858 réponses à ce sujet

[Heather Cline]

I read it and disagree with the entire analysis. The whole "You don't enjoy it because you don't understand it" argument still pales in comparison to what we got. We were promised multiple different endings, we were promised that our choices would matter. What we got was not what was promised.

Also the game was so linearized and the fact that none of your choices matter just pisses me off more than I can say.

[sistersafetypin]

xsdob wrote...

People just want to be ****s and jackasses about this.

Let it go and you'll feel much better, because arguing with a bunch of stuborn mules on the internet will only result in you, the person trying to use logic and reason instead of emotion and gut feelings, getting enraged and quitting for a while.

Every time I get worked up, I just take a five minute break, think of thoughts that help me become apathetic and uninterested towards all other posters here, and just go on with checking these forums for interesting opinion columns and news garbles.

So people either agree with you or they're being stubborn jackasses? Um. ok

Modifié par sistersafetypin, 19 avril 2012 - 11:12 .

[MisterJB]

WeAreLegionWTF wrote...

that article was nothing more than a logic smoke screen. why waste all that time typing to when you still dont counter this meme?




Why dont the reapers just kill synthetics when they go bad? why galactic genocide, when the synthetics themselves were the first to join the reapers in me1?…

Isn't it obvious?

Very well, first of all, the Reapers don't kill organics. At least not the entire race. They preserve them in Reaper form which they see as better than the inevitable extinction that would come at the hands of synthetics.

Second, given unending time to advance their technology, organics would, inevitably, create AIs that are more powerful than even the Reapers. Thus, the Reapers must Harvest organics before they can reach this level of technology.

Modifié par MisterJB, 19 avril 2012 - 11:06 .

[Joush]

japinthebox wrote...

Joush wrote...

It's a well educated stupid reply, at least.

The idea that harnessing more energy allows for SPACE MAGIC is stupid. The citadel was never forshadowed as a magic wand that could rewrite the universe with a sweep of it's wand.

Also, even if you take everything the OP's link says.. it still adds up to an awful ending.

I understand the ending. I write science fiction. The ending was awful.

Again, I mention that in the article.

"It may
have made more sense if the Catalyst were not on the Citadel along with the
Keepers, but rather at some distance – like the Shadow Broker and his (her)
ship."

The Mass Effect 2 ending is just as stupid from a plot perspective as the "space magic" in Mass Effect 3. I don't see nearly as many people complaining about that, because that's really not the reason people were upset about the ME3 ending, and because people accepted the idea in Mass Effect 2 that the theme of the ending was more important than the plot.

From a plot perspective the ME 2 ending works, in most ways. The big reveal is wierd, but supports what you've seen so far and dosn't discount the basic ideas the story has been built on. It works to a satisfying conclusion that seems to fit with the chocies made in the story.  The "Space Magic" of reapers needing materal from intellgent races to build new reapers is weird, but at least fits well with the story that ME 2 told.  It effectively ends the story and provides a solid concuison to the plot. 

From a scientific perspective, it makes little sense, but the weridess is confined to the reapers, and it's clear that reapers were takeing people alive for some reason from the very start of the game. It dosn't feel like an 11th hour ass-pull. 

[fle6isnow]

sistersafetypin wrote...

xsdob wrote...

People just want to be ****s and jackasses about this.

Let it go and you'll feel much better, because arguing with a bunch of stuborn mules on the internet will only result in you, the person trying to use logic and reason instead of emotion and gut feelings, getting enraged and quitting for a while.

Every time I get worked up, I just take a five minute break, think of thoughts that help me become apathetic and uninterested towards all other posters here, and just go on with checking these forums for interesting opinion columns and news garbles.

So people either agree with you or their being stubborn jackasses? Um. ok

No, I think he means they are being jackasses in the WAY they respond to the article.

Also, hi Rei!!!

[xsdob]

sistersafetypin wrote...

xsdob wrote...

People just want to be ****s and jackasses about this.

Let it go and you'll feel much better, because arguing with a bunch of stuborn mules on the internet will only result in you, the person trying to use logic and reason instead of emotion and gut feelings, getting enraged and quitting for a while.

