23455 réponses à ce sujet

[LiarasShield]

[quote]LiarasShield wrote...

[quote]LiarasShield wrote...

[quote]LiarasShield wrote...

[quote]Thanatos144 wrote...

[quote]Voodoo-j wrote...

[quote]Thanatos144 wrote...
.Now I do like to post the truth but I guess to you having moved on means I should just allow lies to constantly be spread...Sorry I
have honor.
[/quote]


Hipocrisy on a whole new level


New word just for you!
Thanatisy - it's being a hipocrite while fantasizing you are not!

[/quote] You really need to look up the definition of that word.....Unlike you I have been consistant.
[/quote]


again the catalyst isnt the good guy the enemy that has been destroying advanced organics for generations and then saying their going to save us from advanced synthetics but then use the geth to kill us or fight us with their reaper code after nearly destroying the galaxy and do this a thousand times over do you really think the reapers are just gonna sit down and drink milk and cookies with us I hardly doubt so

In A situation where the enemy that your fighting or brought all your forces to beat it makes no sense to automaticlly give into said enemy with circular logic that can be torn apart and then forced into 3 choices that either sound suicidal and ends up traping all your forces or commiting mass genocide to races like the geth and the quarians

Or turing everybody into half machines or half organic hybrids against their will destroying individuality evolution to affect real change to destroy the whole essence of bringing different people together to accomplish a goal

And No one has ever been able to control the reapers so it makes no sense why it would be able to work now when the illusive man and saren both failed to do so and how is shepard controlling the reapers if his or her body is destroyed how in hells name are the reapers being controlled and in any of the endings where the main villian lives what makes you think they won't try to harvest or commit mass genocide again it just


*Deep breath* dear god I just oooooih *Facepalms


Maybe from now on on every post I make I shall have this picture accompanie it

Thought this was kinda cool





Yeah a sacrifical ending is fine if you end up saving the people you sacrifice for but giving into the enemy and then having the enemy pick what you should or force you into 3 terrible choices that personally as player and as shepard would probably never do I'm sorry

I'd rather fight the reapers to the end and depending on how high ems is how bad we lose or how good we win with keeping the relays intact so all the forces can go home and have loyal squad stay with us and the fleets

And why Can't mass effect 3 have a good ending or at least a victory ending mass effect 1 had one mass effect 2 had one 99% of mass effect 3 despite the noble and sad sacrifices had heroic and well done moments so why in the ending where everything is suppose to make sense where we are suppose to be reaching a decent conclusion does everything lose cohesion losing gallons of blood or not I wouldn't give in or accept the cataylst without questioning my own sanity because he created the reapers he is using the reapers to destroy organics for aeons on end and is still using the reapers to destroy my forces as we are having this very conversation with the catalyst


And ultimately why would I Trapt my own forces or let the enemy that has been destroying life for thousand of years or is destroying us during most of the final game why in hells name would I let them live so that they can potentially kill us all over again I just sweet christmas U_u

At the end of the day a defeat is a defeat I wish our choices would've mattered I wish we could've really beaten the reapers espically under our own steam and not their creators wishes

Yea thanatos loves playing games to lose I bet he plays call of duty all the time online so he can get his ass destroyed or so that no matter what he does he will always lose yup he loves it more then anything


The False expectations and the lies that they said how things would occur was what was terribly wrong

Secondly you seem to love the thing about heroes giving into the enemies that they said they would destroy to save the galaxy but instead we get either reapers live with their creator telling us which way to die with either  the reapers living so they can commit genocide on us again or all our forces trapt in our damaged solar system

And Vigil from Ilos already said that the reapers turn off the relays to make it easyer to harvest organics so if the relays are destroyed it would make it that much easyer for the reapers to annhilate us

Giving into the enemy and having them force into the choices they believe and then ultimately not beating the enemy or not saving any of your forces from the sacrifice that you make ends up ultimatel a failure ending where you lose no matter what decisions and actions you did during all three games[/quote]

for anybody who loves the ending this will always be my response

[LiarasShield]

Nothing I can think of changes what i have mentioned up above and how I feel how all things went wrong to not really beating the reapers to all your choices either not making sense killing all that you fought for or becoming even worse then the reapers I just can't fathom how anyone believes this ok

[3DandBeyond]

@Mercedes595,

The whole basic problem with the star kid is that in order to accept him, much of the other 2 games must be retconned.  You say he didn't help the reapers get to the citadel in ME1, so that proves he was not in control of the reapers.  Um, but no.  It proves that he was not thought of by the dev team when they made ME1.  Basically, you are using something he didn't do in ME1 to prove he can't do something in ME3, when he was not ever considered as a part of ME1.  He didn't exist and that is why he is not there helping them.  And, the kid also says the Citadel is a part of him.

He says the reapers are his solution.  But he also says very specifically that he controls the reapers.  So, he has sent them to turn people into goo.  He needs Shepard to implement a new solution which could be anything and based upon his past performance he is not to be trusted.  Anything he says could be a lie especially once he said he's turning people into goo.

And as to the whole quote of the creator/created.  Yes, he is sending them so not all organic life is destroyed, but in effect he is consistently destroying all organic life.  He may not be doing so today, but once current "lesser" forms of organic life advance, they are going to be history.  His solution is in effect to destroy organic life so that synthetic lfe forms will not destroy them.  The main thing is not if, but when.  But it is also true as I said it-he is telling Shepard I will destroy you so that synthetic life forms will not destroy you.  His belief is that the cycle repeats-organics advance and create synthetics that become aware and kill organics.  But, he makes this happen or tries to.  The reapers (his solution) pepper the galaxy with tech that they purposely leave so that organics will advance in accordance with their own timeline and not on some random learn as you go timeline.  They force the cycle to occur every 50k years.  And they introduce the certainty of AIs coming to life.

