5087 réponses à ce sujet

[Foxhound2121]

As the good professor can tell, the ending obviously violates many themes of the trilogy. When you literally copy another ending from another game, it will never fit with the over-arching theme.



If I plagiarize several pages from a book and put them into my own story, readers will probably be able to tell. The writing style will be different, the dialogue will be different, and the players involved will be completely out of character.



I always like to keep the discussion civil, but copying an ending from another game isn't remotely acceptable as high quality writing unless you're paying homage or making a purposeful parody. Oddly enough, Bioware has never admitted an inspiration from Dues Ex in any way. Which probably means that they wanted to plagiarize the ending itself or cut corners.

Modifié par Foxhound2121, 17 avril 2012 - 01:51 .

[pistolols]

RollaWarden wrote...

pistolols wrote...

huh?  perhaps you could try to make some sense?  Maybe you should read what i wrote originally, and hopefully you will understand that this goofball professor is completely ignoring a major contrast the game (the entire series, for that matter) trys to make between the necessity for control and the desire for control.  It's a MAJOR theme within Mass Effect.  The writers hammer us with it over and over in all 3 games (the thorian, ardat-yakshi, etc).  It was always about control.

Probably not a good idea to go with an ad hominem argument, pistolols.  It's another one of those pesky logical fallacies that tend to undermine your point of view.  Kinda' seein' that you're into the...you know...logical fallacies.  The folks around these forums are pretty wise to those.

Just a friendly recommendation from another goofball professor.

Thanks, but to be honest i'm not concerned with my point of view being undermined.  People have already made up their mind and i'm not really interested in changing anyone's perception especially when there is so much opposition and negative bias floating around.  At this point i'm just the kid in the back of the class launching spitballs whenever something piques my interest.  

Seriously though, it's amazing to me how many people do not understand the final 3 choices.  Apparently even a lit professor (community college?).  Some even try to claim the 3 choices "have no foreshadowing"... lol?  Were you playing a different game from me?  For christ' sake, the very first AI we meet in ME1 tells us "All organics will either control or destroy synthetic lifeforms".  It is intellectually dishonest and just blatantly retarded for people to act as if this stuff is not important within the series.

[ScotGaymer]

@drayfish

I completely agree.

The endings could have been interesting, and could have worked, conceptially; but unfortunately lacked the in-game exposition to adequately convey the concept in any coherent sort of manner and as such results in something that is completely at odds with the prior 100-120 hours of gameplay in the trilogy.

It is an ending that unfortunately shatters narrative coherency, in addition to violating the established lore and themes of the series.

It's why I think the Extended Cut DLC might just work.


@Pistolols.

Yes because everyone who disagree's with you and dislikes the ending for whatever reason is automatically an idiot who simply doesn't "understand".
Everyone.

Even an English Literature Professor.

Don't you think that maybe, just MAYBE, you might be in the wrong here? That maybe it is YOU that is misunderstanding and not the rest of the world? Or more likely using meta-game information to handwave/explain away the issues people have with the endings to make yourself feel better/superior?

If you like the endings thats just fine. I am glad for you, that you can hand wave away the problems. Or if you don't think they are problems or whatever.
Unfortunately many of us can not.

EDIT:
I should clarify that I don't think you are wrong to like the endings.

I do not think it is wrong to like the ending, and equally I do not think that it is wrong to dislike the ending.

What I do think you are dead wrong on is the assertion that EVERYONE who dislikes the ending is just patently stupid and simply "does not understand the endings", and thus is simply patently wrong.
That is an incredibly arrogant point of view, and it is fundamentally WRONG.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 17 avril 2012 - 02:17 .

[Cobra's_back]

RollaWarden wrote...

Opsrbest wrote...

RollaWarden wrote...
That might be so, were it not for a multiplicity of like-minded correspondence, corroborations, and careful, reasoned analysis of the endings and their highly problematic nature.  I've long thought that BSN posters should perhaps collect all these fine analyses into a single thread.   I'm thinking now that's been done, but the speed of new posts and thread on BSN means that such posts are quickly lost.  So I'd say, Opsrbest, that there's a remarkably consistent criticism of the ME3 ending that belies any of our personal biases.

