23455 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

Alyrina wrote...

Ok.

I'm not much of a poster (usually just read) hoewever

I just finished ME3 (I had the game from start but was very bussy rl and didn't had too much time to play)

Now, I spended so much time in previeus me and i also did in me3 doing tons of side missions, weight all possible choises to make etc. But now at the end everything "just" get's destroyed ...

Credits where rolling in and was just starting at my screen thinking "WTH"

ME was really one of best games made for me but now i'm not sure i'll even buy future me or dlc ...

The only thing I can say is that hopefully they will fix some things when the (free) extended cut DLC comes out, summer or whenever.

There is much evidence that they never intended this to be the end, but who knows if that meant that this was always supposed to be the end of Shepard in ME3.  Since it's obvious they always intended for us to buy DLC to add to the ME3 story.  That blue screen at the end is proof of that.  They may always have intended to continue ME3 and Shepard's story in DLC.  Since this is a new trend in videogaming (to get people to pay for an ending, I wouldn't put anything past them).  You can do youtube searches on this to see a number of high profile games that don't have endings.

It may be that the EC DLC was always planned and was not going to be free.  But it now will be free and hopefully (all we have is hope) it will do more than just explain things that can't be explained away.

The one other point related to this that is a real failure on Bioware's part is they promised multiplayer would not be needed for success in single player, but it is and strategy videos they made say that it is.  And in order to access online content (such as an ending DLC or the extended cut DLC, and MP), people need to have an internet connection.  Many people can't afford one, can't get broadband, or can't or don't have xboxlive gold.  Where I live (in between 2 large US cities) we have 1 broadband provider and I do have a gold membership, but I know that others don't have that. 

[BlueStorm83]

--- I think it's kinda nuts that though so many of us say that it's fine that others can enjoy the ending, that there is really only one person who admits that we have the right to claim that the endings are busted and unsatisfying.

That person's Holger. He's mad level headed, especially compared to a couple others that I neither name nor discuss, let alone reply to.

--- I just listened to that Mass Effect 2 music thingy. Sigh. As much as I disliked the drastic cutting of so many RPG elements in that game, damned if it didn't give a satisfying, sensical, even fitting conclusion.

Objective: Assemble a team and kick the **** out of the collectors. Accomplished.
Secondary Objective: Keep my friends alive. Accomplished.
Tertiary Objective: Don't compromise my principles at all, and make it through by our own strength and determination. Accomplished.

And even though my buddy Kaiden hated me, even though I was afraid that the Alliance would view me as a traitor, even though I was now technically an accomplice to anything and everything Cerberus did, even with Tali's squad dead on Haestrom and her dad dead on the fleet, even with Garrus' face torn up and his good nature almost destroyed, even with Thane slowly wasting away from Kepral Syndrome, even with Samara dealing with having just KILLED HER DAUGHTER, with Jacob having had to face the monster his father became, with having to choose between murdering the Geth heretics or changing their nature, with having to pick between staying true to my Paragon instincts or to help my good friend Liara in a Renegade fashion, having to take down a fellow Specter who crossed the line, and anything else I'm forgetting, none of the ambiguity or bitterness or anything outweighed the fact that I, ME, beat my enemy.

Not some flashy little ****** wearing a hoodie who insists that one day my Desk Lamp will murder me in my sleep.

[Necrotron]

I think they forgot to put the sweet in the ending.

Also, why did the main villain get to be the protagonist at the end? And why did I have to die for one of his choices?

[saber00005]

Redbelle wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Void Of Humanity wrote...

Hey Saber00005,

Sums up what we all feel dude, just want some answers, closure & respect

I agree, but still what seems to be misunderstood by a lot of people is that even those of us that hate the ending have loved the games and Bioware.  We merely want them to prove to us, that we can still call ourselves fans and that we still want to give them our money.  The ball is in their court.

And here is one persons take on what they did with that ball.



For my money I'm waiting for the DLC.

I'm hoping they correct everything.. It is, after all, like 80%+ of fans not being that happy about the ending. A lot of gamers out there feel like this after beating Me3:   

Modifié par saber00005, 06 juin 2012 - 03:00 .

[akenn312]

I was just checking out this thread and they make some really good points about the Reapers harvesting cycle.  It's basically about how harvesting is not preserving organics or an ascension, but actually trapping millions of organic consciousness inside a Reaper.

If you think about it, it's pretty much a virtual nightmare. Not dead or alive but trapped inside this monstrous hive mind forever...well until someone kills a Reaper. But basically the organics are still killed to do this. You are killing the person and the civilization by turning them into goo to suck up its consciousness to make a new Reaper.

http://social.biowar...ndex/12437669/4

So basically to save organics from a fate of being just killed by synthetics, which I would assume the synthetics would basically just kill them. Baby Reaper instead chooses to melt organics down, kill them, suck up their being into a Reaper trapping them there forever so they have to kill and destroy civilizations for eternity.  