Every time I get worked up, I just take a five minute break, think of thoughts that help me become apathetic and uninterested towards all other posters here, and just go on with checking these forums for interesting opinion columns and news garbles.

So people either agree with you or their being stubborn jackasses? Um. ok

Well, I've gone back and forth arguing with people, using logical points, references from the game, bookmared sources, and all of it pretty much gets shot down with the repetitive argument of

"That doesn't matter because the game still sucks"

I can't beat subjective opinions with objective facts, and using subjctive facts just gets you labeld as a "speculator" so I just gave up.

So now I advice everyone who is despreatly trying to change peoples minds on something, no matter the reason, pro or anti in their stance, to give up and move on.

This is much healthier than trying to deabte someone and having the other person drag you into a flame war.

But since you take offense to what I've typed, how would you suggest I rewrite it? I'm guenienly curious.

[japinthebox]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

I read it, but like the author itself says in order for bioware to have thought this was a proper ending they must have assumed the fan base has some familiarity with these concepts. Which makes no sense. Especially since mass effect is a specific type of speculative science fiction which has always attempted to explicitly explain the science behind their speculations (i.e how eezo and mass effects work). So why all of a sudden would we think that they abandoned that to go with an ending where there's no scientific explanations (just theories) in or even out of the game?

I thought it was fine that they did that. Too much exposition would have taken away from the themes of the ending -- the technological singularity and the inevitability and long-standing existence of life in the galaxy.

Yes, I think it was a huge gamble, and they obviously lost that gamble. No one's arguing against that -- not even Bioware.

Along with that it's pretty much been debunked by the writers themselves that any sort of long-term outline existed so it's unlikely that any of the foreshadowing mentioned in the article is more than coincidence.

Basically to accept the authors theory as put forth you have to accept the idea that bioware DID have a long-game plan for the story and just opted not to foreshadow it. Which makes no sense within the context of what we know about bioware, including specific statements they have made themselves and the ways they set up the first game.

I think that's a bit polarized, isn't it? They obviously left some wiggle room, but it wasn't a shot in the dark either.

I read The Final Hours a couple days ago, and it turns out that they were indeed thinking about the singularity ending even before Mass Effect 1 had a title:

"At first its repetitious annunciations were absurd and funny, but eventually the team began to think about its implications. Was Raymond Kurzweil right? Within 30 years could we really reach that point of singularity where man and machine are indistinguishable? If that crucible is forthcoming, the tension between organic and synthetic life could be an appropriate theme to frame the SFX (old Mass Effect code name) triology."

But most importantly the author puts this assertion forth:

"Otherwise life throughout the galaxy is in as much danger of extinction as we are here on earth."

and earlier implies that the danger of extinction would be from synthetics, but at NO point in the rest of that section, or even the rest of the paper does he/she ever give any justification for this assumption, which is kind of what his entire argument is based on. Without giving some sort of explanation as to why he's making that statement/assumption I don't see how any of the rest of his argument can be relevant.

Wait -- I did explain that pretty clearly. Again, people haven't read the whole article.

"For instance, the Gray Goo Scenario describes a situation in which an out-of-control nanomachine self-replicates indefinitely using terrestrial materials, eventually converting an entire planet into copies of itself. Given the capacity to travel quickly through space, it’s easy to imagine it turning every habitable planet into grey goo: and that’s what the Reapers are there to prevent."

also there is no source provided for "Supposing it’ll take humanity another 1,000 years to develop AI and for humanity to be rendered obsolete" I read the linked articles around it and none referenced humanity becoming obsolete due to AI tech.

I thought I did, but here's a source: http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-11041449 

"If you look at the timescales for the development of technology, at some point you invent radio and then you go on the air and then we have a chance of finding you," he told BBC News."But within a few hundred years of inventing radio - at least if we're any example - you invent thinking machines; we're probably going to do that in this century."

Modifié par japinthebox, 19 avril 2012 - 11:15 .

[Trentgamer]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

AcesRedd wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

 If you hated/disliked/didn't understand/were let down by the ending, read this editorial.

http://galacticpillo...ffect-3-ending/

It really might make you look differently at not just the ending but the whole of ME3.  If you want to love the conclusion to the series but just can't, please give this a read.  It's long but worth it.  