What is faulty here is not only what they do and why they do it, but the logic behind it.  The geth were created by the quarians as slave labor.  The quarians exceeded and skirted legalities and paved the way for the geth to become truly sentient.  They then saw them as a threat (maybe even worried about what other legal consequences they might face) and they began to effectively kill the geth.  The creator was destroying the created.

The deal with the Crucible is that it is a big unknown and yet it seems to be something this evil kid likes-the reapers never attacked it-this huge floating thingy in space.  The kid basically says he will help Shepard and thus the galaxy, but the kid has sent the reapers to kill people.  So, the kid is going to help Shepard save people from himself.  Yes, he points to the Crucible choices as the way, but everything is all about what he says and for all anyone knows he could have created the original plans for the Crucible.  In fact, there's some evidence to support this in what is said in the games-Harbinger says they need another solution, they have one.  The kid says the Crucible opened up new possibilities, as opposed to his original smart idea.  It changed him, but this is unproven, not known.

You need to look at videos of his conversation-his full dialogue. 

[Holger1405]

3DandBeyond wrote...

@Holger,
That "quote me" post would take me a month to fulfill. Please, you know I am not going to search through 800 pages to find one discussion you and I had. I clearly also remember one user asking us to please not have such lengthy discussions. I do not have a photographic memory, but I have an extremely good one.

We discussed the destroy option because I stated there was no option that a Paragon Shepard would make. I stated that I only chose destroy because that was always the goal, but I found it unthinkable especially for a paragon Shepard. Your reply was that a paragon could choose it depending upon what they did with the geth or if they had just been using the geth to help their EMS and not because they cared about them. I stated this was not a paragon way to act.

We had a whole discussion over what paragon meant and I said you did not fully understand it, to which you replied you did. I stated that a paragon thought over things and did not do things merely for expediency. I stated that a paragon cared about these people including the geth and including EDI and would not just kill them to achieve something. Hence, the whole problem with the ending-that Shepard does not protest the stupidity of any choice and the fact the kid is not to be trusted.  It isn't terribly important, but I'm just saying there's no good choice to make at all.

I remember the discussion fully, but I do not expect you to remember it.

I do remember our discussion, and I do remember what I said:

Holger1405 wrote...

I perfectly understand what paragon or renegade means. (And no, I wasn't referring to my Shepard.)
The point I try to make is that there are not only full bar paragon's or full bar renegade. A example (this time from my Shepard.) I never hit Khalisah al-Jilani, because I never would hit a women, not even in a video game. But I always grilled the gunship mechanic of the Blue Suns before helping Archangel, because it gave me a advantage and this guy was the enemy anyway.
Even someone who is mostly paragon, and cares about the People around him, can have the opinion that the Geth are a threat.
This possibility of choice, to be allowed to have a different opinions, makes Shepard to your Shepard, and this game so great. .

I didn't said a full paragon could go for destruction. I did said that a "mostly paragon" Shepard could.
Completely different thing.

On my first play through I didn't gave control much thought. For the same reason you refuse it btw, but then I thought about it, and changed my mind.   

3DandBeyond wrote...
Now onto your current assessment that Control is some sort of Paragon (full Paragon) option. Well, no way. First of all, in and of itself, forgetting paragon/renegade, it makes no bloody sense. Shepard is shown to die instantly and yet somehow has taken control of the reapers. Ok, space magic times half infinity (for space magic times infinity one needs to choose synthesis).

This is a science fiction game with an amount of "Space Magic" already in it. (since ME1 btw.)
Thus your argument is completely invalid.  

3DandBeyond wrote...
Now, onto your idea that Control is Paragon. Again, anyone that has been told by any reaper-like entity that they can control the reapers has been indoctrinated, crazy, evil, or all of the above. So, maybe a paragon could choose it-a deluded one who all of a sudden wanted to be a dead god.

No one, in the entire series, has ever been told, "by any reaper-like entity," that it is possible to control the reapers, before the Catalyst spoke to Shepard.

TIM had the plan to control the Reapers long before he got indoctrinated, and the Reapers didn't approve his plans. Clearly shown by their attack on the sanctuary. Saran did search for a weapon, but as he realized what Sovereign really is, he tried to convince Sovereign that Organics can be useful.
   
Thus Shepard is the first one who is been told that she/he can control the Reapers. Well I don't consider her/him "indoctrinated, crazy, evil or all of the above."

So what's left here?  A good character can't choose a solution for the right reasons, because a bad character has similar goals for the wrong reasons? That's not even remotely logical.    

3DandBeyond wrote...
Controlling something gives one great power that is not handled easily even with the best intentions. It is also the desire of those that wish to become gods and not those that wish to stop something. It is the easy way out though and as such is definitely the realm of a renegade who only thinks of expediency and not of consequences. In order to see this you only need to look at TIM who was a full blown renegade character. He wasn't always so "evil" and in fact had been more altruistic in his beliefs at least where humans are concerned. And even in wanting to control them, he still was thinking he was doing a good thing-controlling them to learn and then help humanity achieve greatness. His idea of the worm turning-the downtrodden rising up.

To die is the easiest way out? For a Renegade?
Again, if you choose control Shepard can save everyone! Evan the Reapers if you wish to, after all you just learned that they are only tools. 
But if you are convinced that the Reapers must be destroyed, Shepard can does that too, because she/he does control the Reapers.

She/He doesn't has to sacrifice the Geth and EDI as in destruction. She/He doesn't has to force everyone to became a new "life form" as in Synthesis.  And Shepard can destroy the Reapers.
Only downside, she/he has to sacrifices her/himself.

But you know what? That it is exactly what a Paragon Shepard would do to save all and everyone.

I don't know if Bioware was planning this on purpose. It would be a pretty genius twist if TIM is the one to "present" the Paragon option, and Anderson the one to "present" the reneged option.
Anyway, as the end is now, control is the Paragon choice. 
 

Modifié par Holger1405, 04 juin 2012 - 05:04 .

[LiarasShield]

Holger1405 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

@Holger,
That "quote me" post would take me a month to fulfill. Please, you know I am not going to search through 800 pages to find one discussion you and I had. I clearly also remember one user asking us to please not have such lengthy discussions. I do not have a photographic memory, but I have an extremely good one.