This again does not make sense, how is allowing organics to die naturally worse than trapping them in a monster mind forever and forcing them to kill their organic civilizations cycle after cycle? That's gotta be a fate worse than death, than basically just dying.

Another point, if a Reaper is destroyed that's freeing millions and billions of tortured organic souls or if you don't believe in a soul their consciousness. So again why are we not doing everything we can to kill every Reaper possible? 

Just another thing that makes me see how the Reaper threat is a billion times worse than some AI possibly destroying us all. At least there is a fighting chance against the synthetics and if organics die then at least we won't be trapped ghosts in the machine committing genocide forever. I'l thake my chances against the Geth & the Citadel ponzi sceme Robot rather than what the Reapers do anyday.

Modifié par akenn312, 06 juin 2012 - 03:38 .

[3DandBeyond]

Bathaius wrote...

I think they forgot to put the sweet in the ending.

Also, why did the main villain get to be the protagonist at the end? And why did I have to die for one of his choices?

I see the star kid as the antagonist at the end.  The reapers should be, since they have been from the very start of ME, but the kid replaced them in the most ridiculous misunderstanding of how to tell a story I have ever seen.  The fact that some people can't see him as purely evil at worst and deranged at best is beyond the scope of my programming.  I tend to think beings with people goo under their glowing fingernails are pretty much evil, no matter how they see themselves.  Ted Bundy liked himself, but I wouldn't leave my daughter alone with him.  John Wayne Gacy considered himself to be a great guy and a funny clown, but a lot of dead boys would love the chance to say otherwise, and I wouldn't believe him if he said he wanted to help my son.  My point is in this story and in real life some sayings are spoken.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend (Wrex), an old, but flawed proverb.  And it actually is not as accurate as this - the friend of my enemy is my enemy.

The other is a point many of us have tried to make.  Why does Shepard have to die?  The ending as pointed out will always be bitter, based upon the shambles the galaxy is left in and personally for Shepard and crew based on all they've gone through and sacrificed.

My question is more when do we get the sweet?  When has Shepard given enough?  When does Shepard get to have a life?  And back to why does Shepard have to die?  Well, according to some people and to the game, just because.

In fact, the reasons in the game make no sense.  Control-Shepard dies instantly, but controls the reapers. Sure he does.  Why must s/he die?  Because.
Synthesis-Shepard dies while giving up his/her DNA or energy or something in order to help make a new DNA. Uh, any shred of reality just flew out the window.  Why must s/he die?  Because.
Destroy-Shepard dies while walking toward and shooting the tube that explodes.  Why must s/he die?  Because only stupid people walk toward and shoot tubes that explode.  But wait-in the only choice that actually makes sense to have Shepard die, Shepard can live.  Shepard still walks toward the exploding tube while shooting it, but if the god player plays multiplayer and gets a high enough EMS, then apparently the exploding tube doesn't explode enough to kill Shepard (this is similar to a limited explosion of a mass relay).  And this is because as everyone knows, a higher EMS augmented with multiplayer play always makes explosions weaker.

I think it is apparently not enough that Shepard has already died once and basically has yet to live, so of course Shepard must die.  Sacrifice even of the magnitude that Shepard has performed is not enough until his/her lifeless bloody corpse can be honored and cheered over by all.

Personally, I like my heroes alive.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 06 juin 2012 - 05:05 .

[3DandBeyond]

akenn312 wrote...

I was just checking out this thread and they make some really good points about the Reapers harvesting cycle.  It's basically about how harvesting is not preserving organics or an ascension, but actually trapping millions of organic consciousness inside a Reaper.

If you think about it, it's pretty much a virtual nightmare. Not dead or alive but trapped inside this monstrous hive mind forever...well until someone kills a Reaper. But basically the organics are still killed to do this. You are killing the person and the civilization by turning them into goo to suck up its consciousness to make a new Reaper.

http://social.biowar...ndex/12437669/4

So basically to save organics from a fate of being just killed by synthetics, which I would assume the synthetics would basically just kill them. Baby Reaper instead chooses to melt organics down, kill them, suck up their being into a Reaper trapping them there forever so they have to kill and destroy civilizations for eternity.  

This again does not make sense, how is allowing organics to die naturally worse than trapping them in a monster mind forever and forcing them to kill their organic civilizations cycle after cycle? That's gotta be a fate worse than death, than basically just dying.

Another point, if a Reaper is destroyed that's freeing millions and billions of tortured organic souls or if you don't believe in a soul their consciousness. So again why are we not doing everything we can to kill every Reaper possible? 

Just another thing that makes me see how the Reaper threat is a billion times worse than some AI possibly destroying us all. At least there is a fighting chance against the synthetics and if organics die then at least we won't be trapped ghosts in the machine committing genocide forever. I'l thake my chances against the Geth & the Citadel ponzi sceme Robot rather than what the Reapers do anyday.

I agree with you a hundred times over-the reapers are the threat.

The problem is both "threats" of course if true (one is real and happening and one is conjecture and unproven), yield the same results with one being infinitely worse.