The length of this article vs. the length of the craptacular ending reinforces the amount of fail in the ending.
I wish there was a mathematician/scientist guy that could lay out the formula for me, but I'll try my best to explain.

article + ending = more fail than article and ending put together

wait wait

article + ending < (article + ending) ?

damn I think what we need is a physicist in here? 

Instead of wasting time in endless threads about the same subjects, why not waste time reading something that's actually incredibly well thought out and could possibly make you look at the ending is a slightly positive way?  

Do you guys just WANT to hate everything Mass Effect now?

Just give it a chance.

Sorry, doesn't help. The ending still sucks and this article doesn't help at all. Bioware got rushed and gave us a half assed ending because they ran of time, it's really that simple.

[Skirlasvoud]

OP, you're a genius.

All we need to have in the extended cut for everyone to understand the endings, is Stephen Hawking rolling up next to the kid in a wheelchair and provide about 1- 2 hours of dry commentary on everything that's said.

That's the perfect conclusion to my storydriven, sentimental, fictional action-RPG! A stiff talking down to by a theorist! And after the genius crew is done with Mass Effect, maybe they can release a DVD discussing how unfeasible Lord of the Rings is. 



Except, maybe, I DON'T CARE! I'm not playing Mass Effect to gain a deeper understanding of Astrobiology! I want well constructed storyline that touches on all previously established themes! I want to be entertained dammit! I want to immerse myself in another world that satisfies me emotionally! Science has nothing to do with it, unless it's fiction.

Your "explanation" is no better than the Indoc theory. You're just wildly grasping at straws, trying to come up with a way to explain badly WRITTEN endings from a storytelling perspective.

Don't you dare bring science into my multi-colored "merge synthetic DNA with organics" plotholes.

Modifié par Skirlasvoud, 19 avril 2012 - 11:38 .

[ahandsomeshark]

japinthebox wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

I read it, but like the author itself says in order for bioware to have thought this was a proper ending they must have assumed the fan base has some familiarity with these concepts. Which makes no sense. Especially since mass effect is a specific type of speculative science fiction which has always attempted to explicitly explain the science behind their speculations (i.e how eezo and mass effects work). So why all of a sudden would we think that they abandoned that to go with an ending where there's no scientific explanations (just theories) in or even out of the game?

I thought it was fine that they did that. Too much exposition would have taken away from the themes of the ending -- the technological singularity and the inevitability and long-standing existence of life in the galaxy.

Yes, I think it was a huge gamble, and they obviously lost that gamble. No one's arguing against that -- not even Bioware.

Along with that it's pretty much been debunked by the writers themselves that any sort of long-term outline existed so it's unlikely that any of the foreshadowing mentioned in the article is more than coincidence.

Basically to accept the authors theory as put forth you have to accept the idea that bioware DID have a long-game plan for the story and just opted not to foreshadow it. Which makes no sense within the context of what we know about bioware, including specific statements they have made themselves and the ways they set up the first game.

I think that's a bit polarized, isn't it? They obviously left some wiggle room, but it wasn't a shot in the dark either.

I read The Final Hours a couple days ago, and it turns out that they were indeed thinking about the singularity ending even before Mass Effect 1 had a title:

"At first its repetitious annunciations were absurd and funny, but eventually the team began to think about its implications. Was Raymond Kurzweil right? Within 30 years could we really reach that point of singularity where man and machine are indistinguishable? If that crucible is forthcoming, the tension between organic and synthetic life could be an appropriate theme to frame the SFX (old Mass Effect code name) triology."

But most importantly the author puts this assertion forth:

"Otherwise life throughout the galaxy is in as much danger of extinction as we are here on earth."

and earlier implies that the danger of extinction would be from synthetics, but at NO point in the rest of that section, or even the rest of the paper does he/she ever give any justification for this assumption, which is kind of what his entire argument is based on. Without giving some sort of explanation as to why he's making that statement/assumption I don't see how any of the rest of his argument can be relevant.

