Let this thread die now.
Bioware, don't change the ending, just provide explanation and closure. Don't listen to the "MINORITY".
Débuté par
Luzarius
, mars 24 2012 11:11
Retour en haut
#328
Posté 25 mars 2012 - 04:45
Reth Shepherd
-
- Members
- 1 437 messages
I believe the following explains EVERYTHING! Plot holes, weird moments, and of course the ending. From user JoeLaTurkeyII
#329
Posté 25 mars 2012 - 05:20
Nardy86
-
- Members
- 17 messages
So mr OP, say you have started a playthrough of ME 1 & 2 and now your 20 hours into ME 3 and are killed by the Reaper on Rannoch, by your logic you will need to start from scratch in ME 3. So mr OP if you died during any of your playthroughs and didn't restart at the beginning then you my friend are an idiot. (your an idiot regardless).
And btw It's not confirmed that shepard lives or dies in either destroy or synthesis options,no one aside from devs truly knows.
And btw It's not confirmed that shepard lives or dies in either destroy or synthesis options,no one aside from devs truly knows.
#330
Posté 25 mars 2012 - 05:26
puppy maclove
-
- Members
- 390 messages
Sorry OP.... but I disagree with all statements. I think you all alone on this one.
#331
Posté 25 mars 2012 - 05:41
Ultra Prism
-
- Members
- 1 456 messages
Sorry man, I played ME series to feel like hero and live to tell about it ... I wanted a ending like that so I would feel well rewarded .... except the ending I chose control didn't give me that feel so I tried others and it still didn't
#332
Posté 25 mars 2012 - 07:33
MassEffectFan11
-
- Members
- 1 449 messages
Sure, I don't like the endings. But it's good to know that since I reloaded and looked at the other ones, entirely out of curiosity, that I don't understand my Shepard that I've been working on since the very beginning of Mass Effect 1 and who's morals are my own and who's existence I've spent nearly 200 hours perfecting to how I want. I'm glad to know that since I was curious to see the other endings, I don't understand him. In the words of the late Saren Arterius, "There is no other logical conclusion".
Well, unless you're not a complete jackass and you realize that someone disagreeing with you doesn't mean that they aren't a true fan, or that someone wanting to see all three endings, despite them all being the same, doesn't mean they aren't a true fan. But I guess you wouldn't understand that, OP, because clearly you have your head so far up Bioware and EA's asses that you can't see or hear the arguments of anyone else with any clarity.
One of the big themes of Mass Effect has always been that there's a chance you'll have to sacrifice everything to save the galaxy. But it's also been about giving you the chance to NOT have to do that if that's not your way. Of course nobody expects to come out alive from a war with the Reapers. You think anyone expected to come out alive from a mission into the galactic core against an army of Collectors? Hell no, but you do anyway. My Shepard has always been willing to die for the cause if he needs to, but he's damn sure going to do his best to NOT die and still save the galaxy, and Bioware has always given us the option. But in this, you get one chance to maybe not die, and regardless of whether or not you die, you destroy galactic society in all three endings. That's not the kind of thing we've come to expect from Mass Effect. We've come to expect the ability to get a good, happy ending against all odds, and this is pretty much a huge slap to the face of everyone who wanted to actually save the galaxy.
Well, unless you're not a complete jackass and you realize that someone disagreeing with you doesn't mean that they aren't a true fan, or that someone wanting to see all three endings, despite them all being the same, doesn't mean they aren't a true fan. But I guess you wouldn't understand that, OP, because clearly you have your head so far up Bioware and EA's asses that you can't see or hear the arguments of anyone else with any clarity.
