1291 réponses à ce sujet

[Rafe34]

firebreather19 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Omega-202 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

That's what happens here. As for your last sentence, I don't care about others. I did not fight for them, I did not spend 3 games so people I don't know will live in peace somehow somewhere. That's got nothing to do with what I've played.

But you're not the only person who played.  

I personally DID play to stop the Reapers.  I played so that countless lives could be saved.  Mass Effect 3 made it very clear that was one of the main drives.  Look at Anderson and Shepard's discussions before leaving Earth.  Yes, you can't save them all, but you fight to save the ones you can. 

Or, you know, save nobody.
You may be fine with it, but a lot of us play character driven games for the characters, and being told we can save none of them and leaving them to a bleak, vague fate is not acceptable.

Just because that wasn't your motivation doesn't mean it wasn't someone elses.  There had to be a choice made on how to end it.  BioWare had to choose what the sacrifice was to be for and they chose altruistic "greater good" over a personal happy ending.  That's their choice.  

In every other BioWare game, I can make the choice. Why is it suddenly their choice?

I will give you 73.99 if you promise to give me your ME3 CE and never pretend you're the know-it-all of video game stories ever again. Not even joking. 

TAO never said that. You want to take half his/her sentence out of context and then pull a strawman, that's not cool. It's never cool to put words in someone else's mouth. S/he said A LOT OF US, not ALL of us.

[Johanna]

 I honestly didn't think there could be anything worse than Red Mountain blowing up all over Vvardenfell.  I mean, that one hurt. 

This is actually worse.
Bravo?

[firebreather19]

The Angry One wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Funny, you don't care about any of that even though through ME1, 2, and 3, that was always Shepard's number one goal. Heck, you get two dialogue choice options in the very beginning of ME3--either "we fight or we die" or "we try our best to survive." It's fine you don't care, but why did you play through the first two games? Thought the third was going to do suddenly change course?

If anything, this game and its ending has been a stroke of brilliance. I mean really, it's completely shed light on current-day humans, at the very least gamers of the sci-fi RPG variety. Only worried about the right now, with no vision at all beyond maybe a week or so. I mean if you don't care about the future, then Bioware should've just given you the beginning game choice to go hide in stasis pods like Javik and wait it out. Then you and your LI can emerge from the pods to a dead universe and pretend to play Adam and Eve for a while. Fun stuff.

Kind of cool how not only the game's story but also fan reaction to the ending is pretty telling of the times. I think people will study this at a later date, the hypocrisy and such.

Shepard's goal was saving the galaxy from the Reapers.
THIS galaxy. THIS society. The one full of Shepard's friends. Not some nebulous future society. Ending the cycle for ending the cycle's sake alone is entirely a concept brought about in the last 10 minutes, it is NOT the theme of the trilogy and frankly I'm sick and tired of people outright lying by saying it is.

If that was Shepard's goal, why not keep the asteroid from hitting the Mass Relay in The Arrival? 

I mean if this galaxy is so important, if this is what we're fighting for, not a future, then why not save the cluster when Shepard could? Why sacrifice all the Batarians? 

[The Angry One]

Rolando93 wrote...


Right, because teaching another species to grow food on a ship and giving them the tech to do so requires magic.

It requires infrastructure and resources they don't have.

[Sidney]

Karrie788 wrote...
Good for you. Honestly. I wish I was in your position. The endings left me completely devastated. I would have been fine with Shep dying (although I would have bawled like a baby as I did in DA:O) if I had a little closure about her friends.
I disagree about the happy ending part. It should have been an option, for me. Not rainbows and puppies, obviously, but one option in which not everything basically goes to hell.

Can you please tell me what closure looks like? Again, it sounds like you want Animal House/DAO is that it? I really hate to think all this hatred for the ending ignore the real flaws and instead focuses on something as trival as getting some end cards like DAO had.

[firebreather19]

Rafe34 wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Omega-202 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

That's what happens here. As for your last sentence, I don't care about others. I did not fight for them, I did not spend 3 games so people I don't know will live in peace somehow somewhere. That's got nothing to do with what I've played.

