459 réponses à ce sujet

[CaptainZaysh]

lltoon wrote...

I'm a little disheartened that I spent quite a bit of time explaining why the ending seems to have illogical motives and problems expressing itself philosophically, but was ignored.

I'd have thought that since you enjoyed the ending as 'thought-provoking' you'd eagerly engage my post in some thought-provoking discussion of my points, rather than ignoring me and only replying to posts that are short and easily dismissed by yourself.

Scroll up, buddy!  :-)

[lltoon]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

lltoon wrote...

I'm a little disheartened that I spent quite a bit of time explaining why the ending seems to have illogical motives and problems expressing itself philosophically, but was ignored.

I'd have thought that since you enjoyed the ending as 'thought-provoking' you'd eagerly engage my post in some thought-provoking discussion of my points, rather than ignoring me and only replying to posts that are short and easily dismissed by yourself.

Scroll up, buddy!  :-)

Ah thanks, seems to have gotten lost in the post count. This thread fills up fast. I'll have a look through it.

Modifié par lltoon, 19 mars 2012 - 10:47 .

[Fame-KIllz]

lltoon wrote...

Can I point out my problems with the ending, CaptainZaysh? I want to humor Bioware's writing logic and discuss using the logic they supplied to me.

I don't understand the motives of the Reapers. They claim to be 'harvesting' life forms so that they don't wipe themselves out by creating AI. I don't understand the point of harvesting advanced life forms.
The beings they harvest has none of their culture, technology, or bodily image preserved when they are put into the Reaper shell. So in essence nothing about these species are preserved or even remembered. As far as we know, the 'harvesting' kills you (yes, they basically disintegrate you into a DNA soup) and then pump your remains through tubes.

Now you might say, "but the Reapers are preserving the DNA of organic species.". But to what end is that goal? What is the point of preserving DNA if the Reapers have no intention of recreating or cloning these organic beings in the future? DNA on it's own has no intrinsic value unless they are part of a functioning organic system. Reapers are not organic systems, they are basically floating DNA soup vats that preserves nothing of their species collective consciousness. So ultimately, the logic falls flat and is equivalent to killing endangered Siberian Tigers and putting the carcasses through taxidermy to 'preserve' them, because they were doomed to go extinct anyway.

How do we know Reapers are not of organic intelligence? They are referred to as AI repeatedly throughout the 3 games and they even have AI code that's directly interfacable with Geth binary code. The Reaper AI can even be uploaded to databases.

So once we've established that Reapers are AI constructs, doesn't this contradict the Catalyst's statement that synthetic life will eventually revolt against their creators and destroy all life? I mean, the Catalyst 'created' the Reapers and they have been incredibly reliable in following out the Catalyst's commands to 'preserve all life' as they call it for millions of years. Not to mention that they are prudent enough to leave other intelligent, but technologically primitive life forms alone, even though the Catalyst said that AI will destroy ALL LIFE, with no exceptions.

Another question that pops up is that the Catalyst said that all synthetics are destined to destroy all organics. How did it come to this conclusion? We can only assume that it's only seen this happen once during it's own cycle, but to extrapolate that because something happened once, that it will happen again all the time, is incredibly dumb. It's like rolling a dice and getting a six, then you run around telling everyone that when they roll a dice, they will get a six. It makes no logical sense. We are not given any information about this and we are given no reason to accept it's explanation at face value. It's bad writing.

Another problem is why does the Mass Relay need to be destroyed. It never needed to be and the Catalyst never explains why the relays needed to be destroyed.
Sure, you can say that "now all species can develop the tech along the path of their own choosing" but this line of thinking is fundamentally flawed. With the Reaper threat gone, why is there a need to give up Mass Effect technology? Technology on it's own are not inherently evil, it's how they are used that is evil. The Reapers use Mass Effect technology to 'trick' organics into developing along the path they desired, but with the Reapers defeated, there is no reason why continuing using the mass relay system would be in any way dangerous. They are essentially inert. This is the same case for the Citadel where it's signal was made inert and was continually used despite it being an obvious trap.

