170 réponses à ce sujet

[Tapkomet]

Mcjon01 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

The Normandy is also nearly weightless and moving many times faster than the speed of light.  Anything that were to hit it would likely cause that same thing.  It's actually pretty amazing that Joker was able to keep the ship largely intact.

Taking one ship in extremely unusual circumstances and applying what happens to it to all the other ships in the galaxy is what makes it a baseless assumption.

That's nonsense. Watch the ending again. When the wave hits the Normandy all of the ship's systems start giong haywire/offline. That doesn't jive with a wave of light just nudging the ship into crashing.
You're grasping at straws to make it seem like the ending has been misunderstood.

Getting "nudged" going at FTL is a huge impact.  You do realize that force = mass x acceleration squared, right?  Even at near zero mass, the acceleration is so huge (and then squared), that any impact at all, even from a speck of dust, is going to be equal to several nuclear bombs.  It's somewhat less since it impacted from behind, and I'd imagine that's how the Normady survived at all.

Besides, something with the force to control/destroy the Reapers or rebuild life's framework galaxy-wide is more than just "a wave of light."  Even if it isn't, even light has mass (photons).

That still doesn't explain how you extrapolate what happened with the Normandy to apply to all other ships in the galaxy.

Photons are enough to completely cripple one of the most advanced starships in the galaxy? How do ships travel at FTL speeds at all? Your argument is BS.

It's in the damn codex!  Look up the "Desperate Measures" entry.  It says that FTL bombs were considered, but they couldn't find a way to force the engines to impact with something, because the safeguards were that extensive.  And the destructive force would be so immense, that they'd end up destroying everything they were trying to save, not just the Reapers.

Using math to support my argument makes it BS?  Right.  You still haven't explained how what happened to the Normandy extrapolates to every ship in the galaxy.  You know, all the ships that weren't using a mass relay when the burst came?

Speaking of the codex, shouldn't everybody on the Normandy be dead regardless of what was going on in that scene? Getting knocked out of FTL at FTL speeds is supposed to release a lethal radiation pulse, if I'm remembering correctly. From the excess velocity that can't exist under normal physics.

And that explains how squadmates who were with you on Earth are suddenly on the ship. They are all dead! The garden world is afterlife! Shepard is in the bar behind the closest rock, waiting for Garrus.

[Veneke]

Mcjon01 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

The Normandy is also nearly weightless and moving many times faster than the speed of light.  Anything that were to hit it would likely cause that same thing.  It's actually pretty amazing that Joker was able to keep the ship largely intact.

Taking one ship in extremely unusual circumstances and applying what happens to it to all the other ships in the galaxy is what makes it a baseless assumption.

That's nonsense. Watch the ending again. When the wave hits the Normandy all of the ship's systems start giong haywire/offline. That doesn't jive with a wave of light just nudging the ship into crashing.
You're grasping at straws to make it seem like the ending has been misunderstood.

Getting "nudged" going at FTL is a huge impact.  You do realize that force = mass x acceleration squared, right?  Even at near zero mass, the acceleration is so huge (and then squared), that any impact at all, even from a speck of dust, is going to be equal to several nuclear bombs.  It's somewhat less since it impacted from behind, and I'd imagine that's how the Normady survived at all.

Besides, something with the force to control/destroy the Reapers or rebuild life's framework galaxy-wide is more than just "a wave of light."  Even if it isn't, even light has mass (photons).

That still doesn't explain how you extrapolate what happened with the Normandy to apply to all other ships in the galaxy.

Photons are enough to completely cripple one of the most advanced starships in the galaxy? How do ships travel at FTL speeds at all? Your argument is BS.

It's in the damn codex!  Look up the "Desperate Measures" entry.  It says that FTL bombs were considered, but they couldn't find a way to force the engines to impact with something, because the safeguards were that extensive.  And the destructive force would be so immense, that they'd end up destroying everything they were trying to save, not just the Reapers.

Using math to support my argument makes it BS?  Right.  You still haven't explained how what happened to the Normandy extrapolates to every ship in the galaxy.  You know, all the ships that weren't using a mass relay when the burst came?

