274 réponses à ce sujet

[Faerillis]

leonia42 wrote...

Faerillis - you're not accustomed to people telling you no in real-life, are you? Sometimes there are boundaries and limitations that you can't avoid. That's what makes things so difficult. Do you really support not fighting at all because the ending is bleak? FTL travel still exists, new technology can be created, civilisation wasn't wiped from existance, they have a second chance at life without the Reapers and their technology. Sure, it will be hard, but they'll endure or they'll cease to exist.

Leonia, you aren't really accustomed to not using strawmen are you.

There is FTL travel, but not on the scale (ie distance) of Mass Relays. If there were inhabitable planets within Non-Relay FTL space of Earth, the Humans would've settled there already, and the Reapers would have destroyed it as a result. Everyone in that Fleet would die. Every planet that needs essentials of life shipped in from somewhere else would die. Galactic Civilization would come to an end. These are not arguments, these are facts. And frankly, if that's the best possible result from my actions, I would rather have the advanced races die fighting to the last breath and have a chance to win the fight, than to doom them all to a life where they lose everything.

If you think my ending is not fighting, you're wrong. My option is to fight and lose, and say that we fought for something then to win regardless of the cost, and say we fought for nothing. If, in your moral code, there is nothing you won't do to survive, then it's not worth it. If you don't have a point where you draw the line and say no, your resolve is worth nothing.

[HenchxNarf]

Orange Tee wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

Orange Tee wrote...

Ya, people who actually like the ending are just beyond me. One thing I noticed about most of them though is that they can't exactly explain in any good detail why the endings were good at all, other than saying it was just good (using very general words to describe so), or acting like trolls and saying that the clear plot holes made sense. Nor can they actually explain the immense plot holes left by the endings and act like they don't exist.

People like the ending. Deal with it. We don't have to explain ourselves to you or anyone else.

My point exactly. 

I would actually love to see an in detail thread on why someone liked the ending, rather than just saying it was deep and can't explain it. I'm open to see good reasoning into why the ending was "good" or "made sense".

Why? just so you can tear it apart with your "logic"? There are plenty here in this thread, and I posted my own in my own thread.

[sistersafetypin]

Tietj wrote...

For the record, I'm of the opinion that if Shepard survives in the destruction ending if your EMS is high enough, then he survives in the destruction ending, period, even if you don't explicitly see it. And the star child thing is (in my opinion) clearly lying to me, so that's the ending I will always pick. Note that EDI is sometimes seen coming out of the Normandy if your friendship with her is high enough, I think. The red explosion doesn't kill organics, as shown by the fact that it doesn't kill the soldiers on the ground, so it doesn't kill Shepard, who is mostly organic. So there's that. Also, the Normandy never goes through a relay. This is a huge bug of mine on the BSN; I have no idea where people got this idea that Joker went through a relay. Therefore, they're within FTL distance from earth. There are definitely things about the ending I don't like, and if they released an alternate ending I would buy it... buy it not because it was something Bioware owed me but because it's something I feel would enhance the game. Bottom line, despite the huge flaws, which I admit I hate, the ending doesn't break the game for me. I'm actually just about to start my fourth playthrough.

Ok, but hear me out.... Shepard is in space... Doesn't have a helmet on and is on the Citidel when it explodes. It is literally not possible for Shepard to be alive and even though some would argue it's just a video game... That's not an excuse here, otherwhise the whole premise behind ME2 is rendered... nonsensical. After all, if Shep could survive being in space without a helmet... What's a puncture in an oxygen tank?

[SmokePants]

I was not misled because I know how to interpret developer comments properly. Sadly, those that like to hang on every word tend to completely miss the mark of what they were actually saying.

[Valo_Soren]

Lugaidster wrote...

Valo_Soren wrote...