I wasn't refering to the collective whole, to skip ahead to your question and reply further on in your response, but yours as an individual or one with the backing of I'm assuming a masters(?) degree.

You make the same statements that are and have been presented on these forums, and those I have already read, but to my knowledge I haven't read any that make the claim of you, the OP and a few others. The critical analysis, the use of authors such as Doyle in terms of revision and the link to the gaming medium (or the use of Myers against ME as poorly as I worded that sentence) and my favourite response of contemputious critical acclaim. I would have liked to have read what you thought using your background in the unsimplified manner that you replied with.

Understood.  Won't list my credentials; anybody who cares can take a look at my profile on the Missouri S&T website.  My education and degrees are all there.  More to the point, however, allow me to express that I really appreciate this correspondence, Opsrbest.  I've considered bring to bear my understanding of writing as a literary critical and writing scholar regarding ME3, but my other research has precluded it.  These conversations are admittedly the critical outlet I have regarding the ME series, with which I've been deeply interested as both a gamer and as a scholar.  But while my time is limited for criticism of this nature, I've strongly suggested to a colleague that she investigate ME as a literary scholar.  She downloaded ME1 from Steam and started it this weekend!  She's well aware of the ending controversy, but is enjoying the storytelling, as so many of us have.

Thank you again, Opsrbest.  You'd be a valued member of any of my classes at S&T.

Dan

Thanks for posting. I don't have a problem with you listing your credentials. I actually think it was a plus.

Great Job

[Cobra's_back]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

@drayfish

I completely agree.

The endings could have been interesting, and could have worked, conceptially; but unfortunately lacked the in-game exposition to adequately convey the concept in any coherent sort of manner and as such results in something that is completely at odds with the prior 100-120 hours of gameplay in the trilogy.

It is an ending that unfortunately shatters narrative coherency, in addition to violating the established lore and themes of the series.

It's why I think the Extended Cut DLC might just work.


@Pistolols.

Yes because everyone who disagree's with you and dislikes the ending for whatever reason is automatically an idiot who simply doesn't "understand".
Everyone.

Even an English Literature Professor.

Don't you think that maybe, just MAYBE, you might be in the wrong here? That maybe it is YOU that is misunderstanding and not the rest of the world? Or more likely using meta-game information to handwave/explain away the issues people have with the endings to make yourself feel better/superior?

If you like the endings thats just fine. I am glad for you, that you can hand wave away the problems. Or if you don't think they are problems or whatever.
Unfortunately many of us can not.

EDIT:
I should clarify that I don't think you are wrong to like the endings.

I do not think it is wrong to like the ending, and equally I do not think that it is wrong to dislike the ending.

What I do think you are dead wrong on is the assertion that EVERYONE who dislikes the ending is just patently stupid and simply "does not understand the endings", and thus is simply patently wrong.
That is an incredibly arrogant point of view, and it is fundamentally WRONG.

Well point. Thanks for caring. +1

[NUM13ER]

The problems of the professor with the ending in the OP were pretty similar to mine too. The thing that stood out for me the most is the statement that you couldn't accuse the first Mass Effect of being rushed. I'd go as far to say that no-one could look at the overall polish in the first two titles and believe they were forced to omit significant amounts of content.

I'm aware all games get content trimmed off because of time limits but only in Mass Effect 3 did I get the feeling that serious amounts of content had been resigned to the cutting room floor. Not just side missions but whole story elements too. The ending in particular is glaring evidence of an oncoming deadline interferring with the final product.

Modifié par NUM13ER, 17 avril 2012 - 02:35 .

[pistolols]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

@Pistolols.

Yes because everyone who disagree's with you and dislikes the ending for whatever reason is automatically an idiot who simply doesn't "understand".
Everyone.

