274 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyruge]

One thing I can't understand is why the hell was Joker fleeing? Can anyone of you who liked the ending explain how that act is justified?

[HenchxNarf]

sistersafetypin wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

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.

You misunderstand. I'm calling you a troll, because you prove your point by calling yourself an adult and implying people that don't agree with you aren't.

Actually, I don't. I imply that people who are blatently acting immature are in fact immature.

I'm an adult, and I don't get mad at video games. Sorry. 

I've never said people who don't agree with me aren't adults. I've said that there are some rampant trolls running around and making the subset group look like idiots. But I have never implied people aren't adults that are acting like adults.

[Valo_Soren]

Why is this nice discussion thread degrading to a trolling thread come on people

[Leonia]

Would the people who aren't engaging in the conversation kindly refrain from posting? We don't need people to point out trolls to us, we're big boys and girls here.

@Faerillis - all good points and I look forward to learning in the future what happens to everyone, it would be good to see that logic confirmed in some fashion, to see the results. It's disappointing to not see those consequences in the end but I don't think Bioware is entirely finished yet.

[HenchxNarf]

Valo_Soren wrote...

Why is this nice discussion thread degrading to a trolling thread come on people

Some people can't help themselves.

That's why I said it was being positive for awhile.

[Leonia]

Celrath wrote...

Cyruge wrote...

One thing I can't understand is why the hell was Joker fleeing? Can anyone of you who liked the ending explain how that act is justified?

Dark energy time dilation field... 

No idea and if I had to pick the one thing from the ending that I am not satisfied with, that would certainly be it. I like to imagine that sequence is all happening in Shepard's head but then that would invalidate the "there's still hope!" message that the scene is meant to convey. My guess is that future DLC will address and make sense of that bit.

[sistersafetypin]

You're right everyone: Re- obvious trolls are obvious. Sorry.

Modifié par sistersafetypin, 20 mars 2012 - 07:32 .

[HenchxNarf]

sistersafetypin wrote...

You're right everyone: Re- obvious trolls are obvious. Sorry.

lol technical issues!

[Faerillis]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Faerillis wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

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."

Oh, come on. Any actual points? I know the value of poetry, h*ll I am a poet, but not in rational discussion.

Again, any responses to my three points? Or just that up there ^ ? Not trying to be insulting, but that isn't a discussion.

EternallyAmbiguity wrote...

I don't like that he's clearly making a point about the importance of Mass Relays, and the ability for races to physically interact, on Galactic Civilization and saying that he believes having such things are clearly more important than plain survival; so I'm going to ignore it

1. Remember how in Mass Effect 2 we weren't in Citadel Space. The Humans we dealt with were seperate from the Citadel in every way, and quite likely unfriendly to "Aliens". Remember how everyone but Al-Jilani gives you respect in Citadel Space in ME2 and ME3?

2. Actually we're between 49902-50002 years into the Cycle, depending on how the Reapers deal with the "Every 50000 years" deal. And that far into the cycle we have developed a synthetic race with AI, and one other AI; both of whom are benevolent a peaceful in all the cases we've seen.

3. I already addressed this, but you are just happily deflecting it.

[Dridengx]

Spectre_Shepard wrote...

Please read first:

For the record, I'm not angry with any of you, nor do I think you're stupid or arrogant or whatever for liking the ending. That's cool, I happen to feel otherwise.

Well if you did, you have a serious problem and would be breaking the rules.

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? I mean, what's your perspective? It seems clear to me that Bioware has, at the very least, misled us in some capacity as to how Mass Effect would conclude. I personally feel like I've been lied to.

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

Please keep it civil, no flaming on either side, I really want to get some perspective here. 

Bioware never lied to you, mislead you, no one can mislead you because you always have a choice to believe or trust what is presented to you, fact.

boy oh boy I'd hate to see some of you see infomercials and weight loss commercials

Modifié par Dridengx, 20 mars 2012 - 07:35 .