Reapers are efficient killing machines and pretty hard to stop.
Synthetics can be created with an "off" switch.  This is something that anyone with half a brain would come up with if a threat is perceived.  Data in STNG, anyone?

So, instead of creating a failsafe solution in case there are problems, of course it makes sense to kill people to save them from something that could be stopped.

I'd rather fight a Geth any day than a reaper.

But it does boil down to this stuff makes no sense at all and so what some codices imply and state is in my opinon way more logical-they come out to basically feed (intake of organic sludge) and make new reapers.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 06 juin 2012 - 12:02 .

[Archonsg]

Post Deleted.

Never mind me, just ranting.
ME3 on a Wii U, this just felt to me that EA/Bioware doesn't really care about the current ME3 product and instead of using dev time and money on fixing a product that has already bad press, goes on  ahead with developing for a handheld platform. 

<_<

Whatever.

Modifié par Archonsg, 06 juin 2012 - 07:48 .

[POBmaestro]

I’ve just watched about 2 hours of documentary footage about the indoctrination theory and have to say that there is more plausible evidence to suggest this was the case than against. This would ultimately have been a very clever ending but if Bioware did mean this then they have still cocked it up as so many fans are now annoyed with them. If Bioware reveal/clarify this was the case in the extended ending then I think it will be hard for anyone to fully believe that this was their originally intention.

Regardless, what would have been fantastic would have been something similar to the original STALKER title. Here in one of the endings the player could be tricked by the Wish Granter and it shows a happy ending, when in actual fact afterwards it shows a rather dreary reality. Alternatively a more cunning player (which I admit I wasn't originally) could ignore the Wish Granter and go on with an extra chunk of gameplay and destroy it. In essence what I’m saying is, were the indoc theory true, it would have been nice having chosen the destruction route to play on to the true ending, not just see Shep in some rubble. I hope we see this in the DLC, but like I said Bioware would have been better off including this to begin with.

Modifié par POBmaestro, 06 juin 2012 - 09:01 .

[ZCaitan]

sircaren wrote...

It was pure brilliance.

Until the ending.

Beside this?

Mordin's end. That was the most touching moment in gaming for me.

[weltraumhamster89]

akenn312 wrote...

I was just checking out this thread and they make some really good points about the Reapers harvesting cycle.  It's basically about how harvesting is not preserving organics or an ascension, but actually trapping millions of organic consciousness inside a Reaper.

If you think about it, it's pretty much a virtual nightmare. Not dead or alive but trapped inside this monstrous hive mind forever...well until someone kills a Reaper. But basically the organics are still killed to do this. You are killing the person and the civilization by turning them into goo to suck up its consciousness to make a new Reaper.

http://social.biowar...ndex/12437669/4

So basically to save organics from a fate of being just killed by synthetics, which I would assume the synthetics would basically just kill them. Baby Reaper instead chooses to melt organics down, kill them, suck up their being into a Reaper trapping them there forever so they have to kill and destroy civilizations for eternity.  

This again does not make sense, how is allowing organics to die naturally worse than trapping them in a monster mind forever and forcing them to kill their organic civilizations cycle after cycle? That's gotta be a fate worse than death, than basically just dying.

Another point, if a Reaper is destroyed that's freeing millions and billions of tortured organic souls or if you don't believe in a soul their consciousness. So again why are we not doing everything we can to kill every Reaper possible? 

Just another thing that makes me see how the Reaper threat is a billion times worse than some AI possibly destroying us all. At least there is a fighting chance against the synthetics and if organics die then at least we won't be trapped ghosts in the machine committing genocide forever. I'l thake my chances against the Geth & the Citadel ponzi sceme Robot rather than what the Reapers do anyday.

I think this is brilliant and 100% the way I see it too. The reapers
always felt like an enormous threat to me and they are very believable
enemies. The starchild only ridicules them. They dont need an
explanation or anything. They simply are.

[Mercedes595]

akenn312 wrote...

I was just checking out this thread and they make some really good points about the Reapers harvesting cycle.  It's basically about how harvesting is not preserving organics or an ascension, but actually trapping millions of organic consciousness inside a Reaper.

If you think about it, it's pretty much a virtual nightmare. Not dead or alive but trapped inside this monstrous hive mind forever...well until someone kills a Reaper. But basically the organics are still killed to do this. You are killing the person and the civilization by turning them into goo to suck up its consciousness to make a new Reaper.

http://social.biowar...ndex/12437669/4

So basically to save organics from a fate of being just killed by synthetics, which I would assume the synthetics would basically just kill them. Baby Reaper instead chooses to melt organics down, kill them, suck up their being into a Reaper trapping them there forever so they have to kill and destroy civilizations for eternity.  

This again does not make sense, how is allowing organics to die naturally worse than trapping them in a monster mind forever and forcing them to kill their organic civilizations cycle after cycle? That's gotta be a fate worse than death, than basically just dying.

Another point, if a Reaper is destroyed that's freeing millions and billions of tortured organic souls or if you don't believe in a soul their consciousness. So again why are we not doing everything we can to kill every Reaper possible? 

