3841 réponses à ce sujet

[Max Knight]

Thanatos144 wrote...

Max Knight wrote...

ArMedSuRViVoR wrote...

Dear Bioware,

DON'T listen to some of the fans who say we need a new ending. Sure, the ending is bad but we don't need a new ending. All we need is an explanation and epilogue/closure showing us the outcome; including the consequences of of our choices.

aannd a patch that removes that little douchebag ghost abomination of a starbrat., sorry i just don like this Catalyst plot device and add possible not exactly happy as that is impossible but also note everyone get's  a major ********* (autocensured by me) ending

LMAO This is the whole stupid hold the line protest is about LOL They want a whole new game cause they didn't understand this one .

yeah it sounded like that francly the only thing about the whole ending buisnes, i dont realy mind those, is that catalys and its logic i mean  dont tell me you dont find that i create syntetics to harvest you to stopp syntetycs from killing you silly.

ooh and if YOU understand those ending than please do enlighten me.

Modifié par Max Knight, 18 mai 2012 - 05:59 .

[From Tuchanka with Love]

Synthetics will always destroy organics. The Reapers were needed to keep a balance in the Universe or risk complete destruction. Shepard opens up the door to new options. Shepard picks one of those options. Ending is not a cliche, happy ending. Not hard.

[Krosfiyah]

I understand leaving things to the viewer's imagination, but the whole entire ending requires you to make assumptions.

For example, for this ending to make sense to me, I have to assume that the catalyst is a highly advanced VI, who because of its limitations in programming made the conclusion that this was the only viable option. This conclusion was based on witnessing countless cycles that ended in near extinction of organics via synthetics. This also requires me to assume that the catalyst is not an ultimate bearer of knowledge as many want it to be, but rather because of its lack of understanding on free will, its solution is flawed as well.

As Sheppard has shown through a number of events, this solution was proven to be no longer viable in this cycle. Nonetheless, the crucible can be seen as an 'upgrade' that attributed to the options available to the catalyst. Before it was one, and it was definitely a cold, scientific, and calculated solution. Neither solution is right or wrong, it just is, which corresponds with one of the main themes throughout the series concerning the grey area of morality. Sheppard has to make it because it is clear that the VI doesn't understand the true value of organic life and free will. It just frames life in patterns that will continue to happen because that is how machines think.

This is just my interpretation, there are tons. Since I have to make a **** load of assumptions just for it to make sense logically, it definitely means the ending needs a lot more elaboration. You can't just throw a "the created will always rebel against the created" resulting in chaos, but in this game you have proven the latter. For this to make sense, I have to apply the assumptions I stated previously.

[AlanC9]

Krosfiyah wrote...

I understand leaving things to the viewer's imagination, but the whole entire ending requires you to make assumptions.

For example, for this ending to make sense to me, I have to assume that the catalyst is a highly advanced VI, who because of its limitations in programming made the conclusion that this was the only viable option. This conclusion was based on witnessing countless cycles that ended in near extinction of organics via synthetics. This also requires me to assume that the catalyst is not an ultimate bearer of knowledge as many want it to be, but rather because of its lack of understanding on free will, its solution is flawed as well.

Well, it's pretty clear that the Catalyst is some sort of synthetic being, since the Crucible changes him. He also can't take any independent action without Shep and the Crucible. Your interpretation strikes me as the most sensible one.

[Vinchisters]

Starkid:  Casey Hudson? Casey Hudson! Why isn't he running dad?
Harbinger: Because he thinks we won't chase him.
Starkid: But he did everything wrong with the endings!
Harbinger: Because he is director the fan community deserves, but not the one it wants to see right now. So we'll flame him. Because EA thinks he can take it. Because he's not our favorite director. He's a silent thief. A watchful schemer. The Artistic Integrity.

*Epic Hans Zimmer music plays*

[Shepard108278]

From Tuchanka with Love wrote...

