204 réponses à ce sujet

[ChildOfEden]

Mungolian_ wrote...

 Yeah. 'Cause foreshadowing in an optional side-mission I barely ever did is totally a good idea. 

No this is just the case of background playing a vocalized part of a bigger picture.

[weltraumhamster89]

Sad Dragon wrote...

The way I see it is that the quest does not foreshadow anything about the ending -- other then echo the flawed logic of it. What it did do, however, was building up the fear of AI that is present in the world of Mass Effect. And remember this was done in the same game where the Geth was the prime aggressors.
It should also be stated that it was but one AI that stated its opinion.

When Mass Effect 2 came out we are then confronted with EDI -- through the lens of Mass Effect 1 and the setting that was built up there. Her actions, as well as Legions gave another viewpoint to the setting. Maybe AI's can get along with Organics.

In Mass Effect 3 this story culminates with the Geth on Rannoch where you get to make the decision of they are worth saving and if you believe there can be peace.

By the time you get to the citadel this plot has already been resolved -- which dampens the effect of the ending. So I would say that the quest is more a part of the Quarian-Geth subplot than it is a part of the main plot.

-TSD

This. The AI vs organics - conflict is resolved when resolving the quarian/geth-situation either way. 

[Evil Minion]

ChildOfEden wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

Yes, I think the ending was foreshadowed.

It didn't surprise me at all to learn that the Reapers were controlled by a "rogue AI."

I liked the substance of the ending, but the presentation was AWFUL.

Glad you agree
However, I'd like to know more about your interpretation of the "rogue AI"

That was initial interpretation of what the Catalyst was.

We spent most of ME1 and ME2 blowing away "rogue AIs," and then, at the very end, it was like, "Oh, it was a rogue AI this who time."

The fact that it "lived" in the Citadel was a huge plothole, however.

Yeah, it begged questions like who really built the Citadel, and if so then who built the Reapers? Because apparently the Catalyst built the Reapers but the Reapers built the Citadel.

Actually, I'm content with the origin of the Reapers being a mystery.

What I'm wondering is why a Reaper had to "walk" all the way from dark space to turn the Citidel signal "on" in ME1 if The Catalyst was "living" in the Citadel the entire time.

It's probably the most egregious plot hole.

[ChildOfEden]

Artking3 wrote...

The ME1 Citadel Mission does not provide enough foreshadowing in that it was an OPTIONAL mission. If you missed it, you would have no foreshadowing whatsoever.

It was actually foreshadowed in many cases, this was just a point of actualizing it, and vocalizing it.

[sherman9800]

ChildOfEden wrote...

"The original ending" can be anything Casery Hudson and BioWare wanted it to be. they chose destroy, control, and synthesis, with an abyssmal point of having the Normandy blow up, get stranded on the jungle, and a legacy textbox pushing DLC. However, if they have chosen the other, Dark Energy as I have pointed out myself ALSO foreshadowing, they still would have been justified. It's the fact the way they put it together that we are dicussing. Let me repeat, this isn't a discussion about which ending would have been better, but whether or not this was a justifiable ending because of the evidence brought forth.

I do feel that they tried in carrying over themes from the first 2 games but the ending was poorly executed. Introducing a fresh character we heard nothing about in the last 10 minutes isn't a twist, it makes people feel confused as to why they have never been mentioned before.

Destroying the mass relays in essence "breaks the cycle" since that is how the reapers controlled organics technology and evolution. But then it leaves the newly appropriate theme of uniting the galactic races that you worked so hard to make peace completely negated. WIthout any insight into what happens to them after the fact.

The way the story was written really trips over multiple points its made by example in other sections of past games and DLC. Like the writers had to tie 10 pairs of shoe laces (subplots) together and then be able to run with them still on their feet.

I stand by what I've said before in that if you have to explain a joke it wasn't very funny in the first place. And if you have to explain a stories ending to your devoted fans it wasn't really that well written. Especially when the main protagonist breaks character in order to force the player to travel down the "destined" path. 

[ChildOfEden]

Evil Minion wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...

Yes, I think the ending was foreshadowed.

It didn't surprise me at all to learn that the Reapers were controlled by a "rogue AI."

I liked the substance of the ending, but the presentation was AWFUL.

Glad you agree
However, I'd like to know more about your interpretation of the "rogue AI"

That was initial interpretation of what the Catalyst was.

We spent most of ME1 and ME2 blowing away "rogue AIs," and then, at the very end, it was like, "Oh, it was a rogue AI this who time."

The fact that it "lived" in the Citadel was a huge plothole, however.

Yeah, it begged questions like who really built the Citadel, and if so then who built the Reapers? Because apparently the Catalyst built the Reapers but the Reapers built the Citadel.

Actually, I'm content with the origin of the Reapers being a mystery.

What I'm wondering is why a Reaper had to "walk" all the way from dark space to turn the Citidel signal "on" in ME1 if The Catalyst was "living" in the Citadel the entire time.