One of the big themes of Mass Effect has always been that there's a chance you'll have to sacrifice everything to save the galaxy. But it's also been about giving you the chance to NOT have to do that if that's not your way. Of course nobody expects to come out alive from a war with the Reapers. You think anyone expected to come out alive from a mission into the galactic core against an army of Collectors? Hell no, but you do anyway. My Shepard has always been willing to die for the cause if he needs to, but he's damn sure going to do his best to NOT die and still save the galaxy, and Bioware has always given us the option. But in this, you get one chance to maybe not die, and regardless of whether or not you die, you destroy galactic society in all three endings. That's not the kind of thing we've come to expect from Mass Effect. We've come to expect the ability to get a good, happy ending against all odds, and this is pretty much a huge slap to the face of everyone who wanted to actually save the galaxy.
Modifié par MassEffectFan11, 25 mars 2012 - 07:53 .
#333
Posté 25 mars 2012 - 08:10
Erszebeth
-
- Members
- 200 messages
Reloading a different ending only proves one thing : that most of us weren't satisfied with the lack of choice given to our Shepards.
How many people have already said that their Shepard would have *never* accepted the choice given by the catalyst ? I chose destroy. And I hated the game while I did it, because I was never allowed to refuse the false choice given by the catalyst. My Shepard would have never ever chosen a course of action that would destroy the mass relays. Yet this is inforced in every one of the RGB endings. If I replay the game, knowing now the endings, I will stop at Marauder Shields.
Because I do not condone those endings.
How many people have already said that their Shepard would have *never* accepted the choice given by the catalyst ? I chose destroy. And I hated the game while I did it, because I was never allowed to refuse the false choice given by the catalyst. My Shepard would have never ever chosen a course of action that would destroy the mass relays. Yet this is inforced in every one of the RGB endings. If I replay the game, knowing now the endings, I will stop at Marauder Shields.
Because I do not condone those endings.
#334
Posté 26 mars 2012 - 06:21
Reiku67
-
- Members
- 13 messages
No more posts.
Modifié par Reiku67, 26 mars 2012 - 06:21 .
#335
Posté 26 mars 2012 - 07:02
Luzarius
-
- Members
- 230 messages
"The created will always rebel against the creators".
When I heard the star child say this I was ecstatic. It shows that Bioware writers truly understand this phenomenon (one of many) in the universe they've created. Simply, it was the struggle between organics & synthetics.
Your first battle in ME1 on Eden Prime is against Geth (Synthetics).
Rebelling Against the Starchild
Some of you wanted to rebel against the star child. But did you really think a conventional union of galactic species was enough to defeat the reapers? Without the crucible triggering some kind of change in the catalyst (starchild) shep would be doomed. The solution to defeating the reapers was ultimately using their own tech against them in some way. The crucible was profound. All those extinct civilizations leaving behind everything they knew in the form of schematics designed to stop the reapers. It took a united effort + the effort of previous cycles (crucible) to overcome the reaper adversary.
To me, the star child respresented the mind of the organic that originally set the reapers in motion. What a twisted and evil view, but this personality (starchild) firmly believed it was doing the right thing. But at the end it saw reason, did it do this on its own or was it the crucible? It had to be the crucible right? I would imagine the starchild perceives time diferrently than us and through mathematical equation came to the conclusion that it would eventually lose at some point unless it changed (crucible or?). The fact that the game got me thinking like this was very entertaining for me.
Many of the things the star child talked about is what me & my viewers discussed during our stream of ME1 & ME2. It was such a pleasent surprise to see that many of my views, outlooks and perspective are shared by Bioware. Fortunately I went down a path for my shepard where everything fell into near perfect place at the end of the game.
Why was my playthrough different?
1. No Death Ruleset - At the end of the game I was in pure survival mode. All I cared about is Shep surviving and destroying the reapers.
2. I had hundreds of viewers to discuss mass effect with, so I gain the perspective of so many different view points.
3. I played a pre-determined ruleset for my character, in this case it was pro-human, anti-ai with a belief in God. We always play controversial characters that tend to push the RP limits of a game. Bioware delivered with this type of character. A true testament of a game is how well you can roleplay. In ME3 you united a galactic force to buy enough time to put the crucible into play (an honor to all the extinct civilizations of the past).