No it didn't bother me at all because I had predicted that there was some other kind of motivation behind the reapers purposes when I first met Sovereign in Mass Effect 1. He keeps repeating 'you cannot fathom why we do this' over and over again, then Harbinger in ME 2 "we are the harbingers of your perfection, prepare these humans for ascension' The idea behind repurposing, use organic life to create more reapers, a blending of organci and synthetic life forms in order to keep organic life to completely destroying itself, confusing as it may be it makes perfect sense. Assuming the catalyst-starchild-whatever you want to call it is a super intelligent being with a severe lack of morality by recycling the galaxy every 50,000 years they believe they are taking organic life to its best stage of evolution. 

 

If that really is true, then none of the new options really solves the problem he thinks exist. Chaos vs Order will still be present in all three choices. As well as the "creator vs created" theme. Shepard set out to fight against the Reapers not only to save the galaxy, but to save the galaxy without sacrificing "soul of their species". To fight for a chance to prove the reapers wrong.

Synthesis by itself sacrifices your identity and is an inherently racist premise.

Control doesn't really address the problem of the reapers, by giving the to the control of a single person is as giving a country dictated by one person to another person. The problem is the system not the leader. There's no way to feel at ease with that.

Destruction is genocide, and really defeats the purpose of actually uniting the galaxy, but then again, it's my prefered choice. "Sacrifices have to be made for the sake of victory" *sigh*

Valo_Soren wrote... 


Sovereign says it himself, "You exist because we allow it, and you will end, because we demand it." The solution right there, the first hint that the reapers feel like they know whats best for our galaxy, the catalyst only repeats that to shepard at the end of 3, when shepard says 'we don't want anyone telling us what to do we want to control out own fate' and the catalyst says 'you can't be allowed to! you will destroy yourselves!' The reapers actually believe they are saving us from ourselves. Saving both organic and synthetic life forms, the repeating theme of AI 's being a huge no no because they can't be trusted is apparent through all three games and the catalyst on reinforces that idea. Just because theirs peace with the Geth now doesn't mean there will ALWAYS be peace with the geth. One instance does not debunk the theory if the catalyst has seen the same repeating pattern over and over again every 50,000 years.

Unless behaviour is really predictable (I behemently oppose any logic that claims sapient creatures to be predictable), the fact that this has happened in the past is not proof for it to happen in the future. It just makes it more likely.

Valo_Soren wrote...  


Also Saren didn't stand for symbiosis, he was tricked into thinking it was best to let the reapers form and change everyone, basically to allow themselves to be indoctrinated, the symbiosis shepard partakes in is different a whole new life form, not just a human with reaper tech, but a blending of organic and synthetic material, in essence everyone is now the same race. And besides Saren talks about appeasing the reapers almost the entire time in ME 1, appesing them, becomign their servants so they aren't made extinct.

 

So suddenly it's much better if it's not the reapers who decide but Shepard? What makes Shepard more qualified to make such a decision on behalf of every culture and specie out there. At least Legion chose for himself. What is the purpose to fight for a chance to shape your future as you see fit if you are going to let someone else do that for you.

Valo_Soren wrote...   


If the catalyst says shepard could control the reapers and gives him a chance to then I believe it, to be honest while people say 'why would shepard just take the catalyst at his word' in my opinion the reapers, both sovereign and harbinger were always completely honest with shepard, they had no reason to lie to him, neither does the catalyst, they don't work on trickery, they believe nothing can stop them so there is no reason to think they would have to trick their way out of a situation. The catalyst could likely easily kill shepard or have lured him into a trap why would he give him some choice and make him think he was helping the galaxy if he really wasn't helping the galaxy, there would be no reason to, the catalyst has no reason to trick him, its a being thats milions of years old that has repeated the same process over and over again every 50,000 years, nothing had been able to stop the reapers until now so literally a new solution is needed, so there is no reason to think the Catalyst is not being truthful.

 

So it wasn't established in the lore that the reapers (the catalyst refers to himself as one of them) aren't trustworthy? Furthermore, wasn't it established that they possess means to make you feel like they their way of thinking is right? I'm not giving any credit to the indoctrination theory but to put that much faith in a reaper is not something I'm easy about.

