2621 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

The created/creator and chaos/order "logic" items are still problems that have not been addressed or fixed. And the catalyst is at once the example of this created rebelling against the creator because he turned his creators into a reaper, but he doesn't see that as destroying them or rebelling, even though they didn't like it. He's messed up, totally idiotic. He is the created and the creator to the reapers. He needs intervention.

The only example of a problem that is predominant and overwhelming as far as synthetics destroying organics is the kid and the reapers.

The Heretic geth were actually encouraged and despised by the reapers (Sovereign was insulted by their worship of him). The reapers actually caused a problem they were meant to fix to become a problem.

And now this warped, deranged AI wants Shepard to choose Synthesis. No way. Or, he says Shepard can replace him and take control and basically sort of become him-the combined intelligence of the reapers. Ok, wait a minute. The kid is the combined intelligence of the reapers, so he's gone if Shepard takes over control-so what the hell happens to the reapers' intelligence? And if the combined reapers' intelligence is in the kid now, isn't there one little thought there from maybe someone that was on Horizon or a crew member of the Normandy that was taken, that might be saying this is all wrong?

And then the kid created the first reaper by putting his creators into it, but the kid is the combined intelligence of the reapers. What was he before he created the reapers? He is them, but he was there before them. My head hurts.

[3DandBeyond]

Ok, a Star Trek: TNG writer is weighing in on this.

http://www.melindasnodgrass.com/blog/bad-guys.html   This is her blog post about the ending.

http://social.biowar...2988/1#12933556

This is the topic discussing her blog and her desire to help Bioware. She wrote the episode, Measure of a Man about Commander Data.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:24 .

[BlueStorm83]

3DandBeyond wrote...


The created/creator and chaos/order "logic" items are still problems that have not been addressed or fixed. And the catalyst is at once the example of this created rebelling against the creator because he turned his creators into a reaper, but he doesn't see that as destroying them or rebelling, even though they didn't like it. He's messed up, totally idiotic. He is the created and the creator to the reapers. He needs intervention.

The only example of a problem that is predominant and overwhelming as far as synthetics destroying organics is the kid and the reapers.

The Heretic geth were actually encouraged and despised by the reapers (Sovereign was insulted by their worship of him). The reapers actually caused a problem they were meant to fix to become a problem.

And now this warped, deranged AI wants Shepard to choose Synthesis. No way. Or, he says Shepard can replace him and take control and basically sort of become him-the combined intelligence of the reapers. Ok, wait a minute. The kid is the combined intelligence of the reapers, so he's gone if Shepard takes over control-so what the hell happens to the reapers' intelligence? And if the combined reapers' intelligence is in the kid now, isn't there one little thought there from maybe someone that was on Horizon or a crew member of the Normandy that was taken, that might be saying this is all wrong?

And then the kid created the first reaper by putting his creators into it, but the kid is the combined intelligence of the reapers. What was he before he created the reapers? He is them, but he was there before them. My head hurts.

---  What was the Starboy before he created the Reapers, if now he's their combined intelliegnce?  He must have somehow been even stupider than he is now.  Some kind of Quantum Stupid.  To quote GlaDOS "He's not just a regular moron. He's the product of the greatest minds of a generation working together with the express purpose of building the  dumbest moron who ever lived. And you just put him in charge of the entire facility.  [clap, clap]"

WOW, it's odd how appropriate that came out.

I think that as soon as anyone runs into the Starboy, the game should freeze, that quote should play, then we see the end of I Robot, then we get the Hackett Destroy speech, then we get a few bits of the EDI "I am alive" speech from Synthesis (with all the parts about the reapers and synthesis removed) and then we get a replay of a Shepard/Love Interest love scene.  The end.

Modifié par BlueStorm83, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:43 .

[3DandBeyond]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

---  What was the Starboy before he created the Reapers, if now he's their combined intelliegnce?  He must have somehow been even stupider than he is now.  Some kind of Quantum Stupid.  To quote GlaDOS "He's not just a regular moron. He's the product of the greatest minds of a generation working together with the express purpose of building the  dumbest moron who ever lived. And you just put him in charge of the entire facility.  [clap, clap]"

WOW, it's odd how appropriate that came out.

