.

You dont like the idea that  showing those that commit great evil thinks
they are doing great good? Even Hitler thought he was doing good ....
He was wrong and evil but he didnt see himself that way. I see machines
coming to a machine conclusion that in order to save all biologic life
they have to cull it....Heck we have humans like Sanger in real life who
thought the same it is called Eugenics. It was wrong and evil but they
are machines and maybe those that first created them were not much
better...heck might have been worse.

[sdinc009]

BladeHero12 wrote...

I wasn't trying to compare the Doom 3 changes to the desire to alter ME3's ending; I was trying to say that I don't want this incident to lead to content creators being told what they can or can't do with their IPs. I already think that publishers are too focused on making money, and that they are too focused on short-term gains. I think a lot of what is said in the article is garbage; If players find having to hold a flashlight instead of a gun in segment is a nuisance, and if the developer feels it doesn't ruin the experience of playing the game, then make the change. The idea that making changes to a game based on fan response means the creators don't care about their art sounds ridiculous. If the content creator fails to communicate their message to fans , maybe they should take a second look at their work; there is a big difference between finding something undesirable and finding something non functional.

No one here is saying that Bioware has to fix this. Mass Effect 3 is their creation and they have every right to do whatever they want to it. However, we are the ones who purchase their product and many of us have invested 100+ hours in this series and even more money. We have every right to express dissatisfaction with an ending that is clearly a phoned in piece of garbage. We're not saying they have to change the ending, we're saying they should change the ending and the choice to do so is ultimately up to them. But, we also have a choice annd that is to buy or not buy. This is a commercial product so if they want to shout "artistic integrity" they can and we'll go ahead and keep our money next time they send a new game to the market.

[Thanatos144]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

This I dont get from you guys......You are perfectly fine with VIs and AIs throughout the game but when they have to use one cause they made the Reapers in essence retard killers who dont even remember being created
you all get pissed......Now I understand it seems lazy to some but they
really didnt have a choice. As Sovereign showed the reapers might be all powerful but they in essence were like football linebackers really good
at their job but not great thinkers.

The problem is they didn't foreshadow this at all and it breaks with good storytelling.  When you read a book or see a movie, there are characters that are the main characters in the story.  You may have a hero who is the one you identify with the most-he takes you along for the ride.  You live things through his/her eyes and in doing this the writer/creator helps to draw you in emotionally and mentally.  The hero is the protagonist.

In good v. evil stories, there's a clear antagonist.  This is they guy that you are fighting against.  You hate him, your goal is always to defeat him.  The antagonist can be one person or a group of people.  You are set up to be emotionally and mentally against the antagonist. 

ME was very clear from the start on these 2 points.  Shepard was the protagonist, the reapers the antagonist.  In ME, Sovereign was the reaper at large and Saren was his henchman-they were linked from the start.  Everything you did as Shepard was to get to Saren to stop what Sovereign stood for.

In ME2, the collector's were working for the reapers and the goal was to destroy the collectors (also in the Arrival to prevent the reapers from even getting to the galaxy too soon) in order to stop their harvesting (for the reapers) of human colonies.  The goal was also to figure out just why they were doing it and it led further into the notion that the reapers were on the way-Harbinger was directly controlling the collectors.  The reapers were never out of the picture completely.

ME3 put the reapers front and center, of course.  They were there and everything they did hit you emotionally and mentally, constantly.  They were frightening and they were doing frightening things.  They were also the biggest, baddest evil ever encountered.

In the last moments of the game the antagonist (reapers) were substituted with some glowing boy that is not a boy, but a VI or AI or whatever.  And people can't even agree as to whether he is the antagonist or not.  In my mind, he can't be anything good (from the view of people that don't like everyone being killed) because he controls and brought the reapers to the galaxy, so he must be the antagonist.  But, because he wasn't the one we'd been fighting and seeing kill people, I feel nothing for him.  He wasn't a part of the story.  He's nothing.  I don't care that he's an AI or VI at all.  He could be a real puppy or he could be a rock, for all I care.  To fit into the story, if he was to be there at all, he needed to be something that related to the reapers in a way that draws the player in emotionally.  He could have looked like Mordin or like Harbinger (the way Sovereign had his VI on Virmire).  But, I think they intended to make him ambiguous for some reason that was never explored at the end.

The other VIs and AIs have context within the story-their stories get told.  Legions and the geths stories are played out in many ways through all 3 games.  EDI evolves very clearly through 2, but is also foreshadowed by other AIs such as the one that was stealing money on the Citadel in ME1.