It's probably the most egregious plot hole.

LOL I was actually going to bring that up.

[Tritium315]

ChildOfEden wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

It wasn't foreshadowed because it couldn't have been foreshadowed. The original planned ending for the trilogy had nothing to do with the **** we got. Any "foreshadowing" is just coincidence and straw grasping.

Exactly. The OP is grasping at straws and reading things that arn't there.
 
The original ending was to do with dark energy and something about the Reapers having to keep a balance to stop the universe going wonky.

So 'yes'  the ending was forshadowed, but it was a completely different one. It was all the dark energy side plots that Bioware decided to just ignore that was the forshadowing.  Not some insignificant, easily missable quest, that was obviously just put into ME1 as a filler.

"The original ending" can be anything Casery Hudson and BioWare wanted it to be. they chose destroy, control, and synthesis, with an abyssmal point of having the Normandy blow up, get stranded on the jungle, and a legacy textbox pushing DLC. However, if they have chosen the other, Dark Energy as I have pointed out myself ALSO foreshadowing, they still would have been justified. It's the fact the way they put it together that we are dicussing. Let me repeat, this isn't a discussion about which ending would have been better, but whether or not this was a justifiable ending because of the evidence brought forth.
Next time read the rules or you'll be reported. Also vulgar language will not be tolerated.

Sorry, but the original ending is what Drew original envisioned it to be at the time.  You can't come along 5 years later and arbitrarily decide that something you've just thought up was the original ending.  Drew has even posted it was supposed to be the Dark energy plot.

Where did I state that I thought either ending was better?

Which part of my post was breaking the rules?
 
Which part of my post was vulgar language?
 
Because i'd really like to know.

I'm sorry, it seems I directed that at you when I meant to direct that at the person you had commented on.

What he said was right though. The original ending was what Drew envisioned it to be. It's why when you talk about that ending you can see very clear and obvious elements of foreshadowing (the Haestrom mission, the numerous conversations about human genetic diversity, etc.). This is opposed to the ending we got where the only foreshadowing that exists is a minor side mission that was just there for filler.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and there is no deeper meaning to it.

[Heimdall]

DinoSteve wrote...

THEY FORESHADOWED NOTHING THE ORIGINAL PLOT TO THE TRILOGY WAS ABOUT DARK ENERGY

Of the second game, maybe.  I didn't see so much as a hint of it in the first game.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 07 avril 2012 - 11:30 .

[Evil Minion]

weltraumhamster89 wrote...

Sad Dragon wrote...

The way I see it is that the quest does not foreshadow anything about the ending -- other then echo the flawed logic of it. What it did do, however, was building up the fear of AI that is present in the world of Mass Effect. And remember this was done in the same game where the Geth was the prime aggressors.
It should also be stated that it was but one AI that stated its opinion.

When Mass Effect 2 came out we are then confronted with EDI -- through the lens of Mass Effect 1 and the setting that was built up there. Her actions, as well as Legions gave another viewpoint to the setting. Maybe AI's can get along with Organics.

In Mass Effect 3 this story culminates with the Geth on Rannoch where you get to make the decision of they are worth saving and if you believe there can be peace.

By the time you get to the citadel this plot has already been resolved -- which dampens the effect of the ending. So I would say that the quest is more a part of the Quarian-Geth subplot than it is a part of the main plot.

-TSD

This. The AI vs organics - conflict is resolved when resolving the quarian/geth-situation either way. 

I don't agree.

A temporary peace between one type of syntehtic race and one species of organics doesn't ensure lasting "peace."

The entire question of whether organics and synthetics can live together has to be answered by the individual player, not the game itself.

[ChildOfEden]

weltraumhamster89 wrote...

Sad Dragon wrote...

The way I see it is that the quest does not foreshadow anything about the ending -- other then echo the flawed logic of it. What it did do, however, was building up the fear of AI that is present in the world of Mass Effect. And remember this was done in the same game where the Geth was the prime aggressors.
It should also be stated that it was but one AI that stated its opinion.

When Mass Effect 2 came out we are then confronted with EDI -- through the lens of Mass Effect 1 and the setting that was built up there. Her actions, as well as Legions gave another viewpoint to the setting. Maybe AI's can get along with Organics.

In Mass Effect 3 this story culminates with the Geth on Rannoch where you get to make the decision of they are worth saving and if you believe there can be peace.

By the time you get to the citadel this plot has already been resolved -- which dampens the effect of the ending. So I would say that the quest is more a part of the Quarian-Geth subplot than it is a part of the main plot.

-TSD

This. The AI vs organics - conflict is resolved when resolving the quarian/geth-situation either way. 

If you followed the posts and responses to this you would see that it isn't resolved because at the end of the day the Geth are still a major factor of the "theme" however, the justification is there because of this. This being that the Reapers are the opposite of understanding and so disregarded everything you have done for the supposed AI vs Organic resolution.

