23455 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

sdinc009 wrote...


Where was the Catalyst ever alluded to earlier in the series and please cite the references if you're going to make this claim. It was not Shepard's will at the end that was present in the final scene it was the Catalyst's. Who was it that came up with the choices, not Shepard, the Catalyst. Having the protagonist of a story asserting their own will is in no way a Marvel-like anything. This is what happens in every story. The protgonist is set on a path a must persevere through trials and tribulations and throughout their adventure it is their will that get's them to the end of the story. Over the course of the series Shepard has made it out of some sticky situations and done the impossible countless times and he did this with shear guts and determination. Ending the story utilizing the same defining characteristic Shepard exemplifies throughout the narrative is poyent and satifying. Will is not some supernatural special power and is in no way magical. It's only the cumulation of psycological factors, like motivation, drive, determination, perseverence, etc. The Reaper cycle was not the raison d'être of the story it was only what the Reapers were trying to accomplish. It is this action that pushes against the motivations of the protgaopnist to create dramatic conflict. The story is about Shepard and your crew, they are the focus of the story, not some glow douceh that IS dropped in at the very lst scene.

I'd further add that disrupting the reaper's cycle was not the issue-destroying all reapers was.  Shepard didn't run around shouting, "Hey everybody we need to stop the reaper's cycle."  Shepard specifically said, "we need to stop the reapers."  The cycle was only discovered through things people found had happened before-Liara discovering that there's a constant cycle of extinction and so on.  That it is tied to the reapers only emphasizes their power and what's at stake.

Also, just stopping a cycle achieves nothing.  Time doesn't matter to the reapers.  They go off and sleep beyond the edge of the galaxy and return to start up again.  Stopping the cycle might destroy some of them, but the kid apparently created them, so he could do so again.

I don't think Shepard could care less about their cycle-s/he just wants them dead, not gone, dead.

Will is also something bolstered by physical processes and hormones and within Shepard augmented by internal tech.  Will can also prompt physical processes to take over and exceed the ability of the person, even when severely hurt.  There have been many cases of people losing inordinate amounts of blood, near death even, that cut off their own leg and drag themselves a mile or more to get help.  I could list several similar things that "ordinary" people have done and we are shown time and again that Shepard is anything but ordinary.

Shepard is also a unique military person and sometimes under great duress, training must take over-that's what all that training is for.  Look at what men did on D-day.  Imagine the will it takes to do exactly what everything within you is telling you not to do.  Running forward into sure suicide when a human body would be pulling you into the opposite direction.  Adrenaline and the brain would be saying, "run the other way," but these people had to overcome that and through sheer force of will, move headlong into terror.

It's the same thing a firefighter faces when going into a burning building.  It's their will propelling them into danger when other human beings are running the other way.  The human body and mind are meant to move a person out of danger, but many people have the ability to overcome this and they are heroes. 

This is what will is.  Everyone has it, but many are not good at using it.  In a story with a very human, but also very strong always prevails, hero, certain conduct is expected or hoped for.  I would never look at Shepard as Captain America or Superman-in fact, Shepard is so not them.  What made Shepard great was that Shepard always seemed just human, no matter how capable Shepard was.  I think that's what people relate to.  Shepard is the everyman (or woman) hero.  Shepard does things we wish we had the mental strength to do and in some ways we think that's possible when you want something enough.  But, we don't see Shepard as somebody running around in red tights, saying, "look at me. I'm superhuman."  That's just not Shepard at all.  And even a Shepard that was able to fight one on one with Harbinger, would never be seen as some Marvel character.  That instead would be Shepard.

[3DandBeyond]

sdinc009 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Strephon Gentry wrote...

You know they have either quit listening or never started to... 900+ pages and not one comment save the initial post.

And yet, they now have been wanting to have a real dialogue with fans over the creation of Dragon Age 3.

Never any real dialogue over this game and its botched patchwork ending.  But, hope dies hard.

They want a real dialogue over Dragon Age 3, ok. How about they fix this travesty of an ending and THEN we can talk about DA 3.