Just another thing that makes me see how the Reaper threat is a billion times worse than some AI possibly destroying us all. At least there is a fighting chance against the synthetics and if organics die then at least we won't be trapped ghosts in the machine committing genocide forever. I'l thake my chances against the Geth & the Citadel ponzi sceme Robot rather than what the Reapers do anyday.

OK, I am not sure if I was the only one who got it wrong at this point. But I thought that if you kill a person, using whatever advanced technology, you LOOSE whatever consciousness that person possessed. I thought that ME2 estabilished that the collectors (on behalf of reapers i guess) liquified captured humans and used their DNA. This made at least some sense and I did not argue the logic in that.
When the StarForgeGizmoChild in ME3 started talking about preserving species and their colllective consciousness I went: "WTF!!!!... All of the people are dead, there is no preserving in that" They might have said that the reapers want to preserve the DNA and store it for some random purpose, thus saving some grace in continuing the reasons from ME2.
SO if you see only phylosofical problems in the reapers reasons (killed by synthetics x harvested by reapers), I say you dont see all the stupidity of the situation.

[BAMFIGMS]

I also agree. Once you quantify the reapers. Once you spell out their intentions, their reasoning. They cease to be anything interesting. I loved the reapers as an unknowable threat. But to be honest this line of thought, for me, has nothing to do with the ending and my like or dislike for it.
I think that the original dark matter ending would have been better overall, but even worse for the true nature of the reapers. In the dark matter ending the reapers are not really reapers... just severely slow and hilariously unorthodox in their methods scientists.

The reapers should just.... reap.
No saving organics from themselves in a way that can be summed up in a "yo dawg" meme.
No saving everything from expanding dark matter.
Just a foreign, unknowable, incomprehensible enemy.
The reapers are death. Not life or any way to preserve life.

[Mercedes595]

BAMFIGMS wrote...

I also agree. Once you quantify the reapers. Once you spell out their intentions, their reasoning. They cease to be anything interesting. I loved the reapers as an unknowable threat. But to be honest this line of thought, for me, has nothing to do with the ending and my like or dislike for it.
I think that the original dark matter ending would have been better overall, but even worse for the true nature of the reapers. In the dark matter ending the reapers are not really reapers... just severely slow and hilariously unorthodox in their methods scientists.

The reapers should just.... reap.
No saving organics from themselves in a way that can be summed up in a "yo dawg" meme.
No saving everything from expanding dark matter.
Just a foreign, unknowable, incomprehensible enemy.
The reapers are death. Not life or any way to preserve life.

Quite so. I am not familiar with the dark energy ending (though it sounds a lot better then what we currently have), but I would have been satisfied if they gave no reasons for the reapers existing or doing anything, or even if we were told the reapers want slaves to work for them .... some generic cliche would be at least acceptable.

[Holger1405]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

Holger1405 wrote...

The game itself didn't gave the Player another choice as to accept the three options the Catalyst presented and the outcome clearly shows that the catalyst didn't lie to us regarding the choices. 

You can't use an effect that only happens after a choice is made as evidence of what choice to make.  Standing before the three choices WITHOUT the foreknowledge of what actually happens in the endings is what you must make your decision on.  To require prescience on the part of the player to inform the actions of a character in a ROLE PLAYING game breaks the basic game mechanics wherein the player puts aside his own existence and enters into a joint personality with the character.

I agree. Simply pointed out that the Catalyst did in fact not lie regarding the three choices.

And here is the reason why imho it didn't require prescience to trust the Catalyst words.

Holger1405 wrote...



If Shepard simply walk up to
the Catalyst you would be right with no doubt. I stated before that
Shepard had to trust unreliable sources before but I admit that this
explanation isn't good enough, not when everything is at stake.

However, just before you met the Catalyst, there is a little sequence:

Shepard is sitting next to Anderson as he lost consciousness/dies. Then you see
that Shepard is badly bleeding, Hackett radio her/him, then Shepard is
trying to reach the consol, collapse, and lose consciousness.

Thus, Shepard is down, she/he has no chance to achieve anything.

And then the Catalyst brings her/him up to his level. Why should the
Catalyst do that?  Why did he not let Shepard bleeding to dead? Go on
with his cycle happily?  

However, this thing is still the enemy
(Today I consider him more a ambivalent character than pure evil, but
that was different back then.)

Then the Catalyst stated one thing: "The Crucible changed my, created new possibilities."

And now we are on the cross-way.

Can I belief that? Can Shepard belief that? Because if the Catalyst speaks
the truth, it means that this new "possibilities" didn't come from him, they come from the Crucible and that the three end choices are not bound to Catalyst logic or his goals.   

And my answer is yes, I can belief this, I can give him the benefit of the doubt, because it would make no sense at all for the Catalyst to bring Shepard up if he hadn't changed. 

I still would love to kick Catalyst a**, but the goal of my Shepard
wasn't that, she wanted to stop the Reapers, save her friends, humanity
and the other organic races. Now she has the opportunity to do that.  