Valo_Soren wrote...    

As far as the destruction option goes I really only see that option being made by an angry renegade shep who really didnt trust the geth anyway and wasn't as fond as EDI as everyone else on the ship might have been. The Control or symbiosis seems more likely the choice for PAragon shepard. IF the reapers are controlled by shepard even if shepard dies, they will leave the galaxy and no longer harm anyone as they have to do as shepard commands. 

 

The way I see it, a paragon will stick to his principles, with that said, he breaks them with every choice. So there's no clear paragon choice for me. Just as I don't see a clear renegade. Which really bothers me because they gave them the colors. To assume that's just a design oversight is silly IMO, attention to details is really important throughout the series, so the colors have to be intentional (Making me hate the endings even more). 

Valo_Soren wrote...     

Thats as thorough as I can think to be right now, I hope that sheds some light as to why I love the endings and ending choices.

I appreciate that. Even if I didn't enjoy them, I find it entertaining to discuss the reasons why with someone else. I just hoped I didn't have to.

The Reapers do not think of their indoctrination techniques as a shadowy way to prepare the organic races for the next cycle, they see it as a means to an end, a necessity, they don't give two craps about the morality of it or whether or not it seems shady, they've done it for millions of years every 50,000 years, they see it as organic life not having any other choice. What organic species see as a War the reapers see as a definite forgone conclusion, so having said that there is no reason to think a Reaper has any reason to lie because they believe they are right so blindly they can't see beyond their own scope of the millions of years repeating cycle. Their one fatal flaw, if any flaw, is hubris.

Shepard earns the right to choose, he defeated Sovereign, he defeated the Collectors, I'm pretty sure the Catalyst knows of the actions and the defeat of two more reapers throught Mass Effect 3's campaign, if any organic has the right to make the choice above the Reapers themselves, it's him. I would even call this the Reapers doing him a favor in this regard, 'alright, you've proven you can bind the galaxy against us and you've built the crucible, now we have no choice but to let you choose your fate, your way to end this cycle of destruction by giving us a new solution'. So in the name of peace, in the name of freedom for the galaxy, Shepard makes his/her choice.

And that is just it, they don't lead him to what they think is most right, they give him three options, if they did force it they would just indoctrinate him and convince him of what choice they think he should make and stop him, but in all essence he proved himself to them, he/she showed them that organics are not just beings they can push around anymore. It was more of a wake up call by the reapers 'hmm we need to rethink our strategy' and less of 'oh those annoying flies, oh well lets give them some choice and make it sound good'. No, I see no reason stll for the Reapers to lie, they have no reason to.

[Leonia]

Faerillis wrote...

If you think my ending is not fighting, you're wrong. My option is to fight and lose, and say that we fought for something then to win regardless of the cost, and say we fought for nothing. If, in your moral code, there is nothing you won't do to survive, then it's not worth it. If you don't have a point where you draw the line and say no, your resolve is worth nothing.

I can respect that, however, we don't know what really happens at the end (hence lots of complaints regarding a lack of closure) so we can only speculate in how life moves on at that point. All we know is that Shepard settled the Reaper issue, one way or another, what happens afterwards is anybody's guess. And that's the true beauty of the ending, we'll never stop discussing the ins and outs of a galactic civilisation in recovery mode. We know they weren't wiped out of existence, that's the hope part of the ending.

[Lugaidster]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Perhaps I should have specified my first sentence. That person is the problem with the RetakeME3 movement because it's spawned people like that. Not because there's a problem with it, specifically.

And that doesn't really address the problem of stereotypes at all. Haters gonna hate, on both sides of the spectrum. Why is the Retake movement any more likely to be filled with whiners? You are prejudging the people involved in the movement, a headless movement mind you, because some of them are vocal about their feelings. Call them out if you want, but there's no reason to call the movement out with them just because they are part of it.

[az350z]

I don't feel misled because I'm an adult and don't get offended and start a war when I don't like something.