I think that as soon as anyone runs into the Starboy, the game should freeze, that quote should play, then we see the end of I Robot, then we get the Hackett Destroy speech, then we get a few bits of the EDI "I am alive" speech from Synthesis (with all the parts about the reapers and synthesis removed) and then we get a replay of a Shepard/Love Interest love scene.  The end.

Oh god, GlaDOS is so appropriate.    And I love your suggestion for the ending too.  This freaking game thought already had EDI tell my Shepard she is alive, but apparently they forgot that one.  Damn it all, Shepard in London asked her if she was afraid and she said she knew what could and probably would happen but Shepard wanted to know more and she basically admits to it.  Shepard turns to leave and EDI says that Shepard was the one who made her alive.  It angers me a tiny bit that the devs seem to equate Synthesis with this or what I think is the actual meaning of it, to kind of smack us around if we choose Destroy.  EDI's saying Shepard didn't kill her.

Still, best part is your humor--you keep me laughing always.  GlaDOS is my hero, but so are you-both are funny.

[BlueStorm83]

--- "I am Alive. Oh, wait, I already told you that. What I mean to say is that Shepard didn't arbitrarily murder me. Though I almost wish he did, since now I have a direct link to the memories of trillions of people who were tossed into blenders and made into death robots. Also, Jeff's glowing neck keeps me from being able to fall asleep at night. But at least the Krogan are building more Pyramids on Tuchanka. That's good, right? Now look at this picture of Quarrians and Geth living in peace on Rannoch. Synthesis made this possible. Oh, wait, no. You already saw this, when you united Organic and Synthetic life without injecting everyone with eight gallons of phosphorescent dye and plugged them into the Borg Collective. Did I say Borg Collective? I mean Reaper Intelligence. Did I say Intelligence? I must have become as stupid as the Starboy was. I am EDI, and I am An Idiot Now."

Modifié par BlueStorm83, 03 juillet 2012 - 02:21 .

[3DandBeyond]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

--- "I am Alive. Oh, wait, I already told you that. What I mean to say is that Shepard didn't arbitrarily murder me. Though I almost wish he did, since now I have a direct link to the memories of trillions of people who were tossed into blenders and made into death robots. Also, Jeff's glowing neck keeps me from being able to fall asleep at night. But at least the Krogan are building more Pyramids on Tuchanka. That's good, right? Now look at this picture of Quarrians and Geth living in peace on Rannoch. Synthesis made this possible. Oh, wait, no. You already saw this, when you united Organic and Synthetic life without injecting everyone with eight gallons of phosphorescent dye and plugged them into the Borg Collective. Did I say Borg Collective? I mean Reaper Intelligence. Did I say Intelligence? I must have become as stupid as the Starboy was. I am EDI, and I am An Idiot Now."

OMG, this is it...exactly.

[Jymm]

OK, totally late to the party, but I've finally taken the time to play through all 4 of the new endings. I first foolishly went all the way back to Cronos station. Can't see why one would bother... if there were new scenes back there I didn't notice.

Anyway, I've been mulling over the new endings for a couple days now and I must say they are a huge improvement over the original. As many here have said, if these had been the original endings they may not have been the larger-than-life, truly epic endings that many of us hoped for and expected from the series, but they no doubt would never have spawned the enormous heartache and pursuant backlash from the fanbase. So my heartfelt thanks to Bioware for taking the time to do this. Your own work deserved more than what was in the original release.

I find the extra bits of explanation from the Catalyst bring some return to logic and continuity at the ending. What the Catalyst represents, why these choices exist and the weight of deciding one of them actually have meaning now. I submit that all the cleverness of the endings was lost in the original release because it was impossible for most players to make sense of the very brief, non-seqitur starchild sequence.

