286 réponses à ce sujet

[jla0644]

No Snakes Alive wrote...

ONCE AGAIN, my Shepard either survives and destroys the reapers, saving the universe (though it's a mess now), or gives in to Indoctrination and dies and fails to save the universe. I didn't really have to draw my own conclusion here, I just had to have the brains to put two as two together and figure out who the **** this little kid was and why he was trying to convince me Synthesis and Control were pretty good ideas comparatively.

That's really not that hard to figure out lmao! It's like, a given almost. Holy crap.

OMG get over yourself.  And please stop stating this as if it's fact. If you want it to be true, fine.  But you're not smarter than everyone here because that's what you choose to believe. IMO, the fact that you can take horrible writing and twist it in your head to be something deep and profound would seem to suggest the opposite, but that's neither here nor there.

IT is interesting I'll admit, but I in no way believe it is what the writers intended. They messed up, plain and simple. They didn't intend for only one choice to be the "right" choice. Shep wasn't indoctrinated. The star child was real. Shep is dead, no matter which color you chose. You can continue thinking you're intellectually superior for not thinking Bioware could mess it up that badly, but it doesn't mean you're right.

[Shaigunjoe]

Sorry OP, the ESRB would have saved us a lot of trouble if they had listed critical thinking along with violence, etc in their rating.

[ashdrake1]

Wolven_Soul wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

sean10mm wrote...

The Star Child telling my character that organic-synthetic conflict is inevitable might make more sense if I hadn't spent a good chunk of the game succesfully ending the Quarian-Geth war, making them allies, and uniting them against the Reapers while my pilot was dating an AI, and all without using genocide. Just a thought.

I really wish bioware had put in the option to argue with the starchild.  People could have thier Shepard try and argue philosphy with a being that is millions of years old.  It could result in shepard bleeding out and the reapers killing everything.  

Shepard is dying.  There is no button to push, no monster to kill.  No option to shoot harbinger in the face while shouting "Reap this!' then going home to sleep with the chearleader.  Shepard knows he/she is dying and is looking for a solution not a debate with an equivelent god.  If you hesitate all you did means nothing and everything will die.

Except that we see Shepherd taking that breath in the last second of the destroy ending.  Yep, he's really dying there.  Good call.

Shepard is dying.  This is a fact that is clearly shown in the game.  If you take to long to make your choice shepard dies.

Taking a breath does not equate to not dying.  It just means not dead.

Personally I wish the game ended with shepard collapsing at the console.  Fade to black as he passes out.  Rocks fall everyone dies.  Next series could have been someone finding the black boxes.  Cycle starts all over again.

[Wolven_Soul]

[quote]Geneaux486 wrote...


[quote]Every Reaper.  The control pulse hit every relay in the galaxy and spread to each surrounding system.[/quote]

You just made me consider something.  If the control ending can target just the Reapers, as starchild does not say anything about you controlling the geth, then why can't the destory ending target just the Reapers?

.[quote]Untrue.  The explosions are clearly not the same as that of the Alpha Relay because we see affected parties such as Reapers, humans, ships, and planets take the pulses without being obliterated.  There are numerous expalantions for this.[/quote]

The pulse from the crucible, and the destruction of the relays are two different things.  The pulse causes it yes, but it is still very possible that the pulse comes along and does it's thing, and then the destruction of the relays happens and everyone dies.  Not definite, but possible.

[aliengmr1]

These threads are an exercise in answering the same question over and over again by re-wording the answers and using bigger words.

[FoxShadowblade]

@Sal

If you think IT people are condescending, wait til youmeet other humans.

@OP

I'm going to take a page out TheSpoonyOne's book... Ahem: The ending is a non-sensical, illogical, stupid piece of horse**** writing and bad plot devices mixed with fake emotion and horrible creative choices that are needlessly metaphysical.

But hey, it's visually appealing, I'll give it that.

[TeffexPope]

aliengmr1 wrote...

These threads are an exercise in answering the same question over and over again by re-wording the answers and using bigger words.

The cycle cannot be broken. The pattern has repeated itself more times than you can fathom.

[Sal86]

FoxShadowblade wrote...