Wait -- I did explain that pretty clearly. Again, people haven't read the whole article.

"For instance, the Gray Goo Scenario describes a situation in which an out-of-control nanomachine self-replicates indefinitely using terrestrial materials, eventually converting an entire planet into copies of itself. Given the capacity to travel quickly through space, it’s easy to imagine it turning every habitable planet into grey goo: and that’s what the Reapers are there to prevent."

also there is no source provided for "Supposing it’ll take humanity another 1,000 years to develop AI and for humanity to be rendered obsolete" I read the linked articles around it and none referenced humanity becoming obsolete due to AI tech.

I thought I did, but here's a source: http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-11041449 

"If you look at the timescales for the development of technology, at some point you invent radio and then you go on the air and then we have a chance of finding you," he told BBC News."But within a few hundred years of inventing radio - at least if we're any example - you invent thinking machines; we're probably going to do that in this century."

Even that source doesn't say they would extinguish their creators it says they would migrate and be more likely to be at a technical point to hear our signals.

[thefallen2far]

So, to summarize your arguemets-

Section
1. You explain the theories you think we don't know about and explain them to us. I already knew about those ideas, I don't care, still don't care for the ending.

2. You acknowledge plot holes.

3. You defend plot holes with by adding your own interpretation. This is kind of futile, we don't want to defend it. Look at the bible, a lot of plot holes with a lot of explainations that people will defend to the death. We don't want to fill in the plote holes with whatever "fan glue" you come up with.

- you spend several parts refuting "IT" even though that's the only enjoyable part of the ending... that's not convinicng of anything.
- you're saying it was all hinted at before, but it wasn't about thse issues. Synths vs organics wasn't the central theme. For you, it might have been, but if I thought that's what the central theme of the prvious 2 games were about synths vs organics, I wouldn't have liked those games. I thought it was corruption and defiance. Mass effect 1 was about corrupt corporations, corrupt polititians, corrupt Krogan, ineffectual security and you pushing through to save the world. That's why I liked it. If it was about "synth vs. Organics"... eh. Mass effect 2 was about defiance. You defy death, you defy expectations, you defy the collectors, you defy prejudices, defy TiM. That's what I liked about that game. 3 was about resolution. Resolution is fine, but the ending had acceptance of the villain's belief... that goes against the defiance in the face of corruption. So either the enjoyment of the first 2 games are undone because the theme was really about something I don't care about making the ending tolerable... still wishing I didn't spend so much money on a series that just isn't very interesting or the seires hit home for me, I loved the games and the last 10 minutes were bad.

4. You go on and on about how the resolution of the game was for the series as a whole...hopefully all aspiring writers will take this as a lesson: donkt do that. 90% of your fan base will not like it. In astory series, the final story has to be a complete, standalone story. It'll be judged as a standalone and will be criticized as ruining a whole franchise.

5. That last section was you as a fan of the ending not liking the reaction of the ending. What you don't realize is... it doesn't matter. This game, as it stands now is an unliked ending. As such, it's going to be known as the "unliked ending". Any time it's brought up, the conversation would be "wow, that was such a horrible ending." 90% of the people who played it will think that whenever it's brought up. The people who want a different ending don't want this to be the conversation they have when it's brought up. They want to. Most of the people who hated the ending are already gone. It's fans who will bring it up and say "the ending was... so, so horrible." Even if they don't say anything, the average person who played it will say, "wow... I remember that. What a crappy ending". Fans who want the ending changed do so because when it comes up, they don't want to say "yeah, it was great" without lying. That's very hard to do. If it stays as is, it's Phantom Menace for Star Wars... only instead of Jar Jar, it's Star Jar. They have the opportunity to not be that, or they leave it as is and continue to be the hind quarters of theongoing jokes of "now with red green and blue endings" etc. As for berating people for their reaction for not liking the ending, I don't really care what you would "not" do in the event you hated the ending. I don't think giving to charity is a bad thing though. As for getting your money back, again not a bad thing. If it's a crappy ending, it's a crappy ending... if they can get their money back, they should try to get their money back. If you wouldn't do that, that's your thing, but giving to charity is in no way a bad thing. The idea that you think that's bad is funny to me.