[Cyruge]

leonia42 wrote...

Celrath wrote...

Cyruge wrote...

One thing I can't understand is why the hell was Joker fleeing? Can anyone of you who liked the ending explain how that act is justified?

Dark energy time dilation field... 

No idea and if I had to pick the one thing from the ending that I am not satisfied with, that would certainly be it. I like to imagine that sequence is all happening in Shepard's head but then that would invalidate the "there's still hope!" message that the scene is meant to convey. My guess is that future DLC will address and make sense of that bit.

Agreed. Everything in the cinematics during the end feel more like symbols for different ideas in Shepard's head (hope for a new beginning with the mass relays destroyed, Joker and others getting to safety) than actual events with any kind of practically good consequences.

[Lugaidster]

Valo_Soren wrote...

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. 

 

Reaper motives, if anything, have never been clear. Just because one of them suddenly tells you it doesn't mean that they can be trusted. If they have any self-preservation instinct they could lie just to keep you away from destruction. If the indoctrination is true (which I'm not saying it is) then the choices didn't really matter, and you were being lied to.

If you're ok with assuming they are being truthful, that's fine by me. But it's in no logical way the only possible outcome given context.

Valo_Soren wrote... 

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.
 

 

That only answers part of the question. The reason why the reapers would give him those choices (if they are to be trusted, which I don't still think that's a given). It doesn't explain why would Shepard take them. If it's just for the sake of survival, then he's not really a hero. I'm going to quote him on this one: "I'm going to save the galaxy without sacrificing the soul of our species." There's a break of that promise in every choice he takes, a break of character, a very strongwilled character. If anything, ensuring that the next cycle can defeat the reapers without having to comply to this absurd choices would be a less selfish choice in the long run and equally fitting given the circumstances.

Valo_Soren wrote...  

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.

-"they would just indoctrinate him and convince him" You don't really know if that's the case. 

-"but in all essence he proved himself to them" So what, a more fitting enemy is still an enemy. All the more satisfaction to kill him. The motivations for the reapers were never really clear and if you take Sovereigns word as truth, the catalyst could just be playing you.

-"he/she showed them that organics are not just beings they can push around anymore" If that's really true, then the combined galactic power should be enough to beat them, but it isn't. The choices at the end are given to you by a previously unreliable and insidious character. If this really was a true situation, the catalust has way more power given the circumstances than shepard. He is the one giving you the choices, even if you're the one that has the weapon.

I'm not saying that your position is fallacy, but it's not a tautology either. The closest analogy I can think of is like you came with a "be all end all weapon" to kill the ****s in WWII and then you went to ask them how to use it. Why wouldn't they lied, because you proved you aren't that inferior?

Sentient machines have many purposes and motivations, I don't the reapers being blatant about them makes them any less or more intelligent. Nor do I think that being less or more intelligent makes them prone to be more or less blatant about it.

[MaynPayn]

sp0ck 06 wrote...
TLDR: BioWare, I love the direction that you went with in the ending. I love how you truly tried to transcend the tired videogame format. But as a gamer, I want some closure to the choices I've made throughout this game. Just tell us what happened!

Very nice post and agree with you an epilogue would have been nice even though I really don't need it, but it would still have been nice.
My only complaint is I wish you didn't say everything so I could have had something to say too

[clipped_wolf]

Faerillis wrote...

 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.

I agree.  Shepard dying on the alter of peace is a fitting end, but it isn't that simple.
"Trade ... will cease.  Civilization will end." --Paul Atradies
My biggest problem with the endings is that no matter what you pick you have doomed your civilization.  You have seperated your soldiers from their families forever.  You betrayed almost everyone you know, everyone who fought for you.  What did you even fight for?  Life?  It would have continued if you had been defeated.
Saving your species  is the only choice that was offered.  The ending is cynical and it tries to play itself off as hopeful.