Secondly if you really believed that the races should be allowed to self-determination, then why not ask the races like we did the Geth?
Humans, would you like to live without mass effect technology? Turians, would you like to live without mass effect technology?
When you think about this logically, they would certainly say YES, KEEP THE TECHNOLOGY. Mainly because the galactic races place more importance in preserving the galactic infrastructure more than starting all technology from scratch. Even if for some wild reason they reject mass effect tech, they would still want the relays out of the Sol system to work so that they could at least all go back to their home systems. So the need to destroy the mass relays makes no sense and is unecessary.

On a final note, people may say "but the ending is meant for you to use your imagination". Which is also a big problem. I'd like to imagine the fleet all got back to their home systems safely, but the cutscenes show the relays blowing up. I'd like to imagine my crew getting rescued, but that isn't possible because I was shown the relays explosing. I'd like to imagine that the crew was resourceful enough to repair the ship, with EDI being able to provide detailed schematics with the remaining talented crew engineers, but I am shown a Stargazer clip showing their descendants have never been able to re-develop space travel, so that wasn't possible either.

At every turn where I try to use my imagination to customize and comprehend my ending, it gets funneled and limited by the scenes the game shows me. I don't understand the rationale of 'use your imagination, but you can't imagine this and this or this'. What's the point of using your imagination when the game severely limits how broady you are allowed to imagine?

All in all, the ending, the motivation and the philosophical points that were being made were ultimately very shallow. You are never encouraged to challenge your perception of what is right or wrong and are instead told to accept your fate in 3 different colors. It never gives you the freedom to question things like 'how would have things ended differently if I had pointed out flawed logic on the Catalyst's part? What if I rejected it's proposals? What if, I acually agreed with it? What if I was able to bring EDI or some Geth with me and show the advancements our cycle has made?
These are all deep questions, but the ending never entertains you on the subject and just tells you to shut up and go with it. That isn't deep or meaningful, it's some pseudointellectual nonsense pretending to be deep, but refusing to have it's concepts challenged.

I don't think I can list my points out entirely in one post, and I doubt you would ever read it, but for you who tl;dr:
The ending sucked even if you TRY to accept the logic Bioware has given to you for the motives. None of this makes sense and it certainly isn't philosphically deep by any stretch.

Awesome post.

[LastHanyou]

OP is a master troll.

[Cyneburh]

CaptainZaysh wrote...



"There is a realm of existence beyond your understanding."

Personally I believe that consciousnesses exist somehow after the processing.  Did you ever read the "It was lonely/It called to us" cut text from ME2?  If it's correct that Reapers are where souls of organic civilisations go to live in harmony forever then blowing them up is suddenly much more morally complex.

Again, I love this concept.  But the fact that we did not get a clarification on the Reaper origin other than the Catalyst saying "I created them.  They are my solution" just ruined it for me.  I want to know why the Catalyst came to this conclusion.  What happened millions and millions of years ago (besides the obvious synthetics vs. organics. What were the circumstances?) And since we don't find out--are we doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past regardless of relay destruction?

[Tychu9]

A few of you here are complaining about the catalyst being the StarChild. Then you complain about how it is very possible that the StarChild is lying about being able to control the Reapers. Ever stop and think that the StarChild lied about being the catalyst? I have forgotten where but at one point towards the end of the game Shepard is mentioned as possibly being the catalyst. He is the one who would bring ba.....Hes the one that has to make the decision. Before the very end Shepard is never with both the Citadel and the Crucible. When the two came together and with Shepard in close proximity the events of the ending happened on a different plane of existence or in Shepards mind if you will. For those crying foul over all this "magic" happening all of a sudden, I guess you forgot about the biotic powers (the force) that you have been controlling for the past 3 games

[slimshedim]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

slimshedim wrote...

Sure, they're all war assets. Awesomesauce.

Yo dawg, I heard people in Africa are hungry and sheet, so i sent them a grain of rice, because it totally matters.

It's a software program.  How exactly do you propose it measures the contribution of a military asset, other than by assigning it a numerical value?

Oh nice, so let's all type random numbers in our calculators and call it a game, then.
Come on boy, this isn't some Commodore 64 game where you couldn't show the players the impact of your decisions via cutscenes or detailed animated epilogues. Even The Legend of Zelda: A link to the past was able to show you what happened to the people you encountered in the game and that was neither a trilogy nor could you make any decisions in the game that actually impact the story.

