Tigerman123 wrote...
Well you know what they say about fixing stupid
Modifié par thefallen2far, 03 mai 2012 - 02:25 .
I see that when it comes to insulting someone you are pretty much the number one around here... good.AlexXIV wrote...
Blah I just read your brainfart in written form because you asked me to. Teaches me I just shouldn't bother.Valkyre4 wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
Hm the less the player knows, the better. Is that the consens of the ending-likers? Because then I understand why it is great. The only way to make it greater would be to cut all dialogue because then we know even less.
Why are you trying so desperately to prove that if someone even remotely enjoys the endiing it is because he simply knows little or doesnt understand?
Relax, it is called taste and it is how people interpet things in other ways. I explained myself in my previous posts in this very thread, throughly as to how I experienced the end, you are free to read them and not agree with them. just dont go out and say that I enjoyed the ending because I did not understand it or because i imagined things that werent there.
I give you the example why. "Now that the Catalyst told us we know". No we don't. That's the problem with likers, you believe everything you are told. Hey TIM was indoctrinated so he was untrustworthy. But the boss Reaper is probably telling the truth. Right.
Modifié par Valkyre4, 03 mai 2012 - 02:31 .
Eire Icon wrote...
Calamity wrote...
I know it has been said before but I just want to reiterate. If the god child thing was so concerned about organics being wiped out by synthetics, why didnt his solution instead include wiping out the synthetics?
Because once Organics evolve to a certain point technologically, wiping out syntethics achieve nothing. If you destroy all toasters in the world, organics will just build more toasters, they already pocess the know how
Valkyre4 wrote...
And somehow you just lost the main point of my post which was to show that if I want to present something from ME3 as ridiculous as the friend above did, then you can be sure that I can also do it for all games wether it is Mass Effect 1 or any game/story in general.
Finding ridiculous to accept the notion of a "star child" in a videogame like Mass Effect and having no issues whatsoever with the notion of sapient machines who resemble squids and poison the minds just because they can, is just plain naive and dumb.
As much as the starchild is ridiculous the same goes for reapers. Its a sci fi and both represent it equally. Just because Reapers sound badass , but the representation of Catalyst doesnt suit your taste, doesnt make it ridiculous.
And besides the Catalyst himself said that he took this form simply to look like something familiar to Shepard. For all we know the Catalyst has "no form". It is something Godlike something we dont know.
Modifié par Eire Icon, 03 mai 2012 - 02:38 .
Eire Icon wrote...
First off I just want to say I actually don't like the endings but I disagree with allot of the criticisms around them. There's allot of good points in this thread so I'm going to try and not rehash what has already been said.
I think the most important point however is below:Sisterofshane wrote...
If you accept the Catalyst's Logic and prophecy, then the ending makes sense. Simple as that.
Why would I accept the Catalyst's logic?
The simple answer here is it doesn't make any sense not too. The Catalyst has no reason to lie. Earth is about to fall, the fleets are being destroyed, and left unchecked the Reapers will win the war applying the Catalysts solution to the Chaos.Shepard simply has no option but to accept his logic. Bioware has always said Shepard has choice to a point, and in explanation of this they have used the example "For example Shepard can't choose not to fight the Reapers". Rejecting the Catalyst is choosing not to fight the Reapers, and allowing them to win. This was never an option across the trilogy so why should it be now
Also the Catalysts logic is his own logic, its not human logic. Unless Shepard has a crystal ball he cannot refute it, he may not agree with it but he cannot refute it. Getting into a debate with the Catalyst over his logic is all well and good, but at the time of the conversation people are dying, worlds are falling and fleets are being destroyed. My own Shepard for example didn't believe the Catalysts logic to be absolute, but he did believe the Catalyst believed it. The Catalyst has had visibility of who knows how many cycles, Shepard does not, but he does have a chance to save what's remaining of his own cycle, he has to take it
savionen wrote...
Then why not annihilate a specific race that creates synthetics? Reapers are supposed to be almost omnipotent. Destroy the Quarians because they created the Geth. I'm sure that'd put a damper on synthetic creation for the other races. Or simply destroy the guilty parties, or you know, become Galactic Synthetic Police.
The concept is also flawed since in the entirety of ME3 never have synthetics ever shown the will to destroy all organics in the galaxy.
Your assumption that my commentary is directed to exclusively "anti-enders" speaks for itself.AlexXIV wrote...
No it is about teasing. I don't want to polarize anyone. I am calling people out. Pro-enders troll every thread out there. Why don't you talk like that to them? Because they are on your side? Don't even try to pretend you are any better. You have your interests like I do have mine.
Modifié par humes spork, 03 mai 2012 - 02:34 .
savionen wrote...
Then why not annihilate a specific race that creates synthetics? Reapers are supposed to be almost omnipotent. Destroy the Quarians because they created the Geth. I'm sure that'd put a damper on synthetic creation for the other races. Or simply destroy the guilty parties, or you know, become Galactic Synthetic Police.