In conclusion, you ca have whatever opinion you want and you can say that the criticism of the ending is baseless all you want... I you can berate and insult people that don't like the ending all you want, sincerely believe that the ending was great...whatever: I hope you feel good about it, because it's as pointless as asking for a refund. Not as pointless as giving to charity [still can't believe you didn't like that, but whatever] but pointless, nonetheless.  

[CronoDragoon]

I read the entire thing, and he spends a lot of time addressing peripheral concerns like the indoctrination theory, the relays supernova'ing etc. In other words, dealing with the "what happened" instead of the "why this happened."

Sections like these:

"3.16 The ending discards important philosophies and themes

It does, but it doesn’t do so without very good reason. Unfortunately, Bioware assumes familiarity with some rather esoteric concepts. I explain these concepts in the “scientific basis” section."

show just how far people are reaching to explain the ending. People have narrative, philosophical, and literary complaints about the ending, and this article gives us "yeah that's true" and then tries to defend what happened scientifically. It just doesn't work that way.

I also don't understand why he believes the Crucible isn't necessary for Control just because the Illusive Man says so. It's still the Crucible beam that gets shot out and allows Shepard to control them with his consciousness.

It's one of the more well-written defenses of the ending that I've read, but it's still got a long way to go before it convinces anyone that the ending was not trash.

[japinthebox]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

japinthebox wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

I read it, but like the author itself says in order for bioware to have thought this was a proper ending they must have assumed the fan base has some familiarity with these concepts. Which makes no sense. Especially since mass effect is a specific type of speculative science fiction which has always attempted to explicitly explain the science behind their speculations (i.e how eezo and mass effects work). So why all of a sudden would we think that they abandoned that to go with an ending where there's no scientific explanations (just theories) in or even out of the game?

I thought it was fine that they did that. Too much exposition would have taken away from the themes of the ending -- the technological singularity and the inevitability and long-standing existence of life in the galaxy.

Yes, I think it was a huge gamble, and they obviously lost that gamble. No one's arguing against that -- not even Bioware.

Along with that it's pretty much been debunked by the writers themselves that any sort of long-term outline existed so it's unlikely that any of the foreshadowing mentioned in the article is more than coincidence.

Basically to accept the authors theory as put forth you have to accept the idea that bioware DID have a long-game plan for the story and just opted not to foreshadow it. Which makes no sense within the context of what we know about bioware, including specific statements they have made themselves and the ways they set up the first game.

I think that's a bit polarized, isn't it? They obviously left some wiggle room, but it wasn't a shot in the dark either.

I read The Final Hours a couple days ago, and it turns out that they were indeed thinking about the singularity ending even before Mass Effect 1 had a title:

"At first its repetitious annunciations were absurd and funny, but eventually the team began to think about its implications. Was Raymond Kurzweil right? Within 30 years could we really reach that point of singularity where man and machine are indistinguishable? If that crucible is forthcoming, the tension between organic and synthetic life could be an appropriate theme to frame the SFX (old Mass Effect code name) triology."

But most importantly the author puts this assertion forth:

"Otherwise life throughout the galaxy is in as much danger of extinction as we are here on earth."

and earlier implies that the danger of extinction would be from synthetics, but at NO point in the rest of that section, or even the rest of the paper does he/she ever give any justification for this assumption, which is kind of what his entire argument is based on. Without giving some sort of explanation as to why he's making that statement/assumption I don't see how any of the rest of his argument can be relevant.

Wait -- I did explain that pretty clearly. Again, people haven't read the whole article.

"For instance, the Gray Goo Scenario describes a situation in which an out-of-control nanomachine self-replicates indefinitely using terrestrial materials, eventually converting an entire planet into copies of itself. Given the capacity to travel quickly through space, it’s easy to imagine it turning every habitable planet into grey goo: and that’s what the Reapers are there to prevent."

also there is no source provided for "Supposing it’ll take humanity another 1,000 years to develop AI and for humanity to be rendered obsolete" I read the linked articles around it and none referenced humanity becoming obsolete due to AI tech.