Replaying ME Series
I am determined to replay ME series from scratch one day with a character that is the complete opposite of the one I made previously. I am going to try and understand everyone elses point of view. However I'm only allowed to watch an ending once or twice tops. It's all about the moment (not dissecting **** afterwards because that ruins immersion).
I never had to dissect the end of ME1 or ME2. In the case of ME3 the only thing I'm wondering is what the hell happened to the normandy? How did shepard get back down to the planet surface (which opens up the possibility of indoctrination). Perhaps this is a new DLC selling strategy on Biowares behalf. But given how I hate 98% of single player games, Bioware can count on my $10.00 any time!
Don't reload endings
Also I mean what I said. I strongly advise against reloading just to try different endings. PLEASE don't do this in future games. My thoughts and viewpoints are there two PUSH YOUR LIMITS.
Questions
(I have my own answers to these but was wondering if someone could give their views)
1. Is there a difference between slamming an asteroid into a mass relay but then destroying it via the crucible/catalyst? Is there a difference between a controlled and uncontrolled explosion?
2. Are nanites part of the ME universe?
3. As soon as the Crucible connected, communication with the starchild (catalyst) began. What does this mean?
Luzarius
www.twitch.tv/luzarius
"no death ruleset"
When I heard the star child say this I was ecstatic. It shows that Bioware writers truly understand this phenomenon (one of many) in the universe they've created. Simply, it was the struggle between organics & synthetics.
Your first battle in ME1 on Eden Prime is against Geth (Synthetics).
Rebelling Against the Starchild
Some of you wanted to rebel against the star child. But did you really think a conventional union of galactic species was enough to defeat the reapers? Without the crucible triggering some kind of change in the catalyst (starchild) shep would be doomed. The solution to defeating the reapers was ultimately using their own tech against them in some way. The crucible was profound. All those extinct civilizations leaving behind everything they knew in the form of schematics designed to stop the reapers. It took a united effort + the effort of previous cycles (crucible) to overcome the reaper adversary.
To me, the star child respresented the mind of the organic that originally set the reapers in motion. What a twisted and evil view, but this personality (starchild) firmly believed it was doing the right thing. But at the end it saw reason, did it do this on its own or was it the crucible? It had to be the crucible right? I would imagine the starchild perceives time diferrently than us and through mathematical equation came to the conclusion that it would eventually lose at some point unless it changed (crucible or?). The fact that the game got me thinking like this was very entertaining for me.
Many of the things the star child talked about is what me & my viewers discussed during our stream of ME1 & ME2. It was such a pleasent surprise to see that many of my views, outlooks and perspective are shared by Bioware. Fortunately I went down a path for my shepard where everything fell into near perfect place at the end of the game.
Why was my playthrough different?
1. No Death Ruleset - At the end of the game I was in pure survival mode. All I cared about is Shep surviving and destroying the reapers.
2. I had hundreds of viewers to discuss mass effect with, so I gain the perspective of so many different view points.
3. I played a pre-determined ruleset for my character, in this case it was pro-human, anti-ai with a belief in God. We always play controversial characters that tend to push the RP limits of a game. Bioware delivered with this type of character. A true testament of a game is how well you can roleplay. In ME3 you united a galactic force to buy enough time to put the crucible into play (an honor to all the extinct civilizations of the past).
Replaying ME Series
I am determined to replay ME series from scratch one day with a character that is the complete opposite of the one I made previously. I am going to try and understand everyone elses point of view. However I'm only allowed to watch an ending once or twice tops. It's all about the moment (not dissecting **** afterwards because that ruins immersion).
I never had to dissect the end of ME1 or ME2. In the case of ME3 the only thing I'm wondering is what the hell happened to the normandy? How did shepard get back down to the planet surface (which opens up the possibility of indoctrination). Perhaps this is a new DLC selling strategy on Biowares behalf. But given how I hate 98% of single player games, Bioware can count on my $10.00 any time!