LastHanyou wrote...

OP is a master troll.

I agree on this one.

Modifié par slimshedim, 19 mars 2012 - 10:21 .

[michael99887766]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

michael99887766 wrote...

The end could just be "and Shepard woke up and realised it was all a dream, and really he was an accountant with a boring but financially rewarding office job in London" and it would be hard to say, really, truly objectively, that the ending was bad. Just that the vast majority of people thought it sucked.

Bingo!  That's exactly the point I was trying to make.  So how do you hold both that belief and the belief that the ME3 ending was objectively bad?  The two aren't compatible.

I don't.

The point I was trying to make is that "objectively bad" is a ridiculously and unattainably high standard of badness. All objectivity requires a purpose, which in itself will be subjective. For instance, if I say "I think we should have "x" social policy, because it will maximise net social good", having "x" social policy will be objective within the notion of utilitarianism, but ultimately subjective because ulilitarianism as a social view is subjective.

I'm getting kinda convoluted here. But what I'm trying to say is that you could have an ending which everyone agreed was terrible - like the one I posited above - and it would still not be objectively bad. So we need a lower standard - because it doesn't make sense that everyone can hate an ending (like the one above) and at the same time it can be good. So it probably isn't objectively bad, but does that devalue the opinion that it is bad?

My second point would be that, given the impossibility of ultimate objectivity, the second best option is objectivity within an ultimately subjective framework - and we can achieve that. In the examples I gave in my last post, so long as we accept that Bioware should largely stick by what it says, and that it promised us meaningful variation (these are subjective ideas) we can determine that within that framework (built around consensus not objectivity) these examples are objectively bad. Sure they are still ultimately subjective, but when you get too hung up on objectivity it obfuscates debate.

Modifié par michael99887766, 19 mars 2012 - 10:22 .

[lltoon]

Tychu9 wrote...

A few of you here are complaining about the catalyst being the StarChild. Then you complain about how it is very possible that the StarChild is lying about being able to control the Reapers. Ever stop and think that the StarChild lied about being the catalyst? I have forgotten where but at one point towards the end of the game Shepard is mentioned as possibly being the catalyst. He is the one who would bring ba.....Hes the one that has to make the decision. Before the very end Shepard is never with both the Citadel and the Crucible. When the two came together and with Shepard in close proximity the events of the ending happened on a different plane of existence or in Shepards mind if you will. For those crying foul over all this "magic" happening all of a sudden, I guess you forgot about the biotic powers (the force) that you have been controlling for the past 3 games

I think at least with Biotic powers the game gives a decent attempt at trying to explain how it works. With the exposure to element zero that reorientates your brain cells to manipulate mass effect fields.

The magic space waves that come out of the Citadel was never explained, at least tell us what it's made of, how come it can travel faster than light, anything, just throw us a bone so that we can go "Oh it's doing this because of reason A" rather than just showing something abstract with no attempt at an explanation at all.

[CaptainZaysh]

michael99887766 wrote...

I'm getting kinda convoluted here. But what I'm trying to say is that you could have an ending which everyone agreed was terrible - like the one I posited above - and it would still not be objectively bad. So we need a lower standard - because it doesn't make sense that everyone can hate an ending (like the one above) and at the same time it can be good. So it probably isn't objectively bad, but does that devalue the opinion that it is bad?

I agree with you completely.

michael99887766 wrote...
My second point would be that, given the impossibility of ultimate objectivity, the second best option is objectivity within an ultimately subjective framework - and we can achieve that. In the examples I gave in my last post, so long as we accept that Bioware should largely stick by what it says, and that it promised us meaningful variation (these are subjective ideas) we can determine that within that framework (built around consensus not objectivity) these examples are objectively bad.

Aaand here's where you lose me.  My answer is no: if something is not objectively bad, we gain nothing by changing the word "objective" to mean "subjective".  I don't want to get all 1984 on you, but you seem intelligent enough to realise that language shouldn't be used as a weapon.

[Shepard108278]

I agree. The ending is great IMO and a good finale for the series.

[slimshedim]

lltoon wrote...