We discussed the destroy option because I stated there was no option that a Paragon Shepard would make. I stated that I only chose destroy because that was always the goal, but I found it unthinkable especially for a paragon Shepard. Your reply was that a paragon could choose it depending upon what they did with the geth or if they had just been using the geth to help their EMS and not because they cared about them. I stated this was not a paragon way to act.

We had a whole discussion over what paragon meant and I said you did not fully understand it, to which you replied you did. I stated that a paragon thought over things and did not do things merely for expediency. I stated that a paragon cared about these people including the geth and including EDI and would not just kill them to achieve something. Hence, the whole problem with the ending-that Shepard does not protest the stupidity of any choice and the fact the kid is not to be trusted.  It isn't terribly important, but I'm just saying there's no good choice to make at all.

I remember the discussion fully, but I do not expect you to remember it.

I do remember our discussion, and I do remember what I said:

Holger1405 wrote...

I perfectly understand what paragon or renegade means. (And no, I wasn't referring to my Shepard.)
The point I try to make is that there are not only full bar paragon's or full bar renegade. A example (this time from my Shepard.) I never hit Khalisah al-Jilani, because I never would hit a women, not even in a video game. But I always grilled the gunship mechanic of the Blue Suns before helping Archangel, because it gave me a advantage and this guy was the enemy anyway.
Even someone who is mostly paragon, and cares about the People around him, can have the opinion that the Geth are a threat.
This possibility of choice, to be allowed to have a different opinions, makes Shepard to your Shepard, and this game so great. .

I didn't said a full paragon could go for destruction. I did said that a "mostly paragon" Shepard could.
Completely different thing.

On my first play through I didn't gave control much thought. For the same reason you refuse it btw, but then I thought about it, and changed my mind.   

3DandBeyond wrote...
Now onto your current assessment that Control is some sort of Paragon (full Paragon) option. Well, no way. First of all, in and of itself, forgetting paragon/renegade, it makes no bloody sense. Shepard is shown to die instantly and yet somehow has taken control of the reapers. Ok, space magic times half infinity (for space magic times infinity one needs to choose synthesis).

This is a science fiction game with an amount of "Space Magic" already in it. (since ME1 btw.)
Thus your argument is completely invalid.  

3DandBeyond wrote...
Now, onto your idea that Control is Paragon. Again, anyone that has been told by any reaper-like entity that they can control the reapers has been indoctrinated, crazy, evil, or all of the above. So, maybe a paragon could choose it-a deluded one who all of a sudden wanted to be a dead god.

No one, in the entire series, has ever been told, "by any reaper-like entity," that it is possible to control the reapers, before the Catalyst spoke to Shepard.

TIM had the plan to control the Reapers long before he got indoctrinated, and the Reapers didn't approve his plans. Clearly shown by their attack on the sanctuary. Saran did search for a weapon, but as he realized what Sovereign really is, he tried to convince Sovereign that Organics can be useful.
   
Thus Shepard is the first one who is been told that she/he can control the Reapers. Well I don't consider her/him "indoctrinated, crazy, evil or all of the above."

So what's left here?  A good character can't choose a solution for the right reasons, because a bad character has similar goals for the wrong reasons? That's not even remotely logical.    

3DandBeyond wrote...
Controlling something gives one great power that is not handled easily even with the best intentions. It is also the desire of those that wish to become gods and not those that wish to stop something. It is the easy way out though and as such is definitely the realm of a renegade who only thinks of expediency and not of consequences. In order to see this you only need to look at TIM who was a full blown renegade character. He wasn't always so "evil" and in fact had been more altruistic in his beliefs at least where humans are concerned. And even in wanting to control them, he still was thinking he was doing a good thing-controlling them to learn and then help humanity achieve greatness. His idea of the worm turning-the downtrodden rising up.

To die is the easiest way out? For a Renegade?
Again, if you choose control Shepard can save everyone! Evan the Reapers if you wish to, after all you just learned that they are only tools.  
But if you are convinced that the Reapers must be destroyed, Shepard can


does control the Reapers. [/u]
She/He doesn't has to sacrifice the Geth and EDI as in destruction. She/He doesn't has to force everyone to became a new "life form" as in Synthesis.  And Shepard can destroy the Reapers.
Only downside, she/he has to sacrifices her/himself.  

But you know what? That it is exactly what a Paragon Shepard would do to save all and everyone.

I don't know if Bioware was planning this on purpose. It would be a pretty genius twist if TIM is the one to "present" the Paragon option, and Anderson the one to "present" the reneged option.
Anyway, as the end is now, control is the Paragon choice.  
 

Wow you're no better then thanatos justifying everything with space magic killing the geth or the quarians after you spent hours to save either one of them or both of them

Effectively turning everybody into machines against their will or turning robots into half organcis against their will


No one has ever been able to control the reapers during the entire series so it shows this choice as being invalid and how is shepard controling the reapers if his or ber body is destroyed who or what is controlling the reapers

In both endings the reapers live to possibly kill us all over again

But in all endings the relays are destroyed and it would make our forces possibly starve to death or make it easyer for the reapers to harvest us

The catalyst said he controls the reapers he is given us twisted circular logic about how his synthetics kill us so that we won't make other synthetics that will kill us but he is still killing us

And he isn't protecting us from synthetics because he uses his reaper code to control the geth to fight us

And the whole created will destroy their creator has already been disproven a thousand times already

Shepards gives into the enemies creator then gets forced into the decisions that the enemy creator wants or benefits from

It can also explain why harbinger just allowed shepard to walk up to the citadel without trying to stop him or her a second time


Harbinger from mass effect 2 already said that they would find another way and the catalyst pretty muchs ends up being his other way so either he created and controls the reapers and is still trying to screw us over and his reapers are killing our forces during our conversation with him or harbinger is using the catalyst to make shepard submit what ultmately he or she does

No shepard paragon or renegade would go for compplete submission into our enemies hands

Modifié par LiarasShield, 04 juin 2012 - 05:11 .