Don't reload endings
Also I mean what I said. I strongly advise against reloading just to try different endings. PLEASE don't do this in future games. My thoughts and viewpoints are there two PUSH YOUR LIMITS.
Questions
(I have my own answers to these but was wondering if someone could give their views)
1. Is there a difference between slamming an asteroid into a mass relay but then destroying it via the crucible/catalyst? Is there a difference between a controlled and uncontrolled explosion?
2. Are nanites part of the ME universe?
3. As soon as the Crucible connected, communication with the starchild (catalyst) began. What does this mean?
Luzarius
www.twitch.tv/luzarius
"no death ruleset"
#336
Posté 26 mars 2012 - 07:05
FrozenDreamfall
-
- Members
- 320 messages
Riiiight...minority,someone needs to get their facts straight before posting stuff like this.I guess it took the "minority" to get even the press involved,dozens of sites and reviewers to write articles and disagree with the ending and make Bioware take notice,but don't mind that,we're just the "minority".
#337
Posté 26 mars 2012 - 07:34
Joccaren
-
- Members
- 1 130 messages
1. I did not reload my Shepard to find out about different endings. Instead, I Googled them post fact. Know what? I played my Shepard as a character I was RPing all the way through to the end. Then I got to the end and Know what? There was NOTHING for me to choose. I sat there for a long time thinking 'WTF?'. 'Why can't I argue?'. 'Why can't I refuse to do anything'. You see, the Role playing comparison holds up nicely when you can role play. Bioware took that power out of your hands in ME3. You weren't playing your Shepard. My Shepard would not have listened to a single word the Catalyst said, and would have tried to shoot the damn thing instead. However, Bioware's Shepard wouldn't have, so that's what we were shoehorned with.
2. Every human is also capable of reading. "No Ending A, B or C", "Seeing as this is the final game, we can provide a lot of endings", "Your choices will be honoured in ME3, and will affect the outcome". "Saving the Rachni has a massive impact on the course of the game - especially in the ending".
We were provided explanations for why we would not get 1 or 3 endings, and told we would not. Instead, that is what we got. Sorry if we're pissed about false advertising.
3. A happy ending was never happening. There would always be masses of Sacrifice - Thessia, the Sword Fleet, Hammer, Palaven, possibly the Krogan, or the Geth, or the Quarians. The problem is that it was shoehorned in for no reason with a diabolus ex machina, simply to force an unhappy ending. Sorry, but provide a legitimate reason for a bad ending, not some **** that says "Odds may say you'll live, but you have to die because we thought that would be good writing based of your choices. PAY US MONEY FOR DLC
:D:D:D". Also note, its Sci-Fi, not RL. There is ALWAYS a chance for victory. Hell, the Deathstar could blow up whole planets, how could the Rebel alliance possibly win?
4. I am not a fan of indoctrination theory. It is fan speculation that sadly makes more sense than Bioware's endings. 'nough said.
5. Are you freaking kidding me? Do I need to link you to all the literature articles explaining why the Catalyst is one of the worst parts of the ending - in a technical writing way. Then, the three choices have to be the worst ones I've ever seen in a game. Yes, synthetics v Organics, all very well and good. Note: Quarians and Geth. Did we get asked whether we wanted to control the Geth with our minds, merge the two through space magic, or kill the Geth, and all Quarian ships? No. We got given a realistic resolution. The ending didn't offer this chance. It only offered 3 very specific options tailored to end the game with resetting the whole universe. I'll offer you a fourth option, on present in Deus Ex - to which had as much, if not more, philosophical depth behind its endings: DO NOTHING (In Deus Ex, destroy the facility and yourself, and let the world decide for itself). Let the fleets battle Sovereign. You value free will above all else, whether it be Synthetic, Organic, or a synthesis of the two. You will not kill the Reapers' free will by controlling them. You will not take away the Geth's free will by destroying them. You won't pull the free will away from others by merging everyone together in synthesis. No, you stay true to free will, and let the universe decide what happens. Preferably if your war assets were high enough - 7K EMS or above - you would win, and the Reapers at EARTH would be stopped. Then you'd slowly fight back through the rest of the galaxy, sacrificing billions of lives for the free will of all. There you go. Bittersweet, more realistic ending for my Shepard, fits in with current endings, not a forced ending, and still carried philosophical weight.