Can I point out my problems with the ending, CaptainZaysh? I want to humor Bioware's writing logic and discuss using the logic they supplied to me.

I don't understand the motives of the Reapers. They claim to be 'harvesting' life forms so that they don't wipe themselves out by creating AI. I don't understand the point of harvesting advanced life forms.
The beings they harvest has none of their culture, technology, or bodily image preserved when they are put into the Reaper shell. So in essence nothing about these species are preserved or even remembered. As far as we know, the 'harvesting' kills you (yes, they basically disintegrate you into a DNA soup) and then pump your remains through tubes.

Now you might say, "but the Reapers are preserving the DNA of organic species.". But to what end is that goal? What is the point of preserving DNA if the Reapers have no intention of recreating or cloning these organic beings in the future? DNA on it's own has no intrinsic value unless they are part of a functioning organic system. Reapers are not organic systems, they are basically floating DNA soup vats that preserves nothing of their species collective consciousness. So ultimately, the logic falls flat and is equivalent to killing endangered Siberian Tigers and putting the carcasses through taxidermy to 'preserve' them, because they were doomed to go extinct anyway.

How do we know Reapers are not of organic intelligence? They are referred to as AI repeatedly throughout the 3 games and they even have AI code that's directly interfacable with Geth binary code. The Reaper AI can even be uploaded to databases.

So once we've established that Reapers are AI constructs, doesn't this contradict the Catalyst's statement that synthetic life will eventually revolt against their creators and destroy all life? I mean, the Catalyst 'created' the Reapers and they have been incredibly reliable in following out the Catalyst's commands to 'preserve all life' as they call it for millions of years. Not to mention that they are prudent enough to leave other intelligent, but technologically primitive life forms alone, even though the Catalyst said that AI will destroy ALL LIFE, with no exceptions.

Another question that pops up is that the Catalyst said that all synthetics are destined to destroy all organics. How did it come to this conclusion? We can only assume that it's only seen this happen once during it's own cycle, but to extrapolate that because something happened once, that it will happen again all the time, is incredibly dumb. It's like rolling a dice and getting a six, then you run around telling everyone that when they roll a dice, they will get a six. It makes no logical sense. We are not given any information about this and we are given no reason to accept it's explanation at face value. It's bad writing.

Another problem is why does the Mass Relay need to be destroyed. It never needed to be and the Catalyst never explains why the relays needed to be destroyed.
Sure, you can say that "now all species can develop the tech along the path of their own choosing" but this line of thinking is fundamentally flawed. With the Reaper threat gone, why is there a need to give up Mass Effect technology? Technology on it's own are not inherently evil, it's how they are used that is evil. The Reapers use Mass Effect technology to 'trick' organics into developing along the path they desired, but with the Reapers defeated, there is no reason why continuing using the mass relay system would be in any way dangerous. They are essentially inert. This is the same case for the Citadel where it's signal was made inert and was continually used despite it being an obvious trap.

Secondly if you really believed that the races should be allowed to self-determination, then why not ask the races like we did the Geth?
Humans, would you like to live without mass effect technology? Turians, would you like to live without mass effect technology?
When you think about this logically, they would certainly say YES, KEEP THE TECHNOLOGY. Mainly because the galactic races place more importance in preserving the galactic infrastructure more than starting all technology from scratch. Even if for some wild reason they reject mass effect tech, they would still want the relays out of the Sol system to work so that they could at least all go back to their home systems. So the need to destroy the mass relays makes no sense and is unecessary.

On a final note, people may say "but the ending is meant for you to use your imagination". Which is also a big problem. I'd like to imagine the fleet all got back to their home systems safely, but the cutscenes show the relays blowing up. I'd like to imagine my crew getting rescued, but that isn't possible because I was shown the relays explosing. I'd like to imagine that the crew was resourceful enough to repair the ship, with EDI being able to provide detailed schematics with the remaining talented crew engineers, but I am shown a Stargazer clip showing their descendants have never been able to re-develop space travel, so that wasn't possible either.

At every turn where I try to use my imagination to customize and comprehend my ending, it gets funneled and limited by the scenes the game shows me. I don't understand the rationale of 'use your imagination, but you can't imagine this and this or this'. What's the point of using your imagination when the game severely limits how broady you are allowed to imagine?

