I agree. I wanted to save the galaxy so the characters I loved deserved to have a happy ending, even if it was without me. I didn't want to blow up the galaxy and let all my friends STARVE and DIE.
"The cycle was broken!" I don't CARE.
Débuté par
The Angry One
, avril 01 2012 02:07
Retour en haut
#1227
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 12:46
zarnk567
-
- Members
- 1 847 messages
CELL55 wrote...
I agree. I wanted to save the galaxy so the characters I loved deserved to have a happy ending, even if it was without me. I didn't want to blow up the galaxy and let all my friends STARVE and DIE.
HOW DARE YOU QUESTION BIOWARE'S ARTISTIC VISION. (sarcasm)
Modifié par zarnk567, 02 avril 2012 - 12:46 .
#1229
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 12:57
TekFanX
-
- Members
- 509 messages
BioWare already wrote a dialogue for Mordin in ME2, regarding the current situation.
The one about personal relation to the mission.
In Mordins case: His nephew.
And man, did the ending fail at that.
The one about personal relation to the mission.
In Mordins case: His nephew.
And man, did the ending fail at that.
#1231
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 01:24
Lyrandori
-
- Members
- 2 154 messages
I agree, and I disagree. I'm trying to see two sides of this subject (I'm like that for most things in real life too, heh).
AGREED Because:
º We all care about the main characters (at least), if not almost all of them.
º We all want multiple endings reflecting our decisions, as consequences, and on-screen.
º Most of the trilogy depends on Shepard's AND his teammates' actions, we want closure for them.
º Breaking the cycle if all following consequences mean immediate negativity and makes the goal seem worthless, even if following the darkness of a Pyrrhic-like victory allows "life to continue" in the future. A future "we", players, and the current cycle's individuals that we care for can't possibly care two craps about (referring to a FAR future, not short-term future and consequences). Shepard wants to see specific individuals (if not entire species) survive and live on.
DISAGREED Because:
º Destroying the Reapers (stopping / breaking the cycle in doing so) IS the ultimate goal.
º Caring about breaking the cycle "only if" specific characters we care for can live on, and have the closure we "hope" for them points to selfishness and subjectivity. The long-term consequences of the absence of Reapers due to a victory, even if Pyrrhic in nature, means that life can and will indeed "go on", regardless of galactic-wide travel or not.
º If seen objectively, destroying the Reapers becomes the ultimate goal of not only Shepard, but the advanced organic and collaborating synthetic species of the current cycle. Having a love interest, being emotionally involved, caring about specific individual, etc., are all self-imposed conditions that would only hurt the rest of the potentially-surviving life that has as much right to have a chance to exist as those characters we care for do.
º Within the ME's universe, as long as Reapers and the cycle exists and persist, "caring" about anything and not objectively focusing on destroying the Reapers to break their cycle at the possible cost of life on individual or species-wide scales, especially if one or more means to destroy them exists, is completely irrelevant.
º Caring about characters could (if you presume so) and will surely exist in the next cycle if this cycle succumbs to the harvesting. In 50,000 years when they come back, other individuals losing loved ones will also care about them more than anything, and despair, horror, loss, atrocities, destruction, harvesting, mutilation, and more will all affect them. It could be a cycle in which another Shepard-like individual would try to rally the advanced species together to fight the Reapers. As long as all possible efforts aren't done, all available and able people commits and all resources and means to combat are used, the Reapers will come back and individuals will claim, in each cycle, that ultimately all they care about is to see their loved ones survive, and that otherwise if they ended up dead there would be no reasons to care anymore about the cycle being broken or not, which by itself condemns other individuals out there to death, and the next cycle to be trapped in the same pattern.