The star kid isn't part of the story, and many of us have made the case that even the real kid doesn't fit in so well.  Shepard shows more feeling over his death than over shooting Anderson.

A story is a ride-the writer wants the reader/viewer/player to remain emotionally connected to the characters through to the end.  Just consider if Shepard had been killed by Harbinger's beam in London and Corporal Tom Evans was sent up the conduit and met Anderson and TIM and was going to decide what would happen to everybody.  Who's Tom Evans?  Good question.  Just like the star kid, he's nobody you've evern heard of before.  And you'd be wondering what the heck he's doing there.


They already had the perfect head reaper guy and didn't need the star kid.  Harbinger was the oldest reaper.  He was the force behind the collectors.  He wanted Shepard's body.  He could have been that badass behind it all.  And he might have known everything, something Sovereign hinted at.  Sovereign did seem to know what he and the reapers were doing and why.  He just didn't feel the "ants" of the galaxy would or needed to understand.  The reapers use their mystique as much as their presence to overcome the galaxy.

I can see you never have written a story or book.....Sometimes a story
evolves the way you don't expect. I don't they they realized they mad the
Reapers so brain dead. I also don't think it is bad storytelling to have
something to sum up the story at the end...Most Fantasy stories do
this. Normally it is a angel or alien or some great power at first unknown...This isnt new. Shoot they did better with it in the game then Sagan used in his Contact book. I believe that your hatred for the
catalyst AI or VI is that you didn't see it coming and you apparently don't like surprises. Where it is true much of the ME games are predictable they always did try and throw a twist in....Just normally your
figure it out before hand.

[3DandBeyond]

Voodoo-j wrote...

Incase there was any question (I should clarify) the 2% I speak of is not the representation of those that like it.  It's the representation of the one person whose posts are 2% reason, 98% troll.

I have no issue explaining myself to anyone that has a different view and is reasonable, most likely they would have read a portion of this thread and would not need further explanation, but again anyone that is reasonable.

Agreed.  I think healthy debate is healthy not insults and then protests that boil down to, "I wasn't insulting anyone when I called you an idiot,"  or "I haven't been insulting a lot of people, only you and maybe 3 others, oh and that guy there  and then him and her and a few other people that aren't telling the truth when they say I insult people and well there's only 5 people posting so". 

There's no debating someone who essentially makes statements like that.

[Thanatos144]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Voodoo-j wrote...

Incase there was any question (I should clarify) the 2% I speak of is not the representation of those that like it.  It's the representation of the one person whose posts are 2% reason, 98% troll.

I have no issue explaining myself to anyone that has a different view and is reasonable, most likely they would have read a portion of this thread and would not need further explanation, but again anyone that is reasonable.

Agreed.  I think healthy debate is healthy not insults and then protests that boil down to, "I wasn't insulting anyone when I called you an idiot,"  or "I haven't been insulting a lot of people, only you and maybe 3 others, oh and that guy there  and then him and her and a few other people that aren't telling the truth when they say I insult people and well there's only 5 people posting so". 

There's no debating someone who essentially makes statements like that.

Amaqzing....You are blind to the fact that I give what I am given.....Try looking in a mirror before you dare judge people.

[Redbelle]

Dang, that was the word I was looking for. Eugenics. I had to cut a paragraph out of my reply because the closest I could get to was Avian and that didn't sound right.

[Voodoo-j]

And that's what I'm talking about. Mr % is obviously not stupid, which leaves 2 possibilities.
!. english not being his primary language. (really doubt this one)
2. troll

Someone of that intelligence doesn't post 98% of the trash that he has unless it is to purposefully incite a negative response. (which he has already shown he likes, as he likes the ending)

[3DandBeyond]

Thanatos144 wrote...

I can see you never have written a story or book.....Sometimes a story
evolves the way you don't expect. I don't they they realized they mad the
Reapers so brain dead. I also don't think it is bad storytelling to have
something to sum up the story at the end...Most Fantasy stories do
this. Normally it is a angel or alien or some great power at first unknown...This isnt new. Shoot they did better with it in the game then Sagan used in his Contact book. I believe that your hatred for the
catalyst AI or VI is that you didn't see it coming and you apparently don't like surprises. Where it is true much of the ME games are predictable they always did try and throw a twist in....Just normally your
figure it out before hand.