All in all, the ending, the motivation and the philosophical points that were being made were ultimately very shallow. You are never encouraged to challenge your perception of what is right or wrong and are instead told to accept your fate in 3 different colors. It never gives you the freedom to question things like 'how would have things ended differently if I had pointed out flawed logic on the Catalyst's part? What if I rejected it's proposals? What if, I acually agreed with it? What if I was able to bring EDI or some Geth with me and show the advancements our cycle has made?
These are all deep questions, but the ending never entertains you on the subject and just tells you to shut up and go with it. That isn't deep or meaningful, it's some pseudointellectual nonsense pretending to be deep, but refusing to have it's concepts challenged.

I don't think I can list my points out entirely in one post, and I doubt you would ever read it, but for you who tl;dr:
The ending sucked even if you TRY to accept the logic Bioware has given to you for the motives. None of this makes sense and it certainly isn't philosphically deep by any stretch.

Hey OP, I think the word you're looking for is: Owned!

[lltoon]

Shepard108278 wrote...

I agree. The ending is great IMO and a good finale for the series.

Care to share your thoughts in detail on why you thought the ending was good? What specific aspect of the writing or the philosophical themes were exceptional to you?

[CaptainZaysh]

slimshedim wrote...

Hey OP, I think the word you're looking for is: Owned!

My reply was actually a bit longer than that, but thanks for the valuable contribution, Slimshe Dim.

[michael99887766]

oops double post...

Modifié par michael99887766, 19 mars 2012 - 10:41 .

[michael99887766]

[quote]michael99887766 wrote...

[quote]michael99887766 wrote...
My second point would be that, given the impossibility of ultimate objectivity, the second best option is objectivity within an ultimately subjective framework - and we can achieve that. In the examples I gave in my last post, so long as we accept that Bioware should largely stick by what it says, and that it promised us meaningful variation (these are subjective ideas) we can determine that within that framework (built around consensus not objectivity) these examples are objectively bad.
[/quote]

Aaand here's where you lose me.  My answer is no: if something is not objectively bad, we gain nothing by changing the word "objective" to mean "subjective".  I don't want to get all 1984 on you, but you seem intelligent enough to realise that language shouldn't be used as a weapon.
[/quote]
[/quote] 

I'm not trying to use language as a weapon. If anything I'm being inarticulate as I fail to convey the concepts I'm grappling with...

This follows on from the first part of my post. Having said that strong consensus is a decent enough replacement given the unattainability of true objectivity, I'm now saying that if we accept the consensus on certain issues, we can get, if you like, "mini-objectivity".

So for example, most people agree that Bioware said that we would have real variation, most people agree that real variation has to mean a good spectrum of ending choices ranging from pretty crippling defeat to reasonably happy success with some other stuff in between, and most people agree that Bioware should do what it says it will. This is still subjective ultimately, but a strong consensus could easily be reached (I think I'm starting to sound like the Geth here...) that these ideas are reasonable.

If we then accept that consensus, we can say that objectively the endings are bad because they fail to fulfil the conditions of that consensus (no true variation, not what we were promised, to stick with my examples directly above). Yes, really this is still subjective because the consensus is subjective, but it's quasi-objective and we're never going to get true "objective" on this or indeed pretty much anything (hell, if you say "stuff falls downwards", I can say "who are you to say that what you think is down is down?"), dragging it into the argument confuses things.

Modifié par michael99887766, 19 mars 2012 - 10:54 .

[Zardoc]

I still don't see how anyone could like or enjoy this plothole within a plothole filled with nonsensical bull**** and space magic that has the gall to call itself an ending.

[Thomas Andresen]

[quote]CaptainZaysh wrote...

The only problem I see with the narrative is how the crewmembers who were with you in the rush to the Conduit got back to the Normandy (in the event you see that ending).[/quote]

I can answer that question that question, to some degree. When running down the slope, bring up the pause menu, and look at the radar. Your crew is too far behind you to show up there, so I think it's pretty obvious they'd have time to retreat, considering that the other surviving members of the Hammer did so.

[quote]Edje Edgar wrote...

You will never understand my logic.

I am always right, this is now a fact. Your life is best served by serving me as best you can, because I say it is so.