CONCLUSION
Well, for me, subjectively-speaking, I don't care knowing that this cycle is broken if everyone I care for ends up dead. My Shepard does not "want" to die, even though she's ready to sacrifice herself if need be. The problem is that the current endings we have pretty much impose sacrifice via poor writing and no choices of other means to end the cycle. Although I'm seeing it more like a suicide rather than a sacrifice, since I don't "agree" to it, I'm forced to kill myself (well not "myself", but my Shepard, you get the point). So, obviously, as long as my Shepard lives, she would want to break the cycle for the people she cares for, FIRST, and THEN, for the "rest of the galaxy". It's extremely selfish and based purely on emotions, but subjectively, that's how I see it, so I agree with the OP when seeing it like this.
But, objectively, my Shepard has no right to "not care" for the ones she knows nothing about. For thinking otherwise would mean she'd be selfish about wanting HER cared-for people to live on and wouldn't give a damn about others in the current cycle since she just happens to not having known them all. Bad luck for the rest then? They don't have the right to see this cycle being broken by a heroic soldier sacrificing herself for the cause regardless of the loves ones in her life? Well then, they would perish and that would make my Shepard just as bad as the Reapers. Everyone else not in the "I care for them" Shepard's list would thus die eventually due to the harvesting rather than a natural cause if the cycle isn't broken due to any type of inaction about it.
Now, with this said, on a purely "video game series" point of view, endings that leads to surviving of most main characters of the current cycle whom were part of Shepard's team, along with the possible survival of Shepard, with detailed closure about the whole lot, would ensure that in the near future pretty much any pre and post-endings DLCs WOULD SELL... at least would sell MORE than if the endings were all and only negative (subjectively). So, it would be more financially viable for BioWare and EA to come up with more positive endings to fuel the willingness and drive from the fanbase to keep playing and "exploring" the ME's universe via extra content, knowing that in the end (if "changed") things will be better and will make "everything" worth it.
AGREED Because:
º We all care about the main characters (at least), if not almost all of them.
º We all want multiple endings reflecting our decisions, as consequences, and on-screen.
º Most of the trilogy depends on Shepard's AND his teammates' actions, we want closure for them.
º Breaking the cycle if all following consequences mean immediate negativity and makes the goal seem worthless, even if following the darkness of a Pyrrhic-like victory allows "life to continue" in the future. A future "we", players, and the current cycle's individuals that we care for can't possibly care two craps about (referring to a FAR future, not short-term future and consequences). Shepard wants to see specific individuals (if not entire species) survive and live on.
DISAGREED Because:
º Destroying the Reapers (stopping / breaking the cycle in doing so) IS the ultimate goal.
º Caring about breaking the cycle "only if" specific characters we care for can live on, and have the closure we "hope" for them points to selfishness and subjectivity. The long-term consequences of the absence of Reapers due to a victory, even if Pyrrhic in nature, means that life can and will indeed "go on", regardless of galactic-wide travel or not.
º If seen objectively, destroying the Reapers becomes the ultimate goal of not only Shepard, but the advanced organic and collaborating synthetic species of the current cycle. Having a love interest, being emotionally involved, caring about specific individual, etc., are all self-imposed conditions that would only hurt the rest of the potentially-surviving life that has as much right to have a chance to exist as those characters we care for do.
º Within the ME's universe, as long as Reapers and the cycle exists and persist, "caring" about anything and not objectively focusing on destroying the Reapers to break their cycle at the possible cost of life on individual or species-wide scales, especially if one or more means to destroy them exists, is completely irrelevant.
º Caring about characters could (if you presume so) and will surely exist in the next cycle if this cycle succumbs to the harvesting. In 50,000 years when they come back, other individuals losing loved ones will also care about them more than anything, and despair, horror, loss, atrocities, destruction, harvesting, mutilation, and more will all affect them. It could be a cycle in which another Shepard-like individual would try to rally the advanced species together to fight the Reapers. As long as all possible efforts aren't done, all available and able people commits and all resources and means to combat are used, the Reapers will come back and individuals will claim, in each cycle, that ultimately all they care about is to see their loved ones survive, and that otherwise if they ended up dead there would be no reasons to care anymore about the cycle being broken or not, which by itself condemns other individuals out there to death, and the next cycle to be trapped in the same pattern.