[HenchxNarf]

leonia42 wrote...

Faerillis wrote...

If you think my ending is not fighting, you're wrong. My option is to fight and lose, and say that we fought for something then to win regardless of the cost, and say we fought for nothing. If, in your moral code, there is nothing you won't do to survive, then it's not worth it. If you don't have a point where you draw the line and say no, your resolve is worth nothing.

I can respect that, however, we don't know what really happens at the end (hence lots of complaints regarding a lack of closure) so we can only speculate in how life moves on at that point. All we know is that Shepard settled the Reaper issue, one way or another, what happens afterwards is anybody's guess. And that's the true beauty of the ending, we'll never stop discussing the ins and outs of a galactic civilisation in recovery mode. We know they weren't wiped out of existence, that's the hope part of the ending.

I like your sig quote!

Modifié par HenchxNarf, 20 mars 2012 - 07:15 .

[HenchxNarf]

az350z wrote...

I don't feel misled because I'm an adult and don't get offended and start a war when I don't like something.

Pretty much. But sadly, most of these people are adults, too.

IA with your comment.

[Faerillis]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Faerillis wrote...

1. I disagree completely. While the ending cinematic was recycled regardless of your decision, the impact of your decision was felt.

2. WHO AM I TO QUESTION SOMEONE WHO SPOUTED UTTER CRAP THAT I CAN DISPROVE?! Are you kidding?!

3. The Mass Relays are the basis of the series, the key to the galaxy, the basis for civilization, the centre of all space faring life; why fight, when you are going to lose all you are fighting for? Why invalidate every reason the billions, if not trillions, of people fighting the Reapers are fighting for.
Especially considering all the people fighting on and above Earth are doomed to die regardless of your choice.

1. Remember the council in ME2? You know, that choice that legitimately should have affect how every single person in Council space reacted to Shepard? And didn't?

2. No you do not. You have evidence that 300/400/not totally sure years into a cycle, the synthetics and organics can work together. You don't have any proof that they won't turn on the organics later on, which the God Child may very well. Again, do you REALLY think this cycle is all that different from every single other one?

3. What? Are you honestly arguing that people are fighting the Reapers so they can use the Mass Relays? The Mass Relays have nothing to do with the fight with the Reapers. They are a side issue.

People are fighting because their civilizations are worth fighting for, because they have people they love. Tell me, if the Germans in WWII could only have been stopped by blowing up the planet, stranding small pockets of people on land that can only produce so much and undoubtedly cause them all to starve, would that have been more worthwhile than fighting until the last breath, of the last man who opposed them, was spent.

Well here is a quote from someone who clearly thought that there was more to living than surviving alone.
"We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight
on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and
growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the
cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the
landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we
shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

[AtreiyaN7]

Lugaidster wrote...

The way I see it, a paragon will stick to his principles, with that said, he breaks them with every choice. So there's no clear paragon choice for me. Just as I don't see a clear renegade. Which really bothers me because they gave them the colors. To assume that's just a design oversight is silly IMO, attention to details is really important throughout the series, so the colors have to be intentional (Making me hate the endings even more). 

In my opinion, the endings aren't supposed to be clear-cut renegade or clear-cut paragon decisions. I think you're ultimately supposed to choose based on your (presumably) complex set of beliefs, rather than reying on something easy like an actual red dialogue option or an actual blue option on the dialogue wheel. My only principles as a paragon are to try to do what I think is right, to help the most people I can, and to try to make the galaxy a better place if at all possible. For me, the ending that I chose didn't even remotely violate my principles, and that choice was based on my personal beliefs about synthetic and organic life.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 20 mars 2012 - 07:48 .

[HenchxNarf]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

The way I see it, a paragon will stick to his principles, with that said, he breaks them with every choice. So there's no clear paragon choice for me. Just as I don't see a clear renegade. Which really bothers me because they gave them the colors. To assume that's just a design oversight is silly IMO, attention to details is really important throughout the series, so the colors have to be intentional (Making me hate the endings even more). 