Hmm, Thanatos the notable, published author thinks one thing.  And literary reviewers and college professors with literary credentials as well as all of my college English professors, my High School English teachers, well known authors and many, many others think something else.  Hmm, I wonder who's more right here.

I am actually in the process of writing 2 books right now and have published other works that have also sold.  What have you ever done?

The reapers were not shown to be brain dead at all.  In fact, Sovereign is particularly well spoken-but then maybe you never played ME1.  Or you are unable to remember it.  Don't know, don't care.

I have no problem with surprises at the end of any story.  But the surprises should at least make some sense and fit in with the rest of the story.

And it's funny that you should bring up fantasy stories.  Many pages ago someone posted that this ending is space fantasy and you argued against that.  You thought it made complete sense and that started your whole debate about the beginning of ME2.  So, now which is this ending?  Because I agree, it's fantasy, complete, utter, ridiculous fantasy, unworthy of being a part of the ME universe.  It might be ok in some other game (well it is in other games), but doesn't fit here.  You keep moving the bar to fit your assertions-one minute the ending makes sense and it isn't fantasy, but the next it doesn't need to make sense because it is fantasy.

Make a choice and stick with one, please.

[3DandBeyond]

Thanatos144 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Voodoo-j wrote...

Incase there was any question (I should clarify) the 2% I speak of is not the representation of those that like it.  It's the representation of the one person whose posts are 2% reason, 98% troll.

I have no issue explaining myself to anyone that has a different view and is reasonable, most likely they would have read a portion of this thread and would not need further explanation, but again anyone that is reasonable.

Agreed.  I think healthy debate is healthy not insults and then protests that boil down to, "I wasn't insulting anyone when I called you an idiot,"  or "I haven't been insulting a lot of people, only you and maybe 3 others, oh and that guy there  and then him and her and a few other people that aren't telling the truth when they say I insult people and well there's only 5 people posting so". 

There's no debating someone who essentially makes statements like that.

Amaqzing....You are blind to the fact that I give what I am given.....Try looking in a mirror before you dare judge people.

Actually, nothing I said there is a judgement statement.  Judging someone is calling them names (as you do) or saying things like, "you've obviously never written a book" or saying, "what are they teaching kids in school these days?" when someone uses a word you don't understand, like when I used the very real word "parthenogenesis" which is stated in the game to explain Asari reproduction and that also exists in real life, referring to asexual reproduction of a specific type.  You didn't understand the word, so you insulted my education and implied I was a child.  I'm older than you and blessed to have gotten a very decent education, but you judged me.  I've only ever pointed out things you've actually done and said. 

[Redbelle]

Thanatos144 wrote...

You dont like the idea that  showing those that commit great evil thinks
they are doing great good? Even Hitler thought he was doing good ....
He was wrong and evil but he didnt see himself that way. I see machines
coming to a machine conclusion that in order to save all biologic life
they have to cull it....Heck we have humans like Sanger in real life who
thought the same it is called Eugenics. It was wrong and evil but they
are machines and maybe those that first created them were not much
better...heck might have been worse.

While the comparison of the motivations of the war leaders of WW2 and the Catalyst may hold relevant aspects for intellectual discussion and debate. At some point a definitive judgement has to be rended upon the individual. In this case good or evil. Your correct in that it is not always easy to distinguish the two and good ppl can do bad things and bad ppl can do good things. However the scale of the good or bad is just as important as the frequency of the deeds in question. If the SC saved a drowning puppy from the presidium every cycle it would not balance out commiting galactic genocide.

The actual events are however a tad more complex.

The SC says he is saving us from Synthetics........ That's very good of him.

He has created an organic/machine race to kill advanced races....... Very Bad.

He spares lesser races........Very Good.........

Until they become advanced and then their Reaper food..... Wait did I say good? That's baaaaaad.

He's doing all this to save us from synthetics.......Goo.....(wait I'm not finished), but synthetics, while theorised as having the potential to overthrow the organics have not and shown no desire too over the course of 3 games.......Is that good or ba...(shhh, hold your horses, still not finished),  And every time we have seen or heard of a synthetic uprising it has ether been put down, or turned out not to have been a move to wipe organics off the map........... Bad? Maybe? (Ok, lets simpify the above).

The Catayst is saying that he is saving us from an event he believe's will happen if he does nothing. Yet the machine race Javik spoke of were stopped. The AI that became EDI on the moon was stopped and became a great ally and friend. and the Geth were shown to have been misunderstood from the beginning and only went Heretic after the Quarian exodus and the introduction of Sovereign. Therefore the SC inadvertently and indirectly created the situation he wanted to avoid in the first place............ I'm going with Bad on this one.