The Mass Effect endings were by no means brilliant. Not from a gameplay perspective. Not from a story perspective. Not from a literature perspective. Not from a Role Playing perspective. Not from any perspective really. I am surprised such crap managed to get released. It sours the rest of the series with how bad it is.
2. Every human is also capable of reading. "No Ending A, B or C", "Seeing as this is the final game, we can provide a lot of endings", "Your choices will be honoured in ME3, and will affect the outcome". "Saving the Rachni has a massive impact on the course of the game - especially in the ending".
We were provided explanations for why we would not get 1 or 3 endings, and told we would not. Instead, that is what we got. Sorry if we're pissed about false advertising.
3. A happy ending was never happening. There would always be masses of Sacrifice - Thessia, the Sword Fleet, Hammer, Palaven, possibly the Krogan, or the Geth, or the Quarians. The problem is that it was shoehorned in for no reason with a diabolus ex machina, simply to force an unhappy ending. Sorry, but provide a legitimate reason for a bad ending, not some **** that says "Odds may say you'll live, but you have to die because we thought that would be good writing based of your choices. PAY US MONEY FOR DLC
:D:D:D". Also note, its Sci-Fi, not RL. There is ALWAYS a chance for victory. Hell, the Deathstar could blow up whole planets, how could the Rebel alliance possibly win?4. I am not a fan of indoctrination theory. It is fan speculation that sadly makes more sense than Bioware's endings. 'nough said.
5. Are you freaking kidding me? Do I need to link you to all the literature articles explaining why the Catalyst is one of the worst parts of the ending - in a technical writing way. Then, the three choices have to be the worst ones I've ever seen in a game. Yes, synthetics v Organics, all very well and good. Note: Quarians and Geth. Did we get asked whether we wanted to control the Geth with our minds, merge the two through space magic, or kill the Geth, and all Quarian ships? No. We got given a realistic resolution. The ending didn't offer this chance. It only offered 3 very specific options tailored to end the game with resetting the whole universe. I'll offer you a fourth option, on present in Deus Ex - to which had as much, if not more, philosophical depth behind its endings: DO NOTHING (In Deus Ex, destroy the facility and yourself, and let the world decide for itself). Let the fleets battle Sovereign. You value free will above all else, whether it be Synthetic, Organic, or a synthesis of the two. You will not kill the Reapers' free will by controlling them. You will not take away the Geth's free will by destroying them. You won't pull the free will away from others by merging everyone together in synthesis. No, you stay true to free will, and let the universe decide what happens. Preferably if your war assets were high enough - 7K EMS or above - you would win, and the Reapers at EARTH would be stopped. Then you'd slowly fight back through the rest of the galaxy, sacrificing billions of lives for the free will of all. There you go. Bittersweet, more realistic ending for my Shepard, fits in with current endings, not a forced ending, and still carried philosophical weight.
The Mass Effect endings were by no means brilliant. Not from a gameplay perspective. Not from a story perspective. Not from a literature perspective. Not from a Role Playing perspective. Not from any perspective really. I am surprised such crap managed to get released. It sours the rest of the series with how bad it is.
#338
Posté 26 mars 2012 - 07:51
FrozenDreamfall
-
- Members
- 320 messages
Ooh another minority one came to mind.I can't post a meme now but everyone who knows 9gag can imagine the guy from the Chocolate Factory saying "You must be new around here.".Or another one,same guy saying "So you think that the end-hating fans of ME3 are a minority.Please tell me more about how much time you spent reading posts on this forum".Ha,someone should make that.