In my opinion, the endings aren't supposed to be clear-cut renegade or clear-cut paragon decisions. I think you're ultimately suppose to choose based on your (presumably) complex set of beliefs, rather than reying on something easy like an actual red dialogue option or an actual blue option on the dialogue wheel. My only principles as a paragon are to try to do what I think is right, to help the most people I can, and to try to make the galaxy a better place if at all possible. For me, the ending that I chose didn't even remotely violate my principles, and that choice was based on my personal beliefs about synthetic and organic life.

Exactly.

And sometimes the bad option is the best option. Even the hero has to make hard choices and people sometimes have to die.

I like you.

[sistersafetypin]

HenchxNarf wrote...

MakeMineMako wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

sistersafetypin wrote...



I agree. But judging a movement by the actions of one is silly imho. It's as bad as judging the whole of the Occupy movement on one person.

But when a large group acts the way he does in your group, it looks bad. And you cannot possibly deny that there is not a very large chunk in your movement that acts this way.

Just like there are pro-ending trolls who drop in threads, and post insulting remarks in order to inflame. 

Not as many, actually. I haven't even seen one myself. But I suppose they are out there.

Their are a plenty that I've seen personally. On this board and elsewhere and still, it's neither here nor there. Trolls exist fact. But if you enter a conversation and thinking the person you're arguing with is "ridiculous" it's a lot easier to dismiss more and more people as simply whining and or being needlessly agressive.

[Pacifien]

Spectre_Shepard wrote...
But what about all you guys who ARE big Mass Effect fans, and know how these games are designed and what Bioware has said?

Simple. I don't pay attention to anything BioWare ever said.

Spectre_Shepard wrote... 
So how is it that you guys feel differently? Why do you feel like justice has been done to Commander Shepard with these endings?

You know, I wouldn't say I'm pro-ending so much as simply satisfied because the one place I wanted the whole story to finish was with the mass relay network destroyed and all civilizations having to rebuild their own technology outside of the influence of the paths left by the Reapers. I've wanted that ever since Sovereign told Shepard the whole purpose of the mass relays was to dictate the technological paths of spacefaring civilizations who found them.

And while people have gotten hung up on how the writing gets you there and the cinematic depiction just not making much sense, there is just about every science fiction television show, movie, and game that I've seen that doesn't make sense when put through a magnifying glass. Might be more satisfying to a broader scope of people than the ME3 ending turned out to be, but poorly written is not the ending's crime any more than the writing of the rest of the game.

[Leonia]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

The
way I see it, a paragon will stick to his principles, with that said, he
breaks them with every choice. So there's no clear paragon choice for
me. Just as I don't see a clear renegade. Which really bothers me
because they gave them the colors. To assume that's just a design
oversight is silly IMO, attention to details is really important
throughout the series, so the colors have to be intentional (Making me
hate the endings even more). 

In my opinion, the
endings aren't supposed to be clear-cut renegade or clear-cut paragon
decisions. I think you're ultimately suppose to choose based on your
(presumably) complex set of beliefs, rather than reying on something
easy like an actual red dialogue option or an actual blue option on the
dialogue wheel. My only principles as a paragon are to try to do what
I think is right, to help the most people I can, and to try to make the
galaxy a better place if at all possible. For me, the ending that I
chose didn't even remotely violate my principles, and that choice was
based on my personal beliefs about synthetic and organic life.

The colours are very misleading and I wish they hadn't included them at all, it's beyond a simple Paragon/Renegade choice.

Modifié par leonia42, 20 mars 2012 - 07:21 .

[sistersafetypin]

HenchxNarf wrote...

az350z wrote...

I don't feel misled because I'm an adult and don't get offended and start a war when I don't like something.

Pretty much. But sadly, most of these people are adults, too.

IA with your comment.

 

My point, you prove it here.