Remember, I still think that the end was bad executed, there are plot holes, and
logic gaps the outcome of every choice should be made much more clear
and the Catalyst should be explained better. However, it is possible
that Shepard beliefs what the catalyst says without "meta-gaming" or a
"god's point of view."   

Modifié par Holger1405, 06 juin 2012 - 01:04 .

[3DandBeyond]

Archonsg wrote...

Post Deleted.

Never mind me, just ranting.
ME3 on a Wii U, this just felt to me that EA/Bioware doesn't really care about the current ME3 product and instead of using dev time and money on fixing a product that has already bad press, goes on  ahead with developing for a handheld platform. 

<_<

Whatever.

Agreed.  Just like initiating Q and A with fans for DA3.

[3DandBeyond]

Mercedes595 wrote...

OK, I am not sure if I was the only one who got it wrong at this point. But I thought that if you kill a person, using whatever advanced technology, you LOOSE whatever consciousness that person possessed. I thought that ME2 estabilished that the collectors (on behalf of reapers i guess) liquified captured humans and used their DNA. This made at least some sense and I did not argue the logic in that.
When the StarForgeGizmoChild in ME3 started talking about preserving species and their colllective consciousness I went: "WTF!!!!... All of the people are dead, there is no preserving in that" They might have said that the reapers want to preserve the DNA and store it for some random purpose, thus saving some grace in continuing the reasons from ME2.
SO if you see only phylosofical problems in the reapers reasons (killed by synthetics x harvested by reapers), I say you dont see all the stupidity of the situation.

I have always seen harvested people as dead people.  I do think if you render them down into paste or turn, say, humans into husks, then they are pretty much gone, dead, not people anymore.  In the collector base when Shepard rescues his/her crewmembers and finds some in pods, some actually die then and there, and more die if Shepard is slow to get there.  And their deaths look kind of similar to what Shepard has happen after choosing Control or Synthesis.

I think what some are trying to do is to see what the stupid kid is saying about ascending.  Personally, I think he's lying and people are being turned into a form of nutrition-whether to create a new reaper or to sustain the current ones. 

But the points of that post I agree with is the reapers are the big bad guys in the room.  The kid wants Shepard to believe s/he should worry about some possible (or in his opinion) inevitable threat from some synthetic beings that may be created by someone at some point in the future. 

And because of this really well-established threat that may sorta possibly happen, people must get into the goo vats.  Shepard would have to be incredibly stupid to think some intangible possible maybe might be sometime threat is more of a threat than some very tangible, actually dangerous and murderous threat that is killing people now.  And, that the big bad nasties that are killing now are somehow thought of by some powerful (not smart) being to be saving people.  This is what the kid expects Shepard to believe.  This is why the kid is lying, stupid, evil, and/or crazy.

I know you know this, but some people appearently believe that a being that things any of that makes sense is credible.

I think what most of us are saying is that once confronted with this stuff, we all had that WTF moment.  I sat there for a long time, wondering what was going on.  I thought at some point the kid would reveal himself.  I tried to shoot him (but I knew I couldn't because I had Shepard try shooting Anderson and nothing happened until TIM forced Shepard to shoot Anderson-the bullets didn't work).

[Archonsg]

@Holger1405
I see your point.
It does give that little leeway for someone to give the Catalyst the benefit of the doubt.
Now don't get me wrong, that whole sequence from the time you get plucked up on that platform to the end is more bizarre then what came before, and if you see it from my perspective from a "sustainable" resource point of view you would see why the catalyst did what it did.

It might be simply that the Catalyst wants to preserve its own true reaper units, actual reapers which needs a lot of biomass material it seems to recreate one and this time round because of the united galaxy's effort the reapers are for the first time given a real fight, and real looses of its own units as opposed to thralls such as Cannibals, Husks and such.

Hence it brings the one person alive at the time up to see if it can find a way to tilt the battle its way.

Now, I will admit that this is as much a stretch to believe as much as the Catalyst reason of being, but that's the point.

The Catalyst should not have even existed.
Take it out, and EVERY TIME someone did so, (any search of youtube can attest to this) the end result is a much more powerful, much more a true "sacrifice" ending from Shepard's part then if the Catalyst is present and in existence. And it actually makes sense. Minus the Joker running off with your LI thing of course.


ps: I still think that the starbrat is a murdering psychopathic AI and not to be trusted.

pps: Why didn's Shepard go "wait ...we have a way to take control of the Reapers? EDI! GETH! You getting this? TIME for you guys to do a mother of all hack jobs!"

Modifié par Archonsg, 06 juin 2012 - 12:08 .

[3DandBeyond]

Mercedes595 wrote...

BAMFIGMS wrote...

I also agree. Once you quantify the reapers. Once you spell out their intentions, their reasoning. They cease to be anything interesting. I loved the reapers as an unknowable threat. But to be honest this line of thought, for me, has nothing to do with the ending and my like or dislike for it.
I think that the original dark matter ending would have been better overall, but even worse for the true nature of the reapers. In the dark matter ending the reapers are not really reapers... just severely slow and hilariously unorthodox in their methods scientists.