I agree.  My opinion was that having the Q and A over DA3 was about marketing.  Having Q and A over ME3 was about Customer Service.  They've never really done the second one, which makes the first one meaningless and insulting.

[sdinc009]

saintjimmy43 wrote...

People LOVE saying Deus Ex Machina, don't they?
DEUS EX MACHINA is just fun to say. deus ex machina deus ex machina.

The Crucible, the thing you spend the entire game trying to create, is not a deus ex machina.

Here's my perfect ending:

Shepard picks the Destroy ending, effectively shaking the Reapers from his mind. He wakes up in the rubble just outside the beam.
Joker crashes the Normandy into Harbinger, buying Shepard time to get into the Citadel.
Cut straight to activation of crucible.
Several shots of soldiers of many different species looking up in wonder as the war ends. Some of Shepard's crewmates mouth the word "Shepard."
Cut to an Alliance-looking HQ, several months later. A kid plays with a model ship, jumping onto a statue of Shepard.

The guy who narrates Fallout says "War never changes"
End

You're right the Crucible is not a Deus Ex Machina, it is what is refered to in literature as a Macguffin.

Definition of MACGUFFIN



: an object, event, or character in a film or story that serves to set and keep the plot in motion despite usually lacking intrinsic importance

The Catalyst is the Deus Ex Machina. Instead of posting the length of the Literary article that covers this which I have already done multiple times here is the link if you would like to

http://www.pfspublis...ex-machina.html

[sdinc009]

3DandBeyond wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...


Where was the Catalyst ever alluded to earlier in the series and please cite the references if you're going to make this claim. It was not Shepard's will at the end that was present in the final scene it was the Catalyst's. Who was it that came up with the choices, not Shepard, the Catalyst. Having the protagonist of a story asserting their own will is in no way a Marvel-like anything. This is what happens in every story. The protgonist is set on a path a must persevere through trials and tribulations and throughout their adventure it is their will that get's them to the end of the story. Over the course of the series Shepard has made it out of some sticky situations and done the impossible countless times and he did this with shear guts and determination. Ending the story utilizing the same defining characteristic Shepard exemplifies throughout the narrative is poyent and satifying. Will is not some supernatural special power and is in no way magical. It's only the cumulation of psycological factors, like motivation, drive, determination, perseverence, etc. The Reaper cycle was not the raison d'être of the story it was only what the Reapers were trying to accomplish. It is this action that pushes against the motivations of the protgaopnist to create dramatic conflict. The story is about Shepard and your crew, they are the focus of the story, not some glow douceh that IS dropped in at the very lst scene.

I'd further add that disrupting the reaper's cycle was not the issue-destroying all reapers was.  Shepard didn't run around shouting, "Hey everybody we need to stop the reaper's cycle."  Shepard specifically said, "we need to stop the reapers."  The cycle was only discovered through things people found had happened before-Liara discovering that there's a constant cycle of extinction and so on.  That it is tied to the reapers only emphasizes their power and what's at stake.

Also, just stopping a cycle achieves nothing.  Time doesn't matter to the reapers.  They go off and sleep beyond the edge of the galaxy and return to start up again.  Stopping the cycle might destroy some of them, but the kid apparently created them, so he could do so again.

I don't think Shepard could care less about their cycle-s/he just wants them dead, not gone, dead.

Will is also something bolstered by physical processes and hormones and within Shepard augmented by internal tech.  Will can also prompt physical processes to take over and exceed the ability of the person, even when severely hurt.  There have been many cases of people losing inordinate amounts of blood, near death even, that cut off their own leg and drag themselves a mile or more to get help.  I could list several similar things that "ordinary" people have done and we are shown time and again that Shepard is anything but ordinary.

Shepard is also a unique military person and sometimes under great duress, training must take over-that's what all that training is for.  Look at what men did on D-day.  Imagine the will it takes to do exactly what everything within you is telling you not to do.  Running forward into sure suicide when a human body would be pulling you into the opposite direction.  Adrenaline and the brain would be saying, "run the other way," but these people had to overcome that and through sheer force of will, move headlong into terror.

