209 réponses à ce sujet

[Father_Jerusalem]

slyguy200 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

slyguy200 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

...
I don't know. I haven't looked, because I don't need an Argument From Authority to try and back my position up. I, for one, am content to let people have their opinions - whatever they may be - without needing it "backed up". I simply wish the other side would do the same.

That question was rhetorical. There aren't enough pro-end videos to help them get their point across, so your false equivalency argument is irrelevant. I use vids because i don't want to type huge walls of text, and i (obviously, i know) normally take short-cuts where i can.

Yeah, uh, nothing you said there is actually accurate. Unless you've watched every single ME3 related video on the internet, you cannot possibly state that there "aren't enough pro-end videos to help them get their point across".

The false equivalency stands because he was accusing both sides of using the same tactics, and it's absolutely demonstrable that that statement is inaccurate. Ergo, false equivalency. 

I have also never seen a link for one either, i don't have to go watching them all to notice the lack of there presence on youtube.

Well, that's just fine.

You haven't seen a link for one because, unlike anti-enders, most pro-enders don't feel a need to desperately search for any video that we can find to back up our position in a desperate attempt to "win". An Appeal From Authority is just another one of the tactics (like argumentum ad populum) that anti-enders try to cling to in order to shove their opinions down everyone's throat.

[dunstan1993]

From what I've found searching the forums *so far*, the majority of people who liked the endings are saying that they liked them because they were so open for interpretation and speculation.

I'll continue to search though, I don't think these people's opinions are helping me understand the viewpoint of a pro-ender.

Probably since no pro-ender I've found has made any comment about it being a deux ex machina, or the plotholes (Other than, e.g. interpretation and speculation are what make the plotholes good, I can fill in the gaps myself).

[Running Heron]

The Razman wrote...

Running Heron wrote...

Yes but the difference here is that Shephard had no choice in the matter.  He did not actively set out to kill them, he even tried to warn them but there was absolutely no way around it.  It was either sacrifice the colony or let the reapers through.  The reason for the reapers' genocide is, I'll say it again, completely assinine and we can show it by uniting the geth and the quarians.

Welcome to the other side of the fence. You know who you are? You're the Council.

Shepard: "I didn't have a choice ... it was for the greater good, I couldn't do anything to save them!"
Council: "You couldn't do anything else? I find that hard to believe. We're going to have to arrest you."

Starchild: "There was no choice. Synthetics would have killed all organic life without my intervention."
Shepard: You couldn't do anything else? I find that hard to believe. I'm going to have to say screw you."

It's not nice, is it ... being judged by the Council for doing the things you do for the greater good ...

Also, you've called the reason for the Reapers existing asinine, and I don't believe you fully grasp why they're there. The Geth and the Quarians are proof that synthetic life would wipe out all organic life in the galaxy if it was allowed to reach the level of the Reapers. They don't disprove anything; quite the opposite.



I'm sorry but for the most part I agreed with how the council reacts.  They can't make decisions affecting trillions of people based on anecdotal evidence.  When they are presented with hard evidence they change their position.

So the reapers kill organics so organics don't create synthetics that will kill organics?

If there was no option to unite the Geth and the quarians then I would agree with you.  But the fact that we can unite them and thus showing that synthetics and organics can work together in peace exposes how wrong the reapers are.

My problem is why we are being forced into these decisions in the first place.  There is no precedent for it and we should be able to refuse the catalyst's flawed logic.  If we had that option I probably wouldn't mind the ending so much.

You're not forced into it. You wanted these options. The only reason for plugging in the Crucible to the Citadel was to try and get some way of stopping the Reapers. Well, here they are. Your hard work paid off; you got your options. It would be completely nonsensical to work all game to get the options and then say "No, I don't want these, let's just die by the Reapers steely hand instead". I mean, really?

I wanted a way to stop the reapers, not options that would compromise my own and every other species' identity and principles .  Forgive me but that is how Shephard handled every situtation prior.  Side with Saren, no.  Side with the illusive man, no.  

And who says we would die?  Maybe we could win.  

[/i]

I agree with this general principle and I agree that a choice is a great way to end the game.  But the events leading up to and surrounding those choices simply do not jive with the rest of the series(or make logical sense)

You haven't really made any argument there, you've just made a statement of opinion?

An opinion based on how the rest of the series played out.   The themes promoting victory through cooperation, perserverance and tolerance?  Not some deus ex machina.

True true, but you could put excellent music over anything.  just because it looks and sounds nice does not make it good.

The way its used for the death of the character we've been with for an entire trilogy does.