The concept is also flawed since in the entirety of ME3 never have synthetics ever shown the will to destroy all organics in the galaxy.
What is there not to understand? It's clearly wrong. The boss Reaper is not any more trustworthy than TIM. In opposite. I'd trust TIM to at least have had our best interests in mind, even if he was wrong. The Catalyst is as alien as an alien could be. Why trust him without evidence? The fact that people are dying is bad, but will you make a quick decision to save a couple of lifes to then witness how you made the wrong choice and doom everyone? If you make a choice you should at least be sure of it. And you can only be sure of the destroy option. Even though the Catalyst could still lie to you. However, that shepard is making the choice doesn't make any sense either. Why does the Catalyst want Shepard to make the choice, explain that.Valkyre4 wrote...
Now, with the Star Child's information he does know. He is certain this is ONE way of ending things successfully. He is also not indoctrinated and he is told that IM was right, but he could never actually do it because he was indoctrinated beyond return.
I really seriously and honestly cannot find where this whole thing seemd wrong to you.....no way.
The sides are there. People who like the ending vs people who dislike it. That's not my doing.humes spork wrote...
Your assumption that my commentary is directed to exclusively "anti-enders" speaks for itself.AlexXIV wrote...
No it is about teasing. I don't want to polarize anyone. I am calling people out. Pro-enders troll every thread out there. Why don't you talk like that to them? Because they are on your side? Don't even try to pretend you are any better. You have your interests like I do have mine.
And yes, you are being polarizing -- quite so as a point of fact -- by making generalizations about and deriding people for disagreeing with you, when it's put up front the matter is one of opinion.
Of course it does. Lies are a means to an end. And the Reapers use is excessively. As I said, that is what indoctrination is all about.Cypher_CS wrote...
Devil's advocate here - but you are trying to humanize that which is not human.
You try to understand an AI logic with human logic.
Well, let's try the first error here - to it, to the Starchild, to the Catalyst, there is no concept of friendship. Or even victory.
It only has one motivation. And that all that matters.
And based on this motivation, it really has no need to lie. Does it?
Yet here you are, perpetuating it by engaging in the same sophistry as the people upon whom you would foist culpability for this issue.AlexXIV wrote...
The sides are there. People who like the ending vs people who dislike it. That's not my doing.
Jenonax wrote...
The Catalyst is your enemy. He is not your friend, he is not your ally. Why on Earth would you agree with him? What has he done that says trust me? He has every reason to lie. Shepard is about to destroy him and his solution. Shepard has no reason to believe him. None whatsoever, by your logic Shepard doesn't have a crystal ball to see he's telling the truth either. Rejecting the Catalyst is to fight the Reapers, accepting the Catalyst is to succumb to them. I would rather have rejected him totally and gone down in a blaze of glory. As Shepard says, I won't let fear compromise who I am. My Shepard would have fought, my Shepard would have seen through the Catalyst. I don't know who that weak willed shadow of a man I was controlling at the end was but he certainly wasn't my John Shepard.
Bioware's to blame, nobody else. But since there are sides because of them I pick mine, if you don't mind.humes spork wrote...
Yet here you are, perpetuating it by engaging in the same sophistry as the people upon whom you would foist culpability for this issue.AlexXIV wrote...
The sides are there. People who like the ending vs people who dislike it. That's not my doing.
Eire Icon wrote...
Jenonax wrote...
The Catalyst is your enemy. He is not your friend, he is not your ally. Why on Earth would you agree with him? What has he done that says trust me? He has every reason to lie. Shepard is about to destroy him and his solution. Shepard has no reason to believe him. None whatsoever, by your logic Shepard doesn't have a crystal ball to see he's telling the truth either. Rejecting the Catalyst is to fight the Reapers, accepting the Catalyst is to succumb to them. I would rather have rejected him totally and gone down in a blaze of glory. As Shepard says, I won't let fear compromise who I am. My Shepard would have fought, my Shepard would have seen through the Catalyst. I don't know who that weak willed shadow of a man I was controlling at the end was but he certainly wasn't my John Shepard.
Why on earth would you agree with him?
He's giving you the option to stop the destruction of all advanced civilization in the galaxy including your own. Add that to the fact that at that moment in time you have no other options I would say thats a very convincing argument
How certain can you be of anything. Why trust Vigil? that could have been a trap also
Bioware is to blame for how you've chosen to comport yourself relevant to this issue. And, just because people have taken it upon themselves to polarize a community you're going to do it as well and blame anyone but yourself.AlexXIV wrote...
Bioware's to blame, nobody else. But since there are sides because of them I pick mine, if you don't mind.
Modifié par humes spork, 03 mai 2012 - 02:48 .
ArchLord James wrote...
Remain Civil, refrain from name calling or generalizing, and simply address the blatantly obvious errors that Strange Aeons pointed out in this post on another thread. Defend the endings if you dare! Consider this a debate competition. This guy just absolutely nailed what is wrong with the endings, and everyone who hates the endings should unify behind these reasons why the endings are terrible, not the weak "our choices dont matter" line.
