1291 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Quietness wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

alx119 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

No, the Crucible effect waves leaving ships, various technologies, and life alive was established by how the Crucible waves could encompass Earth and no one even flinches.

Yeah, we also see how the Normandy gets blasted in every possible ending. Consistency, it hurts. 

The Normandy crashed because it was dragged out of FTL. It wasn't damaged by the Crucible waves, but by the crash.

And they all survived the radation how? "
If the field collapses while the ship is moving at faster-than-light speeds, the effects are catastrophic. The ship is snapped back to sublight velocity, the enormous excess energy shed in the form of lethal Cherenkov radiation. "

Radiation shielding technology. It's a space ship: it's inherent in the design.

There's also the point that 'shed' doesn't mean 'inernalized and cooked.'

[Velocithon]

mikeloeven wrote...

I think the worst thing about the ending of mass effect is how the catalyst points out that the only option that involves destroying the reapers also has to destroy all synthetic life due to the risk it poses to organics. however my play through already resolved the problem the catalyst was worried about i had brokered peace between quarians and geth and EDI did not go psychotic and blow up the Normandy. so basically my entire playthrough was a point and case of how the reapers got it totally wrong. so additionally the only ending that allows shepard to survive involves murdering not just the reapers but the geth and edi as well so .... yeah what the **** bioware. i thought the things you did during the game would have some effect. the cycle was due to end anyway and the reapers were the only synthetic problem left to deal with

Exactly. This is another thing pro-enders just choose to blatantly ignore.

Everything you did in the game suddenly doesn't matter and gets undone. You literally did what the Catalyst described as the inevitable, and he's just like "Oh well they all die too bad".

How anyone can possibly not realize this is beyond me.

[Velocithon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

alx119 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

alx119 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

No, the Crucible effect waves leaving ships, various technologies, and life alive was established by how the Crucible waves could encompass Earth and no one even flinches.

Yeah, we also see how the Normandy gets blasted in every possible ending. Consistency, it hurts. 

The Normandy crashed because it was dragged out of FTL. It wasn't damaged by the Crucible waves, but by the crash.

Seriously, stop with this. I do not want to call you anything, but it seriously makes me want to say: Hypocrite. 
And I really mean it I don't want to get offensive, but this is getting ridiculous. Just accept it, in the end we have no ****ing clue of what the hell happened, and we have no idea of what the outcomes of our last "choices" are. So speculation for everyone, whether if you believe it's a positive or a negative outcome. 

And we see the wave hits the Normandy and it "explodes". For the record.

Don't use words you can't use correctly.

No, the Normandy doesn't explode. In any relevant sense of the word.

Are you blind?

Go watch the ending again. You clearly see the wave HIT the back of the Normandy, which causes and EXPLOSION, and briefly shakes violently.



2:50 Watch it. The entire right wing just gets blown up. And that's before the bigger explosion that apparently hits the rear of the ship. So yes. The Normandy explodes. Completely? No.

Modifié par Velocithon, 01 avril 2012 - 04:12 .

[mikeloeven]

i have a feeling ea forced bioware to withhold the good endings untill they can be released in a huge dlc to change the storyline and that was their money grubbing plan all along

[Quietness]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Quietness wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

alx119 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

No, the Crucible effect waves leaving ships, various technologies, and life alive was established by how the Crucible waves could encompass Earth and no one even flinches.

Yeah, we also see how the Normandy gets blasted in every possible ending. Consistency, it hurts. 

The Normandy crashed because it was dragged out of FTL. It wasn't damaged by the Crucible waves, but by the crash.

And they all survived the radation how? "
If the field collapses while the ship is moving at faster-than-light speeds, the effects are catastrophic. The ship is snapped back to sublight velocity, the enormous excess energy shed in the form of lethal Cherenkov radiation. "

Radiation shielding technology. It's a space ship: it's inherent in the design.

There's also the point that 'shed' doesn't mean 'inernalized and cooked.'

Lol "
 the effects are catastrophic.  " Nothing other than ships can travel at FTL speeds, and if the effects are catastrophic for a ship than this magic radiation shield technology is not going to save it. We'll ignore the fact that most of the Normandy's systems are destroyed by the fact that all reaper tech has gone kablooie. 