[i]Obviously the death of Shephard will impact us emotionally.  And indeed the music and cinematic quality is good.

But again this does not make an ending consistent with the rest of the series(up to the last 10 minutes).

We can't reason our way out of emotion.  We feel it whether or not the ending makes sense.  

Modifié par Running Heron, 04 mai 2012 - 11:58 .

[The Razman]

darthoptimus003 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Running Heron wrote...

Yes but the difference here is that Shephard had no choice in the matter.  He did not actively set out to kill them, he even tried to warn them but there was absolutely no way around it.  It was either sacrifice the colony or let the reapers through.  The reason for the reapers' genocide is, I'll say it again, completely assinine and we can show it by uniting the geth and the quarians.

Welcome to the other side of the fence. You know who you are? You're the Council.

Shepard: "I didn't have a choice ... it was for the greater good, I couldn't do anything to save them!"
Council: "You couldn't do anything else? I find that hard to believe. We're going to have to arrest you."

Starchild: "There was no choice. Synthetics would have killed all organic life without my intervention."
Shepard: You couldn't do anything else? I find that hard to believe. I'm going to have to say screw you."

It's not nice, is it ... being judged by the Council for doing the things you do for the greater good ...

Also, you've called the reason for the Reapers existing asinine, and I don't believe you fully grasp why they're there. The Geth and the Quarians are proof that synthetic life would wipe out all organic life in the galaxy if it was allowed to reach the level of the Reapers. They don't disprove anything; quite the opposite.

My problem is why we are being forced into these decisions in the first place.  There is no precedent for it and we should be able to refuse the catalyst's flawed logic.  If we had that option I probably wouldn't mind the ending so much.

You're not forced into it. You wanted these options. The only reason for plugging in the Crucible to the Citadel was to try and get some way of stopping the Reapers. Well, here they are. Your hard work paid off; you got your options. It would be completely nonsensical to work all game to get the options and then say "No, I don't want these, let's just die by the Reapers steely hand instead". I mean, really?

I agree with this general principle and I agree that a choice is a great way to end the game.  But the events leading up to and surrounding those choices simply do not jive with the rest of the series(or make logical sense)

You haven't really made any argument there, you've just made a statement of opinion?

True true, but you could put excellent music over anything.  just because it looks and sounds nice does not make it good.

The way its used for the death of the character we've been with for an entire trilogy does.

accually we made peace with them
and IF you accually payed attintion in the game the Quarians started the war NOT the Geth
so the starbrats logic is totally screwed at this point    so try again

And if you'd "accually payed attintion" you'd see that it wouldn't matter whether or not we'd made peace. If the Geth were as technologically advanced as the Reapers and an accident occured, there'd be nobody left in the galaxy to make peace hundreds of years later. We'd all be gone. Doesn't matter if we started it or they started it; that's irrelevent if everyone's dead. You can argue about who's fault it was in the afterlife, 'cause that's where everyone would be.

Same with EDI ... when we first met her she was a psychotic rogue AI trying to kill everyone on the Lunar Base. Doesn't matter that she ended up ok in the end ... if she'd been of the technological sophistication to wipe out all life in the galaxy, then there'd nobody around for a second chance. The whole point of the Reapers is to ensure we never reach that level of technological sophistication, so that risk is never there.

[Father_Jerusalem]

slyguy200 wrote...



And of the reviewers on youtube, how many liked ME3. IGN doesn't count.

Again, you're trying to use this faulty argument in an attempt to "win". Please, understand, I don't care what some random person in some random video on YouTube says - they're entitled to their own opinion. It doesn't mean they're RIGHT, and it doesn't mean you win. It just means they have an opinion - LIKE EVERYONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE.

Yet, one side continually attacks, berates, and demands that the other side "prove" their opinion in order for it to be valid. This isn't a competition. You can't win. Because there's nothing TO win. Saying my opinion is invalid because Joe Schmoe with a craptastic video camera posts a video on YouTube says so is ridiculous.

That's the thing you don't get.

[The Razman]

Running Heron wrote...

I'm sorry but for the most part I agreed with how the council reacts.  They can't make decisions affecting trillions of people based on anecdotal evidence.  When they are presented with hard evidence they change their position.

But they're wrong. You, as Shepard, know that it was the best choice (otherwise you wouldn't have made it), even if it was a hard and drastic choice to make. The Starchild is in the same position.

[/i]

So the reapers kill organics so organics don't create synthetics that will kill organics?

Yes. What's the problem?

You can make it more clear though if you made your sentence "So the reapers kill some organics so organics don't create synthetics that will kill all organics?"