It's the same thing a firefighter faces when going into a burning building.  It's their will propelling them into danger when other human beings are running the other way.  The human body and mind are meant to move a person out of danger, but many people have the ability to overcome this and they are heroes. 

This is what will is.  Everyone has it, but many are not good at using it.  In a story with a very human, but also very strong always prevails, hero, certain conduct is expected or hoped for.  I would never look at Shepard as Captain America or Superman-in fact, Shepard is so not them.  What made Shepard great was that Shepard always seemed just human, no matter how capable Shepard was.  I think that's what people relate to.  Shepard is the everyman (or woman) hero.  Shepard does things we wish we had the mental strength to do and in some ways we think that's possible when you want something enough.  But, we don't see Shepard as somebody running around in red tights, saying, "look at me. I'm superhuman."  That's just not Shepard at all.  And even a Shepard that was able to fight one on one with Harbinger, would never be seen as some Marvel character.  That instead would be Shepard.

127 hours!! Guy survived pinned against a rock, cuts off his own arm, and then finds help bleeding and massively dehydrated in the desert. And he's a real live dude not Stan Lee fiction.

[LiarasShield]

well I guess we can only hope for thee extended sighs

[akenn312]

I don't think they need IT or have to take out the Crucible or the Catalyst to fix the problem. Their stories shouldn't require the fans to resort to making up things to get the Mass Effect series to make sense. They should just put in the work themselves. When they make a retcon or a major change that gets away from the codex, just put in extra effort to explain why this change happened. Or if it looks forced and is still not making sense to what you said in the previous game then don't put it in at all.

All they have to do is just write a logical reason for things to happen and stop just changing things out of the blue to fit the new concept, then falling back on that's what the story says now as the defense for it.

The writers should not be creating things like Mass Effect Relay destruction in one game then changing how it works in another and not give a good explanation as to why this change now works.

Take heat sinks for example, Shepard has been dead for two years in Mass Effect 2 he was not around for any training or tutorial on why guns changed or work the way they do or anything else for that matter. So why is he not freaking out to Miranda about how does this gun work and why doesn't it have a license or mods? Then go into the fetal position realizing he's just woken up from a horrible suffocating death? Just put in a line for Miranda or the Illusive Man about how they implanted Shep with knowledge of all the changes in the galaxy when he's been out so he won't go mental. But Bioware always just assumes as usual we will just accept the new direction without any explanation. Sometimes they are right with some stuff but the end should have been meticulously explained and connected so the story could be finally resolved.

I know that ME 2 example can be seen as minor but this is exactly why in the end we are all scratching our heads. Or why people are needing IT to work for them.

They basically at the end changed everything again they set up previously in Mass effect 2, and then fell back on a assumption we would just accept the new character plots and science changes. I can see why I and many others are frustrated. The story keeps jumping from one lilly pad to another.

I just want to play a Bioware game now where I don't have to keep throwing out previous codex entries, forget all the previous facts, character motivation, science or plots to make this new game make sense. It's a distraction from enjoying the game.

Modifié par akenn312, 07 juin 2012 - 03:50 .

[BlueStorm83]

--- I just saw exclusive leaked footage of the Extended Cut. If has Shepard breathe THREE TIMES, and then is a conversation between Hackett and Primarch Victus, talking about how artistically their lives were saved. Depending on the ending you picked, they are wearing red, blue, or green uniforms. And if your EMS was high enough, there's a "Happy Over 5000 EMS!" Banner hanging in the background.

And then there's a scene of Buzz Aldrin beating up your mother.

[Holger1405]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

MSandt wrote...

Okay, let's do it this way: what reasons to lie does the Catalyst have? When you answer, rely on information supplied by the scene/game and not fanfic.

Reasons the Catalyst has to lie, as supplied by the scene and the game:

He says his solution will no longer work. Outside the citadel, visible to Shepard where he is standing, the Catalyst is still carrying out his solution.