[ChildOfEden]

Tritium315 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

It wasn't foreshadowed because it couldn't have been foreshadowed. The original planned ending for the trilogy had nothing to do with the **** we got. Any "foreshadowing" is just coincidence and straw grasping.

Exactly. The OP is grasping at straws and reading things that arn't there.
 
The original ending was to do with dark energy and something about the Reapers having to keep a balance to stop the universe going wonky.

So 'yes'  the ending was forshadowed, but it was a completely different one. It was all the dark energy side plots that Bioware decided to just ignore that was the forshadowing.  Not some insignificant, easily missable quest, that was obviously just put into ME1 as a filler.

"The original ending" can be anything Casery Hudson and BioWare wanted it to be. they chose destroy, control, and synthesis, with an abyssmal point of having the Normandy blow up, get stranded on the jungle, and a legacy textbox pushing DLC. However, if they have chosen the other, Dark Energy as I have pointed out myself ALSO foreshadowing, they still would have been justified. It's the fact the way they put it together that we are dicussing. Let me repeat, this isn't a discussion about which ending would have been better, but whether or not this was a justifiable ending because of the evidence brought forth.
Next time read the rules or you'll be reported. Also vulgar language will not be tolerated.

Sorry, but the original ending is what Drew original envisioned it to be at the time.  You can't come along 5 years later and arbitrarily decide that something you've just thought up was the original ending.  Drew has even posted it was supposed to be the Dark energy plot.

Where did I state that I thought either ending was better?

Which part of my post was breaking the rules?
 
Which part of my post was vulgar language?
 
Because i'd really like to know.

I'm sorry, it seems I directed that at you when I meant to direct that at the person you had commented on.

What he said was right though. The original ending was what Drew envisioned it to be. It's why when you talk about that ending you can see very clear and obvious elements of foreshadowing (the Haestrom mission, the numerous conversations about human genetic diversity, etc.). This is opposed to the ending we got where the only foreshadowing that exists is a minor side mission that was just there for filler.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and there is no deeper meaning to it.

No see, you're taking this discussion out of context all together. The point of this is to show that there was dilberate attempt to add this scene, if not they could have done something completely else.
Whether or not is it RIGHT or WRONG remains to be unseen, and it doesn't matter, the fact of the matter is that it exists in the universe to be vocalized almost candidly obvious by the endings in ME3. So even IF and that is a BIG IF, they had gone with the Dark Energy script they would be justified as EQUALLY to the current one, seeing as that has been foreshadowed as well. However, I am making the point that this isn't a discussion, or rather a debate on which ending they should have done, but figuring out whether or not they were justified in doing this ending but just failing in providing the presentation for it.
And it seems a large majority agree with me.
That is of course, that the themes, endings, whatnot have been present, but not executed in the expected quality of BioWare.
Cause originally I thought my FemShep would have babies with Liara.

Modifié par ChildOfEden, 07 avril 2012 - 11:40 .

[Kuraiken]

I don't really get how you can *see* the ME3 Ending foreshadowed in ME1 or ME2.
Especially because the ending that was originally planned before the lead writer left before ME3, the Dark Matter ending, was the one foreshadowed throughout the game. (Heastrom)
So no, the ending that was considered as the "real ending" that the story developed towards was scapped after the writer left, and instead something new was pulled out of a hat. The old ending included a Organics/Synthetics conflict, but really, that's not forshadowing. It's Reaper vs (mostly) Organics anway in this game.

So no, if you think ME1 was hinting at the current ME3 ending, you're imagining things. The ME3 ending was a total surprise for anyone but the people who wrote it.

EDIT: Also, I thought that the "true" ending info was pretty common knowledge by now...

Modifié par Kuraiken, 07 avril 2012 - 11:42 .

[shepskisaac]

MadMatt910 wrote...

Dark Energy was much better foreshadowed, as I have shown in my thread here
http://social.biowar...5/index/9831144

In some way, but synthetics vs AI was present throughout the entire series as well. And in the context of the characters, Dark Energy means nothing. With organics vs AI you have actual real characters that are part of the theme and the 'issue', with Dark Energy, you have relays, artifacts etc. I prefer organics vs AI

Modifié par IsaacShep, 07 avril 2012 - 11:58 .

[Tritium315]

ChildOfEden wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

It wasn't foreshadowed because it couldn't have been foreshadowed. The original planned ending for the trilogy had nothing to do with the **** we got. Any "foreshadowing" is just coincidence and straw grasping.

Exactly. The OP is grasping at straws and reading things that arn't there.
 
The original ending was to do with dark energy and something about the Reapers having to keep a balance to stop the universe going wonky.

So 'yes'  the ending was forshadowed, but it was a completely different one. It was all the dark energy side plots that Bioware decided to just ignore that was the forshadowing.  Not some insignificant, easily missable quest, that was obviously just put into ME1 as a filler.