Speaking of the codex, shouldn't everybody on the Normandy be dead regardless of what was going on in that scene? Getting knocked out of FTL at FTL speeds is supposed to release a lethal radiation pulse, if I'm remembering correctly. From the excess velocity that can't exist under normal physics.

True, but this isn't really a problem with the story so to speak which is probably the only thing we can hope to salvage about the ending at this point. We clearly see a scene later on clearly showng the Normandy and some survivors.

Perhaps the explosion from the mass relays (the one they were running away from) which knocked them out of FTL somehow altered the lethal radiation pulse? Or perhaps the advanced armour on the Normandy coupled with the aforementioned mitigated the worst of its effects. Regardsless, for whatever reason this doesn't result in the same effect a normal drop out of FTL would do to a ship in ordinary circumstances.

The codex only works provided there isn't an exception to it that we see in the game. If there's an exception to it then it trumps the codex in the specific conditions in which the instance occurs. Bioware might have erred in the cinematic but we can't ignore what we see in the game because it doesn't match the codex. What we saw actually happened, the codex adapts itself to that not the other way around. The writers should keep to the codex but if they don't you can't ignore it on that basis, otherwise we just end up making our own stuff up.

In short: What we see ingame trumps what we read in the codex which trumps fanfiction.

[Bob3terd]

wizardryforever wrote...

That's why I included the "and quarians" bit.  The quarians have liveships, the main source of all of their food for the last 300 years, in the Sol system with the rest of the migrant fleet.  They should be able to supply the remaining turian and quarian forces with food just fine.  Though if the quarians are dead, then yes, that sucks.

As for the actual topic, I think that it's inevitable that some people take the EC as being patronizing.  These people are not going to be satisfied no matter what Bioware does though.  Even if Bioware gave in to all of their ridiculously unrealistic demands, they'd say that it should have been that way all along.  It may end up being patronizing for some, but for others it may end up clearing up any confusion they may have had about certain things.

Quarian non-combatants i.e the people who make the food, where sheltered on rannoch.

[Reorte]

Bob3terd wrote...

Quarian non-combatants i.e the people who make the food, where sheltered on rannoch.

Eating what? They wouldn't have had time to set up farms and start getting harvests. Even with Rannoch and no Reapers to deal with they'd need the liveships for a few years.

[wizardryforever]

Veneke wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Veneke wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Was it poorly explained?  Sure, but that does not mean that the fans are off the hook for jumping to ridiculous conclusions.  It's like they didn't even try to figure it out, and instead just automatically hate it because they didn't understand it right away.

And I'm not saying that the ending is deep art or anything.  The art angle is not one that I used simply because it is so pretentious.  People are capable of understanding it, at least parts of it, already.  They would rather just rail against it than actually think.  Again, it is partially Bioware's fault.  But you can't realistically deny that a lot of people simply don't think about what it means, and instead just rant about a completely wrong conclusion that they jumped to.

It's kind of like when you mishear someone, and it sounds like they said something that made absolutely no sense.  Rather than accept that that person is gibbering, you figure that they must have said something else, and then realize what it must have been.  It's partially that person's fault for not speaking up, but if you jump to conclusions about what you misheard, then it's partially your fault too.

What, precisely, did we mishear?
 
The relays blowing up the galaxy? Point to something in the game that illustrates that the galaxy isn't entirely destroyed. The grandfather scene on some random planet? Proves nothing. Joker crash-landing on a random garden planet? Someone already mentioned that this could have been in a system without a mass relay. Can't prove it? My point exactly. You can't prove jack about it any way at all. If we misheard something then it should be pretty clear in the game upon reflection, otherwise we didn't mishear, we heard perfectly well. They just didn't make any sense.

Oh and, er... the Crucible shockwave isn't what we see on the galaxy map, right? I think you must have missed my post earlier explaining that point. If it is, could you explain how that works? Using what we see ingame, of course.

Mass relays don't link to systems without mass relays.  Joker was in a relay conduit before he crashed, meaning the system he crashed in had a relay, which was destroyed by the shockwave (the relay, not the system).  If the relays destroyed the systems they were in when they were destroyed, then why wasn't the Normandy and that planet destroyed too?  There's your proof, beyond the obvious meta: Why bother with ending choices at all if the galaxy is destroyed?  It's ridiculous to assume that, but people don't want to admit how stupid that assumption is, and blame Bioware for their own personal delusions.