This wouldn't be a reason for the Catalyst to lie, it would be proof that the Catalyst did lie. But let us be reasonable here. It is in fact only a logical gape, and although I think the DLC should bring an explanation why the Catalyst can't stop the Reapers himself, (I can think of a few explanations, but that would mean to conjecture, and I leave that to the People here who hate the endings so much that they actually made-up stuff to justifying their hate.)  it wouldn't make much sense, from a storytelling POV, to go on with the ending if the Reapers did stopped already.

BlueStorm83 wrote...
All we have SEEN of the Catalyst's handiwork is people being indoctrinated, killed, or reduced to slurry to be made into a Reaper.

He is capable of building machines that commit Genocide.  For evidence, consider everything told us of the Reapers in all three games, before this very conversation.  Lying is a small thing in comparison.

This is an assumption, based on the fact, that from a organic viewpoint, the actions of the Catalyst are clearly evil. But from his viewpoint, the Catalyst didn't do any evil, in the contrary, he saved all organic life from extinction.  Thus, this is not a reason for the Catalyst to lie.
Btw, we don't know if the Catalyst really did builder the reapers.  

BlueStorm83 wrote...
At the time the elevator brought Shepard upward, Shepard was limping toward a control panel to try and make the Crucible, widely accepted to be a weapon that would kill the Reapers, do something.  The Catalyst admits to creating and controlling the Reapers.  Lying to Shepard MAY stop shepard from destroying his creations.

At the time the elevator brought Shepard upward, she/he was down on the ground, unconscious, bleeding to dead.  

BlueStorm83 wrote...
---  Also a valid point: The Catalyst lies to us in the conversation at least once.  He states that the Created will ALWAYS destroy their creators.  Always means without exception, not merely a majority of the time, not 99.9% of the time.  The Geth did not destroy their creators.  They fought them, they killed many, but then, when genocide was within their power, they instead withdrew beyond the Perseus Veil.  That is game CANON.  The Catalyst, or at the very least the Reapers, know this, having directly interfaced Reaper Code with the data nodes within the Geth Consensus that contained Visual Data of the original Quarrian/Geth conflict.  This is a playable scene within Mass Effect 3.  It is, indeed, necessary to play through to reach the conclusion.

The Catalyst said: "The created will always REBEL against their creators." Completely different thing.
And please do not resort to the "but the Quarians are responsible" answer. Yes the Quarians are responsible. But the Geth didn't lay down and died. They fought back. Yes they had every right to, still they did rebelled against their creators.       

BlueStorm83 wrote...
---  There.  Information within only the game.  And reasons why the Catalyst might be lying to Shepard.  The exact thing you asked for.  Go ahead, call it all fan fiction.  That's all you're here for anyway, isn't it?

See, the endings, as there are now, are flawed, there is imho no doubt about that.
Thus, there is enough reason to criticize them, but to resort to wild speculations, outside in game knowledge, or inaccurate statements (I don't say that you are inaccurate on purpose, but you are inaccurate.) renders any debate pointless, because there is simple no common ground we can debate on.

Anyhow, there is an European soccer championship coming up, and I go to Ukraine tomorrow to watch the first game of my team on Saturday. So I don't have much time in the coming day's anyway.

I also agree to Archonsg, there is no point in trying to convince each other. We did made up our minds about the ending. You have a different point of view on the ending as I have, but I respect your opinion.   

[Redbelle]

sdinc009 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Strephon Gentry wrote...

You know they have either quit listening or never started to... 900+ pages and not one comment save the initial post.

And yet, they now have been wanting to have a real dialogue with fans over the creation of Dragon Age 3.

Never any real dialogue over this game and its botched patchwork ending.  But, hope dies hard.

They want a real dialogue over Dragon Age 3, ok. How about they fix this travesty of an ending and THEN we can talk about DA 3.

Or as I generally prefer to work. Lets resolve the first problem before we do something that may result in another.