If there was no option to unite the Geth and the quarians then I would agree with you.  But the fact that we can unite them and thus showing that synthetics and organics can work together in peace exposes how wrong the reapers are.

I've explained this in the post of mine above this one, so I'm just going to point you to that on this point.

I wanted a way to stop the reapers, not options that would compromise my own and every other species' identity and principles .  Forgive me but that is how Shephard handled every situtation prior.  Side with Saren, no.  Side with the illusive man, no.

Ever heard the term "beggers can't be choosers"?

And who says we would die?  Maybe we could win.  [/b]

Um ... the Reapers have wiped out every single cycle for at least the last 37 million years without apparently breaking a sweat. Us winning without the Crucible is not an option. That's abundantly clear.

[/i]

An opinion based on how the rest of the series played out.   The themes promoting victory through cooperation, perserverance and tolerance?  Not some deus ex machina.

You end up co-operating with the Starchild, the creator of the Reapers. Your perseverence (right up to Shepard nearly killing himself getting the Crucible activated) got you there. I don't see how the ending betrays any "themes"?

Obviously the death of Shephard will impact us emotionally.  And indeed the music and cinematic quality is good.

But again this does not make an ending consistent with the rest of the series(up to the last 10 minutes).

We can't reason our way out of emotion.  We feel it whether or not the ending makes sense.  

Sure. But you asked what I liked about the ending, and the fact that they made the ending emotional with that music is a particular highlight for me. A piece of music is just a piece of music, it takes creative genius to turn it into "that piece of music". It's like hearing that sound or smelling that scent. It takes a bit of creative genius to turn something into such a strong emotional association in a creative piece of work. And no, the death of Shepard didn't have to impact us emotionally ... if it was badly done, it wouldn't have. It did for most people, so it was well done.

And again, you're not posting enough reasoning for what these "inconsistencies with the rest fo the series" are. That doesn't make sense the way you're writing it right now.

Modifié par The Razman, 05 mai 2012 - 12:11 .

[Running Heron]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

slyguy200 wrote...



And of the reviewers on youtube, how many liked ME3. IGN doesn't count.

Again, you're trying to use this faulty argument in an attempt to "win". Please, understand, I don't care what some random person in some random video on YouTube says - they're entitled to their own opinion. It doesn't mean they're RIGHT, and it doesn't mean you win. It just means they have an opinion - LIKE EVERYONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE.

Yet, one side continually attacks, berates, and demands that the other side "prove" their opinion in order for it to be valid. This isn't a competition. You can't win. Because there's nothing TO win. Saying my opinion is invalid because Joe Schmoe with a craptastic video camera posts a video on YouTube says so is ridiculous.

That's the thing you don't get.

If the reasons given are valid then it doesn't matter who gives them.  Not specifically pointing to anyone though.

[brfritos]

The Razman wrote...

Kreidian wrote...

Are you guys saying now that even if the majority didn't like the ending then it's no reason to change it?

Yes, that's exactly what we're saying.

Not liking the ending to a story doesn't mean it has to be changed. I hated the ending to Lost, I'm not campaigning to have it retconned in favour of something I like. It ended how the writers wanted to end it. And that's that.

I don't know, games behave differently from movies and books, specially the ones like ME where you can influence in how some things will turn out.
From a entertainment point of view books, movies and games are exactly the same, they...well, entertain.

While in books you use your imagination and passive watch the story folds, in games you are activelly participating on the story itself.
For example, you can't decide the fate of Garrus and Tali in a book or movie, while in ME you have this option in many different ways.
That's why I have reservations when comparing movies/books to games.

But I think the main reason for people complaining about the endings is another component to ME series that isn't accounted for: Bioware allowed and encouraged their fans to participate in the creation of the games, many things present in the three games are fans suggestions and they encouraged people to be envolved in their creation.
Before the whole issue you always saw devs in the foruns asking what people wanted or not in the games.

It may sound a bit naive, but I think this is the main reason for people asking a remake for the endings.

[Running Heron]

The Razman wrote...

darthoptimus003 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Running Heron wrote...

Yes but the difference here is that Shephard had no choice in the matter.  He did not actively set out to kill them, he even tried to warn them but there was absolutely no way around it.  It was either sacrifice the colony or let the reapers through.  The reason for the reapers' genocide is, I'll say it again, completely assinine and we can show it by uniting the geth and the quarians.

Welcome to the other side of the fence. You know who you are? You're the Council.

Shepard: "I didn't have a choice ... it was for the greater good, I couldn't do anything to save them!"
Council: "You couldn't do anything else? I find that hard to believe. We're going to have to arrest you."