I get the feeling that you just want to hate everything about the ending, instead of just the bad parts (which admittedly outnumber the good parts) and are willing to stretch every little thing out to paint it as negatively as possible.  But then, given the general behavior of "fans" around here, I can't say I'm surprised.

But hey, admitting that one could be wrong is not something I expected anyone to do, especially on BSN.

Still waiting to find out what we misheard.

It was an analogy, one that was quite apt.  But it would seem that you like to think in literal terms only.  It would explain much.

I never said Joker was in a relay corridor, 'cause you'd be right if he was; that'd make absolutely no sense. I'm pretty sure he's in FTL, not a relay corridor. If you look at the colour shift the Normandy goes through while in FTL (not a relay corridor) you'll see that there are similarities. If he's in FTL then he could realistically have crashed onto a planet without a functioning mass relay in-system. If we also note that the explosion from the mass effect relay in the Sol system is disappating just as Joker crashes we can surmise that he is, most likely, in a system around the circumference of the explosion we see from the destruction of the Sol mass relay.

He has to be in a relay corridor.  The beam would not be "chasing" him in such a linear way unless he was.  It isn't the wide sphere that it shows on Earth.  It is clearly a beam, which indicates that he is in relay-space, not going at regular FTL.

Dude, I'm just telling you what's ingame. I'm all for speculating, but let's try not and ignore what they have shown us. You could be right though, maybe I have it wrong. Prove it. Why bother with the ending choices? Mate, they clearly didn't bother - look at them, you pick a colour. That's pretty much it. There are minor differences, I'll readily admit that, but they're so inconsequential and you when consider that the galaxy is going to be blown up in a few moments time - you're right, why would they bother with putting more effort into it?

Obviously, from a meta standpoint I'm wrong. Unless the EC is going to be a long cutscene of death and destruction of course. Though that is fairly unlikely. That, however, is not my point. My point is that there's nothing ingame to support what you're saying and, as such, you can't blame the fans for taking the ending at face value. Otherwise, you want to know what ending I got? I retired with Tali on Rannoch. I mean sure, if we're just making stuff up, why not go the full hog?

Again with the literal thinking.  It was poorly explained, I'm not disputing that.  But that doesn't give you free license to assume the worst about something.  You'd think upon seeing the ending, people would think "wait, does that mean the relays destroy the galaxy?  That can't be right, I must have missed something."  And not "OMG the galaxy is destroyed!  I hate the ending, it's pointless!"  That's called jumping to conclusions.  Yes the ending needs work, yes there needs to be more differences and consequences shown, but not even trying to understand what we already have is just as big of a problem.

Your right, I have abolutely no time for the ending as is. It's an utter disaster without headcanon and after reading and thinking about it, it keeps getting worse and worse. I still think that IT is nonsense and Synthesis was meant to be the best ending but frankly, nobody can prove a thing one way or another and that, my friend, is not our fault.

No, of course not.  But drawing ridiculous conclusions that make little to no sense in context is the fault of some of the more deluded fans.

[Reth Shepherd]

wizardryforever wrote...

Again with the literal thinking.  It was poorly explained, I'm not disputing that.  But that doesn't give you free license to assume the worst about something.  You'd think upon seeing the ending, people would think "wait, does that mean the relays destroy the galaxy?  That can't be right, I must have missed something."  And not "OMG the galaxy is destroyed!  I hate the ending, it's pointless!"  That's called jumping to conclusions.  Yes the ending needs work, yes there needs to be more differences and consequences shown, but not even trying to understand what we already have is just as big of a problem.

As a matter of fact, yes, the former WAS my first thought upon seeing that cinematic. Then I went and did some digging around, double-checked to see if what I was remembering the game telling me on multiple occasions was correct (it was, and there was no contradictory info), discovered that Bioware employees had used phrases such as 'it wouldn't be much fun, playing in a wasteland', "galactic dark age", that the game files said that Stargazer takes place 10,000 years from now and galactic civilization still hasn't rebuilt; and things became horribly clear. It's wasn't a mistake. It wasn't me missing something. By our own hands, any star system with a Mass Relay in it is dead. (For the record, Lost planet isn't evidence of the galaxy's survival, as we don't know where in the corridor the Normandy got spat out. It's entirely possible that that system doesn't have a Relay and merely lay along the path that the Normandy was traveling.)