I mean, that wasn't my opinion at first. But after spending hours on the forums reading posts, after listening to ReTake ME3 confessional youtube vids where people literally admit they ended the game "confused" or "didn't understand it" --I'd say yes. It's extremely clear to me at this point that the end went right over most people's heads. And make no mistake, i do fault the writers for that. They should have done a better job at "knowing your audience" and given an ending similar to ME2's derptastic feel-good ending. But that doesn't mean ME3's ending is "bad" or "thematically revolting". Quite the contrary!

You want to see the final 3 choices foreshadowed? Replay tali's loyalty mission in ME2 and listen to what the Quarian admirals have to say about the geth. You will note that they take seperate stances on the issue which closely mirror the final 3 choices of ME3. The admiral that wants to retake control of the Geth has similar aspirations as Illusive Man, i.e. she wants to command the largest army in the galaxy. It's a lust for power and it ended up being Tim's downfall. For people to somehow think Shepard takes control of the reapers for the same reason... for people to completely ignore the contrast they show us with Edi taking control of Eva out of necessity... sorry, but you are an idiot. They made it so clear.

[CaptainCalico]

"In conclusion, I must say again that all the endings were thematically revolting. It is absolutely critical in the name of good writing that the ending of a story must match the journey. Mass Effect has never been a story about the disparity between synthetics and organics. As a matter of fact, it has been quite the obvious. For three games, BW has hinted and pointed out that life could be so much more greater and mysterious than the organic perception. It's driven the point home, time and time again, that unity is possible. So why, then, at the very end of a series that has clearly been about unity and co-existence, would they end it with the point that different forms of life simply cannot co-exist unless their diversity is totally stripped away? It makes no sense. Furthermore, it is emotionally crushing that all this hope of co-existence that has been built up from the quarian-geth storyline  (Geth Prime:...and then we will help you rebuild your world.) is suddenly yanked away at the last second. Good day."

That strikes at the heart of the problem for me.  The. ending.  does. not. make. sense.  I was expecting that some, if not most of the "possible 16 endings" would involve great sacrifice on Shep's part, but the setup and options presented in those last 10 minutes were just contrived and simply did not have the same tone as the rest of the game.

[ScotGaymer]

pistolols wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...

@Pistolols.

Yes because everyone who disagree's with you and dislikes the ending for whatever reason is automatically an idiot who simply doesn't "understand".
Everyone.

I mean, that wasn't my opinion at first. But after spending hours on the forums reading posts, after listening to ReTake ME3 confessional youtube vids where people literally admit they ended the game "confused" or "didn't understand it" --I'd say yes. It's extremely clear to me at this point that the end went right over most people's heads. And make no mistake, i do fault the writers for that. They should have done a better job at "knowing your audience" and given an ending similar to ME2's derptastic feel-good ending. But that doesn't mean ME3's ending is "bad" or "thematically revolting". Quite the contrary!

You want to see the final 3 choices foreshadowed? Replay tali's loyalty mission in ME2 and listen to what the Quarian admirals have to say about the geth. You will note that they take seperate stances on the issue which closely mirror the final 3 choices of ME3. The admiral that wants to retake control of the Geth has similar aspirations as Illusive Man, i.e. she wants to command the largest army in the galaxy. It's a lust for power and it ended up being Tim's downfall. For people to somehow think Shepard takes control of the reapers for the same reason... for people to completely ignore the contrast they show us with Edi taking control of Eva out of necessity... sorry, but you are an idiot. They made it so clear.

What a productive and relevant post.

Not.

One, resorting to insults undermines your arguement.
Two, I and others (including the university professor) understood the endings just fine.
Three, qualifying an insult with a "sorry" doesn't make it any less insulting. And actually just compounds your arrogance.

Not liking the endings does not make me or anyone else an idiot, or make us wrong. Just as you being able to hand wave away the plot holes doesn't make you an idiot or wrong.