But you're not the only person who played.  

I personally DID play to stop the Reapers.  I played so that countless lives could be saved.  Mass Effect 3 made it very clear that was one of the main drives.  Look at Anderson and Shepard's discussions before leaving Earth.  Yes, you can't save them all, but you fight to save the ones you can. 

Or, you know, save nobody.
You may be fine with it, but a lot of us play character driven games for the characters, and being told we can save none of them and leaving them to a bleak, vague fate is not acceptable.

Just because that wasn't your motivation doesn't mean it wasn't someone elses.  There had to be a choice made on how to end it.  BioWare had to choose what the sacrifice was to be for and they chose altruistic "greater good" over a personal happy ending.  That's their choice.  

In every other BioWare game, I can make the choice. Why is it suddenly their choice?

I will give you 73.99 if you promise to give me your ME3 CE and never pretend you're the know-it-all of video game stories ever again. Not even joking. 

TAO never said that. You want to take half his/her sentence out of context and then pull a strawman, that's not cool. It's never cool to put words in someone else's mouth. S/he said A LOT OF US, not ALL of us.

The not even joking meant I was actually joking.
Unless its a 360 CE, then maybe not joking. I need to get my hands on another.

[The Angry One]

firebreather19 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Funny, you don't care about any of that even though through ME1, 2, and 3, that was always Shepard's number one goal. Heck, you get two dialogue choice options in the very beginning of ME3--either "we fight or we die" or "we try our best to survive." It's fine you don't care, but why did you play through the first two games? Thought the third was going to do suddenly change course?

If anything, this game and its ending has been a stroke of brilliance. I mean really, it's completely shed light on current-day humans, at the very least gamers of the sci-fi RPG variety. Only worried about the right now, with no vision at all beyond maybe a week or so. I mean if you don't care about the future, then Bioware should've just given you the beginning game choice to go hide in stasis pods like Javik and wait it out. Then you and your LI can emerge from the pods to a dead universe and pretend to play Adam and Eve for a while. Fun stuff.

Kind of cool how not only the game's story but also fan reaction to the ending is pretty telling of the times. I think people will study this at a later date, the hypocrisy and such.

Shepard's goal was saving the galaxy from the Reapers.
THIS galaxy. THIS society. The one full of Shepard's friends. Not some nebulous future society. Ending the cycle for ending the cycle's sake alone is entirely a concept brought about in the last 10 minutes, it is NOT the theme of the trilogy and frankly I'm sick and tired of people outright lying by saying it is.

If that was Shepard's goal, why not keep the asteroid from hitting the Mass Relay in The Arrival? 

I mean if this galaxy is so important, if this is what we're fighting for, not a future, then why not save the cluster when Shepard could? Why sacrifice all the Batarians? 

Because 300.000 Batarians to not equal the entire galaxy. Why do I have to state the obvious?

[Rafe34]

Rolando93 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Rolando93 wrote...


Why does everyone assume that everyone will die just because there are no mass relays? The galactic fleet has the quarians. Not only are they masters at salvaging and repurposing old ships, they apparently know how to grow food on their ships. Salarians can multiply the output with some agricultural engineering. And I'm sure krogan are good for fertilizer.

Because Quarians are not magicians, and their food can only feed the Turians and themselves, and it's doubtful they have enough for both. They're also cut off from badly needed fuel and supplies.

Right, because teaching another species to grow food on a ship and giving them the tech to do so requires magic.

Nope. Just to do it on the type of ships Turians have, would involve magic. They have nowhere near enough space for that. The quarian liveships, assuming they are even in Sol- which I'm pretty sure they are not- are a totally different class of ship than the military vessels the Turians brought.

[Leozilla]

The Angry One wrote...

Leozilla wrote...

Being one of the people you mentio I feel I should defend my position.