Starchild: "There was no choice. Synthetics would have killed all organic life without my intervention."
Shepard: You couldn't do anything else? I find that hard to believe. I'm going to have to say screw you."

It's not nice, is it ... being judged by the Council for doing the things you do for the greater good ...

Also, you've called the reason for the Reapers existing asinine, and I don't believe you fully grasp why they're there. The Geth and the Quarians are proof that synthetic life would wipe out all organic life in the galaxy if it was allowed to reach the level of the Reapers. They don't disprove anything; quite the opposite.

My problem is why we are being forced into these decisions in the first place.  There is no precedent for it and we should be able to refuse the catalyst's flawed logic.  If we had that option I probably wouldn't mind the ending so much.

You're not forced into it. You wanted these options. The only reason for plugging in the Crucible to the Citadel was to try and get some way of stopping the Reapers. Well, here they are. Your hard work paid off; you got your options. It would be completely nonsensical to work all game to get the options and then say "No, I don't want these, let's just die by the Reapers steely hand instead". I mean, really?

I agree with this general principle and I agree that a choice is a great way to end the game.  But the events leading up to and surrounding those choices simply do not jive with the rest of the series(or make logical sense)

You haven't really made any argument there, you've just made a statement of opinion?

True true, but you could put excellent music over anything.  just because it looks and sounds nice does not make it good.

The way its used for the death of the character we've been with for an entire trilogy does.

accually we made peace with them
and IF you accually payed attintion in the game the Quarians started the war NOT the Geth
so the starbrats logic is totally screwed at this point    so try again

And if you'd "accually payed attintion" you'd see that it wouldn't matter whether or not we'd made peace. If the Geth were as technologically advanced as the Reapers and an accident occured, there'd be nobody left in the galaxy to make peace hundreds of years later. We'd all be gone. Doesn't matter if we started it or they started it; that's irrelevent if everyone's dead. You can argue about who's fault it was in the afterlife, 'cause that's where everyone would be.

Same with EDI ... when we first met her she was a psychotic rogue AI trying to kill everyone on the Lunar Base. Doesn't matter that she ended up ok in the end ... if she'd been of the technological sophistication to wipe out all life in the galaxy, then there'd nobody around for a second chance. The whole point of the Reapers is to ensure we never reach that level of technological sophistication, so that risk is never there.

I'm seeing a lot of "ifs" here.   

[The Razman]

brfritos wrote...

I don't know, games behave differently from movies and books,

No, they don't.

We have not spent decades arguing against asinine arguments of "Oh, but violence in video-games affects kids soooo much worse than movies and stuff because like, it's totally interactive, and that's just, like, so much worse y'know?" to suddenly turn around and use the fact that games are active as some kind of justification for treating them differently when it suits our purposes.

The fact that they're active and not passive makes absolutely no difference to the relationship between author and user. None. People who have emotionally invested themselves in the series are simply trying to use this line as a reason for why Bioware should treat them differently.

[The Razman]

Running Heron wrote...

The Razman wrote...

darthoptimus003 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Running Heron wrote...

Yes but the difference here is that Shephard had no choice in the matter.  He did not actively set out to kill them, he even tried to warn them but there was absolutely no way around it.  It was either sacrifice the colony or let the reapers through.  The reason for the reapers' genocide is, I'll say it again, completely assinine and we can show it by uniting the geth and the quarians.

Welcome to the other side of the fence. You know who you are? You're the Council.

Shepard: "I didn't have a choice ... it was for the greater good, I couldn't do anything to save them!"
Council: "You couldn't do anything else? I find that hard to believe. We're going to have to arrest you."

Starchild: "There was no choice. Synthetics would have killed all organic life without my intervention."
Shepard: You couldn't do anything else? I find that hard to believe. I'm going to have to say screw you."

It's not nice, is it ... being judged by the Council for doing the things you do for the greater good ...

Also, you've called the reason for the Reapers existing asinine, and I don't believe you fully grasp why they're there. The Geth and the Quarians are proof that synthetic life would wipe out all organic life in the galaxy if it was allowed to reach the level of the Reapers. They don't disprove anything; quite the opposite.

My problem is why we are being forced into these decisions in the first place.  There is no precedent for it and we should be able to refuse the catalyst's flawed logic.  If we had that option I probably wouldn't mind the ending so much.

You're not forced into it. You wanted these options. The only reason for plugging in the Crucible to the Citadel was to try and get some way of stopping the Reapers. Well, here they are. Your hard work paid off; you got your options. It would be completely nonsensical to work all game to get the options and then say "No, I don't want these, let's just die by the Reapers steely hand instead". I mean, really?

