209 réponses à ce sujet

[Running Heron]

[quote]The Razman wrote...

[quote]Running Heron wrote...

[quote]The Razman wrote...

[quote]Running Heron wrote...

[quote]The Razman wrote...

[quote]darthoptimus003 wrote...

[quote]The Razman wrote...

[quote]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.[/quote]
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.


[quote]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.[/quote]
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?


[quote]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)[/quote]
You haven't really made any argument there, you've just made a statement of opinion?


[quote]True true, but you could put excellent music over anything.  just because it looks and sounds nice does not make it good.[/quote]
The way its used for the death of the character we've been with for an entire trilogy does.
[/quote]
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[/quote]
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.
[/quote]

I'm seeing a lot of "ifs" here.   

[/quote]
... did you have a point?

[/quote]
What do you think my point is?


[/quote]
That you're being evasive instead of actually addressing what I've said?
[/quote]

My point is that "if" is not "is".  The catalyst's reasoning is based on assumptions that very well could have been a reality in one cycle but did not come to pass in this one.  

Just because there is a risk for something does not mean we should start killing.

[Selene Moonsong]

GamerFreak 259 wrote...

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

Of course they would, meaning they would have to hire back such folks as all relative VO artists, as a singular example for extra dialog and create even more enemy encounters, more set designs (scene designs) etc.

IMHO, clarification is the best option, economically and for the sake of closure.

[brfritos]

The Razman wrote...

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?

No, we don't and I think that's the whole point.

In ME1/ME2 the endings have a lot of flaws and some holes if you really scrutinize them, but none of the previous endings lefted you with a sense that your choices didn't matter.

ME3 endings feels totally disconnect from the main game.

That's exactly what Bioware will correct in EC, remeber the statement?
"Offer closure and explanation for some events".

[Running Heron]

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

I'm seeing a lot of "ifs" here.   

[/quote]
... did you have a point?

[/quote]
What do you think my point is?


[/quote]
That you're being evasive instead of actually addressing what I've said?
[/quote]

My point is that "if" is not "is".  The catalyst's reasoning is based on assumptions that very well could have been a reality in one cycle but did not come to pass in this one.  

Just because there is a risk for something does not mean we should start killing.

It might be a bit uncalled for, but the catalyst reminds me of Hitler.  "We need to kill the Jews to stop them from killing us and taking over the World".  It is a evil and misguided view of the World.





[/quote]

Modifié par Running Heron, 05 mai 2012 - 12:37 .

[Selene Moonsong]

Please trim your conversation trees...

[Father_Jerusalem]

xsdob wrote...

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?

I promise you, I won't be bothering to respond to him again. It's like banging my head against a brick wall, only arguing with Slyguy is more likely to cause brain damage.

[The Razman]

Running Heron wrote...

My point is that "if" is not "is".  The catalyst's reasoning is based on assumptions that very well could have been a reality in one cycle but did not come to pass in this one.  

Just because there is a risk for something does not mean we should start killing.

You did. Just because there was a risk that the Reapers might win the war if they came through straight away, you decided to kill 300,000 Batarians just to buy a couple more years of time.

And besides, when the consequence of being wrong and the event coming to pass is complete annihilation of all life in the galaxy ... it's perfectly logical to say "We'll kill some organics to make 100% sure that event never happens and wipes out all organics". You don't agree with it on moral grounds, but what part of that logic is wrong?

[Running Heron]

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

I'm seeing a lot of "ifs" here.   

[/quote]
... did you have a point?

[/quote]
What do you think my point is?


[/quote]
That you're being evasive instead of actually addressing what I've said?
[/quote]

My point is that "if" is not "is".  The catalyst's reasoning is based on assumptions that very well could have been a reality in one cycle but did not come to pass in this one.  

Just because there is a risk for something does not mean we should start killing.

It might be a bit uncalled for, but the catalyst reminds me of Hitler.  "We need to kill the Jews to stop them from killing us and taking over the World".  It is a evil and misguided view of the World.





[/quote]
[/quote]

[Running Heron]

[xsdob]

slyguy200 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

xsdob wrote...

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?

I promise you, I won't be bothering to respond to him again. It's like banging my head against a brick wall, only arguing with Slyguy is more likely to cause brain damage.

Private massaging is never going to happen, ever.
LOL
Thank you, and i promise not to respond to you anymore, as long as you ignore me.
...
Starting now.

Dear christ thank the maker! Gods be priased!

Now if you excuse me I'm going to go make dinner soon.

Modifié par xsdob, 05 mai 2012 - 12:45 .

[The Razman]

slyguy200 wrote...

Private massaging is never going to happen, ever.
LOL
Thank you, and i promise not to respond to you anymore, as long as you ignore me.
...
Starting now.

Ok, no massage. But at least PM each other, for god's sake.

[JXS nWp]

This seems like either a troll thread or flame war thread at this point...
I am surprised it hasn't been shutdown by a mod.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Side note, am I the only one who constantly reads Running Heron's name as "Running Heroin"? What, exactly, does that say about me, I wonder...