The reapers should just.... reap.
No saving organics from themselves in a way that can be summed up in a "yo dawg" meme.
No saving everything from expanding dark matter.
Just a foreign, unknowable, incomprehensible enemy.
The reapers are death. Not life or any way to preserve life.

Quite so. I am not familiar with the dark energy ending (though it sounds a lot better then what we currently have), but I would have been satisfied if they gave no reasons for the reapers existing or doing anything, or even if we were told the reapers want slaves to work for them .... some generic cliche would be at least acceptable.

The dark energy ending was one they had originally intended but had problems with.

In fact, there was also supposed to be a dark energy component to the
Crucible-it was to be a dark energy weapon.  The reapers were supposed
to be fighting against and afraid of dark energy.  And, Tali and Shepard
meet again in ME2 on Haestrom, part of the dark energy story is told,
but it's just likely something that they chose not to delete after
abandoning the dark energy ending in favor of star boy.

They also originally explored an indoctrination ending, but said they had problems with it. 


I would have preferred if they had stuck with the stuff Sovereign said-they were unknowable, nations unto themselves, perfection, all that other creepy mysterious stuff of nightmares.

The kid cheapens them, doesn't really explain them except to say they are his reaper dogs on leashes. 

[Holger1405]

 

Redbelle wrote...



Unfortunately, given the short amount of time we spend with the Cat, it's hard to break it down as a character. However I've noticed that when answering Sheps questions, it'll answer part of the question and leave out anything that doesn't paint it's motivations as 'good'.

Yes I agree.

Redbelle wrote...
I posted previously that the Cat is not so much a lier as an egotist. This is due to the fact that only it seems to believe that it has the answers to solve galactic conumdrums, or at least the one of synth vs org's. Shep's lack of exemplary Shepardness only exasabates this matter as he doesn't argue any of the points this thread has brought up that point out the only reason the galaxy is having problems in the present cycle is that the Reapers have influenced it so that it falls within their narrow mindset of what each cycle should be like. The Cat has nothing to say about this, no explanation or apology and states that it created the Reapers. Therefore the Cat must consider these events of using Synth's to further the Reaper goals as acceptable or just doesn't care. So he's out to save us but considers the use of the machines it wants to never have existed to kill in the name of the Reapers to be an acceptable trade off? Ok, more foot soldiers would speed up the process I guess. But hang on, dispite it's assertion that synth's are bad and Org's are good, since the whole system it created is made to prevent syth's from threatening Org's.......... and the only way to assure that for the next cycle 50,000yrs from now is to kill off all the Geth once the harvesting is completed.........

The system is created to prevent that synthetics completely extinguish ALL Organic live.

The Catalyst never asserted that synthetics are bad and organics are good, Imho the Catalyst, (or the maker of the Catalyst) didn't care about synthetics attacking organics, (or anything else inside a cycle) as long as this synthetics are not a threat for the overall existence of organic life.

The timing of the cycle is critical here. The catalyst must know (or at least guess really well.) that on this point (every 50000 years) the advanced organic races, in their current level of development, are not capable to create synthetic life that could become a danger for all organic life, or at least, that the already created synthetics are not advanced enough to become such.  
 
Thus, to use the Geth as tools against the advanced Organic races who, according to the catalyst beliefs, must be eradicated anyway, did not contradict the Catalyst logic. But you are right, the Reapers must annihilate the Geth too, as they annihilated the remaining synthetics in Javik's cycle as well.  

Redbelle wrote...
Doesn't the Cat kinda have double standards? It seems not to operate from what we would consider principal or a defined morality. It does what it wants and it wants to harvest........again, it wants to achieve a goal and has shown no remorse for the events that have occured to achieve that goal. It comes down to what I said before. It thinks it can do no wrong. That whatever it decides to do at any point is right and if someone like Shep argues then Shep is, by default wrong, on the grounds that it is not the Cat.

The Cat therefore has all the markings of a dictator. He's just been hiding under everyones noses for the last 50,000yrs and not letting anyone know he holds the existence of all species in his hands.

The alternative is that the Cat has a 1st cycle mentality that is completely alien. And over the past 3 games we've gottengood at understanding alien. But this is Reaper alien. It doesn't want discourse or to trade concepts or explain culture................ It wants what it wants and everything else is utterly pointless unless it's helping to get what it wants.......... Maybe the child imagery isn't so far off?

Imho we don't have enough information about the catalyst to make assumptions about his moral, principles or absence of such.
I would really like Bioware to pick up this questions in another ME game.  

[BlueStorm83]

---  Okay, Holger, I think I get what you're saying. From what I can surmise you're saying that, in the current universe where we have no option other than to trust the catalyst, you can at least reason that the options, uncolored by assumption and in the light of having NO option to deny them, can be rationalized and, after they play out, accepted to have done what they before claimed to be.