CONCLUSION
Well, for me, subjectively-speaking, I don't care knowing that this cycle is broken if everyone I care for ends up dead. My Shepard does not "want" to die, even though she's ready to sacrifice herself if need be. The problem is that the current endings we have pretty much impose sacrifice via poor writing and no choices of other means to end the cycle. Although I'm seeing it more like a suicide rather than a sacrifice, since I don't "agree" to it, I'm forced to kill myself (well not "myself", but my Shepard, you get the point). So, obviously, as long as my Shepard lives, she would want to break the cycle for the people she cares for, FIRST, and THEN, for the "rest of the galaxy". It's extremely selfish and based purely on emotions, but subjectively, that's how I see it, so I agree with the OP when seeing it like this.
But, objectively, my Shepard has no right to "not care" for the ones she knows nothing about. For thinking otherwise would mean she'd be selfish about wanting HER cared-for people to live on and wouldn't give a damn about others in the current cycle since she just happens to not having known them all. Bad luck for the rest then? They don't have the right to see this cycle being broken by a heroic soldier sacrificing herself for the cause regardless of the loves ones in her life? Well then, they would perish and that would make my Shepard just as bad as the Reapers. Everyone else not in the "I care for them" Shepard's list would thus die eventually due to the harvesting rather than a natural cause if the cycle isn't broken due to any type of inaction about it.
Now, with this said, on a purely "video game series" point of view, endings that leads to surviving of most main characters of the current cycle whom were part of Shepard's team, along with the possible survival of Shepard, with detailed closure about the whole lot, would ensure that in the near future pretty much any pre and post-endings DLCs WOULD SELL... at least would sell MORE than if the endings were all and only negative (subjectively). So, it would be more financially viable for BioWare and EA to come up with more positive endings to fuel the willingness and drive from the fanbase to keep playing and "exploring" the ME's universe via extra content, knowing that in the end (if "changed") things will be better and will make "everything" worth it.
Modifié par Lyrandori, 02 avril 2012 - 01:28 .
#1232
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 01:28
MattFini
-
- Members
- 3 571 messages
The Angry One wrote...
It's come up in a few discussions now and then from various people that, no matter what the consequences of the ending, the cycle is in fact broken, Reapers are no longer a threat and future races will be free of bad Reaper influence, being culled etc. etc.
There's one issue I have with this: I DON'T CARE.
I got into Mass Effect because I became invested into the galaxy, it's various races and the galaxy.
I don't care whether the Yahg are now free to expand across the galaxy and eat puppies or whatever it is they do.
I don't care that in 10, 20, 30,000 years there'll be some form of galactic society again and I certainly don't care what some senile old man has to say to his naive grandson 10,000 years in the future on some backwater world I don't know and don't give a damn about!
I care about this galaxy, as is. I care about Garrus, about Liara, about Kaidan, about Tali building her home on Rannoch, about Wrex raising his new children. I care about Jack and her students, about Conrad, about Bailey. I care about the Turians, the Asari, the Quarians, the Geth, the Krogans.
Heck I even care about Vega and his N7 promotion.
That's what I care about, the characters I've gotten to know for 3 games. Not some nebulous, unseen and uneeded future. For that, you might as well let the Reapers win, because it amounts to exactly the same thing in the end. This isn't just about Shepard's unhappy ending. I want a happy ending, but even if it had to be a sacrifice, then I want that sacrifice to mean something other than some alien I don't care about not fearing the robotic squids from hell.
This is perfect. Exactly how I feel.
And when I hear things like, "but this is for the greater good!" it sounds so bothersome and pretentious.
#1233
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 01:29
Atraiyu Wrynn
-
- Members
- 415 messages
OP nails it. It's funny that Bioware didn't understand what it was that drew us to the series in the first place.
#1234
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 01:55
Rune-Chan
-
- Members
- 1 054 messages
Indeed.
Bioware have always thrived on getting the players heavily invested in the characters, they pretty much threw all that out the window in the end.