Also, have you compared the ME3 and Arrival cinematics side by side? I did, and noticed something very interesting. In Arrival, the relay's destruction takes place in two stages. The first is everything breaking up and an initial minor explosion. A couple of seconds later, critical mass is apparently reached and there is the big, system-destroying BOOM! In ME3, what's shown is only the breaking up and initial minor explosion, yes. But if you watch them side by side, you'll notice that ME3 cuts away from the explosion a split second BEFORE the second, major explosion would have occurred. Try it. Synch them up and watch them simultaneously.

[wizardryforever]

Reth Shepherd wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Again with the literal thinking.  It was poorly explained, I'm not disputing that.  But that doesn't give you free license to assume the worst about something.  You'd think upon seeing the ending, people would think "wait, does that mean the relays destroy the galaxy?  That can't be right, I must have missed something."  And not "OMG the galaxy is destroyed!  I hate the ending, it's pointless!"  That's called jumping to conclusions.  Yes the ending needs work, yes there needs to be more differences and consequences shown, but not even trying to understand what we already have is just as big of a problem.

As a matter of fact, yes, the former WAS my first thought upon seeing that cinematic. Then I went and did some digging around, double-checked to see if what I was remembering the game telling me on multiple occasions was correct (it was, and there was no contradictory info), discovered that Bioware employees had used phrases such as 'it wouldn't be much fun, playing in a wasteland', "galactic dark age", that the game files said that Stargazer takes place 10,000 years from now and galactic civilization still hasn't rebuilt; and things became horribly clear. It's wasn't a mistake. It wasn't me missing something. By our own hands, any star system with a Mass Relay in it is dead. (For the record, Lost planet isn't evidence of the galaxy's survival, as we don't know where in the corridor the Normandy got spat out. It's entirely possible that that system doesn't have a Relay and merely lay along the path that the Normandy was traveling.)

Also, have you compared the ME3 and Arrival cinematics side by side? I did, and noticed something very interesting. In Arrival, the relay's destruction takes place in two stages. The first is everything breaking up and an initial minor explosion. A couple of seconds later, critical mass is apparently reached and there is the big, system-destroying BOOM! In ME3, what's shown is only the breaking up and initial minor explosion, yes. But if you watch them side by side, you'll notice that ME3 cuts away from the explosion a split second BEFORE the second, major explosion would have occurred. Try it. Synch them up and watch them simultaneously.

At no point is it ever shown or explained that you can be pushed out of relay space prematurely.  Given the lack of evidence to support that, and since it is essentially an asspull, I'm gonna say that it is not the case here.  The Normandy exited relay space in a system with a relay, landed on a planet, and was not destroyed by the wave.  That in and of itself should be evidence that the relays didn't destroy their systems.

And yes, I have compared the two.  In Arrival, the relay is being impacted and the energy being released in an uncontrolled, unanticipated manner, whereas in ME3, the relays break apart essentially under their own power, after shooting the crucible's beam to the next relay in line.  Uncontrolled versus controlled is a huge difference when it comes to explosions.

[Phydeaux314]

I'm sure they'll toss in a throwaway line or two poking fun at us, but really, they wouldn't be Bioware if they didn't. I don't think the entire thing is going to be crafted to insult us.

[Yakko77]

Icinix wrote...

dirtdiver32318 wrote...

Six endings? Can someone tell me what the other endings are?

Red Bad, Red Ok, Red Good
Blue Bad, Blue good.
Green.

I chose Red "Good" but why is it Red has 3 and the others only 2 and 1?

[ed87]

Icinix wrote...

dirtdiver32318 wrote...

Six endings? Can someone tell me what the other endings are?

Red Bad, Red Ok, Red Good
Blue Bad, Blue good.
Green.

*yawn*

[wizardryforever]

Yakko77 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

dirtdiver32318 wrote...

Six endings? Can someone tell me what the other endings are?

Red Bad, Red Ok, Red Good
Blue Bad, Blue good.
Green.

I chose Red "Good" but why is it Red has 3 and the others only 2 and 1?