"The original ending" can be anything Casery Hudson and BioWare wanted it to be. they chose destroy, control, and synthesis, with an abyssmal point of having the Normandy blow up, get stranded on the jungle, and a legacy textbox pushing DLC. However, if they have chosen the other, Dark Energy as I have pointed out myself ALSO foreshadowing, they still would have been justified. It's the fact the way they put it together that we are dicussing. Let me repeat, this isn't a discussion about which ending would have been better, but whether or not this was a justifiable ending because of the evidence brought forth.
Next time read the rules or you'll be reported. Also vulgar language will not be tolerated.

Sorry, but the original ending is what Drew original envisioned it to be at the time.  You can't come along 5 years later and arbitrarily decide that something you've just thought up was the original ending.  Drew has even posted it was supposed to be the Dark energy plot.

Where did I state that I thought either ending was better?

Which part of my post was breaking the rules?
 
Which part of my post was vulgar language?
 
Because i'd really like to know.

I'm sorry, it seems I directed that at you when I meant to direct that at the person you had commented on.

What he said was right though. The original ending was what Drew envisioned it to be. It's why when you talk about that ending you can see very clear and obvious elements of foreshadowing (the Haestrom mission, the numerous conversations about human genetic diversity, etc.). This is opposed to the ending we got where the only foreshadowing that exists is a minor side mission that was just there for filler.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and there is no deeper meaning to it.

No see, you're taking this discussion out of context all together. The point of this is to show that there was dilberate attempt to add this scene, if not they could have done something completely else.
Whether or not is it RIGHT or WRONG remains to be unseen, and it doesn't matter, the fact of the matter is that it exists in the universe to be vocalized almost candidly obvious by the endings in ME3. So even IF and that is a BIG IF, they had gone with the Dark Energy script they would be justified as EQUALLY to the current one, seeing as that has been foreshadowed as well. However, I am making the point that this isn't a discussion, or rather a debate on which ending they should have done, but figuring out whether or not they were justified in doing this ending but just failing in providing the presentation for it.
And it seems a large majority agree with me.
That is of course, that the themes, endings, whatnot have been present, but not executed in the expected quality of BioWare.
Cause originally I thought my FemShep would have babies with Liara.

Of course it's a discussion. Just 'cause you feel that one insignificant side mission was broadcasting an ending 5 years in advance that would go on to ignore all other pieces of foreshadowing (that were actually confirmed to be that) does not make it so. There were dozens of tiny filler missions throughout the series that were simply there to add time and make the world feel alive. The fact that this one mission tangentially refers to what the real ending ended up being is coincidental at best.

If they trully were considering this being the true ending the whole time they would have put in more actual pieces of foreshadowing like they did with the dark energy ending. That way they could have gone with either ending and been safe. But they didn't do that because the ending we got was not on the table until the third game.

[ChildOfEden]

Kuraiken wrote...

I don't really get how you can *see* the ME3 Ending foreshadowed in ME1 or ME2.
Especially because the ending that was originally planned before the lead writer left before ME3, the Dark Matter ending, was the one foreshadowed throughout the game. (Heastrom)
So no, the ending that was considered as the "real ending" that the story developed towards was scapped after the writer left, and instead something new was pulled out of a hat. The old ending included a Organics/Synthetics conflict, but really, that's not forshadowing. It's Reaper vs (mostly) Organics anway in this game.

So no, if you think ME1 was hinting at the current ME3 ending, you're imagining things. The ME3 ending was a total surprise for anyone but the people who wrote it.

EDIT: Also, I thought that the "true" ending info was pretty common knowledge by now...

I respect your opinion however, this isn't about whether or not the the foreshadowing was good or bad, this is a discussion on whether the ending is justified on basis of the foreshadowing made and that BioWare just dropped the ball on how it was presented.
If you can understand the endings justifiability in being there, the foreshadowing is justified, however, if you feel the endings sucked then you agree to my assertion that BioWare dropped the ball. So again don't steer this discussion into something it isn't. Pretty please. 

Modifié par ChildOfEden, 07 avril 2012 - 11:52 .

[ChildOfEden]

Tritium315 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

It wasn't foreshadowed because it couldn't have been foreshadowed. The original planned ending for the trilogy had nothing to do with the **** we got. Any "foreshadowing" is just coincidence and straw grasping.

Exactly. The OP is grasping at straws and reading things that arn't there.
 
The original ending was to do with dark energy and something about the Reapers having to keep a balance to stop the universe going wonky.

So 'yes'  the ending was forshadowed, but it was a completely different one. It was all the dark energy side plots that Bioware decided to just ignore that was the forshadowing.  Not some insignificant, easily missable quest, that was obviously just put into ME1 as a filler.