[/quote]
The way I see it, that's exactly the point. That's exactly why you shouldn't look for logic in what the Catalyst says. You won't find it because there isn't supposed to be any.

[quote]AzaZeLgaming wrote...

The very next line says it PROVED to be true, so yes, it WOULD. So they were right, a destroyed Relay will cause a supernova like explosion. Did you even play the "Arrival" DLC?

[/quote]
It proved that one method of destroying a Mass Relay produced that effect, yes. That doesn't mean that other means of destroying the Relays would always produce the same effect.

[quote]Genera1Nemesis wrote...



Legion on the nature of the reapers. Just thought some might not have seen this dialogue considering how optional a lot of things are.[/quote]
I'd seen the first part of that, but not the other. Awesome, thanks.

[quote]Ashilana wrote...

So... you are okay with your options being:

A) Follow the illusive man's plan of "controlling the reapers" which was shown to very clearly be a trap.

Wipe out all free will in the universe by changing all life in the universe into a new form without their consent.

C) Commit genocide.

[/quote]
The D would have been to do nothing, and allow the Reapers to complete the harvest. Those are the choices presented to you. When presented with a selection of "bad" choices, you pick the one you think would do be least damaging.

I'd also like to point out for your B:
You don't change who they are, only what they are.

[quote]CaptainZaysh wrote...

It's established that parts of the Citadel that are open to space have an atmosphere (the ward arms). Discussions like this are why I'm hugely suspicious of the supposed "plot holes".
[/quote]
I agree.

[quote]CaptainZaysh wrote...

I thought the problem was their relay jump failing.

[/quote]
It would make sense that an attempted Relay jump while the Relays where being destroyed would end catastrophically.


[quote]CaptainZaysh wrote...

[quote]Genera1Nemesis wrote...

Not the OP but I thought it opened the door for the series to go in a wildly different direction from that point on. The galaxy now needs to think for themselves; and if people are as all about choice as they say they are then that is 1000 times better than just using the tech that the Reapers built.

The galaxy is freed of the Reapers in every respect; and while losing the relays looks bad in the short-term; they are certainly not the be-all, end-all of space travel theory and the next story (Mass Effect 4 hopefully) can reflect that freedom.

[/quote]

Yep, this.

[/quote]
I have another point to add here: I don't have to like the consequences of the choices I was presented with, to like the ending.

[quote]deathscythe517 wrote...

So you want the Mass Effect universe to abandon mass effect technology...

Shall Star Wars suddenly destroy the Force to take it into a 'new direction'? Mass Effect already took one huge direction shift from one to two and that polarized people, but completely jumping the shark with the story and hiding behind the excuse 'well they're trying something new' is just asinine.

Shall we have i, Robot without robots?
Or Superman without anything that makes him super?
Or I know, let's have Jurassic Park without dinosaurs, that works so well, after all it's a new direction!

[/quote]
Mass Effect still exist, and still is known. There is nothing to say that new technology couldn't be based on it. The only difference would be that this time, it wouldn't be of a mysterious origin.

[quote]garf wrote...

Actually you misunderstand the lore. FTL travel is available to all races. Any ship with an 'Eezo core' can effectively play games with it's mass and defy the twin equations of Energy Equals Mass times Velocity Squared and Energy Equals Mass times the speed of light squared.

However FTL travel has limitations. What would be day trips with the Mass Relays now are year and decade long journeys.

Also there's a limit to fuel bunkerage and heat disapation. FTL has a firm range limit based primarly on how far ships can travel before they cook their crews (this is all in the codices)

Citadel space is like loose beads representing the tiny bubbles of FTL accessable space around a given Mass Relay tied in a net by the long strings of the jumps relays provide.

Loss of the relays doesn't necessarily 'destroy' the universe. It does However inflict a phase chagne or paradigm shift in the galaxy so fundamental that any future work would be effectively a new IP co opting the Mass Effect Name.

This is why I say in my tag-line that the ending offers

No Future.

[/quote]
I agree with everything you said. Except for this: The Mass Effect name represents Hudson's take on what we today know as "dark matter". Neither the Mass Effect relays or how the galactic community worked as a whole during the series is a direct part of that.

[quote]garf wrote...