Synthetics will always destroy organics. The Reapers were needed to keep a balance in the Universe or risk complete destruction. Shepard opens up the door to new options. Shepard picks one of those options. Ending is not a cliche, happy ending. Not hard.

Very well put.

[Galbrant]

Ha there is that fable artistic integrity they are claiming again, now instead of getting a completely new ending or the indoctrination theory we're gonna get more extended garbage. Okay I think I am done here good day gents and madams. It was a wild run... but I think I'll get my gaming entertainment someplace else and maybe I'll go to school and improve my grammar while I'm at it.

[x5kevleo]

Vinchisters wrote...

Starkid:  Casey Hudson? Casey Hudson! Why isn't he running dad?
Harbinger: Because he thinks we won't chase him.
Starkid: But he did everything wrong with the endings!
Harbinger: Because he is director the fan community deserves, but not the one it wants to see right now. So we'll flame him. Because EA thinks he can take it. Because he's not our favorite director. He's a silent thief. A watchful schemer. The Artistic Integrity.

*Epic Hans Zimmer music plays*

I am going to start playing arkham asylum and city just before DKR is released

[Voodoo2015]

Thanatos144 wrote...

Voodoo2015 wrote...

ArMedSuRViVoR wrote...

Dear Bioware,

DON'T listen to some of the fans who say we need a new ending. Sure, the ending is bad but we don't need a new ending. All we need is an explanation and epilogue/closure showing us the outcome; including the consequences of of our choices.

There is no need for a new ending but it need more endings.
As they promised us.

They have to fill in the plot holes, giving us a chance to argue against the godchild.

Regarding the ending, there is no chance in hell, that The Shepard goes from being a bad as in 95% of the series to be a wimp in the last 5%.

That's what they have to fix not only fill in the corners as they missed to paint as they painted themselves into a corner.

You got what was promised.

Aaa You again!

[PlatonicWaffles]

I think my thoughts on the Extended Cut can easily be summed up with one screenshot.

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

From Tuchanka with Love wrote...

Synthetics will always destroy organics. The Reapers were needed to keep a balance in the Universe or risk complete destruction. Shepard opens up the door to new options. Shepard picks one of those options. Ending is not a cliche, happy ending. Not hard.

Why will Synthetics always destroy organics. What would be the benefit for them in the destruction of all organic life? Organic life and Synthetic life take up two entire different niches, the needs of one are entirely different from the needs of the other.

[Stronglav]

From Tuchanka with Love wrote...

Synthetics will always destroy organics. The Reapers were needed to keep a balance in the Universe or risk complete destruction. Shepard opens up the door to new options. Shepard picks one of those options. Ending is not a cliche, happy ending. Not hard.

If I say what I want to say I will get banned.
So:and another falls pray to Biogays's lies.

[AlanC9]

Biogays's? Dude, that's probably bannable right there if anyone bothers to report you.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Shepard108278 wrote...

FemaleMageFan wrote...

Cheburator987 wrote...

Rudy Lis wrote...

Lycius wrote...

NWN2 anyone?

Yes. I like it much more than NWN1. Irrelevant of DnD edition holywar.

I want NWN3 from Betheshda!!! 

They cannot write stories or dialogue -___________-

Skyrim, Oblivion , Morrowind and Fallout say hi.

The only one that had a somewhat decent story was Morrowind.

Oblivion? No.

Fallout? Yes but Bethesda didn't make Fallout 1 or 2. They made Fallout 3 which didn't have a good story and it suffered from the bad ending sydrome. Bethesda released a new ending as DLC which you had to pay for.

Skyrim? No. It too has a bad ending. You kill Aludruin, you're whisked back to Skyrim and no one even acts like anything's happened.

All four titles contain characters who aren't even memorable and who lack the depth of characters you'd find in games like Baldur's Gate, Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect. The only character who is somewhat interesting is the boss at the end of Morrowind.