[3DandBeyond]

@Holger1405,

Respecting someone's opinion means not calling the use of facts displayed in the game, wild speculation. It's not insisting that people that have repeatedly pointed to things the game shows and then saying all they do is speculate, when that is in fact what you've done. It's admitting mistake (as I did about Saren) and apologizing for it.

You continually state that it is meaningful that the elevator took Shepard up to the Catalyst and that that means the star kid wants to help Shepard. It doesn't. You can't point to one thing that says the Catalyst moved that elevator. Automatic doors exist and so do automatic elevators.

The Catalyst says the reapers are his solution. He unequivocally says he controls them. This doesn't state he made them but it really indicates he did. The game fails in that Shepard can't just ask a question as to why he doesn't just turn them off or send them away. But it's clear the kid doesn't want to do this anyway.

You say that the fact Shepard can see people being killed is proof that the Catalyst did lie. That's what we've been saying all along and what you've been saying is not true or proven. What???! You've continually argued with me on just that point and now you say it's true, but doesn't matter. Please, stick with one idea or admit you've changed your opinion.

And it really is insulting to say that "haters" have continually made stuff up to prove their points. I have not seen any such thing here. In fact, in a continued debate over the mass relays you've used conjecture as "proof" of the wonderful things that could happen in the galaxy after the destruction of the mass relays. The rebuilding, the food sharing, and so on. When the game said it wasn't possible.

We've also said that everything is from Shepard's point of view and that is all that matters. I don't care what the kid thinks or says he's been doing. I've always said the outcome of the game doesn't matter-the outcome is the only way the player (not dead Shepard) knows that any choice does what the kid says it does. You said he lied. He could be lying about everything. And he has reasons to lie. One reason is Shepard and the Alliies assembled could have a chance to win and kill his reapers. He might want to stop that. You also only have the kid's word that he thinks he's saving organic life and means well. He might not. The game has shown the reapers may be harvesting for a completely different reason-nutrition and reproduction. Not food and not to give birth, but to make more reapers. They need organic goo to make new reapers. This indicates the star kid is lying in trying to make Shepard thinks he is trying to do good by saving organic life.

We've continually said what matters is what Shepard sees and knows when he meets the Catalyst. From Shepard's POV, the only thing that matters is the kid is making people paste. So what Shepard sees is evil and nasty, not nice. You can't overcome this. The game can't overcome this. If the kid looked like TIM, the player would know automatically you can't trust him and would not believe what he said. But because he is kid-like he must mean well. Uh, no.

And actually the Catalyst said the created will always rebel but will also destroy all organics. The Geth were not going to do this if left alone. In fact, the reapers brought them out and set them killing again. And I don't see fighting for self-preservation as rebelling necessarily.

You sit there and say people have done exactly what you have. The only speculation some people have done is in connecting using real logic and not the star kid's logic, facts shown in the game. I think you are reasonable, but I don't know where things got off track. You even mostly agree with us and think the ending is poorly done and badly explained. But, you are stuck with some ideas that need way too much outside extrapolation to work and are still defending it. Why? I mean you are free to like it of course. You are welcome to your opinion, but your opinions on points change and you still come to the same conclusions and then tell us we are making stuff up. We aren't and haven't. We make mistakes and admit those. Please, when you get back, do the same.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 07 juin 2012 - 04:03 .

[BlueStorm83]

--- Okay, I just re-watched the Catalyst Conversation. He did say that the created will REBEL against the creators, not necessarily destroy them. Even though the Geth didn't fight back until after Quarrians started killing Quarrians, making their resistance still an act of fealty, I'll concede that point. But that's true of Organics too. What child doesn't rebel against his parents from time to time? And yeah, I am using Organic reasoning to quantify his stance. But so would Shepard.

I'd also like to point out, the kid refers to himself as a Reaper.

He says, "I know you've thought about destroying us. You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want. Including the Geth." Ah, well maybe he's just including him with the Synthetics, not the Reapers specifically.

Then he says "Or do you think you can control us?" Shepard says "So the Illusive Man was right all along." Hold up, Starboy didn't say "Or you can control us." He said "Or do you think you can control us?" He asked a question.