---  I myself chose Controll, reluctantly, witha  bad taste in my mouth, because even though I assumed it would fail, I felt like it was at least the opportunity where I violate the least free, sentient beings.

---  That said, if we HAD the option to just kill the Catalyst because he's basically the heart of the enemy, we would all have just killed him.

Modifié par BlueStorm83, 06 juin 2012 - 01:06 .

[LiarasShield]

LiarasShield wrote...

Shepard during the suicide mission and shepard confrontation of the hologram of harbinger on arrival

Harbinger: you're only delaying thee inevitable shepard we will find another way and you will be destroyed

Shepard: maybe you're right maybe we can't win but we won't give up we may even lose half the galaxy but we will fight and we will sacrifce and we will find a way because that is what humans do.

Shepard: The reapers have never had to stand and fight on the ground they have used run and hit tactics but now we will bring the fight to them. In the next few minutes we either win it all or we lose it all now let get to it!


And for the final cup on the cherry my favorite ost from me2

I don't believe in submission I don't believe into giving my life over to the being who has created the monsters destroying my world and destroying most of the galaxy for thousands of years I don't believe being forced into the decisions that said being wants to see and said being is using his forces to still kill mine why we are having this conversation

I want shepard and myself to stay true to her principles that we fight the reapers to the end to let the alliance give their 110% let them fight to the last tooth and nail against the reapers wether we win  it all or we lose it all at least it would be a honorable death that means something

Shepard wouldn't destroy entire races on a assumption that is why she cured the genopage and saved the quarians and the geth so she wouldn't pick destroy because it ends up destroying the very races she fought to save

shepard wouldn't pick synthesis because she believes in individuality she wouldn't want to force everyone to be half machine or half organic against their will she believes in freedom and making your own choices in this world

Shepard wouldn't pick control because she has seen what it has done to the illusive man and saren that it has only ended up destroying who they are and making them think they're incontrol when they're not


Wether the catalyst is lieing or not is irrelvent no decent being on our planet or galaxy for that matter would even negotiate with this being for the simple fact

THAT HIS FORCES HAVE BEEN DESTROYING OUR WORLDS AND HARVESTING OUR LIVES AND USING
THEIR VERY REAPER CODE TO CONTROL THE GETH TO KILL US INSTEAD OF SUPPOSEDLY SAVING US FROm
SYNTHETICS

[3DandBeyond]

Holger1405 wrote...

If Shepard simply walk up to
the Catalyst you would be right with no doubt. I stated before that
Shepard had to trust unreliable sources before but I admit that this
explanation isn't good enough, not when everything is at stake.

However, just before you met the Catalyst, there is a little sequence:

Shepard is sitting next to Anderson as he lost consciousness/dies. Then you see
that Shepard is badly bleeding, Hackett radio her/him, then Shepard is
trying to reach the consol, collapse, and lose consciousness.

Thus, Shepard is down, she/he has no chance to achieve anything.

And then the Catalyst brings her/him up to his level. Why should the
Catalyst do that?  Why did he not let Shepard bleeding to dead? Go on
with his cycle happily?  

However, this thing is still the enemy
(Today I consider him more a ambivalent character than pure evil, but
that was different back then.)

Then the Catalyst stated one thing: "The Crucible changed my, created new possibilities."

And now we are on the cross-way.

Can I belief that? Can Shepard belief that? Because if the Catalyst speaks
the truth, it means that this new "possibilities" didn't come from him, they come from the Crucible and that the three end choices are not bound to Catalyst logic or his goals.   

And my answer is yes, I can belief this, I can give him the benefit of the doubt, because it would make no sense at all for the Catalyst to bring Shepard up if he hadn't changed. 

You are giving the star kid the benefit of the doubt based upon a moving platform and based upon the fact the kid didn't kill Shepard?  First off, you don't know the kid moved the platform-it could automatically rise up if someone steps on it.  Second, you don't know that the kid who at the moment Shepard meets him, has no apparent corporeal form, can even touch Shepard.  You don't know whether he can do anything except control reapers and turn people into goo by controlling reapers and husks and so on.  The kid clearly says he needs Shepard to make a choice, to enact his new solution.  That means the kid needs Shepard, so even if he wanted to he wouldn't kill Shepard.  He says the choices are his new solution.  And yes, he says the crucible changed him.  Well, you don't know that is true either. 

The reapers have always seen Shepard as something special for some reason-as a foe or as some needed consciousness, who knows?  They wanted Shepard's body after Shepard had died?  Ever ask yourself why-maybe to create the 3 options?  Yes, that is conjecture, but what other reason is there that Shepard is needed for?  There is no other thing the reapers have ever said they needed him/her for, other than what the kid says on the Citadel/Crucible.  And they sought the body, so maybe they wanted to make the change happen. And since every other cycle of people had always tried to make the Crucible, they may have rightly figured this cycle would too.  They may even have needed people to make the Crucible, since they only seem lately to be good at making reapers and haven't actually made anything much since making the Citadel and the relays.  Maybe what changed once Shepard got there was that they needed Shepard to be alive and making one of the choices and not just a dead body they could throw into the synthesis beam.