@Sal

If you think IT people are condescending, wait til youmeet other humans.

@OP

I'm going to take a page out TheSpoonyOne's book... Ahem: The ending is a non-sensical, illogical, stupid piece of horse**** writing and bad plot devices mixed with fake emotion and horrible creative choices that are needlessly metaphysical.

But hey, it's visually appealing, I'll give it that.

No, I don't think IT people are condescending. I think people who state that it is a fact made obvious within the current endings often start a thread very much like this one, in which their entire argument is 'IT is obviously the intended ending, ******'.

Believe IT as much as you like, make videos about it, argue for it. I want it to be true.But people don't get the right to claim it's true by calling others stupid.

[Geneaux486]

demin8891 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

demin8891 wrote...


Enjoy your ban.

Said the troll.

Said the troll.

That's just adorable.

[FoxShadowblade]

@Sal

Fair enough. I personally don't believe it, I want it to be true. But..utter incompetence is just more likely.

[Rafe34]

Geneaux486 wrote...

The endings are no more objectively bad than they are objectively good. It's understandable why people weren't happy with the endings, they're certainly not what I was expecting, and hell, they wouldn't be any worse off with a little more exposition. Still, you're not alone OP, I liked the ending to.

Actually, the endings are objectively bad. Because they make no sense, do not fit with the rest of the game, etc. There is a such as an objectively bad ending to a game.

Also, it's funny how only the people that liked the ending seemed to be saying this.

[s.nebulous]

It is ok to like the endings.

I don’t care for them, but I can head-cannon it for a happy ending. I fear that if Bioware just explains, instead of expands the conclusion then that sliver of hope might be taken away from me.

So I can sympathize with those who don’t mind interpreting the endings in their own way, and I believe that is what the writers where trying to accomplish, though their execution was off judging from the responses, but not for everyone.

Also the hate the ending crowed is more fractured then they appear, and this will become more evident when we get an idea of what they have planned for us.

I think the movement is great and all, I just think Bioware might need their own space magic to address this in a satisfactory way.

[Geneaux486]

Rafe34 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

The endings are no more objectively bad than they are objectively good. It's understandable why people weren't happy with the endings, they're certainly not what I was expecting, and hell, they wouldn't be any worse off with a little more exposition. Still, you're not alone OP, I liked the ending to.

Actually, the endings are objectively bad. Because they make no sense, do not fit with the rest of the game, etc. There is a such as an objectively bad ending to a game.

Also, it's funny how only the people that liked the ending seemed to be saying this.

The endings are not objectively bad.  They do make sense, they do fit in with the rest of the game, etc.  Every criticism of the ending is debateable, every aspect of the ending is defendable.  It all comes down to individual opinion no matter what.  To say your view on the ending is the correct one says more about your own ego than it does about anything else. 

[Shaigunjoe]

Rafe34 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

The endings are no more objectively bad than they are objectively good. It's understandable why people weren't happy with the endings, they're certainly not what I was expecting, and hell, they wouldn't be any worse off with a little more exposition. Still, you're not alone OP, I liked the ending to.

Actually, the endings are objectively bad. Because they make no sense, do not fit with the rest of the game, etc. There is a such as an objectively bad ending to a game.

Also, it's funny how only the people that liked the ending seemed to be saying this.

The endings are subjectivily bad (to you), because they make no sense(to you).  Sure, there may be such a thing as an objectivily bad ending, but I guess that can only happen when everyone agrees it is bad, which is not the case.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 30 mars 2012 - 03:25 .

[No Snakes Alive]

aliengmr1 wrote...

These threads are an exercise in answering the same question over and over again by re-wording the answers and using bigger words.

Lmao I love this post so ****ing much and wish I could just lock the thread after it and leave it at that.

[2484Stryker]

No Snakes Alive wrote...

2484Stryker wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...
I've seen this thrown out so matter-of-factly all throughout this thread without any support whatsoever given to the claim. What does it betray exactly and how?

It's insulting for you to label something I like and support with reasoning as objectively bad without a single reason. I don't think the ending is bad; I think you're bad at connecting dots.