Red Good gets the 7 second breathing scene.  Otherwise it is identical to Red Okay.  It might also result in EDI getting to live, but I'm not sure.  Red Bad is pretty bad though, as Earth gets destroyed.

[mauro2222]

Yakko77 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

dirtdiver32318 wrote...

Six endings? Can someone tell me what the other endings are?

Red Bad, Red Ok, Red Good
Blue Bad, Blue good.
Green.

I chose Red "Good" but why is it Red has 3 and the others only 2 and 1?

'Cause Red bad is Earth in flames, and Red Ok is the same as Blue Bad but with different color (the top of the buildings explode... with a different color).

Also, as the guy above me said, red good can or not include the "breath" scene.

Modifié par mauro2222, 05 juin 2012 - 05:14 .

[Reth Shepherd]

wizardryforever wrote...

Reth Shepherd wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Again with the literal thinking.  It was poorly explained, I'm not disputing that.  But that doesn't give you free license to assume the worst about something.  You'd think upon seeing the ending, people would think "wait, does that mean the relays destroy the galaxy?  That can't be right, I must have missed something."  And not "OMG the galaxy is destroyed!  I hate the ending, it's pointless!"  That's called jumping to conclusions.  Yes the ending needs work, yes there needs to be more differences and consequences shown, but not even trying to understand what we already have is just as big of a problem.

As a matter of fact, yes, the former WAS my first thought upon seeing that cinematic. Then I went and did some digging around, double-checked to see if what I was remembering the game telling me on multiple occasions was correct (it was, and there was no contradictory info), discovered that Bioware employees had used phrases such as 'it wouldn't be much fun, playing in a wasteland', "galactic dark age", that the game files said that Stargazer takes place 10,000 years from now and galactic civilization still hasn't rebuilt; and things became horribly clear. It's wasn't a mistake. It wasn't me missing something. By our own hands, any star system with a Mass Relay in it is dead. (For the record, Lost planet isn't evidence of the galaxy's survival, as we don't know where in the corridor the Normandy got spat out. It's entirely possible that that system doesn't have a Relay and merely lay along the path that the Normandy was traveling.)

Also, have you compared the ME3 and Arrival cinematics side by side? I did, and noticed something very interesting. In Arrival, the relay's destruction takes place in two stages. The first is everything breaking up and an initial minor explosion. A couple of seconds later, critical mass is apparently reached and there is the big, system-destroying BOOM! In ME3, what's shown is only the breaking up and initial minor explosion, yes. But if you watch them side by side, you'll notice that ME3 cuts away from the explosion a split second BEFORE the second, major explosion would have occurred. Try it. Synch them up and watch them simultaneously.

At no point is it ever shown or explained that you can be pushed out of relay space prematurely.  Given the lack of evidence to support that, and since it is essentially an asspull, I'm gonna say that it is not the case here.  The Normandy exited relay space in a system with a relay, landed on a planet, and was not destroyed by the wave.  That in and of itself should be evidence that the relays didn't destroy their systems.

And yes, I have compared the two.  In Arrival, the relay is being impacted and the energy being released in an uncontrolled, unanticipated manner, whereas in ME3, the relays break apart essentially under their own power, after shooting the crucible's beam to the next relay in line.  Uncontrolled versus controlled is a huge difference when it comes to explosions.

You're correct, I don't remember anything in the lore about being bumped out of the relay corridor prematurely. (Though I am a little confused about your supporting statement that nowhere is it "shown or explained" considering your stance on the relays not destroying everything; something that is also never shown or explained? Isn't that every bit as much of an "asspull"?) There is information on what happens if you get pulled out of FTL drive prematurely, but none on a corridor. (Though technically speaking, the entirety of that scene is impossible, as lore-wise travel through a relay corridor is instantaneous.) Anyway, I'll concede the point that the Lost planet might lie along the way, as it is as much speculation as anything else about that scene. We don't know for sure if that's FTL travel, MR corridor travel, whether they got shoved out of a relay corridor, whether they exited normally-ish, or even if they were landing normally on that planet and got hit by a pelican. That's part of the problem. Nowhere is there enough information to figure out what's going on, and there is NO interpretation of that scene that isn't in some way contradictory to some of Bioware's lore. Either interpretation, we can't use that planet as evidence as we are not shown whether or not it is a system with a Mass Relay. We can only guess based off of our personal biases.