-Oh, cool, Quantum Leap is on!: total tangent.-

Anyway, after Shepard asked if TIM was right, Starboy said "Yes, but he could never have taken control, because we already controlled him." Again, he's including himself in with the Reapers. WE. Not They.

Shepard says, "But I can..."

Reply: "You will die." That's kinda short. "You will control us," -that's good- "but you lose everything you have." What does that mean. What does Shepard have? Friends? The Normandy? Yeah, he has those. He also has his own mind and soul. And free will. Does he lose those too? They ARE things he has.

"But the Reapers will obey me?" Starboy waits a second, says "Yes." I'm not going to assume that the pause was hesitation, I'll say it was just loading the next dialogue track.

--- One other thing I'd like to raise, I don't need to find a reason why the catalyst might lie: I just have to find a reason why Shepard might ASSUME that the Catalyst was lying. Shepard could be dead wrong and leaping to conclusions, but that would be enough for him to at least QUESTION the kid who's blendering entire races.


--- And again, the problem is that BioWare's statements about the ending were false. See the game's advertising, press releases, and statements made by BioWare's staff before the release.

[3DandBeyond]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

--- Okay, I just re-watched the Catalyst Conversation. He did say that the created will REBEL against the creators, not necessarily destroy them. Even though the Geth didn't fight back until after Quarrians started killing Quarrians, making their resistance still an act of fealty, I'll concede that point. But that's true of Organics too. What child doesn't rebel against his parents from time to time? And yeah, I am using Organic reasoning to quantify his stance. But so would Shepard.

He does say that but a bit later he says synthetics would destroy all organics.  However, Shepard spoke out against this to the dying reaper on Rannoch (or Shepard could).  Shepard says that organics and synthetics don't always need to fight.

And even if you see what the Geth did is rebelling, well then it's still nonsense.  Supposedly rebelling geth are bad, but organics must be made into goo.  Ok, but not the organics that made the Geth, because the Quarians cannot be harvested.  And the Geth did not pursue the Quarians, the reapers came (Sovereign) and caused them to attack.

[BlueStorm83]

--- I think that a universe that goes to its own destruction of its own will is better than a universe preserved against its will. That which can not survive on its own does not deserve to survive at all.

Sorry if that offends anyone who can't survive on their own. But Nature wants you in the ground.

[BearlyHere]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

--- I just saw exclusive leaked footage of the Extended Cut. If has Shepard breathe THREE TIMES, and then is a conversation between Hackett and Primarch Victus, talking about how artistically their lives were saved. Depending on the ending you picked, they are wearing red, blue, or green uniforms. And if your EMS was high enough, there's a "Happy Over 5000 EMS!" Banner hanging in the background.

And then there's a scene of Buzz Aldrin beating up your mother.

I love you. That made my day.

[Bat130]

my fav part was there at the end killing the bastereds that killed every thing because they need to end our cycle . Just shooting that giant red tank thinking about over 200+ of game play being ended right in front of my very eyes. This was the first time I just thought to myself are you ****ting me im going to ****ing shot me self WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BearlyHere]

Redbelle wrote...

sdinc009 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Strephon Gentry wrote...

You know they have either quit listening or never started to... 900+ pages and not one comment save the initial post.

And yet, they now have been wanting to have a real dialogue with fans over the creation of Dragon Age 3.

Never any real dialogue over this game and its botched patchwork ending.  But, hope dies hard.

They want a real dialogue over Dragon Age 3, ok. How about they fix this travesty of an ending and THEN we can talk about DA 3.

Or as I generally prefer to work. Lets resolve the first problem before we do something that may result in another.

That video that was posted a few pages back really lays out what the problem is. I wonder how many of the marketing people soliciting opinions have ever played one of the games they're marketing. At one time, the people running a company had been promoted to the top, or had run similar companies and understood not only the product, but also the culture of the company.  

But that's been replaced by a notion that anyone who has run a company could run any other company, and didn't need any understanding of the product being sold, only how to market the product to make as much profit as possible. Of course that also involves cutting production costs too, in anyway they can, and releasing products before they're ready.