In fact, reaper tech is the basis for all tech, including Prothean and current, in the galaxy.  You don't know where the Crucible plans came from and they could have been one other thing planted by the reapers eons ago, just as they planted all the other tech.  The fact that the reapers never attack the Crucible makes it seem non-threatening to them.

Harbinger said the reapers would find another way.  The kid says they have a new solution.

If the kid looked all nasty and cankerous or if he looked like Harbinger would you still give him the benefit of the doubt?  And in my world, benefit of the doubt is reserved for people who appear apologetic or who made a mistake.  Not for people who are still killing other people, that have killed trillions, and that are actually confrontational at points.

Shepard says to the kid people would like to keep their current form and the kid whips around and looks rather angry and says they can't.  So, you give the benefit of the doubt to this "kid" who still thinks people should be turned into goo and will continue doing it if Shepard just falls over dead on the spot.  And, when Shepard does get to the top, the kid orders him/her to wake up. 

He isn't deserving of the benefit of the doubt and you still have no outside evidence which would make Shepard want to give him that benefit. 

Shepard has 2 and maybe 3 things to go on in order to believe the kid:
The kid's word
The platform
The kid doesn't attack Shepard

Alternately, the god player has proof of what the kid says, but that is after the fact.  The game messes up because in order to have any real evidence that what the kid says the choices will do, the god player must finish the game.  Otherwise, it's just a bunch of stuff the kid says will happen.


Neither is proof that anything he says or wants Shepard to do is true.  The kid's word is meaningless.  The platform could be set to automatically rise up if someone gets on it.  The kid says he needs Shepard, so why would he hurt Shepard?  He certainly doesn't try to help Shepard and since he was controlling TIM, he certainly was trying to get TIM to hurt Shepard.  So, there's more evidence that the kid didn't have anything to do with Shepard getting to the top-he was trying to stop him. 

Shepard has many overwhelming reasons not to believe the kid:

The kid has come to Shepard in the most innocuous form he could find. 
The kid controls reaper killing machines and may be able to shut them off, but doesn't.  He is evil from where Shepard and any advanced organic being is standing.  If you concede the reapers are evil in the minds of people, then the kid is, too.
The kid uses illogical logic and says killing is saving.  He's crazy.
The kid is still killing people, yet he says they are being harvested and ascended.  Well, a lot of that looks very much like dying.  If he believes that harvesting and making people goo is not killing people, then again, he's crazy.  Or, he's lying.
Harbinger and the kid make very similar statements.
The kid says things A Shepard would know are not true.
The kid thinks a future possible threat is more important than a current tangible one.  Future synthetics v. reapers.
The kid doesn't really see value in organic life since he thinks being turned into goo is some type of honor.
The kid tried to have TIM kill Anderson and Shepard.
The kid tried to have Harbinger kill Shepard. 
He controls the reapers, the reapers are his solution.  Therefore, the reapers are his creation.  He has created people killers in order to bring order from chaos which means people must die in order to be saved and reapers must kill people so they won't be killed by future AIs.  Again, the kid is crazy.  But, go ahead and give a crazy, evil, lying thing that is certainly not a kid, the benefit of the doubt.  He wants to kill Shepard.  And guess what?  Unless you play MP, he does.

And again the game clearly stated in places before that the things that happen next will truly mess up the galaxy.

Holger1405 wrote...

 Imho we don't have enough information about the catalyst to make assumptions about his moral, principles or absence of such.
I would really like Bioware to pick up this questions in another ME game.  

We don't?  All we don't know is if the kid really thinks he is doing good.  I don't care what he thinks.  I care what he is doing.

Ever heard of Jonestown?  Jones thought at first he was doing good and he seemed to go crazy and become paranoid and so he killed or forced the suicides of over 900 people.  He may still have thought he was saving them-he said things indicating this, that they were being saved by dying.

I'm sorry.  So now his motives matter.  900 men, women, and children died for his motives.  Should those that didn't want to drink the koolaid, but were forced to drink it have given him the benefit of the doubt?

You can make the case that Shepard has no choice but to make a choice, but that is exactly what most of us have been saying is the problem.  Shepard under player control shouldn't have to make a choice that no rational person would make-at least not without questioning the choices and the aftermath.  Shepard drinks the poisoned koolaid and Shepard can't say, "what if I don't make a choice?"  Shepard isn't forced to make a choice-no one says, "get moving, make a choice."  In fact, if Shepard never moves, the kid doesn't ever say anything.  No reaper runs into the room and threatens Shepard.  The game just fails eventually. 

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 06 juin 2012 - 01:26 .

[LiarasShield]

How can you even support this being this being has caused the destruction of pretty much your world and everyone elses for that matter do you not care that most of earth is in ruins other then london how can you easily brush that off or the other races who have fought by your side to hopefully have a future


It is beyond understanding it is beyond me trying to pick at some of your minds to think that this is alright

Modifié par LiarasShield, 06 juin 2012 - 01:22 .