In any case, if the galaxy is fine, how do you interpret the dev's own statement on the state of the galaxy? Or the fact that they state that they intricately choreographed the ending sequence and yet completely forgot to put in any reassuring hints? Something as small as lingering on the Relay explosion an extra second to show that there WASN'T that second explosion would have helped. Better yet, a codex entry or bit NPC explaining that there are multiple outcomes. Instead, Bioware went out of their way to rub my nose into 'Relay destruction = BOOM! They made that point at least three different times throughout the game in my playthrough. What else am I supposed to think? (By the way, you never actually responded to the point of the comparison. Do you have an opinion on the fact that Bioware cut away a second early?)

[Reth Shepherd]

"there is NO interpretation of that scene that isn't in some way contradictory to some of Bioware's lore." Despite what I just said, I just found that someone DID manage to come up with a possible explanation that breaks less lore than the usual interpretations. The key to that one is that the flight wasn't right after the Battle for Earth, it was much later, while they were rebuilding the Relays and calibrating them. So in this interpretation, they did exit the corridor in one piece, it was just a bit of a bumpy ride. http://social.biowar.../index/12417449 It ALSO explains why everyone is suddenly aboard and why everyone looks so calm/happy.

Modifié par Reth Shepherd, 05 juin 2012 - 05:32 .

[Antiochus V]

It might be best if is patronising, rather than merely bad, as it will make it easier for people to end their interest in ME3.

[Reth Shepherd]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Reth Shepherd wrote...

"there is NO interpretation of that scene that isn't in some way contradictory to some of Bioware's lore." Despite what I just said, I just found that someone DID manage to come up with a possible explanation that breaks less lore than the usual interpretations. The key to that one is that the flight wasn't right after the Battle for Earth, it was much later, while they were rebuilding the Relays and calibrating them. So in this interpretation, they did exit the corridor in one piece, it was just a bit of a bumpy ride. http://social.biowar.../index/12417449 It ALSO explains why everyone is suddenly aboard and why everyone looks so calm/happy.

That interpretation makes no sense though. You have to jump through too many illogical hoops to make it even appraoch sensibility.

Oh, it's got its holes, that's for sure; and I don't believe it simply on account that the whole ending sequence looks as though it's supposed to take place over a couple of minutes. The 'phrasing' (wrong word, but I can't think what the right one would be) is all wrong. However, I find it intriguing and with just enough evidence that I can't completely dismiss out of hand.

[Reign Tsumiraki]

It was one ending.

Slightly tweaked 5 ways.

As I stated in another thread, KOTOR 1 has more endings.

KOTOR 1 had two completetly different endings, distinct in every way.

ME3 had 1 ending tweaked 10% for each one.

10% X 6 = 60%

ME3: 1.6 endings

KOTOR: 2 endings



But responding to OP, yeah, I think it will be somewhat patronizing. I'm not exactly looking forward to it.

[crimzontearz]

I would not be surprised if the EC was just Bioware metaphorically whacking our face with a frying pan shaped in the letters of Artistic Integrity....I am not putting it past them

[Kunari801]

Here are my hopes for the EC, if you'd call it "patronizing" then so be it, it's what I hope for in the EC:

-Give me a ending that makes me feel satisfied and victorious (like in ME1 and ME2). Yes, a more bittersweet ending this time as it's the end of Shepard's story but still doesn't have to be all bitter and empty. I want a sense Shepard saved the galaxy from the Reapers, not ruined it.

-Give closure to my Crew, LI, and Shepard via a LI Reunion or a Memorial service and other cinematics. Shepard deserves to die (or live) a hero not surrender to the enemy. Delete the Normandy crash or explain it and give closure with a rescue scene.

-Provide a hopeful look at the post-war galaxy. Can the relays be rebuilt? What of the Citadel? How will the Quarians, Krogan, Asari, etc get home from Sol without the Relays?

I know they wanted us to speculate but they setup a very grim universe to speculate with: That Is Not Good. Thus, they need a better setup if they want us to speculate to a more hopeful, uplifting, and whatever-other-emotions they wanted us experience in their ending.