#339
Posté 26 mars 2012 - 07:54
Joccaren
-
- Members
- 1 130 messages
I cringed when I heard this. Evidence in the ME universe so far represents the opposite - created will NOT rebel against creators, the creators rebel against created. Then, EDI. Brokering peace between Quarians and Geth - always my ass. No, this is not true in any way. The Geth did not rebel. The defended themselves. Play ME2, and all Geth Missions in ME3, and maybe you'll realise this.Luzarius wrote...
"The created will always rebel against the creators".
When I heard the star child say this I was ecstatic. It shows that Bioware writers truly understand this phenomenon (one of many) in the universe they've created. Simply, it was the struggle between organics & synthetics.
Your first battle in ME1 on Eden Prime is against Geth (Synthetics).
Rebelling Against the Starchild
Some of you wanted to rebel against the star child. But did you really think a conventional union of galactic species was enough to defeat the reapers? Without the crucible triggering some kind of change in the catalyst (starchild) shep would be doomed. The solution to defeating the reapers was ultimately using their own tech against them in some way. The crucible was profound. All those extinct civilizations leaving behind everything they knew in the form of schematics designed to stop the reapers. It took a united effort + the effort of previous cycles (crucible) to overcome the reaper adversary.Does that really matter? We were promised an ending where the Reapers won. There is no need for Shepard to win, especially if you are going for some philosophical BS. You could very easily have let Shepard say no, and doom the whole galaxy, so that they could stay true to their beliefs.
Eh, the star child is one big anomoly that makes very little sense. In addition, who says organics originally created the Reapers? There is no evidence to suggest this. Hell, Sovereign even says that they are eternal.To me, the star child respresented the mind of the organic that originally set the reapers in motion. What a twisted and evil view, but this personality (starchild) firmly believed it was doing the right thing. But at the end it saw reason, did it do this on its own or was it the crucible? It had to be the crucible right? I would imagine the starchild perceives time diferrently than us and through mathematical equation came to the conclusion that it would eventually lose at some point unless it changed (crucible or?). The fact that the game got me thinking like this was very entertaining for me.
Yes, nice that YOUR Shepard's views and opinions were reflected in the ending. Mine were not. He had no wish to kill the Geth, no will to control the Reapers - hell, he thought the Catalyst was lying to him and trying to indoctrinate him with that option, especially after TIM - and saw no reason to take away the free will of the galaxy by forcing it to become one with synthetics (Or Organics on the side of Geth and EDI. BTW, does that mean the Normandy is now partially Organic?)Many of the things the star child talked about is what me & my viewers discussed during our stream of ME1 & ME2. It was such a pleasent surprise to see that many of my views, outlooks and perspective are shared by Bioware. Fortunately I went down a path for my shepard where everything fell into near perfect place at the end of the game.
Why was my playthrough different?
1. No Death Ruleset - At the end of the game I was in pure survival mode. All I cared about is Shep surviving and destroying the reapers.
2. I had hundreds of viewers to discuss mass effect with, so I gain the perspective of so many different view points.
3. I played a pre-determined ruleset for my character, in this case it was pro-human, anti-ai with a belief in God. We always play controversial characters that tend to push the RP limits of a game. Bioware delivered with this type of character. A true testament of a game is how well you can roleplay. In ME3 you united a galactic force to buy enough time to put the crucible into play (an honor to all the extinct civilizations of the past).1. That was right up until the Catalyst, and my Shepard was faced with options that would forever shape life in the galaxy. A serious problem, and my Shepard took it that way. There was sadly nothing for him to choose.
2. Welcome to the Internet. If you go on forums often, and more than one, you uncover a lot of different perspectives. Currently, most I've met disagree with the endings strongly, no matter how they thought about the themes and choices in the games.