First off, Shep and crew were going against an unbeatable enemy, you could not go into this game expecting everyone to come out unscathed, and weather or not it leads to the extinction of every council race they still won. because the reapers are no more. granted you don't get your blue babies, or get to see tali's home, but so much more was at stake for the first time in millions if not billions of years the galaxy and it's inhabitants have the freedom to chose how they will develop.

second, just because the future is bleak for the spieces you like it does not make it a bad ending, Take for example Halo Reach.

the tagline of the game was "you know how it will end" I went in to that game expecting little to no one surviving, however I still grew attached to the characters, I mourned each of their deaths, and when I got to the end and my objective was to survive. I knew that no matter how good I was Noble Six was going to die. But becasue of his sacrifice (and the rest of Noble) Humanity was given the slight chance it needed for survival.

Shep did that on a larger scale, The council race's sacrifices, and all that came before, allowed life to be free weather or not they got to reap the benefits of that freedom.

To act childish and demand a new ending because you cannot appericate the one you have now,does a disservice to one of the best written series in videogames.

Shep may or may not have died, the Geth and Quarians, who you jumped through so many hoops to save may have both died out anyway, but with their sacrifice others will allow others to live without the shadow of the reapers over them.

No, this ending does a disservice to one of the best written series in videogames.
You act as if the ending must have been so. They contrived and forced this ending, ignoring that the codex THEY WROTE gives numerous valid reasons as to why and how the Reapers could be defeated conventionally.

There could easily be another way that doesn't involve destroying the mass relays and marooning the Normandy for no reason. These two things simply do not need to happen, and the price they represent is not worth paying.
Halo Reach is a bad example, you know the universe hasn't ended.

That's what happens here. As for your last sentence, I don't care about others. I did not fight for them, I did not spend 3 games so people I don't know will live in peace somehow somewhere. That's got nothing to do with what I've played.

you did fight for them, maybe not personally, but you did not fight the reapers for only council races, you fought for everyone, every single sapient speices in the galaxy, and if not you didn't fight for what shepard and the others fought for. Liara would have counted that as a win.

and you don't know that the ME universe is over, it may be for you, but I doubt that breath scene was for nothing, and do you honestly think EA (of all companies) will kill a franchise that they know will make them money?

[Garlador]

Rolando93 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Rolando93 wrote...


Why does everyone assume that everyone will die just because there are no mass relays? The galactic fleet has the quarians. Not only are they masters at salvaging and repurposing old ships, they apparently know how to grow food on their ships. Salarians can multiply the output with some agricultural engineering. And I'm sure krogan are good for fertilizer.

Because Quarians are not magicians, and their food can only feed the Turians and themselves, and it's doubtful they have enough for both. They're also cut off from badly needed fuel and supplies.

Right, because teaching another species to grow food on a ship and giving them the tech to do so requires magic.

It requires supplies, is what it requires. Supplies they don't have. They NEED supplies for their own ships, millions are dead and dying, and they went into war WITHOUT KNOWING the relays would explode, so they're not prepared for that outcome and quite likely didn't bring any supplies with them they felt they wouldn't need in a war. After all, resupplying was just a mass effect jump away...

oooh....

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

Sidney wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Shepard's goal was saving the galaxy from the Reapers.
THIS galaxy. THIS society. The one full of Shepard's friends. Not some nebulous future society. Ending the cycle for ending the cycle's sake alone is entirely a concept brought about in the last 10 minutes, it is NOT the theme of the trilogy and frankly I'm sick and tired of people outright lying by saying it is.

The whole point as Shep says over and over and over is to stop the flippin' Reapers. That IS the point. I can't fathom how you can accuse people of lying about the game. If you had to sum up the entire set of three games in one sentence what would it be? "Shep tries to stop Reapers". There is no other way to look at it.

The game has always made it clear that stopping the Reapers > any individual characters. One does that by forcing the Virmire choice on you, 2 carries it on by killing off potnetially everyone on your crew and 3 holds out the option of killing even more of the people you know and potntailly even care for.

No the point was to save the galaxy from the reapers, if you kill the galaxy in order to stop the reapers you failed.

Modifié par Harbinger of your Destiny, 01 avril 2012 - 05:07 .

[The Angry One]

Rafe34 wrote...