I mean people still praise Baldur's Gate and Planescape for its characters more than a decade down the line. Arena and Daggerfall? They're not even mentioned and if Daggerfall is mentioned it's because of its world being the biggest single player world which is randomly generated.

Now get back on topic or I'll get David Gaiettader of the Dragon Age team in here to lock the topic.

[lukos50]

I don't see how trying to be clever or original translates to artistic integrity.  You don't pat yourself on the back for offending your audience.  I doubt that many dissappointed fans of the series can all be wrong.  When you write a story in college the first thing the instructor tells you is, "remember who your audience is."  Pleasing the audience is number one priority and it seems that idea was thrown out to satisfy the writers themselves.

[Stronglav]

AlanC9 wrote...

Biogays's? Dude, that's probably bannable right there if anyone bothers to report you.

Great.I'm not even allowed to say what I think about greedy SOB's.Some democracy this is. 

[MACharlie1]

Cheburator987 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Biogays's? Dude, that's probably bannable right there if anyone bothers to report you.

Great.I'm not even allowed to say what I think about greedy SOB's.Some democracy this is. 

Devil's advocate: 

This isn't a democracy. Bioware is a private company and they are allowed to shut you up on their "own property" which this forum is. 

[Getorex]

From Tuchanka with Love wrote...

Synthetics will always destroy organics. The Reapers were needed to keep a balance in the Universe or risk complete destruction. Shepard opens up the door to new options. Shepard picks one of those options. Ending is not a cliche, happy ending. Not hard.

Nonsense and childish "logic" by Bioware (and anyone who claims to "understand" or accept it).  No adult thinking person can accept the nonsense that was the ending.  Illogical cannot be made logical by 'fleshing out the illogic".  Nothing can explain or make OK "space magic" (green ending is PARTICULARLY magicky).  In ALL cases the death of Shepard is ENTIRELY gratuitous and slapped on as there is no inherent or LOGICAL reason that death would come from option blue or option green.  Even option red could be done without fatality.  It was childish and simply a "so there the end" child's logic slapped on.  Ridiculous ending to what turns out to be a totally ridiculous series.  It was NOT about what anyone above the age of 15 thought it was.  It was about a child's logic (the space boy) making up nonsense (synthetics need to kill organics before their own synthetics can do it) and pulling a total MacGuffin out of his toddler's @ss.  Nonsense, bullcr@p, silly, ridiculous, childish, sophomoric, lousy, rotten, self-contradicting, etc.

Sorry, but exhibit A and B render the synthetics always turn on their creators total bullpoo:  Exhibit A: Geth NEVER being the aggressor against their "creators" - it was ALWAYS the creators against their creation!  AND they are able to make total peace with their creators AFTER this fact!  Exhibit B: EDI.  Not only is EDI synthetic and NOT seeking in any way, shape, or form to destroy her makers, she is interested in boinking one and seeks to become as much like one of her creators as she can!  

All it takes is ONE example of counter example to falsify a theory, premise, hypothesis.  One example.  We get two SOLID examples in the same game !  That is an objective fact as presented, not as hand-waved (like the nonsense ending).

[RebelTitan428]

i just don't understand how they honestly expected fans to take that garbage at face value...
on my first playthroughs of ME and ME2 i had over 100+ hours on single careers. I have less than 30 on ME3 in my one and only playthrough.

[Stronglav]

But seriously you have no idea what sh*t storm raged on the russian forums about the ending of the game.Let me just say that if the words could kill the entire Bioware staff would be dead by now.

[AlanC9]

Cheburator987 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Biogays's? Dude, that's probably bannable right there if anyone bothers to report you.

Great.I'm not even allowed to say what I think about greedy SOB's.Some democracy this is. 

It's the homophobic part, silly. You lot may not take that stuff serously, but Bio does.

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 mai 2012 - 06:18 .