I agree with this general principle and I agree that a choice is a great way to end the game.  But the events leading up to and surrounding those choices simply do not jive with the rest of the series(or make logical sense)

You haven't really made any argument there, you've just made a statement of opinion?

True true, but you could put excellent music over anything.  just because it looks and sounds nice does not make it good.

The way its used for the death of the character we've been with for an entire trilogy does.

accually we made peace with them
and IF you accually payed attintion in the game the Quarians started the war NOT the Geth
so the starbrats logic is totally screwed at this point    so try again

And if you'd "accually payed attintion" you'd see that it wouldn't matter whether or not we'd made peace. If the Geth were as technologically advanced as the Reapers and an accident occured, there'd be nobody left in the galaxy to make peace hundreds of years later. We'd all be gone. Doesn't matter if we started it or they started it; that's irrelevent if everyone's dead. You can argue about who's fault it was in the afterlife, 'cause that's where everyone would be.

Same with EDI ... when we first met her she was a psychotic rogue AI trying to kill everyone on the Lunar Base. Doesn't matter that she ended up ok in the end ... if she'd been of the technological sophistication to wipe out all life in the galaxy, then there'd nobody around for a second chance. The whole point of the Reapers is to ensure we never reach that level of technological sophistication, so that risk is never there.

I'm seeing a lot of "ifs" here.   

... did you have a point?

[UnstableMongoose]

dunstan1993 wrote...

From what I've found searching the forums *so far*, the majority of people who liked the endings are saying that they liked them because they were so open for interpretation and speculation.

I'll continue to search though, I don't think these people's opinions are helping me understand the viewpoint of a pro-ender.

Probably since no pro-ender I've found has made any comment about it being a deux ex machina, or the plotholes (Other than, e.g. interpretation and speculation are what make the plotholes good, I can fill in the gaps myself).

The ending is not a deus ex machina--that's just a term that gets thrown around. Elements in the ending are suggested or flat-out introduced significantly before the final scenes. Those elements behave in a surprising manner,  but the fact that the Crucible is going to be an unpredictable weapon is one of the earliest established plot points in the game.

Everything's got plotholes. Plotholes don't ruin anything. Mass Effect makes no sense if you want to sit down and analyze it coldly, and it hasn't made sense ever since about 30 minutes into the first game. It's soft sci-fi, the entire franchise is based on plotholes and willing suspension of disbelief. Apparently, people are just now discovering that. There's no reason why the humans aren't the least useful race in the galaxy, and are for some reason super-awesome and stuff. There's no reason the ancient and wise Asari spend all three games ignoring counsel regarding the Reapers they know is probably true. None of these things ruin the game at all.

I also don't buy that you've never heard a good reason on these forums. But, just in case you somehow actually haven't, which I find to be unlikely, just go read all of this.

[Icinix]

brfritos wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Kreidian wrote...

Are you guys saying now that even if the majority didn't like the ending then it's no reason to change it?

Yes, that's exactly what we're saying.

Not liking the ending to a story doesn't mean it has to be changed. I hated the ending to Lost, I'm not campaigning to have it retconned in favour of something I like. It ended how the writers wanted to end it. And that's that.

I don't know, games behave differently from movies and books, specially the ones like ME where you can influence in how some things will turn out.
From a entertainment point of view books, movies and games are exactly the same, they...well, entertain.

While in books you use your imagination and passive watch the story folds, in games you are activelly participating on the story itself.
For example, you can't decide the fate of Garrus and Tali in a book or movie, while in ME you have this option in many different ways.
That's why I have reservations when comparing movies/books to games.

But I think the main reason for people complaining about the endings is another component to ME series that isn't accounted for: Bioware allowed and encouraged their fans to participate in the creation of the games, many things present in the three games are fans suggestions and they encouraged people to be envolved in their creation.
Before the whole issue you always saw devs in the foruns asking what people wanted or not in the games.

It may sound a bit naive, but I think this is the main reason for people asking a remake for the endings.

See this is where I kind of sit, I can understand the whole not changing the ending because that was the ending they wanted, thats cool. If they can live with all the people who say its great, or all the people who say it sucks, thats their call.

HOWEVER - I do want the ending changed in one specific way, I want to see more evidence of our choices in action. I don't care if the endings remain the same (even I hate them) I want to see those choices I've made and their outcomes in the lead up. I want to see my Rachni allies on the ground, I want to see my Krogan army march through, I want to see my Salarian fleet strike through the Reapers flanks.