You clearly didn't properly read the Professors post; or properly investigate the opinions opposed to your own.

As both myself, and the Professor, said the endings could have worked -conceptially- had there been enough exposition during it. Without more meat to it the endings actively tear plot holes in the established lore. And there is no escaping that the endings narrative style is a complete change from the rest of the game, and indeed the rest of the trilogy.

There is a big difference between confused by the lack of exposition, and the plot holes; and simply not understanding the ending. A BIG difference.

And no offense but like I said, perhaps you should consider that maybe, just maybe it is YOU that is in the wrong here and NOT the rest of the world. Cos honestly at the moment you are coming off indescribably arrogant.

I mean really, you are claiming that you know more about writing/narration/literature - claiming that you know better than a Doctor of English Literature.
And you genuinely don't see the problem here?

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 17 avril 2012 - 02:59 .

[NUM13ER]

@Pistolols.

It's pretty simplistic to say the choices regarding the Geth foreshadow the Ctrl+Alt+Delete endings. For a start none of these choices involve Shepard actually having to die to accomplish them nor did he force both parties without their consent to become a new species.

As for the dubious claim that "they made it so clear." They didn't. The fact that so many finished the game confused or outright furious is evidence enough to that. There are people much smarter than both of us who believe the ending fails on pretty much every narrative level. A last minute change in tone, a quite literal god in the machine and ending designed not to offer closure but rather [lots of] speculation. These are crimes they wouldn't allow a university student's short story get away with.

[Sainta117]

Excellent points both by the OP and Dr. Dray. On a totally unrelated note, anyone else find the accidental rap reference amusing?

Modifié par Sainta117, 17 avril 2012 - 03:15 .

[ArchDuck]

@drayfish Beautiful. Thank you for your post.

[recentio]

pistolols wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...

@Pistolols.

Yes because everyone who disagree's with you and dislikes the ending for whatever reason is automatically an idiot who simply doesn't "understand".
Everyone.

I mean, that wasn't my opinion at first. But after spending hours on the forums reading posts, after listening to ReTake ME3 confessional youtube vids where people literally admit they ended the game "confused" or "didn't understand it" --I'd say yes. It's extremely clear to me at this point that the end went right over most people's heads. And make no mistake, i do fault the writers for that. They should have done a better job at "knowing your audience" and given an ending similar to ME2's derptastic feel-good ending. But that doesn't mean ME3's ending is "bad" or "thematically revolting". Quite the contrary!

You want to see the final 3 choices foreshadowed? Replay tali's loyalty mission in ME2 and listen to what the Quarian admirals have to say about the geth. You will note that they take seperate stances on the issue which closely mirror the final 3 choices of ME3. The admiral that wants to retake control of the Geth has similar aspirations as Illusive Man, i.e. she wants to command the largest army in the galaxy. It's a lust for power and it ended up being Tim's downfall. For people to somehow think Shepard takes control of the reapers for the same reason... for people to completely ignore the contrast they show us with Edi taking control of Eva out of necessity... sorry, but you are an idiot. They made it so clear.

Let met get this right... Are you saying that because of something that consisted of maybe 1% of content in a different game happened to somewhat reflect the Deus Ex ending copy, that the average player should have magically realized that moment was much more relevant than its peer moments and even the central conflict to the ME story, and therefore the ending should have made sense and anyone who didn't make that preposterous leap is too dumb to "get it"? If so, all I can say is lololololol. There really is no other reaction but condescending laughter at such mental fuqery.

[pistolols]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

I and others (including the university professor) understood the endings just fine.

No.. no Professor#1 does not understand it and that is what prompted my posting here in the first place if you re-read my first post on page 10.

When your reaction to the control choice is this, and i shall paraphrase the professor: "DERP ,DIDNT I JUST TELL ILLUSIVE MAN CONTROL WAS NAUGHTY?!"

-That is in no way showing an understanding of the choice. It is a blatant and obvious misunderstanding.

NUM13ER wrote...