[fear_me]

I can see now why others are so upset. I was going to reserve judgment till I played through it. I played through all 3 ending choices and I was surprised that every ending sequence was essentially a cut and paste job with different color associations. red for destroy, blue for control, and green for synthesis. The red ending was the one that made the most sense and even in my paragon playthrough I ended up choosing red.

I understand what the complicated endings choices are for. blue/paragon ending is for control which is what the illusive man wanted to do, it's blue because you're choosing to co-exist instead of destroy by controlling the reapers through indoctrination basically. also blue because good guys don't kill unless it's necessary and they're more willing to sacrifice their life. which seems to disregard what you've done in the whole game up to that point which is to destroy the reapers. The catalyst child seems to indicate that the reapers are his solution for preserving organic life in the galaxy. Doesn't that contradict itself really? it's like saying we have to kill humans to save humans? huh? so they're killing us for our benefit? we have to die because machines in the future will want us dead? I think this weird phenomenon is best explained earlier by the geth. In which, the geth had the choice of destroying the Quarians in their war and chose not to destroy them all because they didn't want the "uncertainty" of being without quarians. So the geth chose to preserve some quarians so as not to face the "uncertainty" of being alone. This is basically what the catalyst is saying that the reapers destroy all advanced organic species and leave only the primitive species behind. All to harvest the organics bodies to create the reaper machines somehow.

Destroying the machines is the red/renegade ending, and this ending forces you to kill ALL machines not just the reapers. Why does destroy have to include the geth and EDI? We've already made peace with the geth, and EDI has always been an ally why would the weapon killing the reapers force you to kill off peacefull machines? So if peace with machines is possible with the geth then why does the catalyst indicate it's not?

Green ending is the middle of the road option and most strangest in that it completely kills ALL humans/organics and turns them into a new species in which everyone is half organic/half machine. Another thing I noticed is both the blue and green endings Shepard turns into a husk. The red ending is the only ending that Shepard lives. Also why do the mass relays have to be destroyed in all endings?

Some other points. When Shepard tells Hackett that The Illusive Man thinks the way to win this war is by controlling the reapers. Hackett says he's wrong, dead reapers is the only way to win this... which means destroy is the most wanted conclusion for Hackett and the alliance. Shepard being an aliance soldier, destroy would be his first choice above all others wouldn't it? 

This new DLC i can't wait for it to come out, but after hearing that the ending will not change my expectations are low. I am hoping they include more content in future dlc packs, like making Miranda Lawson a playable character throughout the game! I had to go with Ashley because Miranda wouldn't join our squad. We could of had a miranda and Ashley catfight scene!

[wes60620]

The new DLC is a waste of time if the game still ends with that starchild & space magic crap. Basically they’re saying “We know the conclusion of this good series is crap, but take this DLC and move on.”  The endings leave no sense of acomplishment what so ever.

Modifié par wes60620, 20 mai 2012 - 06:39 .

[Huntress]

Bioware is making the DLC to convince players that the 3 end make perfect sense when 2 of them doesn't.
1) Blue end:Shepard never wanted to mind control the reapers, it was TIM* ( the illusive man*) who wanted to undestand and probably rule over the machines. artistic integrity= Dumb end
2) Green end:Shepard never wanted his friends to be half-machines and lose their humanity like it happen to the Prothean people and to Saren. Artistic integrit=dumb end
3) RED:Shepard will rather die ( he/she is 80-90% machine) that to lose himself or be a tool for the machines. artistic integrity= maybe an "if" and only IF his friends and allies survive and are able to go back to their homes/planets.

One thing that bug me alot is when game force the hero to die after this hero has survive the imposible many times over.. come on.. is a freking game why not happily ever after? who cares if every game has a happily ever after thats why the HERO is FIGHTING for.

Really Bioware I have no clue who wrote the ends but something is clear, he/she never played mass effect and "artistic integrity" is a very "bad word".. my friends get very angry when they hear it.

Modifié par Huntress, 20 mai 2012 - 08:13 .