Mass Effect is about making choices and facing the consequences; it's about uniting the galaxy and your friends; it's about facing the impossible and winning; it's about investigating & making up your own mind.  I don't understand how you can't derive that from all the hours you must have spent playing ME1 and ME2.

That ending throws everything above out the window.  Shepard is well aware of Reaper indoctrination and how insidious it can be.  He has witnessed it firsthand just moments prior.  But when vent brat, who admits to be the creator of the Reapers, gives Shepard three choices, Shepard does not questions and does not challenge, and simply chooses.  If that's not betraying the core themes of ME and completely out of character, then I don't know what is.

And wild speculation and imagination isn't connecting the dots, it's failed conjecture.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. You came there to destroy the reapers once and for all and now you want to be able to challenge that option? That is THE choice to make. It's the only one that ends in Shepard surviving, FFS. What bigger clue do they need to give you that it's the only right one?

You really think that's the creator of the reapers giving you options? I can't help you then.

Seems to me we're arguing about separate things.  Are you promoting Indoc Theory or not?

[FatalX7.0]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

The endings are no more objectively bad than they are objectively good. It's understandable why people weren't happy with the endings, they're certainly not what I was expecting, and hell, they wouldn't be any worse off with a little more exposition. Still, you're not alone OP, I liked the ending to.

Actually, the endings are objectively bad. Because they make no sense, do not fit with the rest of the game, etc. There is a such as an objectively bad ending to a game.

Also, it's funny how only the people that liked the ending seemed to be saying this.

The endings are subjectivily bad (to you), because they make no sense(to you).  Sure, there may be such a thing as an objectivily bad ending, but I guess that can only happen when everyone agrees it is bad, which is not the case.

Everyone who believes it is good has tin foil hats and believes themselves to be more intelligent than everyone else because they desperately grasp at a straw called the Indoctrination Theory.

But, that's just an exaggeration.

Only the "Everyone" part is an exaggeration.

Just Saiyan.

[Erield]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

The endings are no more objectively bad than they are objectively good. It's understandable why people weren't happy with the endings, they're certainly not what I was expecting, and hell, they wouldn't be any worse off with a little more exposition. Still, you're not alone OP, I liked the ending to.

Actually, the endings are objectively bad. Because they make no sense, do not fit with the rest of the game, etc. There is a such as an objectively bad ending to a game.

Also, it's funny how only the people that liked the ending seemed to be saying this.

The endings are not objectively bad.  They do make sense, they do fit in with the rest of the game, etc.  Every criticism of the ending is debateable, every aspect of the ending is defendable.  It all comes down to individual opinion no matter what.  To say your view on the ending is the correct one says more about your own ego than it does about anything else. 

Objectively speaking, how does Shepard blithely going along with the Star Child says in any way, shape, or form in-character for Shepard?  How is making the Star Child the agent of action, rather than Shepard, objectively good storytelling?  (Ie, Star Child says what to do, then Shepard does it--with no comment, thought, dialogue, etc. to explain why Shepard does it.  The final moment of the series is turned into the same kind of "Go fetch this" quest logic that we all know and abhor.)  How is contradicting two games' worth of story of synthetics and organics getting along refuted by one line of "no, that's not possible" objectively good storytelling?

How is abandoning a focus on characters objectively good storytelling?  How is it objectively good storytelling to abandon completely the focus on semi-plausible tech, and replace it with space magic?  There is literally no explanation for how the endings actually work, or why--let alone why they are set up the way they are.  For control, you grasp two handle-bars; synthesis you jump into a beam of light; destroy you literally destroy something.  How is it remotely plausible that doing these three actions will not only succeed in the stated goal (eliminate the Reapers as a cyclical devastation every 50k years), but do so in such dramatically different ways?

How is it objectively good storytelling to abandon the storytelling elements that have been great throughout the series at the very end of the series?

[Cgrissom]

Well, OP, I disagree with you. But congrats on liking the ending, I'm happy for you.

[Shaigunjoe]

Erield wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

The endings are no more objectively bad than they are objectively good. It's understandable why people weren't happy with the endings, they're certainly not what I was expecting, and hell, they wouldn't be any worse off with a little more exposition. Still, you're not alone OP, I liked the ending to.