Edit: Using Head Cannon does not over ride what the codex supports.

Modifié par Quietness, 01 avril 2012 - 04:12 .

[The Angry One]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Radiation shielding technology. It's a space ship: it's inherent in the design.

There's also the point that 'shed' doesn't mean 'inernalized and cooked.'

Then why would the effects be catastrophic?
The energy is to be shed somewhere, if it was harmlessly shed into space with no consequence, why make a big deal out of it?

[mikeloeven]

personally i am so fed up with the me3 universe i wish there was a 4th option. turn everyone into husks and be done with it lol
@ the angry one

also if you read the codexes you would also know that the crew of a ship would most likley not survive a failure of the FTL drive due to the massive ammount of energy released when it's mass is suddenly returned and it's velocity is in violation of the laws of physics. even if the radiation didn;t kill them the force of the ship instantly decelerating to sublight would probibally rip it apart

Modifié par mikeloeven, 01 avril 2012 - 04:16 .

[The Angry One]

Quietness wrote...

Edit: Using Head Cannon does not over ride what the codex supports.

You know that's the biggest problem in this whole ending debate. People using headcanon to override the actual ending.
That's fine, and I wish I could do the same to that degree, but when you start using headcanon to argue against people who have severe issues with the ending you cross the line.

I don't care what was scribbled on that note, I will not accept lots of speculation as closure for a trilogy I spent 5 years invested in.

Modifié par The Angry One, 01 avril 2012 - 04:19 .

[alx119]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
I've probably written far more on and about Mass Effect than you, unless you have a few hundred thousands of words on concept designs laying around. Don't confuse 'no fan rage' with 'lack of investement'.

Also don't invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I'll invoke whatever fallacy I feel like, as you have used your own to make your point. 

I call your opinion willful ignorance via intellectual hypocrisy. Nothing else to add other than I can't agree in any of the points you made because for the most part they make no sense, and are trying to grasp to rational straws of logic. Where, in game, that logic does not apply. I don't see Shepard saying: Ah the Krogans will be fine with Wreav. Or: The nervous system outside this game does not work like that, and I obviously know that the Asari are a fictional species. Or: The ending is fine because it's structuraly correct given the structure of the other games I was in, and I don't need to question this ghostkid judgement at all. 

[mikeloeven]

actually all this talk about ftl failure gave me an idea for a anti reaper weapon.

take a missile and fit it with a ftl drive and a shield generator.

fire missile at reaper ship ftl cuts out about a second before impact. all resulting radiation is shunted into the shield turning the missile into a massive wad of energy impacting at faster than light speeds. 90% chance of ripping reaper right in half

[wizardryforever]

I kinda sorta agree.  I do want some kind of specific closure for the characters and settings that I've encountered over the past three years.  I'd even be fine with text slides, like Dragon Age or BG2.  Just something that tells us what happens to the people we care about/are interested in.  But unlike the OP, I do care what happens in a macro sense as well, and I'm okay with what's currently there.  It's just that we need more information.

Also, since we don't know when the "grandfather" epilogue takes place, or the exact state of the galaxy, there's no reason to assume that space flight is impossible in that timeline.  Given how much of a reason the trapped fleets would have to rebuild the relays, I'd imagine that they at least try to rebuild the relays.  Hell, in the "control" ending, you could easily just order the Reapers to rebuild them.  Synthesis leaves the option open as well, since the Reapers live in that ending as well.

[Dark Specie]

I agree. Just saving the galaxy isn't quite enough, especially considering the very phyrric circumstances of it all. I've said it since finishing the game: The least thing Bioware could have done would've been to let Shepard reunite with his crew at the end and/or add some text about what happened to'em afterwards...

[alx119]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

alx119 wrote...

Seriously, stop with this. I do not want to call you anything, but it seriously makes me want to say: Hypocrite. 
And I really mean it I don't want to get offensive, but this is getting ridiculous. Just accept it, in the end we have no ****ing clue of what the hell happened, and we have no idea of what the outcomes of our last "choices" are. So speculation for everyone, whether if you believe it's a positive or a negative outcome. 

And we see the wave hits the Normandy and it "explodes". For the record.