Strange Aeons Wrote:
I've posted this before, but here is my take:
What’s truly baffling about the ending is that each variation manages to disregard completely the specific lessons of the previous events in its own unique way.
The explanation of the Reapers and the destroy (red) ending in particular might resonate if there were actually some ongoing tension about the latent danger of synthetics…except that everything we saw in the last two games teaches us exactly the opposite. I'm not talking about what people imagine might, maybe, possibly could happen sometime in the future; I'm talking about what the game actually shows us. They go to great lengths to establish that synthetics are alive and capable of growth and selflessness and friendship and individuality and love just in time for Shepard to murder them all. It’s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper.
Then there’s the (blue) option to ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL of the Reapers. This scenario requires us to ignore that (at least if you were a paragon) you just spent the entire previous game arguing with the Illusive Man that using the Reapers’ tactics of subjugation against them was morally abhorrent. Shepard says outright that he will not sacrifice his soul for victory. In fact, in the scene literally just prior to this we explained to the Illusive Man that attempting to control the Reapers is evil and insane and doomed to failure. So persuasive was Shepard’s argument that the Illusive Man shot himself in the head to escape the horror of what he had become. Now let’s just go ahead and try the same thing ourselves. What could possibly go wrong?
The most horrific outcome of all is the synthesis (green) ending, which would have us accept that Shepard transforms the galaxy’s entire population against their will into man-machine hybrids, akin to the monstrous Reapers and their minions whom we just spent three games fighting. You know, minions like Saren and the Illusive Man and the entire Prothean race who were turned into man-machine hybrids and thereby became slaves of the Reapers. He does this based on the assurances of a mysterious entity who admits it is working with the Reapers and who hastily appeared out of nowhere just as Shepard arrived at the weapon that could potentially defeat them. Sounds legit.
So, after stuffing the myriad choices we’ve made throughout the series into a blender and homogenizing them into a single “readiness” number, the defining gameplay mechanic of the series (the dialogue wheel) vanishes at the most crucial moment and this player-driven epic is reduced to three choices: genocide, becoming a monster that violates every ethical principle you’ve lived by, or raping the entire galaxy.
And then you die.
And then the game is deliberately obscure about how your choices impact not only the galaxy but, far more importantly, the characters whom you have come to love and who are the lifeblood of the game.
The identity of Mass Effect is not in its visual style or its gameplay, which has changed substantially over the course of the series. It’s not even in its story, because there is no one story: every Shepard is different. The defining vision of Mass Effect, without which it is nothing, is its unprecedented interactivity that allows you to shape your own story—and, this being a video game, significantly affect the outcome if you played well enough.
That’s what the last two games did, and it’s precisely what ME3’s ending failed to deliver
Then explain me how you can be neutral in this? There is a large group of people who are dissatisfied and there is a not so large group who have taken it upon them to defend Bioware. Reasons for both sides are clear to me. I take upon me whatever responsiblility I have because I am certain that I am doing the right thing. Whether it actually is the right thing remains to be seen. At least I am not trolling people knowing I am wrong for the lulz.humes spork wrote...
Bioware is to blame for how you've chosen to comport yourself relevant to this issue. And, just because people have taken it upon themselves to polarize a community you're going to do it as well and blame anyone but yourself. Got it.AlexXIV wrote...
Bioware's to blame, nobody else. But since there are sides because of them I pick mine, if you don't mind.
I believe I'm done here.
Modifié par AlexXIV, 03 mai 2012 - 02:51 .
AlexXIV wrote...
And why is it imporant for reapers that organics are not wiped out by synthetics? Organics are just a flaw of nature according to Sovereign. Why protect them?Eire Icon wrote...
Calamity wrote...
I know it has been said before but I just want to reiterate. If the god child thing was so concerned about organics being wiped out by synthetics, why didnt his solution instead include wiping out the synthetics?
Because once Organics evolve to a certain point technologically, wiping out syntethics achieves nothing. If you destroy all toasters in the world, organics will just build more toasters, they already pocess the know how
How would there be chaos without organics? In opposite. If all organics are wiped out it will be much more orderly than with organics messing around. The problem is not only the Reaper's solution. Also their motivation. Why is a world in which synthetic life forms exist but no organic life forms bad?Eire Icon wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
And why is it imporant for reapers that organics are not wiped out by synthetics? Organics are just a flaw of nature according to Sovereign. Why protect them?Eire Icon wrote...
Calamity wrote...
I know it has been said before but I just want to reiterate. If the god child thing was so concerned about organics being wiped out by synthetics, why didnt his solution instead include wiping out the synthetics?
Because once Organics evolve to a certain point technologically, wiping out syntethics achieves nothing. If you destroy all toasters in the world, organics will just build more toasters, they already pocess the know how
To avoid "Chaos"
Not a good answer I know, and as I said I do not like the ending. This is certainly something that should be clarified in the extended cut DLC
Modifié par AlexXIV, 03 mai 2012 - 02:56 .
Retour en haut