3. Mine: Pro Alien and Self Determination - to the effect of no race should decide the fate of others, but that they should work together instead - Pro AI, no belief in god. I had little room to RP in ME3. Constant religious statements made when talking to Garrus that my Shepard would NEVER have made, blatant acceptance of the Catalyst's statements, so much dialogue that wasn't even left to me to decide, and that was not what my Shepard would be - personally I find one of the failings in this game the lack of ability to roleplay. You can RP some types of characters, but not all. Bioware wants you to RP a certain character, and if you don't conform to that, it gets difficult fast.
Replaying ME Series
I am determined to replay ME series from scratch one day with a character that is the complete opposite of the one I made previously. I am going to try and understand everyone elses point of view. However I'm only allowed to watch an ending once or twice tops. It's all about the moment (not dissecting **** afterwards because that ruins immersion).
I never had to dissect the end of ME1 or ME2. In the case of ME3 the only thing I'm wondering is what the hell happened to the normandy? How did shepard get back down to the planet surface (which opens up the possibility of indoctrination). Perhaps this is a new DLC selling strategy on Biowares behalf. But given how I hate 98% of single player games, Bioware can count on my $10.00 any time!Direct opposite may still work out for you. Try completely unrelated to your current one instead. Maybe the classic 'Everyone has rights' style, where you stand up for everyone. Then you may have a challenge in the end of what to pick, dependent on the many other details of your character. And I'll agree its about the moment. Its why so many - myself included - basically went 'Umm.... WHAT?' after the endings the first time. They made no sense compared to the context of ME, and were shoehorned in to force Shepard's death and reset the galaxy to square one with maximum casualties.
Don't reload endings
Also I mean what I said. I strongly advise against reloading just to try different endings. PLEASE don't do this in future games. My thoughts and viewpoints are there two PUSH YOUR LIMITS.100% agreed. As much as it kills me when something goes wrong, its what my Shepard did, and you don't get second chances when making decisions. Makes you a lot more immersed in the world, which sadly made the endings that much worse for me because of the massive 'WTF?' factor.
1. Yes, but seemingly not so much in Destroy/Synthesis.Questions
(I have my own answers to these but was wondering if someone could give their views)
1. Is there a difference between slamming an asteroid into a mass relay but then destroying it via the crucible/catalyst? Is there a difference between a controlled and uncontrolled explosion?
2. Are nanites part of the ME universe?
3. As soon as the Crucible connected, communication with the starchild (catalyst) began. What does this mean?
Luzarius
www.twitch.tv/luzarius
"no death ruleset"
Side by side comparisson:
Note: Control they don't blow, Destroy/Synthesis they explode.
2. Likely. I don't see any reason for them not to be. I don't believe they play a massive role, but they would exist for some purposes.
3. Umm... No. The Crucible was connected before Shepard feinted sorry. He had his talk with Anderson, then the Catalyst activated or W/E. Shepard's loss of consciousness activated the Catalyst - what does that tell you? God knows, but space magic.
#340
Posté 26 mars 2012 - 07:56
magnuskn
-
- Members
- 1 056 messages
Once again, the pro-side can't help itself but recur to ad hominems. What makes the pro-ending side people so arrogant?
#341
Posté 26 mars 2012 - 07:57
tenojitsu
-
- Members
- 1 143 messages
Haha, I'm a meta-gamer who betrayed my Shepard. What if you looked up the other endings on youtube?
#343
Posté 26 mars 2012 - 08:00
MeatShieldGriff
-
- Members
- 116 messages
#344
Posté 26 mars 2012 - 08:00
Dragoni89
-
- Members
- 337 messages
You lost me at don't listen to the minority. Who the hell is the minority here. Please get your statistics right before you talk
#345
Posté 26 mars 2012 - 08:07
Zine2
-
- Members
- 585 messages
Luzarius wrote...
Reloading a different ending PROVES you're playing an indecisive shepard
Anyone who reloads and chooses a different ending doesn't deserve to be heard in my controversial opinion.