[sdinc009]

Literary Analysis Article

https://docs.google....pli=1&sle=true#

[Ender1221]

Hey guys, I may have missed this, but has there been any word as to when the EC is coming? I know it was supposed to come out during the summer, and I know a lot of people were assuming we would hear something at E3. But it is now summer, today is the last day of E3, and there has been no word regarding the EC.

[luci90]

Ender1221 wrote...

Hey guys, I may have missed this, but has there been any word as to when the EC is coming? I know it was supposed to come out during the summer, and I know a lot of people were assuming we would hear something at E3. But it is now summer, today is the last day of E3, and there has been no word regarding the EC.

I would also like to know this.

[3DandBeyond]

karmattack wrote...

When this thread hits 1,000 pages, BioWare should give us all a prize... like, reading it!

No, no, no,  we will magically get a new ending, right?

[cyrslash1974]

Patience. We don't want a DLC rushed. I prefer to have a finalized product - even after summer - rather than a rushed one - rushed like the current ending seems to be.

[3DandBeyond]

Ender1221 wrote...

Hey guys, I may have missed this, but has there been any word as to when the EC is coming? I know it was supposed to come out during the summer, and I know a lot of people were assuming we would hear something at E3. But it is now summer, today is the last day of E3, and there has been no word regarding the EC.

Well summer is not until June 21-the summer solstice.  They said (no promises) summer and that could mean August.  At E3 I believe their big announcement was ME for the new Wii-what is that Wii U or whatever.  I don't know what else, but this has added some fuel to the fire.  We are ever so happy they are working on a new platform before fixing what is currently wrong.  Sure, they are working on it concurrently, but maybe they want to use all that talent to actually work with fans, and so on.

Don't get me wrong-I'd rather they got it right and took a long time doing it, but it would be really nice if they talked with fans.

[3DandBeyond]

karmattack wrote...

Here's the thing: The Catalyst is using the Reapers to save organics from being "inevitably" destroyed by synthetics.

The Reapers are synthetics, and they are destroying organics... to save organics from being destroyed by synthetics.

That is literally all the proof needed to point how how ****ing stupid the ending is, and yet the amount of further proof is bountiful.

The Reapers and The Catalyst use the Citadel and mass relays to influence organics to develop technology along a desired path. Yet we're supposed to buy that no... matter... what, organics would build synthetics that would turn around and destroy their creators? Over and over The Catalyst proves that his "solutions" are only logically based on situations that IT is creating. The Geth were rebelling against their creators? No, they weren't until YOU added YOUR influence.

I HATE this logic. I want to question The Catalyst, debate its answers, and ultimately press a button that destroys it (without killing the Geth I've been working so hard redeem and EDI whose sole narrative purpose was to show me that humanity and empathy was possible in synthetics). Give me a solution that shows humanity can save the galaxy through... HUMANITY.

But the worst thing about this, is The Catalyst's logic is really analogous to Casey Hudson's logic. He is The Catalyst. We play the game along the path that he chooses, with the illusion of freedom and intelligence. Ultimately, he determines our end. I'm sure that, just like The Catalyst, our questioning of this logic is not possible either.

This ^^ should be read and re-read and then explained away by anyone that thinks the ending makes sense.

The star kid and the reapers set about making self-fulfilling prophecy.  Synthetic Geth were not attacking their creators, so make them attack.

Organics can't be relied upon to advance at a certain pace within a 50k cycle, so tech had to be left lying around for organics to use to advance so they were ready to be harvested when the synthetics (the geth of this cycle) that weren't currently rebelling were made to rebel and destroy organics and were made to destroy organics so organics could be harvested to save them from the synthetics that didn't want to kill them.  And the ones the synthetics were fighting with at one time (but had stopped fighting) can't be harvested, anyway.  Please let me know when this makes sense.

CH said there is no canon in the game-no canon love interest or Shepard or decision, and then they went and made one canon ending in different flavors that were not based upon all those non-canon decisions people made.