[Leonia]

And to address what the OP was actually asking: I do not feel misled because I do not feel Bioware was very specific about their promises in the first place, a "satisfactory" ending is a very subjective thing and I personally was satisfied, but I can see how others are not.

[Lugaidster]

Hudathan wrote...

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.

I played a mostly Paragon Shepard and I felt that I had no choice but to take the destroy option. During my first playthrough, I was about as emotionally drained as my character was. All I wanted to do was to turn on the Crucible and hope that it stopped the Reapers somehow, I was tired and desperate for a solution.

When I was presented with the three choices, destroy and synthesis were the superior options in my mind. Shepard couldn't know for sure that control would even work since everything in the Mass Effect series has shown that lesser organic minds are not powerful enough when compared to the Reapers. Therefore, control was too dangerous.

While synthesis was the most 'promising' option, it went against the concept of freedom that a Paragon Shepard would have come to believe after liberating the Geth and curing the Genophage. That Shepard can somehow play God and achieve 'eternal peace' entirely on the word of an ancient AI that may or may not be wrong was simply too uncertain and vague a concept for Shepard's immediate needs. And of course, by taking either control or synthesis options, Shepard and therefor the player have decided to place the future of the galaxy on the mere assumptions of the Catalyst. Neither of those things have ever been done before and there is no way even an ancient being such as the Catalyst can reach those conclusions with certainty.

And that leaves the destroy option. The allied fleets were fighting outside but it is and was always going to be a losing battle. All they are doing is buying Shepard time to activate the Crucible and come up with a solution, any solution other than annhilation. Therefore, with no time to waste and two unreliable options, my Shepard's best bet at the time was to simply destroy the Reapers and hope that his actions through out the story will lead to the galaxy of his and my ideals. The Geth were unfortunate victims of this sacrifice, but even they would understand the reasons behind my decision and would probably make the sacrifice in Shepard's place if their positions were reversed. Shepard and the Geth sacrificed themselves so that galactic life has a chance to evolve the way it was meant to whether it be good or bad, free from control and predetermination. It was that freedom which led me to my choice, not anger at the Geth or anything negative. But the fact that these endings carry so many nuances on such an individual level is why I enjoyed the theme Bioware came up with.

And of course I was given the easter egg ending in which Shepard takes a breath on what seems to be Earth. So the game must be 'rewarding' my particular train of thought with an easter egg that makes me wonder what else is going on. That's just how I looked at the whole thing.

I'm going to agree. To me destroy is the only real choice. But I didn't really enjoy the nuances as much. I wish I could though, but I can't.

[Valo_Soren]

Lugaidster wrote...

Valo_Soren wrote...

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. 

 

Reaper motives, if anything, have never been clear. Just because one of them suddenly tells you it doesn't mean that they can be trusted. If they have any self-preservation instinct they could lie just to keep you away from destruction. If the indoctrination is true (which I'm not saying it is) then the choices didn't really matter, and you were being lied to.

If you're ok with assuming they are being truthful, that's fine by me. But it's in no logical way the only possible outcome given context.

Valo_Soren wrote... 

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.
 

 

That only answers part of the question. The reason why the reapers would give him those choices (if they are to be trusted, which I don't still think that's a given). It doesn't explain why would Shepard take them. If it's just for the sake of survival, then he's not really a hero. I'm going to quote him on this one: "I'm going to save the galaxy without sacrificing the soul of our species." There's a break of that promise in every choice he takes, a break of character, a very strongwilled character. If anything, ensuring that the next cycle can defeat the reapers without having to comply to this absurd choices would be a less selfish choice in the long run and equally fitting given the circumstances.

Valo_Soren wrote...  

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.

-"they would just indoctrinate him and convince him" You don't really know if that's the case. 

-"but in all essence he proved himself to them" So what, a more fitting enemy is still an enemy. All the more satisfaction to kill him. The motivations for the reapers were never really clear and if you take Sovereigns word as truth, the catalyst could just be playing you.