I thought I did, but here's a source: http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-11041449 

"If you look at the timescales for the development of technology, at some point you invent radio and then you go on the air and then we have a chance of finding you," he told BBC News."But within a few hundred years of inventing radio - at least if we're any example - you invent thinking machines; we're probably going to do that in this century."

Even that source doesn't say they would extinguish their creators it says they would migrate and be more likely to be at a technical point to hear our signals.

I mention in the article that there's a difference between our real world and the Mass Effect world: faster-than-light travel is possible in the ME world. 

In our world, sure, there's no way that something like gray goo would get very far past its host star. In the Mass Effect world, it could happen in as few as a few hundred years even without mass relays.

Also, the risks of AI killing off its creators is commonly expressed throughout both science and science fiction. Two birds with one stone: 
http://www.informati...om/news/6506839 

Modifié par japinthebox, 19 avril 2012 - 11:24 .

[JamieCOTC]

The bits on civilizations are interesting and do a good job of explaining why the Reapers are the "good guys." But the rest is a huge stretch and ironically, falls into the same trap that many who hate the ending fall into; that mistakes were made between the writing and animating of the game. The bit w/ Anderson is not a mistake. If you read Conrad Verner's dissertation of dark energy, it does state that dark energy can screw around w/ time. Also, why do the Mass Relay's blow up in control ending? Why is the Normandy heading out of the Sol system when it should be leading the attack? Stargazer tells us why. Some of these facts have been altered during the passage of time and may not be accurate. That's why. And lest we forget, "speculation from everybody!" Sorry, I know it's fun to talk about this stuff and try and make some kind of sense out of the ME3 endings, but I'm not buying it. I don't buy indoctrination theory either. Besides, BW said it was up to us to interpret the endings ourselves. And that's what I'm going to do and why I love the part in my game when a 400 foot tall Shepard (after she woke up from that awful nightmare) and Godzilla team up to trounce Harbinger.

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 19 avril 2012 - 11:27 .

[Akeotwawki]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

 If you hated/disliked/didn't understand/were let down by the ending, read this editorial.

http://galacticpillo...ffect-3-ending/

It really might make you look differently at not just the ending but the whole of ME3.  If you want to love the conclusion to the series but just can't, please give this a read.  It's long but worth it.  

Okay. I read it. It was a slog.
He was right about one thing - it didn't change my mind or make me feel better.

[Venix117]

Read it and dont agree, Im sorry but bioware would have to be monumentally stupid to think their fanbase would understand something that complicated (not trying to insult anyone either).

I cant see the ending being anything but idoctrination, thats not me being an arrogant and stubborn arse, its the only thing that makes sense to me.

[TonViper]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

* The nightmare sequences. These could easily have been made into cutscenes, especially since you had no choice as to when they occurred or your actions during them. First playthrough was like what am I supposed to do (I'd been playing Skyrim so I wanted to explore the area, then figured out I had to follow the kid and watch him burn). Then they went all Stanley Kubrick on the last one. Cutscene.

I feel that the nightmare sequences were a mistake on Bioware's part. It just wasn't fun gameplay, and for me at least, it didn't fit the mental image I had of my Shepard's personality that she would have these nightmares at all. I spent the time playing them wishing that they'd just be over so I could stop running in slowmotion at some vaguely defined end point. It all just felt so tedious. For this reason, I associated vent boy with annoyance already at this point.

Imagine how I felt when his image showed up again near the end after a prolonged slow walk sequence, giving me three generic choices leading to a vaguely defined end point.

[Xenite]

Yeah well that has been Bioware's response to us the entire time, it's also what irks me the most.

Instead of admitting they screwed up they act as if it's us who has the problem and their work is flawless. They are doing the same thing with Tali's face, it's our problem not their bad design choice.

[TeffexPope]

This article is pretty much speculation. That a group of type 1 civs could build a type 3 device is preposterous, especially given that there's thousands of years between each group of civilizations. The game never states that Reapers are there to prevent the 'gray goo' scenario from happening, that is purely something injected by this guy. Bioware's reasoning was that synthetics would rebel against their creators in the form of wars, not a non-sentient nanotech replicator going haywire.