You should revise the adjective of your opinion from "controversial" to "ignorant to the extreme". You are not controversial, because that would imply your arguments have any merits at all. Instead you are nothing more than an ignorant fool, trying to stir up trouble with a completely nonsensical argument.
Fact: Many players play multiple run throughs as Shepard. This is called a Completionist run, and a very valid form of gaming. It is so valid that Bioware and other companies actively encourage this, through the use of "Achievements". You cannot have all the Achievements if you only did one ending.
Therefore, your entire premise is contrary to the wishes of the game maker. They created the game with a specific mechanic encouraging exploring multiple endings, or clicking through different options.
Also, Organics vs Synthetics is one of many themes. Pretending that there are no others is to engage in something called "lying".
And Mass Effect's answer to that theme is that "Synthetics and Organics are hardwired to kill each other because of they're made of metal or protein and not the content of their character", making it an incredibly offensive resolution to the ending and anyone who agrees with it belongs the the Dark Ages.
#347
Posté 26 mars 2012 - 08:19
Aetius5
-
- Members
- 227 messages
SMH @ OP....
You're entitled to your opinion, but you can't force the rest of the BSN accept it, just because you say so. Stop posting dumb threads like this.
You're entitled to your opinion, but you can't force the rest of the BSN accept it, just because you say so. Stop posting dumb threads like this.
#348
Posté 26 mars 2012 - 08:22
TJX2045
-
- Members
- 1 111 messages
Aetius5 wrote...
SMH @ OP....
You're entitled to your opinion, but you can't force the rest of the BSN accept it, just because you say so. Stop posting dumb threads like this.
This one did not believe, upon reading, that the original post was serious.
Upon further evaluation, it appears that this one was horribly wrong in its belief.
Furthermore, this one is not sure that one realizes he is reinforcing the false advertisement of 16 different endings.
This one remembers a difference in the ending of Mass Effect 1 regarding your choices.
Modifié par TJX2045, 26 mars 2012 - 08:34 .
#349
Posté 27 mars 2012 - 04:44
Luzarius
-
- Members
- 230 messages
This picture does not acknowledge that the reapers only harvest advanced civilizations, not the lesser, primitive civilizations. There may be a window of at least 10,000 years where a civilization is simply left alone by reapers.
Whoever made this picture, please contact them and have them uninstall the game for ignoring the details. That person has no right to play Mass Effect. I'm offended. The person who made this picture doesn't realize that organic minds were uploaded to the reapers (including the star child most likely based upon its logic).
See this is what I"m talking about. Players like this should not be allowed to buy the game since they don't pay attention to the story & dialogue.
I'm disgusted with 95% of gamers. <---- Yes I mean it.
A true gamer would only watch an ending one or two times tops and make assessments based upon those 1-2 or experiences. It's all about "experiences" in a single player RPG. You have to embrace the moment, not ponder the moment later like a "****". You either get it the first time or you don't. If you don't get it the first time, START THE WHOLE GAME OVER AGAIN.
If you watched the ending more than 2 times then you FAIL as a gamer. Never ever forget how much you fail.
One playthrough = one ending. If you want to re-watch an offline video one more time, so be it. But leave it there. To assess an ending beyond this is metagaming and completely out of character.
Luzarius
www.twitch.tv/luzarius
"no death ruleset"
Modifié par Luzarius, 27 mars 2012 - 04:49 .
#350
Posté 27 mars 2012 - 04:54
Halo Quea
-
- Members
- 909 messages
Luzarius wrote...
This picture does not acknowledge that the reapers only harvest advanced civilizations, not the lesser, primitive civilizations.
WRONG. It doesn't matter WHEN it happens or how primitive the civilization is right now. ALL ORGANICS are marked for death. So if that species is just a bunch of fish swimming in a pond today, the Reapers have already decided in advance that they should be destroyed because they MIGHT create a race of synthetics that might kill them.
The logic is broken and ultimately a hypocritical paradox.