"The original ending" can be anything Casery Hudson and BioWare wanted it to be. they chose destroy, control, and synthesis, with an abyssmal point of having the Normandy blow up, get stranded on the jungle, and a legacy textbox pushing DLC. However, if they have chosen the other, Dark Energy as I have pointed out myself ALSO foreshadowing, they still would have been justified. It's the fact the way they put it together that we are dicussing. Let me repeat, this isn't a discussion about which ending would have been better, but whether or not this was a justifiable ending because of the evidence brought forth.
Next time read the rules or you'll be reported. Also vulgar language will not be tolerated.

Sorry, but the original ending is what Drew original envisioned it to be at the time.  You can't come along 5 years later and arbitrarily decide that something you've just thought up was the original ending.  Drew has even posted it was supposed to be the Dark energy plot.

Where did I state that I thought either ending was better?

Which part of my post was breaking the rules?
 
Which part of my post was vulgar language?
 
Because i'd really like to know.

I'm sorry, it seems I directed that at you when I meant to direct that at the person you had commented on.

What he said was right though. The original ending was what Drew envisioned it to be. It's why when you talk about that ending you can see very clear and obvious elements of foreshadowing (the Haestrom mission, the numerous conversations about human genetic diversity, etc.). This is opposed to the ending we got where the only foreshadowing that exists is a minor side mission that was just there for filler.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and there is no deeper meaning to it.

No see, you're taking this discussion out of context all together. The point of this is to show that there was dilberate attempt to add this scene, if not they could have done something completely else.
Whether or not is it RIGHT or WRONG remains to be unseen, and it doesn't matter, the fact of the matter is that it exists in the universe to be vocalized almost candidly obvious by the endings in ME3. So even IF and that is a BIG IF, they had gone with the Dark Energy script they would be justified as EQUALLY to the current one, seeing as that has been foreshadowed as well. However, I am making the point that this isn't a discussion, or rather a debate on which ending they should have done, but figuring out whether or not they were justified in doing this ending but just failing in providing the presentation for it.
And it seems a large majority agree with me.
That is of course, that the themes, endings, whatnot have been present, but not executed in the expected quality of BioWare.
Cause originally I thought my FemShep would have babies with Liara.

Of course it's a discussion. Just 'cause you feel that one insignificant side mission was broadcasting an ending 5 years in advance that would go on to ignore all other pieces of foreshadowing (that were actually confirmed to be that) does not make it so. There were dozens of tiny filler missions throughout the series that were simply there to add time and make the world feel alive. The fact that this one mission tangentially refers to what the real ending ended up being is coincidental at best.

If they trully were considering this being the true ending the whole time they would have put in more actual pieces of foreshadowing like they did with the dark energy ending. That way they could have gone with either ending and been safe. But they didn't do that because the ending we got was not on the table until the third game.

I respect you're understanding of this discussion, truly I do, however, taking your logic, the need to gain war assets were just to make the world feel alive? Even though they're considered by ME as side quests. Even though they provide to the story so very much?
Again this is whether or not you feel the foreshadowing was present and if it was presented in the end in a satisfying way topic. Not a topic on how the dark energy's ending would be better than the current one, as I've stated in my rules for the thread.

[Zix13]

ChildOfEden wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Sorry, my computer bugged on me, re-read our previous comment I made I edited it.

Still not getting it. I stated that the geth DO avoid conflict. The geth are important to the story in all 3 games. In the first, the geth are agressive, you discover in me2 that those aren't geth, they're a small splinter group. The geth avoid conflict despite the attempted genocide on their race. They let the Quarians live despite having the opportunity to destroy them utterly at the end of the morning war. I think the geth conflict thoroughly ends any debate about the inevitability of conflict between organics and synthetics being a developed aspect to the theme. 

You seem confused, it isn't the fact the Geth don't want the conflict, but the theme has to be seen on the other end. It is Organics vs Synthetics, this is the assumed theme, not Synthetics are letting go and so the result is Organics are letting go of all antagonization too.

The issue is that the synthetics must be the agressors in order to support the logic of the ending. Reapers reap to prevent synthetics from wiping out all organics. Geth do not look for conflict, they will defend themselves, but they've shown they will not drive organics to extinction. If they were attempting to forshadow the "revelations" of the ending, they wouldn't have a recurring conflict/major plot-point that suggests the opposite. 

[Tritium315]

ChildOfEden wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

It wasn't foreshadowed because it couldn't have been foreshadowed. The original planned ending for the trilogy had nothing to do with the **** we got. Any "foreshadowing" is just coincidence and straw grasping.

Exactly. The OP is grasping at straws and reading things that arn't there.
 
The original ending was to do with dark energy and something about the Reapers having to keep a balance to stop the universe going wonky.

So 'yes'  the ending was forshadowed, but it was a completely different one. It was all the dark energy side plots that Bioware decided to just ignore that was the forshadowing.  Not some insignificant, easily missable quest, that was obviously just put into ME1 as a filler.