I want to know that what I chose as a player mattered.

The endings we have at the moment, and the lead up to the endings we have at the moment, make no distinction between the different games players have constructed through the three games - and that to me is the biggest frustration in all of this. That what we did, didn't matter in any way.

As long as an arbitrary number is equal to or greater than another number - you wil have access to this cinematic and so on.

That should be changed, because its won't affect the artistic integrity of the ending, but it will reinforce the artistic integrity of the entire trilogy.

[GamerFreak 259]

thinking on the technical side, wouldn't bioware have to recreate the last mission if they were to add a new ending

[The Razman]

Icinix wrote...

HOWEVER - I do want the ending changed in one specific way, I want to see more evidence of our choices in action. I don't care if the endings remain the same (even I hate them) I want to see those choices I've made and their outcomes in the lead up. I want to see my Rachni allies on the ground, I want to see my Krogan army march through, I want to see my Salarian fleet strike through the Reapers flanks.

I want to know that what I chose as a player mattered.

The endings we have at the moment, and the lead up to the endings we have at the moment, make no distinction between the different games players have constructed through the three games - and that to me is the biggest frustration in all of this. That what we did, didn't matter in any way.

As long as an arbitrary number is equal to or greater than another number - you wil have access to this cinematic and so on.

That should be changed, because its won't affect the artistic integrity of the ending, but it will reinforce the artistic integrity of the entire trilogy.

See, I totally understand and agree with that point. That was an error and shouldn't have happened, there was a fundamental disconnect in showing the narrative reasons for EMS.

But we have similar complaints for almost every single game in existence. And we're not talking about trying to get them changed. Why should Mass Effect 3 be treated differently?

[Running Heron]

The Razman wrote...

Running Heron wrote...

The Razman wrote...

darthoptimus003 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Running Heron wrote...

Yes but the difference here is that Shephard had no choice in the matter.  He did not actively set out to kill them, he even tried to warn them but there was absolutely no way around it.  It was either sacrifice the colony or let the reapers through.  The reason for the reapers' genocide is, I'll say it again, completely assinine and we can show it by uniting the geth and the quarians.

Welcome to the other side of the fence. You know who you are? You're the Council.

Shepard: "I didn't have a choice ... it was for the greater good, I couldn't do anything to save them!"
Council: "You couldn't do anything else? I find that hard to believe. We're going to have to arrest you."

Starchild: "There was no choice. Synthetics would have killed all organic life without my intervention."
Shepard: You couldn't do anything else? I find that hard to believe. I'm going to have to say screw you."

It's not nice, is it ... being judged by the Council for doing the things you do for the greater good ...

Also, you've called the reason for the Reapers existing asinine, and I don't believe you fully grasp why they're there. The Geth and the Quarians are proof that synthetic life would wipe out all organic life in the galaxy if it was allowed to reach the level of the Reapers. They don't disprove anything; quite the opposite.

My problem is why we are being forced into these decisions in the first place.  There is no precedent for it and we should be able to refuse the catalyst's flawed logic.  If we had that option I probably wouldn't mind the ending so much.

You're not forced into it. You wanted these options. The only reason for plugging in the Crucible to the Citadel was to try and get some way of stopping the Reapers. Well, here they are. Your hard work paid off; you got your options. It would be completely nonsensical to work all game to get the options and then say "No, I don't want these, let's just die by the Reapers steely hand instead". I mean, really?

I agree with this general principle and I agree that a choice is a great way to end the game.  But the events leading up to and surrounding those choices simply do not jive with the rest of the series(or make logical sense)

You haven't really made any argument there, you've just made a statement of opinion?

True true, but you could put excellent music over anything.  just because it looks and sounds nice does not make it good.

The way its used for the death of the character we've been with for an entire trilogy does.

accually we made peace with them
and IF you accually payed attintion in the game the Quarians started the war NOT the Geth
so the starbrats logic is totally screwed at this point    so try again

And if you'd "accually payed attintion" you'd see that it wouldn't matter whether or not we'd made peace. If the Geth were as technologically advanced as the Reapers and an accident occured, there'd be nobody left in the galaxy to make peace hundreds of years later. We'd all be gone. Doesn't matter if we started it or they started it; that's irrelevent if everyone's dead. You can argue about who's fault it was in the afterlife, 'cause that's where everyone would be.

Same with EDI ... when we first met her she was a psychotic rogue AI trying to kill everyone on the Lunar Base. Doesn't matter that she ended up ok in the end ... if she'd been of the technological sophistication to wipe out all life in the galaxy, then there'd nobody around for a second chance. The whole point of the Reapers is to ensure we never reach that level of technological sophistication, so that risk is never there.