[MSandt]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I'm sorry what games were you playing exactly?  Lack of control-that is exactly where in the rest of the games and where is that stated in all the press the devs put out leading up to this game?  You know, where they said it was all about player choice (control), vast differences in endings, no ABC endings, no requirement to play MP for SP, and so on.

Or maybe you mean they didn't mean it when they said the Rachni would figure prominently in the ending.

I didn't pay any attention to what the developers said prior to the game's release so obviously I had no expectations considering the ending.

A happy ending would be corny?  But Joker and all the others landing on the jungle planet is thoughty and deep?

Yes, they could have just removed the Normandy part too but that would have made the haters even more mad.

What Shepard exactly throughout these 3 games would ever have stood idly by while some demented, evil god being in kid's clothing that has been turning people into goo, says that turning people into goo is done to help them?  Exactly which Shepard would when told that turning them into goo is done so they can ascend in a different form, would just casually say oh, please mr. star kid, we want to keep our current form?  Feck that, what Shepard wouldn't have a few very choice words to say at least?

I loved that about the ending, that no matter how you played, you only had a choice between three bittersweet endings. That's bleak realism for you. There was nothing she could have done at that point, no cheap magic tricks to get around the sorry reality. And, in case you didn't notice, she wasn't much in a condition to put on a fight or to get back to the drawing board. Besides, she was presented with an opportunity to do exactly what she came there to do so why fight it? It just turned out to be a bit costlier but that only made it more heroic.

Oh, and I'm sorry but exactly what games were you playing if in the end all those people Shepard cared about, oh even a love interest, are meaningless and unnecessary?  The games have always been about those relationships Shepard forged, so now they don't matter?

So if two people love each other and one of them suddenly dies, the relationship was all for nothing?

The ending is a compilation of nonsensical parts thrown together and called artistic and deep.  The fact that it makes use of many cliche pieces in ways that don't even fit together bears out that it is neither.

There was nothing nonsensical about it. You built a weapon with which to end the Reaper threat and that's what you had a chance to do. Plain & simple.

If anything tried to be "artistic and deep" it was the unnecessary epilogue but it had Buzz Aldrin so all is forgiven.

The interaction with a dying Anderson is magnificently done, but it is the only bright spot in a dreary demented ending.  And even there the game fails.  Shepard doesn't even seem to care.

She's half dead, makes her way to the Catalyst and sacrifices herself at the end and you're saying that she didn't even seem to care?

Modifié par MSandt, 04 juin 2012 - 05:11 .

[LiarasShield]

MSandt wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

I'm sorry what games were you playing exactly?  Lack of control-that is exactly where in the rest of the games and where is that stated in all the press the devs put out leading up to this game?  You know, where they said it was all about player choice (control), vast differences in endings, no ABC endings, no requirement to play MP for SP, and so on.

Or maybe you mean they didn't mean it when they said the Rachni would figure prominently in the ending.

I didn't pay any attention to what the developers said prior to the game's release so obviously I had no expectations considering the ending.

A happy ending would be corny?  But Joker and all the others landing on the jungle planet is thoughty and deep?

Yes, they could have just removed the Normandy part too but that would have made the haters even more mad.

What Shepard exactly throughout these 3 games would ever have stood idly by while some demented, evil god being in kid's clothing that has been turning people into goo, says that turning people into goo is done to help them?  Exactly which Shepard would when told that turning them into goo is done so they can ascend in a different form, would just casually say oh, please mr. star kid, we want to keep our current form?  Feck that, what Shepard wouldn't have a few very choice words to say at least?

I loved that about the ending, that no matter how you played, you only had a choice between three bittersweet endings. That's bleak realism for you. There was nothing she could have done at that point, no cheap magic tricks to get around the sorry reality. And, in case you didn't notice, she wasn't much in a condition to put on a fight or to get back to the drawing board. Besides, she was presented with an opportunity to do exactly what she came there to do so why fight it? It just turned out to be a bit costlier but that only made it more heroic.

Oh, and I'm sorry but exactly what games were you playing if in the end all those people Shepard cared about, oh even a love interest, are meaningless and unnecessary?  The games have always been about those relationships Shepard forged, so now they don't matter?

So if two people love each other and one of them suddenly dies, the relationship was all for nothing?

The ending is a compilation of nonsensical parts thrown together and called artistic and deep.  The fact that it makes use of many cliche pieces in ways that don't even fit together bears out that it is neither.

There was nothing nonsensical about it. You built a weapon with which to end the Reaper threat and that's what you had a chance to do. Plain & simple.

If anything tried to be "artistic and deep" it was the unnecessary epilogue but it had Buzz Aldrin so all is forgiven.

The interaction with a dying Anderson is magnificently done, but it is the only bright spot in a dreary demented ending.  And even there the game fails.  Shepard doesn't even seem to care.

She's half dead, makes her way to the Catalyst and sacrifices herself at the end and you're saying that she didn't even seem to care?

are you really serious in mass effect one and two we could still have a victory ending depending on our choices and decisions why completely destroy the formula at the end of the final game and delete the whole purpose of uniting the galaxy only to fail and undo everything that the player did during the course of the game

And games are made to escape the the terrible boringness or the pain of reality not to try to include them

[LilyasAvalon]

It's nice to see that the fandom has such dedication, that even 2 months on, we're still angry about this.

[sdinc009]

I'm reposting this so everyone can watch. Those that are claiming that this ending is anything other than total crap PLEASE just take the time to watch these to observe a literary analysis. The ending is awful because the narrative is broken. It doesn't make sense because it violates dozens of rules to storytelling.