-"he/she showed them that organics are not just beings they can push around anymore" If that's really true, then the combined galactic power should be enough to beat them, but it isn't. The choices at the end are given to you by a previously unreliable and insidious character. If this really was a true situation, the catalust has way more power given the circumstances than shepard. He is the one giving you the choices, even if you're the one that has the weapon.

I'm not saying that your position is fallacy, but it's not a tautology either. The closest analogy I can think of is like you came with a "be all end all weapon" to kill the ****s in WWII and then you went to ask them how to use it. Why wouldn't they lied, because you proved you aren't that inferior?

Sentient machines have many purposes and motivations, I don't the reapers being blatant about them makes them any less or more intelligent. Nor do I think that being less or more intelligent makes them prone to be more or less blatant about it.

All of this is really up to everyones interpretation which I believe was Bioware's point with the ending anyway, to leave it open ended, to encourage friendly discussions like the one you and I are having. I honestly don't believe theres any right or wrong answers here, your interpretation seems to me as interesting as my own. I honestly can't give you a full logical explanation until Bioware fully explains it myself, I only can read what we've been given in the three games and some of the comics and novels I've read, put it all together and try to have it make sense the best I can. To me it makes sense, but understandably it doesn't to everyone and its not that 'you don't get it' because if I said that, which admittedly I've been guilty of and apologize for, then that would just be a cop out, the correct thing is that we each person sees the ending in a different way, and while I doubt Bioware was expecting all the backlash they are getting I think they did succeed in opening up these interpretive discussions.

[sistersafetypin]

HenchxNarf wrote...

sistersafetypin wrote...

You're right everyone: Re- obvious trolls are obvious. Sorry.

lol technical issues!

I deleted my post. Not because I don't stand by my opinion of you and that other guy. I still think he was trolling, and I think the fact that you find the movement "ridiculous" is coloring every interaction you have with anyone in it. You'll notice, in my original comment to you I didn't call you a troll. In fact, I didn't call you troll at all.[Yes I did, after you explained, "Adults don't get upset about video games"] I was talking to other guy. When I quoted your comment with his and said "This proves my point" I was talking about my post to you that is still there on either page 6 or 7. But have a nice day. That you even responded with.. "lol, technical issues!" speaks volumes about you. I clearly misjudged your ability to be rational while disagreeing. 

Respond to this if you wish. I wont respond back here. If you want to know what I said previously, I'll pm you. If not, awesome. Don't feel like explaining to someone who wont respect my opinion anyway.

Modifié par sistersafetypin, 20 mars 2012 - 07:45 .

[AtreiyaN7]

Faerillis wrote...

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."

Yes, well Winston Churchill wasn't facing total annihilation of all organic life, was he? It was a speech given during a war that could be won (and was won) through conventional means. That being said, I do think you should have an option to try to fight a conventional war with the Reapers if you want, so long as you don't mind gambling with every life in the galaxy and possibly losing. I have no problem with the idea of it since we each gambled with the existing choices that we made anyway.

You seemed to really be hung up on the idea of the fleet dying of starvation, etc. in that other post. I still think it's entirely possible that the quarians could share their knowledge and experience with their liveships to help others stuck in the Sol system. Furthermore, everyone in the fleet was willing to give their lives so that their respective races could live; if they somehow end up dying of starvation, it's a sacrifice that I believe they were willing to make. As long as the people on their home worlds and their colony worlds survive, that's what matters the most in my opinion.

Also, the mass relays have always been a crutch and a trap in my opinion. They were never "our" technology in the first place. While it sucks that the convenience of them being around is gone, I think that galactic civilization can recover in time. It's not as if all knowledge in the galaxy vanished and suddenly went poof just because the relays are gone. I have no doubt that things won't be easy, but the protheans did come close to creating their own relays. I think that someone could do it again eventually (even if it's a while in coming).

[Lugaidster]

HenchxNarf wrote...

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.

Why give them colors then?