What is the most depressing (if their statements so far are accurate) they are honestly surprised by how we feel about the endings, which shows how out of touch they are with the fans (or at least, some of them).
Bioware have always thrived on getting the players heavily invested in the characters, they pretty much threw all that out the window in the end.
What is the most depressing (if their statements so far are accurate) they are honestly surprised by how we feel about the endings, which shows how out of touch they are with the fans (or at least, some of them).
#1235
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 05:12
M12311
-
- Members
- 313 messages
The Angry One wrote...
I want a happy ending, but even if it had to be a sacrifice, then I want that sacrifice to mean something other than some alien I don't care about not fearing the robotic squids from hell.
I agree that the stargazer schene was wierd, but you have to agree that series whether books/movies/or games are most effective when they end on cliffhangers.
And the ME3 ending does an excellent job at that.
#1236
Guest_BrotherWarth_*
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 07:29
Guest_BrotherWarth_*
Guest_BrotherWarth_*
-
- Guests
M12311 wrote...
The Angry One wrote...
I want a happy ending, but even if it had to be a sacrifice, then I want that sacrifice to mean something other than some alien I don't care about not fearing the robotic squids from hell.
I agree that the stargazer schene was wierd, but you have to agree that series whether books/movies/or games are most effective when they end on cliffhangers.
And the ME3 ending does an excellent job at that.
Why would I have to agree with that? I completely disagree. I hate when long-running series' end on cliffhangers. Why do you think people get mad when TV shows get canceled before they have a proper finale?
#1238
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 11:18
Nathan_41
-
- Members
- 169 messages
Anyone who interprets the OP's post to mean 'Defeating the Reapers doesn't matter' is missing the point. The point is that defeating the Reapers if the player has no real emotion connection to the people he/she is saving, is going to result in a lot of players that aren't going to care. No emotional investment = no commitment.
Yes, there are other players who still care about stopping the Reapers and saving the hypothetical future cycle that you have no attachment to. More power to those who feel that way. But its still ridiculous to tell anyone who says that the characters were their main focus of the game that they should care about stopping the Reapers because the Reapers are the designated villains.
Yes, there are other players who still care about stopping the Reapers and saving the hypothetical future cycle that you have no attachment to. More power to those who feel that way. But its still ridiculous to tell anyone who says that the characters were their main focus of the game that they should care about stopping the Reapers because the Reapers are the designated villains.
Modifié par Nathan_41, 02 avril 2012 - 11:19 .
#1239
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 11:21
TheGreenAlloy
-
- Members
- 514 messages
Karrie788 wrote...
Completely agreed. Mordin said it best in ME2: since the galaxy doesn't have a face, he gave it his nephew's face. That way he can fight for it.
Same with all of us, I think. We fight for the characters we grew to care about and love in the ME universe. Not the galaxy. Not organic life. Them, first and foremost.
#1240
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 11:45
TheGreenAlloy
-
- Members
- 514 messages
BrotherWarth wrote...
M12311 wrote...
The Angry One wrote...
I want a happy ending, but even if it had to be a sacrifice, then I want that sacrifice to mean something other than some alien I don't care about not fearing the robotic squids from hell.
I agree that the stargazer schene was wierd, but you have to agree that series whether books/movies/or games are most effective when they end on cliffhangers.
And the ME3 ending does an excellent job at that.
Why would I have to agree with that? I completely disagree. I hate when long-running series' end on cliffhangers. Why do you think people get mad when TV shows get canceled before they have a proper finale?
#1241
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 11:48
esollus
-
- Members
- 11 messages
Chrishenanigans wrote...
Fliprot wrote...
Here's the difference:
Relays go supernova and destroy the galaxy = Educated guess. Because we have been told and shown.
Relays transfer energy harmlessly from relay to relay as they are destroyed = Speculation.
There's only one precedent, told and shown, and thats supernova.
I just want to quote this for emphasis. It's extremely frustrating whenever someone brings up the relay explosions and are attacked for reasonably extrapolating what's in the codex and Arrival.
