187 réponses à ce sujet

[Luzarius]

Is this a good or bad thing? I hope over 60,000+ players respond to this thread with their honest & genuine conclusion.

I roleplayed my Shepard in a unique view, therefore I understood the ME3 ending. Does that make me a monster or a saint?

Did I understand why the normandy crashed? No. Did I understand how shep got back down to the surface of earth? No. But did I understand everything else? YES, to the highest degree. I've only seen the ending two times.


Luzarius
"yes, yes no link ...  I want your truth"

Modifié par Luzarius, 04 avril 2012 - 12:43 .

[Visserian99]

I don't believe in God at all, but I understand the ending completely. Doesn't mean the ending makes any sense.

Modifié par Visserian99, 04 avril 2012 - 12:41 .

[Laurencio]

Starchild is God now?

[lordnyx1]

How is believing in a higher power unique?
Ashley very clearly smdoes in me.

[kalasaurus]

Laurencio wrote...

Starchild is God now?

Apparently.  I thought he was Satan.

[Sparse]

There are a number of different interpretations of the ending.

If you interpreted it in a certain way that reflected how you played the game then that is a good thing regardless of what your interpretation was.

[Leonia]

What.

[Kilshrek]

Well good for you, my Shepard doesn't believe in any god, not after what she's seen. There are only men and monsters out there.

And she didn't believe in the utter bollocks that Starchild pushed on her, but unlike Bioware and the cupcakes, she didn't have the option to refuse. (the cupcakes)

[hanshotfirs]

My Shepard believes in God. I believe in God. I get the ending (as far as my interpretation of it goes) but that doesn't mean it was any good.

[Nu-Nu]

How is God, and pretend god star-child connected? A Shepard who believes in God, would have found the starchild sacriligous, an unholy fake god, a trickster and that he was the devil's creation.

[Capeo]

Huh?

I know you wanted more of a response but honestly that's all I can muster from what you wrote.

[Fraevar]

Eh?

[ZajoE38]

Luzarius - it's good for you. Although I don't believe in God I can see the sense in the ending even without IDT. And while IDT is very thorough and makes sense too, I doubt that Bioware would be that rude and bold to give us "no-ending" in full game. I stand by my opinion - remove the Godchild aka Catalyst and narration with plot will be saved.

[Luzarius]

Kilshrek wrote...

Well good for you, my Shepard doesn't believe in any god, not after what she's seen. There are only men and monsters out there.

And she didn't believe in the utter bollocks that Starchild pushed on her, but unlike Bioware and the cupcakes, she didn't have the option to refuse. (the cupcakes)

I'll make a promise to you.  I will understand the mind of someone who believes in synthesis. I will desperately try to understand. I'll need your help. Please help me understand. This is a genuine request.

Luzarius
www.twitch.tv/luzarius
"no death ruleset"

[Thetri]

OP can you please explain? I would like to understand the ending aswell.

[Arthorius]

Throne on Terra...I'm not going to mix religion, video games and science-fiction. And space magic. This is a recipe to disaster and locked thread.

[Eain]

So basically you're saying that because your Shepard believes in God, he's ok with Space Magic.

That makes total sense, since the two are synonymous.

[Escocido]

If that is your God, then He is a fool, and you should eat Him.

[kookie28]

I see Luzarius is still trolling well.

[Excalceo]

HOLY FUUUUU- MOTHER OF TEXT!

Okay, can some one tell me how to post images?

Modifié par Excalceo, 04 avril 2012 - 12:47 .

[Sesshaku]

Oh, your Shepard must be new Jesus. Awesome (?).


Still, the ending has even more flaws and illogical facts than the "holy" bible.

[Rhyth]

Not sure if serious ...or just really bad troll.

[Sgt Stryker]

Here's a good conundrum for you to figure out: If "the created will always rebel against the creator", then why didn't the Reapers rebel against the Catalyst? It made the Reapers and controls them, right?

Also, what was the point behind Sovereign's role in ME1?

[Ironhandjustice]

I believe as well, and is no question of faith. Battlestar galactica did something like this and was... weird.

This endings are the SAME provided at Isaac Asimov's Foundation books. In the book there was:

"Help person 1"
"Help person 2"
"Sinthesys" (Or whatever is written on english)

So, if we also compare with the "Deus Ex" first game, is the same ending. SAME.

No question of understanding or not, you can understand anything if you think enough time. Other fact is that in the 99% times you will be wrong about the things you can't understand.

The ending was awfull in all cases, senseless, with no argument but "the reapers win no matter what you do", without roleplay, plenty of mistakes and nonsenses... and more.

If you see carefully, even a LOT of elements are taken from ME2 development, what evidences LACK OF TIME in the artistic and development phase.

Another thing: if you understand the endings, tell me something.

How the hell is possible for the Harbinger, a killing machine experienced with millions of years of wiping out entire civilizations, miss a killing blow against single the creature that is close enought to destroy them?
Is Harby blind? his sensors are damaged? is he silly? "That was a joke"?

If you think how the ending is developed, it lacks of many things. A Normandy rush to cover sheppard is logical, as well as suicidal, but nope. The Harby only "walks away", to let sheppard kill, control, or "have a ring to rule them all".

The endings are no matter of faith (God has nothing in common with the idiotic star child), is matter of "obvious senseless".

To end my complain, thing that God does the things with a sense. And without plot holes.

[Jenonax]

Starchild is an out of control AI - doesn't make it a god. Whether or not I believe in God does not change the fact the ending was poorly written.