Watched all 5 parts of this analysis and though I don't share all of his opinions the literary analyis is extremely top-notch. I would urge everyone to watch all 5 parts of this.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qa81mq3744&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZytHg7THYPk&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW2ZxnkUHCY

[3DandBeyond]

Holger1405 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
Now, onto your idea that Control is Paragon. Again, anyone that has been told by any reaper-like entity that they can control the reapers has been indoctrinated, crazy, evil, or all of the above. So, maybe a paragon could choose it-a deluded one who all of a sudden wanted to be a dead god.

No one, in the entire series, has ever been told, "by any reaper-like entity," that it is possible to control the reapers, before the Catalyst spoke to Shepard.

TIM had the plan to control the Reapers long before he got indoctrinated, and the Reapers didn't approve his plans. Clearly shown by their attack on the sanctuary. Saran did search for a weapon, but as he realized what Sovereign really is, he tried to convince Sovereign that Organics can be useful.
   
Thus Shepard is the first one who is been told that she/he can control the Reapers. Well I don't consider her/him "indoctrinated, crazy, evil or all of the above."

So what's left here?  A good character can't choose a solution for the right reasons, because a bad character has similar goals for the wrong reasons? That's not even remotely logical.    

At what point was TIM indoctrinated?  Point out where exactly this took place.  You have no idea if he was first indoctrinated and then thought he could assert control because there's no way of knowing when he was indoctrinated, but the kid references it.  He indicates TIM couldn't control the reapers because he was already under their control.

Saren was also told he could control them, but again we don't have a clue which came first, his indoctrination or the idea to control.

But furthermore, Shepard only needs to look at the glowing boy in front of him as an example of someone who controls the reapers.  The star kid controls them and you've said you think he could have had good intentions.  So, in your opinion the kid meant to do good things, but has been doing what I see as evil things-making people goo.  He has been making people goo by using the reapers he controls.  This example alone would show Shepard that only crazy, evil, or delusional people exert control.  And this nonsensical "kid" is telling Shepard s/he can control them, too or instead.  Yeah, that sounds just great.

And Shepard has rejected and resisted the idea all along, but in the end Shepard simply trusts this "kid".  That makes no sense.  Shepard would not trust the idea of control as presented at all.

And no there's no gamebreaking problem with space magic when it explains away more mundane things or advances a plotline; the problem lies in making it a crucial, critical part of the major event in a story.

But it is all still moot.  All of this is based upon what the kid says. And the kid can't be trusted.  You've not once really addressed this-there's no proof at all of anything he says.

This is a circular conversation because even though you indicate the kid may be lying, you don't think that matters, which is unfathomable for me.

I've laid out reasons as have others for not accepting any of the choices.  The hurdle is too high.  The burden of proof is on the star kid and he is not credible.  No, a good person wouldn't choose control because they wouldn't believe it and it wouldn't even make sense.  A normal person would ask how they could control them if they're dead.  A normal person would ask the kid to hit the reaper off switch and would lay out a claim why.

In order to accept what you believe, I would at the bare minimum need to know when Saren and TIM were indoctrinated in relation to their belief they could control the reapers AND I would need substantial proof the kid was telling the truth, and not just his word.

[3DandBeyond]

sdinc009 wrote...

I'm reposting this so everyone can watch. Those that are claiming that this ending is anything other than total crap PLEASE just take the time to watch these to observe a literary analysis. The ending is awful because the narrative is broken. It doesn't make sense because it violates dozens of rules to storytelling.

Watched all 5 parts of this analysis and though I don't share all of his opinions the literary analyis is extremely top-notch. I would urge everyone to watch all 5 parts of this.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qa81mq3744&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZytHg7THYPk&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW2ZxnkUHCY

These are fantastic videos and really he discusses even a lot of things that never hit me before.  It's amazing just how badly the game breaks everything.

[MSandt]

LiarasShield wrote...

 why ... delete the whole purpose of uniting the galaxy only to fail and undo everything that the player did during the course of the game

And how exactly were all those things undone? Shepard united the galaxy to face the Reaper threat. This is what they did. Without this unity she could've never made it to the Catalyst. Mission accomplished.

And games are made to escape the the terrible boringness or the pain of reality not to try to include them

You could say that about art in general, but some of the greatest stories have bittersweet endings. I'm infinitely glad Bioware didn't go for yet another happy happy joy joy Star Wars/LotR ending.

It'd be different if the ending had been unquestionably sad. But it wasn't. It was both bleak and beautiful at the same time. I get chills every time Shepard is ascended to the Catalyst.

[LiarasShield]

MSandt wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

 why ... delete the whole purpose of uniting the galaxy only to fail and undo everything that the player did during the course of the game

And how exactly were all those things undone? Shepard united the galaxy to face the Reaper threat. This is what they did. Without this unity she could've never made it to the Catalyst. Mission accomplished.

And games are made to escape the the terrible boringness or the pain of reality not to try to include them

You could say that about art in general, but some of the greatest stories have bittersweet endings. I'm infinitely glad Bioware didn't go for yet another happy happy joy joy Star Wars/LotR ending.

It'd be different if the ending had been unquestionably sad. But it wasn't. It was both bleak and beautiful at the same time. I get chills every time Shepard is ascended to the Catalyst.

It undoes everything that the player does because what was the point of curing the genopage if the krogan are gonna die in my solar system what was the point of saving the geth or quarians if they're going to die in our solar system or I kill them by picking the destroy option

Why would i want to force everyone to be the same or force everybody to be have machine or half organic and destroy the whole purpose of bringing completely different and unqiue races to fight to deafeat a enemy this ending is bad because we don't beat the reapers because all our actions hold no effect on the ending and we give in or submit to the very enemy we brought the whole galaxy to fight against not submit to their creators circular logic that was disproven by the course of me3 and the previous games and even if shepard must die his or her forces should at least be able to go home or to have a future not to die inspace or be harvested by the reapers

I don't play games to ultimately fail and undo everything during the course of the game it is the same reason I hate final fantasy XIII-2

[3DandBeyond]

MSandt wrote...

--Snipped---
She's half dead, makes her way to the Catalyst and sacrifices herself at the end and you're saying that she didn't even seem to care?