Actually, the endings are objectively bad. Because they make no sense, do not fit with the rest of the game, etc. There is a such as an objectively bad ending to a game.

Also, it's funny how only the people that liked the ending seemed to be saying this.

The endings are not objectively bad.  They do make sense, they do fit in with the rest of the game, etc.  Every criticism of the ending is debateable, every aspect of the ending is defendable.  It all comes down to individual opinion no matter what.  To say your view on the ending is the correct one says more about your own ego than it does about anything else. 

Objectively speaking, how does Shepard blithely going along with the Star Child says in any way, shape, or form in-character for Shepard?  How is making the Star Child the agent of action, rather than Shepard, objectively good storytelling?  (Ie, Star Child says what to do, then Shepard does it--with no comment, thought, dialogue, etc. to explain why Shepard does it.  The final moment of the series is turned into the same kind of "Go fetch this" quest logic that we all know and abhor.)  How is contradicting two games' worth of story of synthetics and organics getting along refuted by one line of "no, that's not possible" objectively good storytelling?

How is abandoning a focus on characters objectively good storytelling?  How is it objectively good storytelling to abandon completely the focus on semi-plausible tech, and replace it with space magic?  There is literally no explanation for how the endings actually work, or why--let alone why they are set up the way they are.  For control, you grasp two handle-bars; synthesis you jump into a beam of light; destroy you literally destroy something.  How is it remotely plausible that doing these three actions will not only succeed in the stated goal (eliminate the Reapers as a cyclical devastation every 50k years), but do so in such dramatically different ways?

How is it objectively good storytelling to abandon the storytelling elements that have been great throughout the series at the very end of the series?

I certainly don't want to go over this again, plenty of posts that answer all of your questions.  The fact that you said there is literally no explanation for how the endings work means you haven't done your hw.  I got into an argument with a friend where I counterpointed every single thing he brought up, and finally he said...yea, but I don't think BW is that smart.  That tells me that people just don't want to like the endings, for some reason.

As I said, there are plenty of explanations out there at this point, you may not like them, but that is your opinion, nothing objective about it.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 30 mars 2012 - 03:49 .

[Wolven_Soul]

No Snakes Alive wrote...

Wolven_Soul wrote...

You do not have to have ambigious, vague endings to make them thought provoking.  If I wanted to come up with my own endings to this story, I would write a fanfic.  I don't play video games to try and think up my own conclusions about the ending, especially not at the end of a trilogy.  I want to know how the story of Shepherd ends, I don't want to have to try and figure it out.

ONCE AGAIN, my Shepard either survives and destroys the reapers, saving the universe (though it's a mess now), or gives in to Indoctrination and dies and fails to save the universe. I didn't really have to draw my own conclusion here, I just had to have the brains to put two as two together and figure out who the **** this little kid was and why he was trying to convince me Synthesis and Control were pretty good ideas comparatively.

That's really not that hard to figure out lmao! It's like, a given almost. Holy crap.

First of all, you said nothing about indoctrination in your original post.  Second...as much as I would like to believe that indoctrination is what is going on here, it is not a given.   I am not going to get my hopes that this is what Bioware intended all along until we get ending DLC and it is clarified.

[Geneaux486]

 how does Shepard blithely going along with the Star Child says in any way, shape, or form in-character for Shepard?

Shepard, ever the hero, recognizes that in his wounded state, alone, he has no choice but to complete his mission to activate the Crucible or everyone dies.  Not out of character.

How is contradicting two games' worth of story of synthetics and organics getting along refuted by one line of "no, that's not possible" objectively good storytelling?

That's not what happened.  The Catalyst based his argument on all the previous cycles.  It's no coincidence that in the same cycle where organics and synthetics get along the Catalyst realizes his solution will no longer work.

How is abandoning a focus on characters objectively good storytelling?

The game didn't abandon focus on characters at all.