"The original ending" can be anything Casery Hudson and BioWare wanted it to be. they chose destroy, control, and synthesis, with an abyssmal point of having the Normandy blow up, get stranded on the jungle, and a legacy textbox pushing DLC. However, if they have chosen the other, Dark Energy as I have pointed out myself ALSO foreshadowing, they still would have been justified. It's the fact the way they put it together that we are dicussing. Let me repeat, this isn't a discussion about which ending would have been better, but whether or not this was a justifiable ending because of the evidence brought forth.
Next time read the rules or you'll be reported. Also vulgar language will not be tolerated.

Sorry, but the original ending is what Drew original envisioned it to be at the time.  You can't come along 5 years later and arbitrarily decide that something you've just thought up was the original ending.  Drew has even posted it was supposed to be the Dark energy plot.

Where did I state that I thought either ending was better?

Which part of my post was breaking the rules?
 
Which part of my post was vulgar language?
 
Because i'd really like to know.

I'm sorry, it seems I directed that at you when I meant to direct that at the person you had commented on.

What he said was right though. The original ending was what Drew envisioned it to be. It's why when you talk about that ending you can see very clear and obvious elements of foreshadowing (the Haestrom mission, the numerous conversations about human genetic diversity, etc.). This is opposed to the ending we got where the only foreshadowing that exists is a minor side mission that was just there for filler.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and there is no deeper meaning to it.

No see, you're taking this discussion out of context all together. The point of this is to show that there was dilberate attempt to add this scene, if not they could have done something completely else.
Whether or not is it RIGHT or WRONG remains to be unseen, and it doesn't matter, the fact of the matter is that it exists in the universe to be vocalized almost candidly obvious by the endings in ME3. So even IF and that is a BIG IF, they had gone with the Dark Energy script they would be justified as EQUALLY to the current one, seeing as that has been foreshadowed as well. However, I am making the point that this isn't a discussion, or rather a debate on which ending they should have done, but figuring out whether or not they were justified in doing this ending but just failing in providing the presentation for it.
And it seems a large majority agree with me.
That is of course, that the themes, endings, whatnot have been present, but not executed in the expected quality of BioWare.
Cause originally I thought my FemShep would have babies with Liara.

Of course it's a discussion. Just 'cause you feel that one insignificant side mission was broadcasting an ending 5 years in advance that would go on to ignore all other pieces of foreshadowing (that were actually confirmed to be that) does not make it so. There were dozens of tiny filler missions throughout the series that were simply there to add time and make the world feel alive. The fact that this one mission tangentially refers to what the real ending ended up being is coincidental at best.

If they trully were considering this being the true ending the whole time they would have put in more actual pieces of foreshadowing like they did with the dark energy ending. That way they could have gone with either ending and been safe. But they didn't do that because the ending we got was not on the table until the third game.

I respect you're understanding of this discussion, truly I do, however, taking your logic, the need to gain war assets were just to make the world feel alive? Even though they're considered by ME as side quests. Even though they provide to the story so very much?
Again this is whether or not you feel the foreshadowing was present and if it was presented in the end in a satisfying way topic. Not a topic on how the dark energy's ending would be better than the current one, as I've stated in my rules for the thread.

That's exactly what the point of war assets was. Especially since the ending barely changes with them. Even more so since you could accomplish the same thing by playing multiplayer instead of gaining war assets. If you actually saw all the war assets participating in the battle during the last mission/in cutscenes I'd think otherwise, but you don't. The whole point of war assets was filler.

As for your second point, people are directly addressing that. I, and others in this thread, feel that there was no foreshadowing present for the current ending. Any that you do see is just coincidence and straw grasping. Hell, if Cthulhu rolled up at the end on Harby's back with a giant whip saying he'd returned to consume the galaxy one could probably find SOMETHING that foreshadowed even that.

[ChildOfEden]

Zix13 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Sorry, my computer bugged on me, re-read our previous comment I made I edited it.

Still not getting it. I stated that the geth DO avoid conflict. The geth are important to the story in all 3 games. In the first, the geth are agressive, you discover in me2 that those aren't geth, they're a small splinter group. The geth avoid conflict despite the attempted genocide on their race. They let the Quarians live despite having the opportunity to destroy them utterly at the end of the morning war. I think the geth conflict thoroughly ends any debate about the inevitability of conflict between organics and synthetics being a developed aspect to the theme. 

You seem confused, it isn't the fact the Geth don't want the conflict, but the theme has to be seen on the other end. It is Organics vs Synthetics, this is the assumed theme, not Synthetics are letting go and so the result is Organics are letting go of all antagonization too.

The issue is that the synthetics must be the agressors in order to support the logic of the ending. Reapers reap to prevent synthetics from wiping out all organics. Geth do not look for conflict, they will defend themselves, but they've shown they will not drive organics to extinction. If they were attempting to forshadow the "revelations" of the ending, they wouldn't have a recurring conflict/major plot-point that suggests the opposite. 