S/he didn't care at all about shooting Anderson.  The kid at the beginning gets more emotion from Shepard than Anderson.

And I don't call forced suicide a sacrifice or bittersweet at all.  Point out the sweet please.  There's only nonsensical and bitter. 

Please do go back and see the hype fans were a party to as the game was promoted by the devs.  The ending is nothing like anything they said and in fact is exactly what they said it wouldn't be.

And you are being truly disingenuous in putting words in my mouth. 

I never said this:

MSandt wrote...

So if two people love each other and one of them suddenly dies, the relationship was all for nothing?

You did:

MSandt wrote...

The ending was the best
in video game history. This was Shepard's story and dwelling on what
happened to everyone else would've been beside the point and totally
unnecessary.

I disagreed with what you said here and felt they did matter a great deal, but you don't seem to think they matter at all.  And where in your game did your love interest share any of those heartfelt feelings about Shepard dying?  Mine walked off the Normandy and showed no emotion whatsoever, appeared unscathed and not at all concerned about a thing. 

And you are dead wrong if you think people would shout about that scene being removed-it is one of the most hated of all about the ending. 

In fact, you like the ending.  Nothing any of us says will change what you now have.  You should be happy in that you don't need the EC, you don't need to download it when it's available.  You have what you want.  Why does what we say threaten any of that or you?

[3DandBeyond]

MSandt wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

 why ... delete the whole purpose of uniting the galaxy only to fail and undo everything that the player did during the course of the game

And how exactly were all those things undone? Shepard united the galaxy to face the Reaper threat. This is what they did. Without this unity she could've never made it to the Catalyst. Mission accomplished.

And games are made to escape the the terrible boringness or the pain of reality not to try to include them

You could say that about art in general, but some of the greatest stories have bittersweet endings. I'm infinitely glad Bioware didn't go for yet another happy happy joy joy Star Wars/LotR ending.

It'd be different if the ending had been unquestionably sad. But it wasn't. It was both bleak and beautiful at the same time. I get chills every time Shepard is ascended to the Catalyst.

Wow.  Then please never try to understand any of it.  There was nothing beautiful at all about it.  Point me to the beautiful parts.

And yes, movies should all have unhappily ever after endings and games are meant to be lost and the overwhelming successes of both LotR and Star Wars indicate that a majority of people hate happy endings because they are too cliche and improbable.

But people are fine with every game and movie featuring Deus ex Machina themes, space Jesus, and so on.  And heroes must die.  Why?  Because.  And it's gritty and real even if you have to make up artificial choices to make them happen.  Why? Because.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 04 juin 2012 - 05:55 .

[akenn312]

Is anyone seeing a trend here? Everytime someone says they really like the ending the main reason they like it is for the "artsy" unhappy ending sacrifice by Shepard and they consider that above all else what makes the story good. I can give them that a noble sacrifice can be moving, but Shepard's death was not so great that you can ignore bad storytelling or a story that ignores almost everything it set up in the previous games. This is what makes his death stupid. Ignoring plot holes and bad storytelling doesn't magically make his death meaningful.

So because Shepard dies it's cool Bioware just dropped everything important from Mass Effect 2 and 1? Like I don't know…the Collector Base being kept or destroyed or the conduit on Ilos that could get them to the Citadel…Nah they don't need that they have this new London conduit. At least mention why you don't use the Ilos Conduit.

Because Shepard goes out hard we don't have to care if the final three choices make sense or not? Or care about the fact people are intentionally not using Cain's to fight against the Spider Reapers after using a Cain blew up a Reaper easily or realizing throught the story synthetics and AI's were not a threat at all that organics could't handle?

Because Shepard dies jumping into a beam of space magic and Buzz Aldren does a cameo easter egg in the game we can now accept Joker running away from an energy wave that no one else in the fleet ran away from, and like an idiot get the Normandy stranded on a weird jungle planet for no reason. Or the huge fact of Shepard bringing the entire galaxy with him only to get them stranded in Sol and last but not least squad-mates disappearing in thin air?

What type of logic is this? Why do you people just blindly ignore this stuff? It's obvious this is a poorly written story especially the end. What is it? You can't accept they made a bad story or something? Or do you really not see the things wrong with it?

Modifié par akenn312, 04 juin 2012 - 05:58 .

[3DandBeyond]

For anyone that "likes" the ending here's something to think about. They changed the antagonist, the hated ones from the reapers and most all of you seem to think the kid is there for "good" reasons. So, in the end you have no antagonist, they've been moved far away, out of sight.

But, most everyone else sees the kid as the epitome of evil-he controls the things that want to hurt all you care about. He is the antagonist and the reapers as antagonists have been replace at the last minute.

Change this up and now insert a new protagonist. Shepard is still out there, but decides not to go up to the Citadel and instead Lady GaGa is taking over with her amazing infinite ammo pistol and slightly charred hair. She is now in charge of what happens to the galaxy. Would this be the same game you've been playing all along? I don't think so. It's all of a sudden become slightly stupid at least.

Well, it's the same with the kid. They had explained the reasons for the reaper cycles and now the kid offers a different stupider explanation. The star kid/Harbinger boy/whatever he is has never been shown before and he's not some awesome surprise-he is like nothing. I have no feeling for him whatsoever. I no longer cared about the game at all at the end and that is what most of us feel about it. It was like falling off a cliff.

[MSandt]

LiarasShield wrote...

It undoes
everything that the player does because what was the point of curing the
genopage if the krogan are gonna die in my solar system what was the
point of saving the geth or quarians if they're going to die in our
solar system or I kill them by picking the destroy option

Yes, it's a bleak prospect (which of course doesn't mean it's bad, i.e., wrong) but not every representative of those species ended up getting stuck in our solar system. Wars have a bad habit of weeding out some of the finest. They helped saved their species at the cost of ending up being permanently (maybe) disconnected from their homeworld. Who said wars are cheap?