TAO never said that. You want to take half his/her sentence out of context and then pull a strawman, that's not cool. It's never cool to put words in someone else's mouth. S/he said A LOT OF US, not ALL of us.

I guess I should be used to being misrepresented as certain people have been continually doing it throughout this thread.

[Vhalkyrie]

Omega-202 wrote...

Vhalkyrie wrote...

No.  What Shepard does is called Mutually Assured Destruction.  It is not considered a win by military strategists.  At all.

A) That's not mutually assured destruction.  The Reapers are wiped out but the civilian population of each species is left relatively intact.  Yes communication and transport is obliterated but billions of lives are saved.  

MAD is not considered a plausible course of action by military strategists; its not categorized as a win or loss.  Its a deterrent because once a MAD situation takes place, the concepts of win or lose are irrelevant.  But again its not pertinent to this discussion because the united species all survive and can rebuild.  

Again this is assuming that the mass relays don't destroy the star systems as shown in Arrival.  I believe they do because that was the point of Arrival, and is stated in the codex.  In which case, trillions of lives are destroyed.  Saying the mass relays don't go supernova at this point is contradictory and uncorroborated to the lore they established in the events prior to ME3.

[Torrible]

 I think this may explain the differences in opinion in this thread.

http://www.myersbrig...r-intuition.asp

Sensing: 
Sometimes I pay so much attention to facts, either present or past, that I miss new possibilities.

Intuition: I like to see the big picture, then to find out the facts.I trust impressions, symbols, and metaphors more than what I actually experienced

Modifié par Torrible, 01 avril 2012 - 05:08 .

[Rafe34]

Sidney wrote...

Karrie788 wrote...
Good for you. Honestly. I wish I was in your position. The endings left me completely devastated. I would have been fine with Shep dying (although I would have bawled like a baby as I did in DA:O) if I had a little closure about her friends.
I disagree about the happy ending part. It should have been an option, for me. Not rainbows and puppies, obviously, but one option in which not everything basically goes to hell.

Can you please tell me what closure looks like? Again, it sounds like you want Animal House/DAO is that it? I really hate to think all this hatred for the ending ignore the real flaws and instead focuses on something as trival as getting some end cards like DAO had.

I want Bioware to do what they promised.

That's all.

[firebreather19]

Shepard's goal is to save Asari, Humans, Turians, whatever races he/she can.

They survived on their respective home planets without technology originally. They can do it again.

[HenchxNarf]

Karrie788 wrote...

Good for you. Honestly. I wish I was in your position. The endings left me completely devastated. I would have been fine with Shep dying (although I would have bawled like a baby as I did in DA:O) if I had a little closure about her friends.
I disagree about the happy ending part. It should have been an option, for me. Not rainbows and puppies, obviously, but one option in which not everything basically goes to hell.

Well you kind of do depending on your choice. Synthesis is the "good" ending if you really think about it. People survive. Yeah, there's a sort of forced evolution, but you still saved a good lot of people. Instead of looking at the total negative of this ending, see it for what it is. A chance for everyone to survive. Albeit, start over, but they survive.

There's a chance that you'll get your "this is what happened to your friends" snippet. But for most, that won't be good enough. They want a new ending and that is unacceptable.

Btw, I cried like a baby when I chose to die in DA:O too, when Alistair was saying his goodbye.

[Ender99]

I agree 100%. I care about the characters I've come to know and love, not some vague, faceless future. Like the OP, I couldn't care less about the cycle being broken, I care about the people in this cycle and what happened to them.

[DJBare]

Rolando93 wrote...
Right, because teaching another species to grow food on a ship and giving them the tech to do so requires magic.

Grow food from what?, and they'd certainly need space magic to grow it fast enough to feed 1000s if not 10s of 1000s
Where are these supplies coming from?, where is the fuel they are going to need coming from?

Modifié par DJBare, 01 avril 2012 - 05:09 .

[Sidney]

Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...
Now the point was to save the galaxy from the reapers, if you kill the galaxy in order to stop the reapers you failed.