[_aLucidMind_]

I would certainly not be surprised if the EC came off condescending or patronizing towards those who wanted BioWare to fix Hudson's and Walters' vision. This ending sure as hell wasn't "the team's artistic vision", it was Hudson's and Walters'.

If the EC is good, then they have a chance to earn back the priviledge of having me as a customer again over the course of the next several game releases. If the EC is as condescending as their announcement was and general attitude towards fans is, then BioWare can close down for all I care.

Modifié par _aLucidMind_, 05 juin 2012 - 06:20 .

[Iakus]

wizardryforever wrote...

At no point is it ever shown or explained that you can be pushed out of relay space prematurely.  Given the lack of evidence to support that, and since it is essentially an asspull, I'm gonna say that it is not the case here.  The Normandy exited relay space in a system with a relay, landed on a planet, and was not destroyed by the wave.  That in and of itself should be evidence that the relays didn't destroy their systems.

To be fair, there is a lot of stuff in the ending that had never been shown or explained.

If I refuse to believe in green space magic that can merge organic and synthetic life, can I say that's not the case here too?

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

Can't recall the video that explained it, but the plotholes and inconsistencies are a symptom, not the cause of ME3's bad ending.  Every story has holes in it.  ME2 had a bunch of plotholes that were endlessly debated on these forums, but most people didn't mind them because the game was fun and the story entertaining.  ME3's ending is bad even without the plotholes; it abandons key themes of the series, replaces the antagonist with something that's heretofore never been heard of, strips the player of any sense of agency...I could go on.  You aren't willing to give it the benefit of the doubt or suspend your disbelief.  The plotholes turn into a yawning chasm and the whole story pitches over the edge.

I sometimes feel the stereotypical nerd concern for lore is a goddamn trap we've all fallen into.  Try explaining to someone who isn't an ME fan that the ending is bad because it's inconsistent with the lore and full of plotholes and they won't care because it has no meaning or context for them.  It gives Bioware an excuse to dismiss their fans as 'obsessive'.

So yes, I think that if the EC is just a 'clarification' dlc then it will be pretty patronizing.  But I'd like to think they aren't stupid enough to do that...

...again.  

[Veneke]

wizardryforever wrote...

It was an analogy, one that was quite apt.  But it would seem that you like to think in literal terms only.  It would explain much.

It's not very apt if you can't explain how it works or how its applicable to the game we played. If we misheard something from the game we should be able to replay it and verify what was actually said. Given that we aren't able to do that (and if we are do tell me) it's not very apt at all.

Again with the literal thinking.  It was poorly explained, I'm not disputing that.  But that doesn't give you free license to assume the worst about something.  You'd think upon seeing the ending, people would think "wait, does that mean the relays destroy the galaxy?  That can't be right, I must have missed something."  And not "OMG the galaxy is destroyed!  I hate the ending, it's pointless!"  That's called jumping to conclusions.  Yes the ending needs work, yes there needs to be more differences and consequences shown, but not even trying to understand what we already have is just as big of a problem.

So, er, I'm being too literal and, at the same time, am not trying to understand the endings. Wait, what?

I did think I've missed something with regards the endings and the destruction of the mass relays. Outside of the possibility that the Devs didn't meant to imply that, I've found bugger all. What is there, ingame, that proves the mass relays didn't explode? All I see is the Normandy crash scene and frankly that only makes sense if the Sol mass relay exploded because the Crucible explosion didn't destroy anything but the Reapers, and even then it only did that if you picked the Red option. Well, it also destroyed earth if you got the worst Red ending. However, neither applies because we get the same Normandy scene in every ending.

So what is it that I'm missing or have misheard, apparently?

No, of course not.  But drawing ridiculous conclusions that make little to no sense in context is the fault of some of the more deluded fans.

Nothing about the ending makes sense in context. Not a single thing.

I'm only drawing conclusions based on what we saw ingame. If I'm wrong then it should be fairly easy to set me right, but so far your argument appears to be that I'm too literal and am jumping to conclusions. How about you point me to something we saw that proves your point? And no, the Normandy crash scene and the grandfather scene are not proof. The former because that only makes sense if the mass relays did explode and the latter is devoid of any information to prove anything definitively except by jumping to conclusions. See my point?

Modifié par Veneke, 05 juin 2012 - 09:45 .