It's pretty simplistic to say the choices regarding the Geth foreshadow the Ctrl+Alt+Delete endings.

I didn't say it foreshadowed the endings, it foreshadows the 3 choices. And it is interesting that Shepard has dialogue options to agree or disagree with the admirals individually. The circumstances are not the same, but symbolically we've already sort of made the choice before even reaching the end of ME3. Admiral Koris desire for "peace" or "coexistence" certainly isn't the same as "synthesis", but it is interesting that if you create this peace between them in ME3, the geth merge their tech with quarian suits to help repair them(or so i've read, in my game the geth annihilate the quarians). It can be argued that this is synthesis foreshadowed.

NUM13ER wrote...

a quite literal god in the machine

Personally i feel this is a major misconception you idiots (just kidding) people are having.  I don't see how the starchild can be a deus ex machina.  Afterall the 3 ending choices come from the crucible, not from him.  If anything is a deus ex machina, it is the crucible because of the way it was introduced in the eleventh hour of the series.  The starchild is nothing more than a defeated AI lamenting over the glory of his old solution before providing us with some information about our desired course of victory.

Modifié par pistolols, 17 avril 2012 - 03:51 .

[Victia]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...

@drayfish

I completely agree.

*snip*

EDIT:
I should clarify that I don't think you are wrong to like the endings.

I do not think it is wrong to like the ending, and equally I do not think that it is wrong to dislike the ending.

What I do think you are dead wrong on is the assertion that EVERYONE who dislikes the ending is just patently stupid and simply "does not understand the endings", and thus is simply patently wrong.
That is an incredibly arrogant point of view, and it is fundamentally WRONG.

Well point. Thanks for caring. +1

^^ This, is the thing that frustrates me the most about the ending 'debates', that the point you have put accross so well is the most frequently used 'pro-endings' arguement but could not be further from the truth. But Ijust wanted to say well put!

[Tleining]

pistolols wrote...

Personally i feel this is a major misconception you idiots (just kidding) people are having.  I don't see how the starchild can be a deus ex machina.  Afterall the 3 ending choices come from the crucible, not from him.  If anything is a deus ex machina, it is the crucible because of the way it was introduced in the eleventh hour of the series.  The starchild is nothing more than a defeated AI lamenting over the glory of his old solution before providing us with some information about our desired course of victory.

Without the Catalyst, you would never have reached that last area. Shepard didn't activate the Elevator. Godchild did.
Without the Catalyst, you wouldn't have known what to do. Shepard would have bled out.

According to the Catalyst, Shepard is the first Organic ever to reach it. So how could anyone other than Godchild/Reapers have designed the Crucible?

All the Godchild had to do was wait 20-30 Minutes and then the Crucible would have gotten destroyed. Instead it led Shepard to a new Solution. It's Solution.

Also: The Devices for Control and Destroy are ON the Citadel. The Crucible didn't add those. Only the available Energy could influence the available Options. But it's still something the Reapers had thought of.

Modifié par Tleining, 17 avril 2012 - 04:00 .

[recentio]

Victia wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...

@drayfish

I completely agree.

*snip*

EDIT:
I should clarify that I don't think you are wrong to like the endings.

I do not think it is wrong to like the ending, and equally I do not think that it is wrong to dislike the ending.

What I do think you are dead wrong on is the assertion that EVERYONE who dislikes the ending is just patently stupid and simply "does not understand the endings", and thus is simply patently wrong.
That is an incredibly arrogant point of view, and it is fundamentally WRONG.

Well point. Thanks for caring. +1

^^ This, is the thing that frustrates me the most about the ending 'debates', that the point you have put accross so well is the most frequently used 'pro-endings' arguement but could not be further from the truth. But Ijust wanted to say well put!

I would go as far as to say people defending the ending are the ones too stupid to understand on a deeper level its myriad flaws. But, perhaps I should say "what is wrong with it" so as not to stretch their vocabularies to breaking.

[Kushan101]

ChickenMan77 wrote...