Galaxy isn't killed. Even if Earth is dead in the falling space debries kills us all that leaves 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the galaxy intact including billions of humans.

[Rolando93]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Karrie788 wrote...

Agreed on the fact that we shouldn't demand new endings. However, that won't stop me from saying the endings were rubbish and that I'd reaaaally like them changed.

And to take away from the player everything that was great about the game and that he loved, in the END, the CONCLUSION, doesn't seem like a good strategy to me.

It may not to you, but it does to other people. And I have no problems with people saying they hate the endings, that's fine. But they aren't anyone's to change. If Bioware decides to change them because they want to, then that's fine.

*shrugs*

I thought the ending was very conclusive and I found that it ended the way I figured it would. That's my opinion. Did my inner fangirl want a happy ending with Kaidan babies? Sure. But I knew that, logically, that it wasn't going to happen.

I agree completely except for the Kaiden babies. He's unfortunately dead in my game anyways. But the ending was an ending that concluded the war with the Reapers while yet leaving everyones future open ended. If they just come out and tell us what everyone does afterward, what'll happen if their lives aren't as good as we want. This way you can assume anything that satisfies yourself and nobody can tell you otherwise. Sure it could be somewhat better but I don't want to hear about how Joker shattered to peices after a night with EDI or something.

[The Angry One]

Leozilla wrote...

you did fight for them, maybe not personally, but you did not fight the reapers for only council races, you fought for everyone, every single sapient speices in the galaxy, and if not you didn't fight for what shepard and the others fought for. Liara would have counted that as a win.

Yes, we fought for everyone. Not just the inheritors of a nebulous future.
Again, I would care about the end of the cycle and the distant future if everything in the present that I know and love weren't destroyed.

and you don't know that the ME universe is over, it may be for you, but I doubt that breath scene was for nothing, and do you honestly think EA (of all companies) will kill a franchise that they know will make them money?

I think Mac Walters did. Why? I cannot fathom. But he apparently chose to do it.
Presumably EA will be content with the promise of prequels.

[Sidney]

Rafe34 wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Karrie788 wrote...
Good for you. Honestly. I wish I was in your position. The endings left me completely devastated. I would have been fine with Shep dying (although I would have bawled like a baby as I did in DA:O) if I had a little closure about her friends.
I disagree about the happy ending part. It should have been an option, for me. Not rainbows and puppies, obviously, but one option in which not everything basically goes to hell.

Can you please tell me what closure looks like? Again, it sounds like you want Animal House/DAO is that it? I really hate to think all this hatred for the ending ignore the real flaws and instead focuses on something as trival as getting some end cards like DAO had.

I want Bioware to do what they promised.

That's all.

So basically you have no idea what it would look like either. If they'd had the DAO end cards people would - and did for DAO - cry about that too not being enough and being cheap.

So again, what is closure?

[firebreather19]

Vhalkyrie wrote...

Omega-202 wrote...

Vhalkyrie wrote...

No.  What Shepard does is called Mutually Assured Destruction.  It is not considered a win by military strategists.  At all.

A) That's not mutually assured destruction.  The Reapers are wiped out but the civilian population of each species is left relatively intact.  Yes communication and transport is obliterated but billions of lives are saved.  

MAD is not considered a plausible course of action by military strategists; its not categorized as a win or loss.  Its a deterrent because once a MAD situation takes place, the concepts of win or lose are irrelevant.  But again its not pertinent to this discussion because the united species all survive and can rebuild.  

Again this is assuming that the mass relays don't destroy the star systems as shown in Arrival.  I believe they do because that was the point of Arrival, and is stated in the codex.  In which case, trillions of lives are destroyed.  Saying the mass relays don't go supernova at this point is contradictory and uncorroborated to the lore they established in the events prior to ME3.

No it's not. It's in the ending. Joker and the Normandy weren't incinerated. They survived, and were being chased down by the purported "space magic." Not only that, but you're comparing the destruction of a nuclear bomb's shell to a nuclear bomb with material inside. One goes boomity boom, the other just kind of falls apart.