Don't use words you can't use correctly.

No, the Normandy doesn't explode. In any relevant sense of the word.

Don't try to undermine my argument by implying I use words incorrectly. Whether you stay consistent to your own arguments, or you're a hypocrite. 

[General User]

alx119 actually wrote this...to Dean!

You clearly don't have that much of an investment or regard in the Mass Effect series, since you value it's concepts so poorly.

  To quote Bugs Bunny "he don't know [him] very well, do he?"

[mikeloeven]

General User wrote...

alx119 actually wrote this...to Dean!

You clearly don't have that much of an investment or regard in the Mass Effect series, since you value it's concepts so poorly.

  To quote Bugs Bunny "he don't know [him] very well, do he?"

i dont know why but mention of bugs bunny and me3 in the same sentance invokes images of a reaper being crushed by a giant anvil.

Modifié par mikeloeven, 01 avril 2012 - 04:31 .

[General User]

mikeloeven wrote...

General User wrote...

alx119 actually wrote this...to Dean!

You clearly don't have that much of an investment or regard in the Mass Effect series, since you value it's concepts so poorly.

  To quote Bugs Bunny "he don't know [him] very well, do he?"

i dont know why but mention of bugs bunny and me3 in the same sentance invokes images of a reaper being crushed by a giant anvil

Still a better ending...

[mikeloeven]

General User wrote...

mikeloeven wrote...

General User wrote...

alx119 actually wrote this...to Dean!

You clearly don't have that much of an investment or regard in the Mass Effect series, since you value it's concepts so poorly.

  To quote Bugs Bunny "he don't know [him] very well, do he?"

i dont know why but mention of bugs bunny and me3 in the same sentance invokes images of a reaper being crushed by a giant anvil

Still a better ending...

exactly

[Baronesa]

The Angry One wrote...

Quietness wrote...

Edit: Using Head Cannon does not over ride what the codex supports.

You know that's the biggest problem in this whole ending debate. People using headcanon to override the actual ending.
That's fine, and I wish I could do the same to that degree, but when you start using headcanon to argue against people who have severe issues with the ending you cross the line.

I don't care what was scribbled on that note, I will not accept lots of speculation as closure for a trilogy I spent 5 years invested in.

I am almost tempted to start a thread for civil debate but ONLY using codex info + game (books) and inference FROM there... ruling out everything that does not have a direct mention in codex.

But of course... that would never happen.

[Quietness]

Baronesa wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Quietness wrote...

Edit: Using Head Cannon does not over ride what the codex supports.

You know that's the biggest problem in this whole ending debate. People using headcanon to override the actual ending.
That's fine, and I wish I could do the same to that degree, but when you start using headcanon to argue against people who have severe issues with the ending you cross the line.

I don't care what was scribbled on that note, I will not accept lots of speculation as closure for a trilogy I spent 5 years invested in.

I am almost tempted to start a thread for civil debate but ONLY using codex info + game (books) and inference FROM there... ruling out everything that does not have a direct mention in codex.

But of course... that would never happen.

Im starting to think this is the difference between pro and anti. A lot of pro is using headcannon to fill the gaps , where anti is looking at the gaps and going "well the codex states ____ and ____ so this horrifying thing happens or this shouldnt exist."

This doesnt exactly make either side wrong, but this does make it virtually impossible to see eye to eye as its looking at the same thing from 2 completely different vantage points.

[alx119]

General User wrote...

alx119 actually wrote this...to Dean!

You clearly don't have that much of an investment or regard in the Mass Effect series, since you value it's concepts so poorly.

  To quote Bugs Bunny "he don't know [him] very well, do he?"

Well I don't doubt his knowledge of the Mass Effect world, but his investment in them. More concretely his emotional investement. Bringing in real life rationality and logic to the game is good if you want to postulate that the endings had an intention behind and followed the general story structure, but within the in-game's rationality and logic it made absolutely no sense and everything was left without a simple explanation, leaving people to speculate about literally everything. Plus very out of character. 

Modifié par alx119, 01 avril 2012 - 04:37 .

[Pelle6666]

100% accurate. I can stand behind this totally.

[Dean_the_Young]

alx119 wrote...