Hold the line.

[/quote]
That you are using that line to emphasize your message tells me that you are in a whole 'nother demographic than I am. When I heard that speech when I first played ME, I thought the same as what Mordin said about him in ME2.

[quote]Linus108 wrote...

So symbolism trumps logic?

[/quote]
In a game such as this? Most definitely, hell yes.



In closing, while I do agree that there are plot-holes. They're not big enough to significantly diminish the quality of the ending, and most certainly not the overall quality of the game. Personally, I think the ME3 ending was significantly less jarring than the ME2 ending. But the most important reason that I think BioWare shouldn't provide additional endings would be that doing so would be the same as throwing your artistic pride out the window, not to mention integrity. While I didn't get the exact ending I hoped for, I would probably be extremely disappointed if I did.

[CaptainZaysh]

michael99887766 wrote...

If we then accept that consensus, we can say that objectively the endings are bad because they fail to fulfil the conditions of that consensus (no true variation, not what we were promised, to stick with my examples directly above). Yes, really this is still subjective because the consensus is subjective, but it's quasi-objective and we're never going to get true "objective" on this or indeed pretty much anything (hell, if you say "stuff falls downwards", I can say "who are you to say that what you think is down is down?"), dragging it into the argument confuses things.

Look for a second at how convoluted your rationale is, at how much you have to put into place for Game X to meet the definition "Objectively Bad".  Consider that your convoluted rationale is rarely explained or understood, so when you call it "Objectively Bad" the discussion group is unlikely to understand the nature of your criticism.  I can't see how it adds to the discussion.

"I felt the endings were not varied enough" is a perfectly valid criticism inviting a constructive response.  "The ending is objectively bad" only invites the response "no it isn't", and that is a perfectly reasonable response considering you yourself admit that it is not objectively bad.

[terdferguson123]

majormajormmajor wrote...

Notice how all these pro-ending posts use the same language? "Thought-provoking", "memorable", "endless possibility."

Almost as if they had no originality of their own, or were working off a template...

This is the most ignorant post I have seen in a while! Just because some of us enjoy using our imagination about the galactic change that results from your choice, we are all working off a template and have no originality? So, please, explain to me when the people with an imagination became the unoriginal ones.

[General Jack D. Ripper]

I'm glad you enjoyed it OP. it just stings that nothing I did in 90 hours of play matters. I'm a consequences kind if guy, and I love seeing the results if my actions. For example, it's the main reason I enjoy the consequences of a big secret coming out rather than the actual act. I like seeing my results and the ending failed to do this.

[sadako]

OP is right, everyone is just being entitled and whiny because a product doesn't meet their demands.
Everyone should just be quiet and never complaint about bad products. Remember that the next time you see a complaints box, you can throw it out the window, because if you use it, you're just being "entitled".

[Heretic19]

I agree with you but I would like another ending There were some pretty stupid plotholes, but everything is up for grabs again which is really exciting

[Meltemph]

I think it is talking about the theory of the technological singularity. Basically because synthetic intelligence is only limited by processing power, then once AI has achieved self awareness then if it is left alone to grow its processing power then it is inevitable that it will supercede organic intelligence. The path from there to being able to destroy us is quite obvious. And once something is able to destroy us, given an infinite amount of time it will decide to do so. So the theory is quite straightforward and I don't have a compelling refutation of it, even though I chose to destroy the Reapers. We'll mess up the future on our own, thank you very much.

You are essentially arguing that the reapers can predict the future, because anything could happen, given a long enough time... And you are arguing THIS was what the writers were getting at? Really?

So you are perfectly fine with the premise of the ending , essentially being... You need a singularity to control a singularity so a singularity doesn't destroy a galaxy.

Look, I love Chronicles of Riddick, I accept that it by most peoples eyes a bad movie, and honestly if I was being objective about it I could point out TONS of flaws with that movie, but I accept the flaws and recognize that it probably wasnt that well done, but I still liked it. That said, you are not going to see me go to every movie board I can find and argue that CoR was a well written movie master piece.

Modifié par Meltemph, 19 mars 2012 - 11:09 .

[Stu_Shepard]

I'm glad you enjoyed the ending.

I just wish I felt the same way about it.