That might be true, if all the relays were doing is exploding instead of boosting energy along to other relays shut them down in turn?
What will you all do once bioware adds more clarity to the endings showing that the relays did not destroy all of the other systems? Cry more I guess.
#1242
Posté 03 avril 2012 - 12:11
Sidney
-
- Members
- 5 032 messages
pistolols wrote...
The point was that starchild believes it's inevitable that organics will create synthetics, and that said synthetics will rebel. It is a problem that required a solution. Just wiping out synthetics doesn't solve the problem (from starchild's perspective), because "your children" will just create synthetics again. And the cycle doesn't end because shepard "makes it to the bonus level" (lol?) it is made extremely clear that the Crucible reprogrammed the catalyst to see 3 new solutions (which mind you, are almost exactly the same 3 solutions the quarians argue over in regard to what to do with the geth, so this choice is forshadowed in ME2).
Actually I do "get it". It sucks but I get it and your explainations don't make it better.
"Just wiping out synthetics doesn't solve the problem (from starchild's
perspective), because "your children" will just create synthetics again" <-- of course wiping out organics doesn't solve this problem either since, as we know in at least the last 2 cycles, organics did it again. Plus, again, if the problem is synthetics wiping out organics then clearing out the only organics who can fight back vs the synthetics seems stupid. Once you clear out the advanced people I don't think the cavemen and eye-ball licking Salarian ancestors will put up much of a fight.
"and the cycle doesn't end because shepard "makes it to the bonus level"
(lol?) it is made extremely clear that the Crucible reprogrammed the
catalyst to see 3 new solutions " <-- No, the starchild specifically says that because Shep made it "this far" it proves the solution is no longer viable and that there are three new options since the old one is broken. Thing is Shep didn't do anything to make you think the solution has failed. Since Starchild controls Citadel he essentially stops the Crucible from firing. Yes he sees new options but he doesn't have to take them.
They make no sense on their face. Just re-iterating what the Starchild says doesn;t make it sound any better,
#1243
Posté 03 avril 2012 - 12:14
Sidney
-
- Members
- 5 032 messages
Nathan_41 wrote...
Yes, there are other players who still care about stopping the Reapers and saving the hypothetical future cycle that you have no attachment to. More power to those who feel that way. But its still ridiculous to tell anyone who says that the characters were their main focus of the game that they should care about stopping the Reapers because the Reapers are the designated villains.
...but you still deal at great length with your squadmembers in ME3. You deal with all kinds of issues for current and past squadmates. That is your emotional attachment to them. Then you have the Reaper problem to resolve. If getting an epilogue is the only "issue" you have then your really have a very minor problem.
#1244
Posté 03 avril 2012 - 12:19
M12311
-
- Members
- 313 messages
[quote]BrotherWarth wrote...
I agree that the stargazer schene was wierd, but you have to agree that series whether books/movies/or games are most effective when they end on cliffhangers.
And the ME3 ending does an excellent job at that.
[/quote]
Why would I have to agree with that? I completely disagree. I hate when long-running series' end on cliffhangers. Why do you think people get mad when TV shows get canceled before they have a proper finale?
[/quote]
Who ever said ME3 was the END of the series? It might have been the end of Shephard, but I never heard BW say this was the end of the line for the ME franchise, nor that any subsequent game will be played exclusively prior to the ME timeline.
I agree that the stargazer schene was wierd, but you have to agree that series whether books/movies/or games are most effective when they end on cliffhangers.
And the ME3 ending does an excellent job at that.
[/quote]
Why would I have to agree with that? I completely disagree. I hate when long-running series' end on cliffhangers. Why do you think people get mad when TV shows get canceled before they have a proper finale?
[/quote]
Who ever said ME3 was the END of the series? It might have been the end of Shephard, but I never heard BW say this was the end of the line for the ME franchise, nor that any subsequent game will be played exclusively prior to the ME timeline.
#1245
Posté 03 avril 2012 - 01:21
Silvair
-
- Members
- 1 830 messages
esollus wrote...