Why
would i want to force everyone to be the same or force everybody to be
have machine or half organic and destroy the whole purpose of bringing
completely different and unqiue races to fight to deafeat a enemy

There were other choices, each one being problematic but all of which get the job done.

this
ending is bad because we don't beat the reapers because all our actions
hold no effect on the ending and we give in or submit to the very enemy
we brought the whole galaxy to fight against not submit to their
creators circular logic

Yes you do beat the Reapers and no, you don't give in. Everything you came there to do, you have a chance to do.

[3DandBeyond]

akenn312 wrote...

Is anyone seeing a trend here? Everytime someone says they really like the ending the main reason they like it is for the "artsy" unhappy ending sacrifice by Shepard and they consider that above all else what makes the story good. I can give them that a noble sacrifice can be moving, but Shepard's death was not so great that you can ignore bad storytelling or a story that ignores almost everything it set up in the previous games. This is what makes his death stupid. Ignoring plot holes and bad storytelling doesn't magically make his death meaningful.

So because Shepard dies it's cool Bioware just dropped everything important from Mass Effect 2 and 1? Like I don't know…the Collector Base being kept or destroyed or the conduit on Ilos that could get them to the Citadel…Nah they don't need that they have this new London conduit. At least mention why you don't use the Ilos Conduit.

Because Shepard goes out hard we don't have to care if the final three choices make sense or not? Or care about the fact people are intentionally not using Cain's to fight against the Spider Reapers after one blew one up easily or realizing synthetics were not a threat at all that organics could't handle?

Because Shepard dies jumping into a beam of space magic and Buzz Aldren does a cameo easter egg in the game we can now accept Joker running away from an energy wave that no one else in the fleet ran away from, and like an idiot get the Normandy stranded on a weird jungle planet for no reason. Or the huge fact of Shepard bringing the entire galaxy with him only to get them stranded in Sol and last but not least squad-mates disappearing in thin air?

What type of logic is this? Why do you people just blindly ignore this stuff? It's obvious this is a poorly written story especially the end. What is it? You can't accept they made a bad story or something? Or do you really not see the things wrong with it?

This.

I actually think the people that like the ending are exactly the opposite to the people that Bioware has been aiming for as fans.  In order to like the ending you must not have cared ME3 was due to be released (so you never heard what they said would be in the game) and not think too hard about ME1 and 2 so you don't care about the story per se, and you really can't think too hard about ME3's ending itself, because it is glaring in its idiocy.  No amount of bows and feathers can make me see it as artsy, intense, beautiful, and intelligent.  I know a pig in a poke when I see one.

One only has too look at what they are now trying to say about the mass relay destruction to see that you have to go outside the game to explain the ending.  You are told in 2 places inside the game what the destruction of the mass relays will mean, but now people will say that their destruction doesn't mean that at all.  Uh, but yes it does.  I don't have to make it up-the game says what will happen and it ain't so sweet.

[Mercedes595]

3DandBeyond wrote...

@Mercedes595,

 
Eh, I was not really disagreeing with you on the fact the ending was totally insane and stupid rolled in one and squared. I was just finding some pieces which could be seen as making sense on its own.
You are of course right with the control the HoloDwarf has over the reapers. I have forgotten that line and I apologize.
Also, the fact that the BlueChildOfLight was added into ME3 with no connections to ME1 did not escape me, again I was just finding reasons why that could hypotheticly make sense (not that it ever could, but…)Still, my major grief with the ending (if I ignore the actual 3 choices) is the inclusion of the Geth or rather the lack thereof.  Where were the geth again? If you gain the Geth as assets, you can read this in the War asset window:
All geth platforms are armed, shielded, and built to withstand combat. When they're on the battlefield, enemy tactics and positions are swapped instantaneously between the AIs. The geth also employ turrets and drones-"expendable" hardware support to keep losses of networked platforms to a minimum. The result is the largest, and perhaps best equipped, infantry in the galaxy.
Man, I am so glad I have the largest and perhaps the best equipped infantry in the galaxy with me in this fight. Otherwise it would be hopeless..... oh, wait. The Geth did not make it to Earth. Probably mistook the Mass relays and ended up somewhere in Terminus Systems, stupid synthetics........

[3DandBeyond]

MSandt wrote...


Yes you do beat the Reapers and no, you don't give in. Everything you came there to do, you have a chance to do.

No, actually you don't.  Shepard consistently told teammates the goal was to come out alive.  Shepard may have known the odds, but that was a goal.  That gasping torso is no indication of happy ever after life.

As well, Shepard and Javik talk about Shepard believing they will come out of it with honor intact.  This has been a goal as well.  Also, there's a recurrent theme that a type of Shepard will often state and that is that you don't rob Peter to pay Paul-you don't sacrifice some here to save others over there.  The Arrival changes that up because again in a stupid way there is no choice that fits with what all Shepard's might do.

Shepard cannot come out of this with some things that are goals intact, so you do not get that chance.  And still no being with a brain would willingly submit to choices being given out or pointed to by this star kid.  Not after finding out he makes people goo.

You don't have any chance to disagree here, to shoot him in his glowy face, to pick up a Cain and shoot up his home and die in a blaze of glory.  Instead, Shepard wimps out, trudges on, says nothing, makes a choice.  You came to destroy the reapers, yes.  But, if you found the head reaper guy was living in the Citadel, the thing you want to do has changed.  You'd still want to kill the reapers, but you'd want to be sure they never come back again.  He gives no such assurance and even with Destroy he doesn't rule it out.  Shepard asks if they will indeed be destroyed and the kid says yes, but the peace won't last and the chaos will come back.  Which presumably means the kid will be back too with his solution to bring order to chaos.  His solution is the reapers.