I'm seeing a lot of "ifs" here.   

... did you have a point?

What do you think my point is?

[The Razman]

Running Heron wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Running Heron wrote...

The Razman wrote...

darthoptimus003 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Running Heron wrote...

Yes but the difference here is that Shephard had no choice in the matter.  He did not actively set out to kill them, he even tried to warn them but there was absolutely no way around it.  It was either sacrifice the colony or let the reapers through.  The reason for the reapers' genocide is, I'll say it again, completely assinine and we can show it by uniting the geth and the quarians.

Welcome to the other side of the fence. You know who you are? You're the Council.

Shepard: "I didn't have a choice ... it was for the greater good, I couldn't do anything to save them!"
Council: "You couldn't do anything else? I find that hard to believe. We're going to have to arrest you."

Starchild: "There was no choice. Synthetics would have killed all organic life without my intervention."
Shepard: You couldn't do anything else? I find that hard to believe. I'm going to have to say screw you."

It's not nice, is it ... being judged by the Council for doing the things you do for the greater good ...

Also, you've called the reason for the Reapers existing asinine, and I don't believe you fully grasp why they're there. The Geth and the Quarians are proof that synthetic life would wipe out all organic life in the galaxy if it was allowed to reach the level of the Reapers. They don't disprove anything; quite the opposite.

My problem is why we are being forced into these decisions in the first place.  There is no precedent for it and we should be able to refuse the catalyst's flawed logic.  If we had that option I probably wouldn't mind the ending so much.

You're not forced into it. You wanted these options. The only reason for plugging in the Crucible to the Citadel was to try and get some way of stopping the Reapers. Well, here they are. Your hard work paid off; you got your options. It would be completely nonsensical to work all game to get the options and then say "No, I don't want these, let's just die by the Reapers steely hand instead". I mean, really?

I agree with this general principle and I agree that a choice is a great way to end the game.  But the events leading up to and surrounding those choices simply do not jive with the rest of the series(or make logical sense)

You haven't really made any argument there, you've just made a statement of opinion?

True true, but you could put excellent music over anything.  just because it looks and sounds nice does not make it good.

The way its used for the death of the character we've been with for an entire trilogy does.

accually we made peace with them
and IF you accually payed attintion in the game the Quarians started the war NOT the Geth
so the starbrats logic is totally screwed at this point    so try again

And if you'd "accually payed attintion" you'd see that it wouldn't matter whether or not we'd made peace. If the Geth were as technologically advanced as the Reapers and an accident occured, there'd be nobody left in the galaxy to make peace hundreds of years later. We'd all be gone. Doesn't matter if we started it or they started it; that's irrelevent if everyone's dead. You can argue about who's fault it was in the afterlife, 'cause that's where everyone would be.

Same with EDI ... when we first met her she was a psychotic rogue AI trying to kill everyone on the Lunar Base. Doesn't matter that she ended up ok in the end ... if she'd been of the technological sophistication to wipe out all life in the galaxy, then there'd nobody around for a second chance. The whole point of the Reapers is to ensure we never reach that level of technological sophistication, so that risk is never there.

I'm seeing a lot of "ifs" here.   

... did you have a point?

What do you think my point is?

That you're being evasive instead of actually addressing what I've said?

[Icinix]

The Razman wrote...

Icinix wrote...

HOWEVER - I do want the ending changed in one specific way, I want to see more evidence of our choices in action. I don't care if the endings remain the same (even I hate them) I want to see those choices I've made and their outcomes in the lead up. I want to see my Rachni allies on the ground, I want to see my Krogan army march through, I want to see my Salarian fleet strike through the Reapers flanks.

I want to know that what I chose as a player mattered.

The endings we have at the moment, and the lead up to the endings we have at the moment, make no distinction between the different games players have constructed through the three games - and that to me is the biggest frustration in all of this. That what we did, didn't matter in any way.

As long as an arbitrary number is equal to or greater than another number - you wil have access to this cinematic and so on.

That should be changed, because its won't affect the artistic integrity of the ending, but it will reinforce the artistic integrity of the entire trilogy.

See, I totally understand and agree with that point. That was an error and shouldn't have happened, there was a fundamental disconnect in showing the narrative reasons for EMS.

But we have similar complaints for almost every single game in existence. And we're not talking about trying to get them changed. Why should Mass Effect 3 be treated differently?

From a personal point of view I have never had an issue with a game ending up until ME3. I may have been mildly grumbled by some aspects of an ending, but never the whole ending and the lead up.