Basically, its fan fiction, and its a hell of a lot better than what we were fed by Bioware. But it is not a good defense of the ending, rather its a fix for the ending, which is not required if you really think the ending is fine.

[NickelToe]

Great you have to have several PhDs to "understand" the ending, not "like" the ending as the author states.

Ok I guess I was wrong, Bioware has proven I am not smart enough to enjoy their games. I hope they continue with the "new customers" idea in the future. If this article is to be the defining document on the ending then only Ivy League Science Grads should buy Bioware Sci Fi products.

He lists shows I watch at least a few times a month but does not realize the shows themselves talk about these as theories that may be possible not that they are fact. You can understand these concept but not believe in them. Belief in this is the same as believing in religion, no proof till you get there. We are not there yet and if I have to die to know if a religion was true or not, ME3 is the least of my concerns.

Morgan Freeman’s Into the Wormhole, Stephen Hawking’s Into the Universe, Carl Sagan’s Cosmos, and Michio Kaku’s Visions of the Future will get a rating hit if this article goes viral.

[Bill Casey]

Wrex Responds

[Soaringeagle78]

Challenge pondered... Challenge denied

[Baa Baa]

Casey Hudson: "LET'S MAKE AN ENDING THAT ONLY APPEALS TO ASTROBIOLOGISTS!"
None of the endings will "Keep the peace" attempting at making a permanent peace is such a bull**** idea. There will never be peace, destroy is the only option for Shepard. His goal has been to destroy the reapers, not keep them alive and give them a chance to come back. If you pick Synthesis, these synthetic/organic people will still find a way to kill each other, if you pick control the people from different regions will still fight, but with destroy it's about freedom. People don't deserve to be cursed to the destruction of their species in 50,000 years. Not only that but with the control ending, even a man like Shepard could abuse his power, especially since he has the ability then to use the reapers to destroy ALL life. Synthesis is wrong because you're forcing people to become synthetic, many characters in the series have show disdain for and have said they would never want to live as a synthetic, they'd rather be dead. my two cents

Modifié par Baa Baa, 19 avril 2012 - 11:34 .

[Stygian1]

Read it. Still hate it.

[fainmaca]

I kind of lost interest when this guy said this:

•If you’ve seen any movies about natural disasters, like The Day After Tomorrow or Twister, most of them are pretty boring.

This changes any way I can look at this article and brings into question any point he brings up before or after. He is stating HIS OPINION, nothing more.
Anyway, all he's basically saying is that you need an understanding of higher concepts of astrobiology and so on to appreciate the endings as they are. That's crap. Bioware is a company that has to appeal to a large target audience. how many members of the public are going to have this kind of knowledge ready to pull off the top of their heads? Creating a product for a mass market that only appeals to a select few is FINANCIAL SUICIDE. Any self-respecting company would laugh the blue off your ass if you tried to market an idea like that.
In addition: The points he brings up about lack of closure. Yeah, we got to see how the issues were resolved throughout the narrative, but we failed to see what kind of impact they had on the larger scene. It's like if we played through ME2, went through all of the Loyalty missions to resolve the individual squad issues, but then saw no visible impact on the larger scope of the plot.

Imagine if it didn't matter who was loyal or not, Jack was the only squaddie who could do the Biotic bubble without any deaths. It'd cheapen the idea of helping her find emotional focus and soothing over the confrontation between her and Miranda, or helping Garrus to get revenge/forgive Sidonis. In the same way, curing the Genophage, brokering a peace between the Geth and the Quarians and any of the hundred other issues we dealt with throughout the course of the plot had no impact on the scope of the main plot.

We're not asking to see the Geth/Quarians make peace during the final battle as he seems to suggest. We want to see the effects of a unified Geth/Quarian force in the final battle as opposed to just the Geth or just the Quarians or maybe even neither.

In short, we're not the idiots he's suggesting. We want a story where our journey mattered more than just a number stashed away somewhere in the background. We're not asking to close up all these plot threads during the end sequence, but we want to see the effect of the way we closed those threads, not just a quick 'okay, you dealt with issue X, let's move onto Y without looking back'.

Fainmaca Out.