Strange Aeons is brilliant and more eloquent than I could ever be..that's why every choice feels like a loss..and why the ending blew up in Bioware's face..If they really wanted to fix it.."or expand on it as they say"..they need to read your post ..spot on

I gotta admit, I got goose bumps at the end of what Strange Aeons had to say about the ending, well done sir. Well done.

[SkaldFish]

optimistickied wrote...

drayfish wrote...

*CLIPPED*

In the Control ending, Shepard is invited to pursue the previously impossible path of attempting to dominate the reapers and bend them to his will. Momentarily putting aside the vulgarity of dominating a species to achieve one's own ends (and I will get to complaining about that premise soon enough), this has proved to be the failed modus operandi of every antagonist in this fiction up until this point – including the Illusive Man and Saren – all of whom have been chewed up and destroyed by their blind ambition, incapable of controlling forces beyond their comprehension. Nothing in the vague prognostication of the exposition-ghost offers any tangible justification for why Shepard's plunge into Reaper-control should play out any differently. In fact, as many people have already pointed out, Shepard has literally not five minutes before this moment watched the Illusive Man die as a consequence of this arrogant misconception.

Shepard isn't indoctrinated. He's pure. He has free will. The Catalyst is offering him the steering wheel. That's the difference between him and the Illusive Man and Saren. Shepard has become an ambassador for organic life, and proved the Catalyst's solution for containing the chaos is no longer viable.

<snip/>

@optimistickied: More later, because this discussion has been excellent and I have some possibly relevant observations, but first, I must take issue with this comment. Apologies if this repeats what someone else has already said; I haven't made it to the end of the thread yet.

When you contend that Shepard has free will, I think you unintentionally bring into focus one of the greatest absurdities of the "solution" offered by this ending: The only real control remains with the Catalyst, who becomes a transparent (no pun intended) proxy for The Game. There is no "free will" here, and suddenly no real story. Shepard is given three choices (the absurdities of which I won't rehash here) and only three choices, all of which smack of a Wizard of Oz-ish, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" deception. In this sense, The Game is the Catalyst's puppeteer. Your "free will" is bounded by the options provided by the Catalyst, whose claim, in turn, is that the Crucible has somehow made these choices possible. But the reality is that The Game has intruded in the most jarring way possible, exposing itself to us and saying "OK, time to wrap this up. Pick A, B, or C and speculation will ensue."

This is the ultimate parody of Shepard's free will within the context of the narrative -- a complete betrayal of the implicit contract between the creator of a story and its consumer. Suddenly, The Game speaks through the Catalyst and offers "choices" that expose the raw game mechanic just when we most desperately want/need to cling to our suspension of disbelief and see Shepard be able to be, "here at the end of all things," the character we have come to understand so well.

Free will inside a tiny box is really something else entirely.

[Daedalus1773]

optimistickied wrote...

Do you think the Catalyst's warning to Shepard that the created will rebel against their creators is worthy of elucidation, or was it an unsatisfying platitude?

I call Thesaurus Porn.

[wolfeye7]

pistolols wrote...

NUM13ER wrote...

a quite literal god in the machine

Personally i feel this is a major misconception you idiots (just kidding) people are having.  I don't see how the starchild can be a deus ex machina.  Afterall the 3 ending choices come from the crucible, not from him.  If anything is a deus ex machina, it is the crucible because of the way it was introduced in the eleventh hour of the series.  The starchild is nothing more than a defeated AI lamenting over the glory of his old solution before providing us with some information about our desired course of victory.

Now, I'm just a simple little muck digger, with little no knowledge of all these big
literary expressions (AKA an archaeologist), but it seems to me that the
GodChild IS the deus ex machina ALONG WITH the Crucible.

The Crucible may make all these endings possible (debatable still), but it is the GodChild
that explains it to us. The GodChild is the voice of the deus ex machina and
thus a part of it. It is also the only roll the GodChild plays and the only
reason for it to be in the game. If it is not part of the deus ex machina, the
it is excess fodder that should have been cut from the game as it serves no
other purpose (other than to break our willing suspension of disbelief....).