As dumb as I feel the ending itself is, my biggest issues are with the lead up too it. The whole Earth mission bothered me more than the ending.

[Father_Jerusalem]

slyguy200 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

slyguy200 wrote...



And of the reviewers on youtube, how many liked ME3. IGN doesn't count.

Again, you're trying to use this faulty argument in an attempt to "win". Please, understand, I don't care what some random person in some random video on YouTube says - they're entitled to their own opinion. It doesn't mean they're RIGHT, and it doesn't mean you win. It just means they have an opinion - LIKE EVERYONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE.

Yet, one side continually attacks, berates, and demands that the other side "prove" their opinion in order for it to be valid. This isn't a competition. You can't win. Because there's nothing TO win. Saying my opinion is invalid because Joe Schmoe with a craptastic video camera posts a video on YouTube says so is ridiculous.

That's the thing you don't get.

How evasive.
This is about the vids i thought.
And of the pro reviewers who review games because they are supposed to, how many liked the end of ME3?

I don't need to prove much. You really seem to enjoy trying though.
I don't care about that particular view on things. You couold just say that the vids are irrelevant to you and leave it at that, and this goes no further.

I HAVE said videos don't matter. Like twelves times. You continually ignore it and keep bringing up the fact that you can't find videos on YouTube that prove me right, or that there are tons and tons of videos on YouTube that prove you right, or whatever. They. Don't. Matter. They. Are. Simply. One. Person's. Opinion.They are no more valid than anyone else's opinion. That argument is stupid and people need to stop using it.

Again, this time in sign language to make sure.

*signs in American Sign Language "These. Videos. Do. Not. Matter. An. Appeal. From. Authority. Does. Not. Matter. Argumentim. Ad. Populum. Does. Not. Matter. Stop. Using. These. Arguments. You. Cannot. Win. Because. There. Is. Nothing. TO. Win. Every. Person's. Opinion. Is. Just. As. Valid. As. Yours. Stop. It. Stop. It. Stop. It. Stop. It."*

Modifié par Father_Jerusalem, 05 mai 2012 - 12:28 .

[The Razman]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

slyguy200 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

slyguy200 wrote...



And of the reviewers on youtube, how many liked ME3. IGN doesn't count.

Again, you're trying to use this faulty argument in an attempt to "win". Please, understand, I don't care what some random person in some random video on YouTube says - they're entitled to their own opinion. It doesn't mean they're RIGHT, and it doesn't mean you win. It just means they have an opinion - LIKE EVERYONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE.

Yet, one side continually attacks, berates, and demands that the other side "prove" their opinion in order for it to be valid. This isn't a competition. You can't win. Because there's nothing TO win. Saying my opinion is invalid because Joe Schmoe with a craptastic video camera posts a video on YouTube says so is ridiculous.

That's the thing you don't get.

How evasive.
This is about the vids i thought.
And of the pro reviewers who review games because they are supposed to, how many liked the end of ME3?

I don't need to prove much. You really seem to enjoy trying though.
I don't care about that particular view on things. You couold just say that the vids are irrelevant to you and leave it at that, and this goes no further.

I HAVE said videos don't matter. Like twelves times. You continually ignore it and keep bringing up the fact that you can't find videos on YouTube that prove me right, or that there are tons and tons of videos on YouTube that prove you right, or whatever. They. Don't. Matter. They. Are. Simply. One. Person's. Opinion.They are no more valid than anyone else's opinion. That argument is stupid and people need to stop using it.

Again, this time in sign language to make sure.

*signs in American Sign Language "These. Videos. Do. Not. Matter. An. Appeal. From. Authority. Does. Not. Matter. Argumentim. Ad. Populum. Does. Not. Matter. Stop. Using. These. Arguments. You. Cannot. Win. Because. There. Is. Nothing. TO. Win. Every. Person's. Opinion. Is. Just. As. Valid. As. Yours. Stop. It. Stop. It. Stop. It. Stop. It."*

While his hyperbole is a bit OTT, his point is valid y'know. Just because somebody's posted their opinion on YouTube doesn't make it any more or less valid than anyone else's. At best, it just means they have way more time on their hands than other people.

[xsdob]

slyguy200, father jerusalem, running heron, and razman, can you 4 please just private message eachother rather than creating the threads largest quote pyramids on every single page?

EDIT: You know what, I'm keeping this here. Your post are blocking out everyone else's post here, all of the time.

So unless the op or a mod asks me to, I'm not changeing my request.

Modifié par xsdob, 05 mai 2012 - 12:36 .