I agree completely, however, as I've posted to numerous people, The Reapers do not care for what happens as they have a singular purpose, which is the logic of organics doomed to synthetics. This make the Reapers the opposite of understanding anything other than what occurred to them before the events seen. In a way this makes all reapers more VI than AI, as Vigil, a VI, once said, "You're survival is on stopping them [reapers] not in understanding them."
But why not? The Geth did this. They disregarded this altogether. So my understanding of the Reapers must be true.
I'm not going to say this isn't a plot hole or anything, but with the understanding from the AI on the Citadel, which is so closely remeiscient of the choices you've been given by the Catalyst, there is a correlation between the two. And since Signal Tracking was the first to come, that was candid foreshadowing. In my opinion.

[XqctaX]

I dont agree with the op's speculation about foreshadowing and theres two reasons why i dont do that.

when the story of game 1 was beeing written, the intended conclution was darkmatter
(this has been stated by for example drew himself and he was leadwriter then)
and as such we do know beyond doubt it was not the writers intention to foreshadow the ending that was then made in me3. cold, hard, facts.

what it was on the other hand is a connection to the geth and quarian conflict.
nothing more, nothing less.and that AI made an erroness conclution from that conflict,
a conflict we can have resolved.


the game has allways been about shepards struggel to save the galaxy.
not syntetics agains organics. that was introduced with only 14 lines of text in the last few minutes of the story.

the ending was changed during the writing of mass effect 3. and not thought of before and as such was not intentionally forshadowed in anyway.

to belive anything other than that is to reach for straws so to speak
so i strongy dissagree with your speculation. since known facts do not support them.

[ChildOfEden]

Tritium315 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

ChildOfEden wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

It wasn't foreshadowed because it couldn't have been foreshadowed. The original planned ending for the trilogy had nothing to do with the **** we got. Any "foreshadowing" is just coincidence and straw grasping.

Exactly. The OP is grasping at straws and reading things that arn't there.
 
The original ending was to do with dark energy and something about the Reapers having to keep a balance to stop the universe going wonky.

So 'yes'  the ending was forshadowed, but it was a completely different one. It was all the dark energy side plots that Bioware decided to just ignore that was the forshadowing.  Not some insignificant, easily missable quest, that was obviously just put into ME1 as a filler.

"The original ending" can be anything Casery Hudson and BioWare wanted it to be. they chose destroy, control, and synthesis, with an abyssmal point of having the Normandy blow up, get stranded on the jungle, and a legacy textbox pushing DLC. However, if they have chosen the other, Dark Energy as I have pointed out myself ALSO foreshadowing, they still would have been justified. It's the fact the way they put it together that we are dicussing. Let me repeat, this isn't a discussion about which ending would have been better, but whether or not this was a justifiable ending because of the evidence brought forth.
Next time read the rules or you'll be reported. Also vulgar language will not be tolerated.

Sorry, but the original ending is what Drew original envisioned it to be at the time.  You can't come along 5 years later and arbitrarily decide that something you've just thought up was the original ending.  Drew has even posted it was supposed to be the Dark energy plot.

Where did I state that I thought either ending was better?

Which part of my post was breaking the rules?
 
Which part of my post was vulgar language?
 
Because i'd really like to know.

I'm sorry, it seems I directed that at you when I meant to direct that at the person you had commented on.

What he said was right though. The original ending was what Drew envisioned it to be. It's why when you talk about that ending you can see very clear and obvious elements of foreshadowing (the Haestrom mission, the numerous conversations about human genetic diversity, etc.). This is opposed to the ending we got where the only foreshadowing that exists is a minor side mission that was just there for filler.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and there is no deeper meaning to it.

No see, you're taking this discussion out of context all together. The point of this is to show that there was dilberate attempt to add this scene, if not they could have done something completely else.
Whether or not is it RIGHT or WRONG remains to be unseen, and it doesn't matter, the fact of the matter is that it exists in the universe to be vocalized almost candidly obvious by the endings in ME3. So even IF and that is a BIG IF, they had gone with the Dark Energy script they would be justified as EQUALLY to the current one, seeing as that has been foreshadowed as well. However, I am making the point that this isn't a discussion, or rather a debate on which ending they should have done, but figuring out whether or not they were justified in doing this ending but just failing in providing the presentation for it.
And it seems a large majority agree with me.
That is of course, that the themes, endings, whatnot have been present, but not executed in the expected quality of BioWare.
Cause originally I thought my FemShep would have babies with Liara.

Of course it's a discussion. Just 'cause you feel that one insignificant side mission was broadcasting an ending 5 years in advance that would go on to ignore all other pieces of foreshadowing (that were actually confirmed to be that) does not make it so. There were dozens of tiny filler missions throughout the series that were simply there to add time and make the world feel alive. The fact that this one mission tangentially refers to what the real ending ended up being is coincidental at best.