How is it objectively good storytelling to abandon completely the focus on semi-plausible tech, and replace it with space magic?  There is literally no explanation for how the endings actually work, or why--let alone why they are set up the way they are.  For control, you grasp two handle-bars; synthesis you jump into a beam of light; destroy you literally destroy something.  How is it remotely plausible that doing these three actions will not only succeed in the stated goal (eliminate the Reapers as a cyclical devastation every 50k years), but do so in such dramatically different ways?

The Crucible was stated through the entire game to be an unknown.  It was deemed worth the risk, so it was built as the blueprints outlined it.  That is why it's set up the way it is.

How is it objectively good storytelling to abandon the storytelling elements that have been great throughout the series at the very end of the series?

 
It didn't abandon those storytelling elements.  War vs. peace, personal choice, Shepard's personal story, sacrifice, bigger picture type stuff, larger than life enemy, all of these things are still present in the ending.

Furthermore, you ask me how it is objectively good storytelling.  I'm not arguing that it's objectively good storytelling, I'm arguing that it can be subjectively good storytelling, and that it is not objectivelly bad storytelling.  Like I said, everything is debateable, and it still comes down to personal opinion. 

Modifié par Geneaux486, 30 mars 2012 - 03:45 .

[Wolven_Soul]

Geneaux486 wrote...

I do not want to speculate.  I did not spend a few hundred dollars, and hundreds of hours on these games to figure out th endings for myself.

Neither did I, and I didn't have to.

Do you really think that none of these new hybrids will make new synthetics down the road?  Nothing is stopping them after all. 

Maybe they will, maybe they won't.  Synthesis results in the strengthening of organic DNA and causes the Reapers to leave organics alone, effectively putting their future in their own hands.  All future choices and consequences are their own.

They did not have to eat, sleep, go to the bathroom.  They never aged.  Now they have organic tissue in them and their whole world is screwed up.

Pretty sure it's their minds and thought processes that are more organic now.  The Reaper upgrades did a similar thing, so we have precendent to work with here.

They should have made the ending so that there was no choice.  The game should have given you the ending that you created by the choices that you made.

I disagree, but we can just chalk that one up to a difference of opinion.

Right.  We are not shown anything about how this all turns out after we get our A, B, C ending.  So yeah, we do have to speculate.  And I am not sure where you get this idea of their minds and thought processes are more organic idea.  That...doesn't even make any sense.  And I guess you don't mind none of our choices made throughout the three games having anything to do with the endings.  I do mind, as that has been one of the main themes of the series all along.

[Geneaux486]

Right. We are not shown anything about how this all turns out after we get our A, B, C ending.

Yeah, the scene on Earth, the Normandy crash landing and Joker and co. exiting, the stargazer and his kid, that didn't happen.

And I am not sure where you get this idea of their minds and thought processes are more organic idea. That...doesn't even make any sense.

And we're gonna go ahead and ignore the fact that Reaper upgrades had that exact effect on Geth intelligence? We were even shown a 3D model of the Geth intelligence evolving with Reaper upgrades.  EDI even said that by the end of Legion's life, he had evolved into a fully actualized personality, so yes, it does make sense.

And I guess you don't mind none of our choices made throughout the three games having anything to do with the endings. I do mind, as that has been one of the main themes of the series all along.

Choices all go into EMS, which in turn effects not only which endings you can get but also the level of collateral damage caused by the Crucible. Maybe that's not enough for you, and I can completely understand that, but to say the choices don't matter at all is simply false. You can say they don't matter enough, but that, again, is a matter of opinion.  A valid opinion, of course, but an opinion nonetheless.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 30 mars 2012 - 04:16 .

[STAG IRONHIDE]

FoxShadowblade wrote...

@Sal

If you think IT people are condescending, wait til youmeet other humans.

@OP

I'm going to take a page out TheSpoonyOne's book... Ahem: The ending is a non-sensical, illogical, stupid piece of horse**** writing and bad plot devices mixed with fake emotion and horrible creative choices that are needlessly metaphysical.

But hey, it's visually appealing, I'll give it that.

NO UH! It's so deep because we saw Shepard get disintegrated, that's so brutal and emotional! You just don't have what it takes to undestand my bullsh** Indoctrination DLC  Retcon ending that is now canon until the DLC comes out.