Chrishenanigans wrote...
Fliprot wrote...
Here's the difference:
Relays go supernova and destroy the galaxy = Educated guess. Because we have been told and shown.
Relays transfer energy harmlessly from relay to relay as they are destroyed = Speculation.
There's only one precedent, told and shown, and thats supernova.
I just want to quote this for emphasis. It's extremely frustrating whenever someone brings up the relay explosions and are attacked for reasonably extrapolating what's in the codex and Arrival.
That might be true, if all the relays were doing is exploding instead of boosting energy along to other relays shut them down in turn?
What will you all do once bioware adds more clarity to the endings showing that the relays did not destroy all of the other systems? Cry more I guess.
If they retcon "Relay Destruction = Supernova" with a DLC, then so be it.
But as is, they showed all the Relays exploding, which we know as a fact to mean they go full supernova, destroying the systems.
That is literally end of discussion right there. You can keep ignoring it and just make things up to feel better if you want, but the facts still remain.
#1246
Posté 03 avril 2012 - 01:24
Silvair
-
- Members
- 1 830 messages
Sidney wrote...
Nathan_41 wrote...
Yes, there are other players who still care about stopping the Reapers and saving the hypothetical future cycle that you have no attachment to. More power to those who feel that way. But its still ridiculous to tell anyone who says that the characters were their main focus of the game that they should care about stopping the Reapers because the Reapers are the designated villains.
...but you still deal at great length with your squadmembers in ME3. You deal with all kinds of issues for current and past squadmates. That is your emotional attachment to them. Then you have the Reaper problem to resolve. If getting an epilogue is the only "issue" you have then your really have a very minor problem.
The issue comes from the fact that you just spend 3 games brokering alliances between factions, and saving lives, for literally NOTHING. Everyone dies, nothing you did matters, relays explode, systems are wiped out.
Things would have actually been better off just letting the Reapers do their thing.
#1247
Posté 03 avril 2012 - 01:26
Kamuchi
-
- Members
- 417 messages
It was all a dream!
You killed the reapers while being bbq`ed by Harbinger, only to wake up from a bad dream whiping out half the galaxy by making all mass relays go super nova...
...and do it all over again while smelling like a roasted turkey
Hope i`m not dreaming...
You killed the reapers while being bbq`ed by Harbinger, only to wake up from a bad dream whiping out half the galaxy by making all mass relays go super nova...
...and do it all over again while smelling like a roasted turkey
Hope i`m not dreaming...
Modifié par Kamuchi, 03 avril 2012 - 01:27 .
#1248
Posté 03 avril 2012 - 01:27
The Angry One
-
- Members
- 22 246 messages
M12311 wrote...
The Angry One wrote...
I want a happy ending, but even if it had to be a sacrifice, then I want that sacrifice to mean something other than some alien I don't care about not fearing the robotic squids from hell.
I agree that the stargazer schene was wierd, but you have to agree that series whether books/movies/or games are most effective when they end on cliffhangers.
And the ME3 ending does an excellent job at that.
ME3 is supposed to be the end of a trilogy and of the protagonist's story.
You do not end those on a cliffhanger.
#1249
Posté 03 avril 2012 - 01:29
ShepnTali
-
- Members
- 4 535 messages
And it wasn't an 'excellent job'.
#1250
Posté 03 avril 2012 - 01:30
TRISTAN WERBE
-
- Members
- 721 messages
cough cough......Halo 3The Angry One wrote...
M12311 wrote...
The Angry One wrote...
I want a happy ending, but even if it had to be a sacrifice, then I want that sacrifice to mean something other than some alien I don't care about not fearing the robotic squids from hell.
I agree that the stargazer schene was wierd, but you have to agree that series whether books/movies/or games are most effective when they end on cliffhangers.
And the ME3 ending does an excellent job at that.
ME3 is supposed to be the end of a trilogy and of the protagonist's story.
You do not end those on a cliffhanger.