The Catalyst provides no context for what he is doing. If he had spoken of a great war in the first cycle against machines......... and the only way to win was to build the Reapers that have been haunting the galaxy ever since I'd have an easier time accpeting the SC's logic as something occured in this past to make him think that way. Instead we get another 'Oh you wouldn't understand.'

The only thing I don't understand is why the SC thinks I wouldn't understand.

Modifié par Redbelle, 01 juin 2012 - 02:21 .

[Voodoo-j]

and now he has you both entangled in the troll

[3DandBeyond]

Thanatos144 wrote...

You dont like the idea that  showing those that commit great evil thinks
they are doing great good? Even Hitler thought he was doing good ....
He was wrong and evil but he didnt see himself that way. I see machines
coming to a machine conclusion that in order to save all biologic life
they have to cull it....Heck we have humans like Sanger in real life who
thought the same it is called Eugenics. It was wrong and evil but they
are machines and maybe those that first created them were not much
better...heck might have been worse.

No one has disputed that the star kid (whatever it really is) might think it's doing good.  It's possible.  It also might know it isn't.  It doesn't matter.  What matters is Shepard's response to all this.  No human being is going to say, "it's ok if you want to kill me" just because that thing thinks it's for the right reason.  And no human is going to be ok with widespread slaughter when confronted with the stupid crap the kid says.

How many people would you think would say to a Hitleresque person, "great, gas me because you think you are doing good"?

Yes, there are adherents to eugenics, but would you sacrifice yourself willingly to the cause that theory advocates in order to improve genetic quality?  How about sacrificing your children?  All of humanity.  In essence, eugenics is the opposite of what many feel is the better way to strengthen the gene pool-increased diversity.  Since eugenics culls certain less than optimum gene strains in theory, it weakens diversity.  And some of the benefits of genes that now exist might be removed from human DNA.  Unknown resistances to certain diseases for instance.

The motives of the kid are interesting (not in this case where they are just stupid), but really should have no bearing upon how Shepard would react.  In fact, the stuff the kid says should make Shepard feel even more revulsion towards it than I think Shepard already should feel.

[3DandBeyond]

Voodoo-j wrote...

and now he has you both entangled in the troll

Hahaha!  I think we are both aware of this, but again I find him laughable and not to be taken seriously at all.  If in the interim some get to actually make some interesting points, well he's done the opposite of that intended.

[Redbelle]

I've generally found that Than is right and wrong. An an example here's a past post on the topic of BW lying to it;s consumers.

Redbelle wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

Landon7001 wrote...

does any one disagrre that bioware should be held accountable lagally for the blatant and constant lies about their product pre release? ive just never seen any thing like it, i mean,it cant be legal. the game is the exact opposite of everything they said it would be {or wouldnt be} false advertising??

They didnt promise you anything....They can not be held responsible that
you cant tell the difference between interviews and promises.

I think it's time to sit back and look at what we mean when we use the term promise in context of the interviews given by Bioware.....

This will raise a few eyebrows but I have to call it as I see it. Than is correct. Bioware did not promise us anything. I say this as looking through the available interview transcripts I have not come across a Bioware employee using the phrase "We promise..... (insert promise here).

However..........

Bioware did raise expectations and in several instances....... they directed those expectations in a particular direction. Lets take the ending and the A B and C reference Casey Hudson made as a case in point.

"This story arc is coming to an end with this game.
That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we're
taking into account so many decisions that you've made as
a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It's not even in any way
like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings
there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C."

Ok, no sign of a promise so far, however he is clearly steering our expectations in a particular direction.

Technically CH is right in that instead of ending A, B and C, we got 16 different endings...... don't laugh..... there were 16........really. They just looked 95% the same-ish. The end choice and point where we as players lost all control of the game however was an A, B and C pick your ending moment and with so little variation in the 16 scenes that follow them it is understandable that alot of ppl feel that they got  A, B and C. Hopefully the EC DLC will rectify this glaring error in end game narrative.

So to close, the endings take very little of what the player did and achived, from the point of Red, Blue and Green make your choice time, into account. BW raised customer expectations in such a way that we the players were confident that this would not happen. Not a promise then.

But if someone I trusted told me to come to a party in fancy dress and, on arriving in a Super Mario Raccon costume discovered it was black tie, I'd be understandably miffed and forced to consider that possibility that I was setup to take a fall.