[FFinfinity1]

The Punisher1 wrote...

Wha....? Majority didn't like the ending? How do you know? The only evidence of discontent we have is the "Retake"ME3 movement. Here's some more math for you:

66,000 >/> 4 mil/2

Not everyone participated in the movement, but I can tell you, literally all my friends in real life and on the internet who have played the game said the endings were complete trash. I was the only one among my IRL friends who took part in Retake ME3.

[Running Heron]

I gotta run, but anyone who enjoyed the ending should check out this video. If you can stand the length it makes some good points in a calm and entertaining manner.



Peace.

[Running Heron]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Side note, am I the only one who constantly reads Running Heron's name as "Running Heroin"? What, exactly, does that say about me, I wonder...

[The Razman]

Running Heron wrote...

I gotta run, but anyone who enjoyed the ending should check out this video. If you can stand the length it makes some good points in a calm and entertaining manner.



Peace.

Rather disappointed at your lack of response to my last post, I have to say.

[ZackG312]

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.

EDI was not a "psychotic rogue" AI she was gaining awareness while troops were shooting at her (training), so she fired back out of self-defence. 

[Vormaerin]

Atakuma wrote...

I like the idea of the ending far more than I liked the actual thing . It was a failure of execution, not answering enough questions while creating too many new ones, nearly identical epilogues etc.

Yes.   Many "pro enders" are in this boat.  I certainly am.   I can see what they tried to do and I like that.  But its not well executed.

For example, there are voice recordings of Joker rescuing people from Earth.  But they aren't in the ending, so the fleeing Normandy is completely out of context.

Fixing this context deficit will, if done properly, produce an ending that I actually enjoy entirely rather than "nice idea, needs work."

But that's a far cry from needing to completely rewrite everything.

[Kmack11]

So...

Am I the only one in this thread who didn't hate the ending, but didn't necessarily like it? The very first time I had beaten it I had the idea in the back of my head that it wasn't going to be that good. As my friend had given me that impression, and the internet. Priority: Earth (to me) was amazing, put aside the fact that I would've loved for my War Assets to show up in combat. One of the biggest things was, that I felt like my actions in previous games made no difference. My friend who had never played Mass Effect before picked up ME3 and basically got the exact same ending as me. Although saying goodbye to my squad mates, and the run to the beam are were some of the most memorable moments of Mass Effect 3. A few parts felt a little rushed though, mainly because I was called "Sir!" several times. Then when I got hit by the beam I was in awe. My beaten and battered Shepard stood up and went forward to the conduit. The confrontation with the Illusive Man was an amazing call-back to Saren from Mass Effect 1.

Then the three choices appeared to me, and I chose destroy. The Mass Relays being destroyed was something I also thought was awesome. As it symbolized complete freedom from the Reapers control. As Legion said in Mass Effect 2, there are many ways to evolve, but when you pick someone else option, you blind yourself to all other options. The main reason history repeated itself the way it has every cycle was because organics evolved the way the Reapers wanted them to, by using their technology. With those gone, organics can evolve along their own paths.

Now something I found completely confusing and didn't necessarily make ANY sense, was how my squad mates came off the Normandy after being blasted WITH me on the run to the beam. As I ran down the hill I turned around and saw Liara and Javik following close behind. Then when I was hit, they were no where to be found. Yet they end up on that unknown planet? Another thing is, WHY are they on that planet? Why was Joker running away? Other than those, I can say I liked all other parts of the ending. I am anticipating the Extended Cut and can't wait to see how they will change or *clarify* the Joker part though, and I hope they add in the War Assets in action, and make past choices have a bigger impact and possibly differ the endings per personal playthrough.

[dunstan1993]

UnstableMongoose wrote...

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.

Just did a little bit of research.
(Answer to first part)
I think I can agree with you, I have to admit that some of those elements were introduced significantly before the final scenes and that instantly dissmisses it being a deux ex machina due to no mention.
Also the Crucible was introduced as a Prothean weapon. Which is why I used to argue "A weapon is only designed for the destruction of a foe" but the dictionary disagrees with me:

A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.A means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest: "resignation threats are a weapon in his armory".The underlined definition makes my previously assumed definition of the word weapon wrong, which also means I was wrong to previously say something along the lines of "The crucible should have worked like a weapon is supposed to and simply destroy the Reapers, not give us three random choices, 2 of which don't destroy them". Thus I've helped in destroying my own belief that the ending is a deux ex machina.

(Answer to second part)
Almost all plotholes in the series before the ending I could simply specualte on my own (I know that sounds stupidly hypocritical, but to be honest the only plotholes that bother me are the ones in the ending. If Bioware can answer for all of these then I may like the ending yet, I haven't dismissed that possiblity), ignore or some I simply didn't even notice, but when it comes to the ending of the trilogy... I don't think I'm on my own when I say that I want questions answered not asked.

(Answer to third part)
I honestly hadn't, I don't visit the forums perhaps as often as I should. And thanks for the link, I haven't read most of what's on there but I'll get to it soon enough.