If they trully were considering this being the true ending the whole time they would have put in more actual pieces of foreshadowing like they did with the dark energy ending. That way they could have gone with either ending and been safe. But they didn't do that because the ending we got was not on the table until the third game.

I respect you're understanding of this discussion, truly I do, however, taking your logic, the need to gain war assets were just to make the world feel alive? Even though they're considered by ME as side quests. Even though they provide to the story so very much?
Again this is whether or not you feel the foreshadowing was present and if it was presented in the end in a satisfying way topic. Not a topic on how the dark energy's ending would be better than the current one, as I've stated in my rules for the thread.

That's exactly what the point of war assets was. Especially since the ending barely changes with them. Even more so since you could accomplish the same thing by playing multiplayer instead of gaining war assets. If you actually saw all the war assets participating in the battle during the last mission/in cutscenes I'd think otherwise, but you don't. The whole point of war assets was filler.

As for your second point, people are directly addressing that. I, and others in this thread, feel that there was no foreshadowing present for the current ending. Any that you do see is just coincidence and straw grasping. Hell, if Cthulhu rolled up at the end on Harby's back with a giant whip saying he'd returned to consume the galaxy one could probably find SOMETHING that foreshadowed even that.

Sigh.... I guess you've made your point then, however, no one other than you has completely disregarded my rules and that's all I'm asking of you. Rules are you cannot steer this discussion into something it isn't. There's clear foreshadowing here, no one BUT you has vocalized that it isn't. Yes, sure some have said they agree on your points, I agree on some of them too, however, they've been statements like "the dark matter [sic] was foreshadow more" not things like you're saying.
So again, please if you wish to make a point on how the current endings would be better if they were changed go make a separate thread. This thread is currently asking people on if you feel the evidence I gave you that foreshadowed, significantly or not, and that if BioWare just happened to drop the ball on delivering it.

[XqctaX]

if i came of as harsh, im sorry. that was not intented.
my emotions get the better of me and shine thru sometimes
and the ending debacle has me torn in peices sometimes lol.

[rpgfan321]

If that side mission (one with tracking an illegal AI) was that important to foreshadowing ME3's ending then they would have made it part of the main mission or make it a crucial side quest. I know it's one of the examples.

Indeed the idea, organic vs. synthetics, are scattered across the trilogy and seeps into the main story. It is a huge theme because of the Quarians vs. Geth. What you see in the game as "peace" in the game is only temporary because history do repeat itself. Maybe in the same way or in different variations, but the underlying problem/conflict will be inevitably the same. I can see what the Catalyst refers to when it says that it is ultimately inevitable that all Organics will be eliminated. But that's in the long, looong term, and also there could be multiple different ways that will happen.

It's just how the Catalyst says the inevitability that just irks me. It's too fatalistic. I mean as a player I had to see so many beloved character die to get to that point, and there isn't even an option to ask why? Human beings always question everything and yet Shepard can't be inquisitive to the thing that will bring destruction?

Any theme that has two opposing forces together will never have a definitive answer. In my opinion, the Catalyst (the kid) shouldn't have been touched at all. The ending should have just been saying goodbye to Shepard and the war.

[ChildOfEden]

XqctaX wrote...

I dont agree with the op's speculation about foreshadowing and theres two reasons why i dont do that.

when the story of game 1 was beeing written, the intended conclution was darkmatter
(this has been stated by for example drew himself and he was leadwriter then)
and as such we do know beyond doubt it was not the writers intention to foreshadow the ending that was then made in me3. cold, hard, facts.

what it was on the other hand is a connection to the geth and quarian conflict.
nothing more, nothing less.and that AI made an erroness conclution from that conflict,
a conflict we can have resolved.


the game has allways been about shepards struggel to save the galaxy.
not syntetics agains organics. that was introduced with only 14 lines of text in the last few minutes of the story.

the ending was changed during the writing of mass effect 3. and not thought of before and as such was not intentionally forshadowed in anyway.

to belive anything other than that is to reach for straws so to speak
so i strongy dissagree with your speculation. since known facts do not support them.

I'm not going to disagree with how dark energy would have made more sense. However, you fail to realize that Casey Hudson was the one who created the series, the lead on the project, and the one who was consultated on before the actual serialization of written, or nonwritten material.
He stated on documentrary that the "endings" were made before they even developed it.

[atum]

ChildOfEden wrote...

Artking3 wrote...

The ME1 Citadel Mission does not provide enough foreshadowing in that it was an OPTIONAL mission. If you missed it, you would have no foreshadowing whatsoever.

It was actually foreshadowed in many cases, this was just a point of actualizing it, and vocalizing it.

Can you give more examples? It might help to edit add them to the OP, because I have to agree that goofy ME1 side quest isn't very compelling as foreshadowing.  Did Mac Walters even work on ME1?