[3DandBeyond]

Mercedes595 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

@Mercedes595,

 
Eh, I was not really disagreeing with you on the fact the ending was totally insane and stupid rolled in one and squared. I was just finding some pieces which could be seen as making sense on its own.
You are of course right with the control the HoloDwarf has over the reapers. I have forgotten that line and I apologize.
Also, the fact that the BlueChildOfLight was added into ME3 with no connections to ME1 did not escape me, again I was just finding reasons why that could hypotheticly make sense (not that it ever could, but…)Still, my major grief with the ending (if I ignore the actual 3 choices) is the inclusion of the Geth or rather the lack thereof.  Where were the geth again? If you gain the Geth as assets, you can read this in the War asset window:
All geth platforms are armed, shielded, and built to withstand combat. When they're on the battlefield, enemy tactics and positions are swapped instantaneously between the AIs. The geth also employ turrets and drones-"expendable" hardware support to keep losses of networked platforms to a minimum. The result is the largest, and perhaps best equipped, infantry in the galaxy.
Man, I am so glad I have the largest and perhaps the best equipped infantry in the galaxy with me in this fight. Otherwise it would be hopeless..... oh, wait. The Geth did not make it to Earth. Probably mistook the Mass relays and ended up somewhere in Terminus Systems, stupid synthetics........

Sorry if I misunderstood some things, just really "clarifying" stuff.  Actually, I not only want to see the geth fighting, I want to see Jack's Biotic kids, Krogan on dino-back, rachni swarms, and so on.  I think it is one of the saddest things that you gather all these war assets that are just numbers with no fun stuff.

But, I do also find it sad that we are not treated to the real eye candy that was waiting to be shown-the battles are one thing, but Rannoch rebuilding-we've waited for it maybe and possibly worked for it, depending upon our choices.  The redemption of all these flawed characters and groups of characters.  None of them without some sort of "sin".  The Asari seemed to play while others took charge.  The Krogan and Turians doing the heavy lifting-the promise of Krogan children being on the verge of happening.  Mordin's redemption, the Turians as well.

There was just so much promise denied.

[MSandt]

3DandBeyond wrote...


S/he didn't care at all about shooting Anderson. 

And what makes you think that? There was little reaction (which in itself was brilliant!) because they both knew what the situation was, that she had little control over her actions at that point. Anderson knew it, Shepard knew it. Why dwell on that when you've got more pressing matters at hand? Moreover, they were both barely alive at that point anyway.

And I don't call forced suicide a sacrifice or bittersweet at all.  Point out the sweet please.

Howabout the fact that you succeeded in preventing a genocide of all advanced races, including your own? Oh, and the whole top-floor scene was just stunning audiovisually.

Please do go back and see the hype fans were a party to as the game was promoted by the devs.  The ending is nothing like anything they said and in fact is exactly what they said it wouldn't be.

I don't listen to hype, especially from developers. Maybe from now on you'll learn not to listen to hype either?

I disagreed with what you said here and felt they did matter a great deal, but you don't seem to think they matter at all.  And where in your game did your love interest share any of those heartfelt feelings about Shepard dying?  Mine walked off the Normandy and showed no emotion whatsoever, appeared unscathed and not at all concerned about a thing.

I didn't establish any relationships. I'm a male but my character was female so I aborted whenever someone tried to get too friendly.

But, as I said, they could have just removed the Normandy scene.

[Mercedes595]

akenn312 wrote...

Is anyone seeing a trend here? Everytime someone says they really like the ending the main reason they like it is for the "artsy" unhappy ending sacrifice by Shepard and they consider that above all else what makes the story good. I can give them that a noble sacrifice can be moving, but Shepard's death was not so great that you can ignore bad storytelling or a story that ignores almost everything it set up in the previous games. This is what makes his death stupid. Ignoring plot holes and bad storytelling doesn't magically make his death meaningful.

So because Shepard dies it's cool Bioware just dropped everything important from Mass Effect 2 and 1? Like I don't know…the Collector Base being kept or destroyed or the conduit on Ilos that could get them to the Citadel…Nah they don't need that they have this new London conduit. At least mention why you don't use the Ilos Conduit.

Because Shepard goes out hard we don't have to care if the final three choices make sense or not? Or care about the fact people are intentionally not using Cain's to fight against the Spider Reapers after using a Cain blew up a Reaper easily or realizing throught the story synthetics and AI's were not a threat at all that organics could't handle?

Because Shepard dies jumping into a beam of space magic and Buzz Aldren does a cameo easter egg in the game we can now accept Joker running away from an energy wave that no one else in the fleet ran away from, and like an idiot get the Normandy stranded on a weird jungle planet for no reason. Or the huge fact of Shepard bringing the entire galaxy with him only to get them stranded in Sol and last but not least squad-mates disappearing in thin air?

What type of logic is this? Why do you people just blindly ignore this stuff? It's obvious this is a poorly written story especially the end. What is it? You can't accept they made a bad story or something? Or do you really not see the things wrong with it?

OK, there are two things being mixed here in this discussion. First Shepard died, second the story is full of plot holes and the ending is totaly bat**** crazy stupi and all that.
There were moment in the ending that i liked. Moments which reminded me of cutscenes like Mordins sacrifice and other realy great moments in the game. I just had to totaly shut off thinking about the lore and logic of it all. Then it was kinda beautiful. Up until the three choices. Those just broke it for me totally.
But i have absolutly no problem with Shep ending up dead in all endings (does wearing N7 tags make you Shepard? Is the Citadel full of concrete? Did Shepard survive falling through the atmosphere yet again?). You can see through the whole story that the wories and strain of fighting slowly destroyes him. Can you imagine him after all that (disregarding the events on earth) on a beach somewhere drinking a cocktail with Garrus????? Man that would be even more nonsensical then the current ending. And thats saying something.

But I totaly ageree with the trend here, that the lack of closure (meaning the teammates) is just wrong.

Modifié par Mercedes595, 04 juin 2012 - 06:23 .

[Mercedes595]

MSandt wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

And I don't call forced suicide a sacrifice or bittersweet at all. Point out the sweet please.

Howabout the fact that you succeeded in preventing a genocide of all advanced races, including your own? Oh, and the whole top-floor scene was just stunning audiovisually.

+1