Modifié par sistersafetypin, 20 mars 2012 - 07:23 .

[HenchxNarf]

sistersafetypin wrote...

Their are a plenty that I've seen personally. On this board and elsewhere and still, it's neither here nor there. Trolls exist fact. But if you enter a conversation and thinking the person you're arguing with is "ridiculous" it's a lot easier to dismiss more and more people as simply whining and or being needlessly agressive.

It's easy to avoid them. Just scroll past their answers to what you have to say. Most of the time you can identify them on the spot. Much like zombies.

[Wabajakka]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Orange Tee wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

Orange Tee wrote...

Ya, people who actually like the ending are just beyond me. One thing I noticed about most of them though is that they can't exactly explain in any good detail why the endings were good at all, other than saying it was just good (using very general words to describe so), or acting like trolls and saying that the clear plot holes made sense. Nor can they actually explain the immense plot holes left by the endings and act like they don't exist.

People like the ending. Deal with it. We don't have to explain ourselves to you or anyone else.

My point exactly. 

I would actually love to see an in detail thread on why someone liked the ending, rather than just saying it was deep and can't explain it. I'm open to see good reasoning into why the ending was "good" or "made sense".

Why? just so you can tear it apart with your "logic"? There are plenty here in this thread, and I posted my own in my own thread.

Not exactly what "being open" means, but sure take it in that way of you'd like to. Wouldn't mind seeing your thread on why you think so. Link it if you'd like.

Meanwhile, I would like to show you all this for those who believe the ending made sense or was "good" in any manner at all. Give it a read, it really does make it hard to make a good argument in supporting the endings in their current state.

[HenchxNarf]

sistersafetypin wrote...

az350z wrote...

I don't feel misled because I'm an adult and don't get offended and start a war when I don't like something.

obvious troll is obvious. do not engage

Not a troll, just mature. And this is what I'm talking about.

Way to prove the point.

*GASP* OMG they have an opinion that doesnt fit in with yours. OBVIOUS TROLLING! 

No.

Modifié par HenchxNarf, 20 mars 2012 - 07:23 .

[Faerillis]

leonia42 wrote...

Faerillis wrote...

If you think my ending is not fighting, you're wrong. My option is to fight and lose, and say that we fought for something then to win regardless of the cost, and say we fought for nothing. If, in your moral code, there is nothing you won't do to survive, then it's not worth it. If you don't have a point where you draw the line and say no, your resolve is worth nothing.

I can respect that, however, we don't know what really happens at the end (hence lots of complaints regarding a lack of closure) so we can only speculate in how life moves on at that point. All we know is that Shepard settled the Reaper issue, one way or another, what happens afterwards is anybody's guess. And that's the true beauty of the ending, we'll never stop discussing the ins and outs of a galactic civilisation in recovery mode. We know they weren't wiped out of existence, that's the hope part of the ending.

Thank you for understanding the point I'm making. No, we can't know what happened after that. In the same breath I can't know the Swedish Bikini Team won't suddenly materialize naked in my living room. What we have is evidence and logic. Evidence and logic suggest that, regardless of ending the Victory Fleet will starve, as will the entirety of Earth, without the ability to move along. We have the evidence to suggest that the Genophage-less Krogans will die out if they are stuck with only Tuchunka as a livable planet. We have logic to see that without the ability to physically interact with any other groups Galactic Civilization would fall to pieces. We have logic to expect that with so many far flung different groups of people, that by the time they come to develop the technology to reestablish connections with each other, both Racial Civilizations and Galactic Civilization would be so different and twisted that the people who actually stopped the Reapers would never recognize it.

[sistersafetypin]

snip. Cleaning the thread of my needless posts. I stand by what I said, to the people I said it to. And it can still be found quoted in their responses. I'm sorry I let myself be bated

--

For all my immature entitled whiny young brats.... Regardless of age, actual maturity, and right as a consumer...

Hold the line <3

Modifié par sistersafetypin, 20 mars 2012 - 07:34 .