Now we can get into a discussion about the GodChild possibly being the creator of the
Reapers and thus the Citadel, the Mass Relays and possibly even the Crucible
itself (I don't see how the Citadel could have all those doohickeys that make
all the endings possible if the actual creators didn't put them there - the
keepers would have removed them otherwise...maybe), but that is already being
debated to death on other threads.


Back to the mud-hole

Modifié par wolfeye7, 17 avril 2012 - 04:16 .

[ScotGaymer]

@Victia.

Thank you.

@recentio

I wouldn't say they don't understand either. I would say that they are capable of hand waving the ending in such a way as to be able to accept it.
And that's right for them.

But for the rest of us it is not.

@Pistolols

You are horribly arrogant, presumptuous, and completely wrong.

I am not going to continue engaging with you because you employ the same kind of cyclical logic that the StarKid employs, and if I continue we will just keep going round and round. And I really don't feel like repeating myself over and over.

I don't like saying it but you are just wrong, and you are too arrogant to even contemplate it.

[pistolols]

Tleining wrote...

pistolols wrote...

Personally i feel this is a major misconception you idiots (just kidding) people are having. I don't see how the starchild can be a deus ex machina. Afterall the 3 ending choices come from the crucible, not from him. If anything is a deus ex machina, it is the crucible because of the way it was introduced in the eleventh hour of the series. The starchild is nothing more than a defeated AI lamenting over the glory of his old solution before providing us with some information about our desired course of victory.

Without the Catalyst, you would never have reached that last area. Shepard didn't activate the Elevator. Godchild did.
Without the Catalyst, you wouldn't have known what to do. Shepard would have bled out.

According to the Catalyst, Shepard is the first Organic ever to reach it. So how could anyone other than Godchild/Reapers have designed the Crucible?

All the Godchild had to do was wait 20-30 Minutes and then the Crucible would have gotten destroyed. Instead it led Shepard to a new Solution. It's Solution.

Also: The Devices for Control and Destroy are ON the Citadel. The Crucible didn't add those. Only the available Energy could influence the available Options. But it's still something the Reapers had thought of.

Keep in mind, all of these things it is doing because the crucible has reprogrammed it. "the crucible changed me" --An AI telling you it's been "changed" can only mean one thing and one thing only. It has undergone a change of programming.

It is not leading Shepard to any "new solution". If the choices were new solutions for the starchild's problem, they would address the problem in some form, yet they do not. I've given it a good amount of thought and i can't think of a single way any of the choices address what the catalyst refers to as "chaos". In fact, he even outright tells you that the Destroy choice is definitely not a solution to his problem. The notion that they are new solutions becomes especially bizarre if destroy is your only choice because of low EMS. You mean to tell me the starchild is letting shepard enact a "new solution" that is in no way a solution at all? That doesn't make any sense. This in itself is obvious proof the starchild did not design any of the choices. They come prepared with the crucible based on the level of it's construction which is based on EMS. He is being forced to put them into place by the crucible. He is not a deus ex machina. He is a defeated AI.

The "devices" are nothing more than critical parts of a machine being utilized for a different purpose. You can think of it like a car. Shepard can shoot the gas tank and blow the car up... or he can hotwire it and take control of the car. (or he can stuff himself in the glove box and then it's synthesis).

drayfish wrote...

(Indeed, the ghost-boy is proved to lie in the Destroy ending: he assures you that you will die, but the final image of the game is still Shepard taking a breath...)

This is incorrect by the way. Catalyst assures Shepard he will die with control choice, not destroy.

Modifié par pistolols, 17 avril 2012 - 07:00 .

[Daedalus1773]

@drayfish - Thanks for the long post. Loved the analysis.

[G Kevin]

Drayfish, I thank you for your opinion.

Simply put, you just explained everything that is wrong with the ending in a very good post.