Don't try to undermine my argument by implying I use words incorrectly. Whether you stay consistent to your own arguments, or you're a hypocrite. 

Well, you certainly didn't help your case with this post.

A key misunderstanding here on your part is that you don't seem to understand what my argument actually is. I'd say it's not intentional rather than a strawman, but the point remains.

By your posts you seem to think I'm saying the contradictory statements of 'Everyone is allowed to have their own view' and 'A view the contradicts mine is wrong.'

That is not the case.

The argument I'm actually repeating is famously summed up by Senator Daniel Moynihan: Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. My argument rests on the points that not only are many people representing their opinions (projections/fanfic imaginations/whatever you wish to call it) as facts, but many people do so despite actual facts countering their premise (such as people who say the Crucible relay effects are the exact same as the Arrival explosion).

[Dean_the_Young]

alx119 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
I've probably written far more on and about Mass Effect than you, unless you have a few hundred thousands of words on concept designs laying around. Don't confuse 'no fan rage' with 'lack of investement'.

Also don't invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I'll invoke whatever fallacy I feel like, as you have used your own to make your point.

If I've used a fallacy, then you should have identified it. It doesn't justify your own, though.

[alx119]

Quietness wrote...

Baronesa wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Quietness wrote...

Edit: Using Head Cannon does not over ride what the codex supports.

You know that's the biggest problem in this whole ending debate. People using headcanon to override the actual ending.
That's fine, and I wish I could do the same to that degree, but when you start using headcanon to argue against people who have severe issues with the ending you cross the line.

I don't care what was scribbled on that note, I will not accept lots of speculation as closure for a trilogy I spent 5 years invested in.

I am almost tempted to start a thread for civil debate but ONLY using codex info + game (books) and inference FROM there... ruling out everything that does not have a direct mention in codex.

But of course... that would never happen.

Im starting to think this is the difference between pro and anti. A lot of pro is using headcannon to fill the gaps , where anti is looking at the gaps and going "well the codex states ____ and ____ so this horrifying thing happens or this shouldnt exist."

This doesnt exactly make either side wrong, but this does make it virtually impossible to see eye to eye as its looking at the same thing from 2 completely different vantage points.

Someone said that the endings were pretty much ok, or perfect, for some because it matched their Shepards perfectly. And I can't but agree. The thing is, the lack of choices in the end didn't match a vast majority of Shepards, nor gave him enough free will to choose. 

So people is just now seeing the inherent flaws of said endings, some using the ingame lore. Which is honestly painful to see, I mean one would think that they'd stay a bit true to their lore for the ending, and not just make a lot of things up in the last 5 minutes.

If they'd introduced the catalyst in the very beginning and explained it throughout the whole game, it wouldn't have pissed off so many people. Same with Kai Leng, he's introduced with barely a background, and introducing a new enemy that beats Shepard in every step in the LAST game is a very bad decission. Still with Kai Leng at least we got -some- history, and way more interaction than with ventboy, which is why it doesn't ****** people off as much as the former. 

[Quietness]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

alx119 wrote...

Don't try to undermine my argument by implying I use words incorrectly. Whether you stay consistent to your own arguments, or you're a hypocrite. 

Well, you certainly didn't help your case with this post.

A key misunderstanding here on your part is that you don't seem to understand what my argument actually is. I'd say it's not intentional rather than a strawman, but the point remains.

By your posts you seem to think I'm saying the contradictory statements of 'Everyone is allowed to have their own view' and 'A view the contradicts mine is wrong.'

That is not the case.

The argument I'm actually repeating is famously summed up by Senator Daniel Moynihan: Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. My argument rests on the points that not only are many people representing their opinions (projections/fanfic imaginations/whatever you wish to call it) as facts, but many people do so despite actual facts countering their premise (such as people who say the Crucible relay effects are the exact same as the Arrival explosion).

Alrighty so ill take a stab at your last statement that you hinge your arguement on. What example through the in-game lore states that the Mass Relays at the end did not end like this?

Without using any headcannon it must be supported through ingame fact.  Jungle planet does not work as a viable arguement considering we do not know anything on how they got there or where it is in relation to a codex, any speculation on this would be pure headcannon.