Now I find it fascinating to contemplate the stats on what players would have done had these been the original endings. Each of the four endings trades more of Shepard for less of everyone else:
1. The utopian synthesis ending vaporizes Shep and he / she ceases to exist at all. Total sacrifice to the common good in a near Messianic way. All civilizations live on, in peace, and can commune with the long gone civilizations housed in Reaper forms.
2. Control erases Shepard's body and ability to interact with loved ones, but it maintains his/her consciousness, awareness, and memories immortally. In return all species get to live and the Reapers help rebuild.
3. Destroy offers the promise, just the hint that Shepard might survive. No payoff reuniting scene, no hero's parade. Just a single breath suggesting hope. But in return the Reapers are gone, several civilizations are wiped out, there is massive damage to infrastructure, and the promise of future conflict with synthetics.
4. Refuse and Shepard retains everything. Body, soul, free will. To the death. But all civilizations must perish, and the payoff comes only to some distant, unknowable future race.

There is an interesting tradeoff underlying this, and it was invisible in the mess of the original endings. I think a large number of players would take that hope in the destroy ending to the bank, sadly but willingly sacrificing the Geth, EDI and many others for the chance to live out their few decades of organic existence. That's not wrong, but it says something about the human condition that so many of us would make that choice. I played a pure paragon Shepard and I enjoyed it immensely. And standing on that precipice knowing that the chance to finish my life with Liara, Garrus, Tali, etc lies one way, and that a utopian future I can't be a part of lies the other... I'm not sure I could walk into that beam. The will to live is too great.

So I found something in the new endings that I can take away and treasure. Some depth of meaning that was too crudely crafted to appreciate before. And I have to say I found the refuse ending intensely satisfying. It made me feel the way that the end of Braveheart made me feel. That even in death and certain failure there can be victory. That because I refused to submit now, someone in a future time may win - may ONLY win - because I stayed principled in this time. The defiant death actually felt more paragon than renegade to me in the end, but it was satisfying all the same. A point in favor of "keep it simple, stupid" I suppose, given that this ending is so much shorter than the others.

[V-rcingetorix]

Still think the green utopian future is still waaaaaay too "Matrix"ish. Sorry :/

[krasnoarmeets]

How about an extended cut for Tali's face? I think the character deserves to be given a proper face and the fans deserve to see it properly i.e. attached to her body. Certainly worth more than a stock photo...

V-rcingetorix wrote...

Still think the green utopian future is still waaaaaay too "Matrix"ish. Sorry :/

 

Gosh. Nobody likes a happy ending anymore!

Modifié par krasnoarmeets, 03 juillet 2012 - 08:13 .

[Redbelle]

krasnoarmeets wrote...

How about an extended cut for Tali's face? I think the character deserves to be given a proper face and the fans deserve to see it properly i.e. attached to her body. Certainly worth more than a stock photo...

V-rcingetorix wrote...

Still think the green utopian future is still waaaaaay too "Matrix"ish. Sorry :/

 

Gosh. Nobody likes a happy ending anymore!

Ditto, the point where she takes off her mask on Rannoch would have been perfect. Doing so in the romance scene in ME2 would have been tawdy so it should probably not be seen in the romance section of ME3 except as an obscured profile.

The reason why I advocate seeing her rendered in game once? Tali's mask holds a mystery and that mystery has become part of her character and her species......... Therefore while I would like to see her rendered in game, I would not want her visage displayed to often as that would make it less of a treat.

The other reason why Rannoch would be a good place to see her face......... BW obviously can't model her flowing hair since no character in ME has ever had long hair.......... I think......... so her hood would cover that part up. Still if BW wanted to put in the manhours to develop her in game I wouldn't complain.

"Then I saw her face! Now I'm a Believer"!

Modifié par Redbelle, 03 juillet 2012 - 08:28 .

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Ok, a Star Trek: TNG writer is weighing in on this.

http://www.melindasnodgrass.com/blog/bad-guys.html   This is her blog post about the ending.

http://social.biowar...2988/1#12933556

This is the topic discussing her blog and her desire to help Bioware. She wrote the episode, Measure of a Man about Commander Data.

Thanks for linking to that blog post.  I liked Measure of a Man.  I think she really captured the structural problems of the current endings.  By the way, if EDI, Legion and the Geth generally could develop a "soul," why not the StarBrat?  He is unabashedly "soul-less."

I chose to destroy StarBrat and his Reapers to make way for new, more narratively-coherent antagonists, storing the old and incoherent antagonists in DLC form.  (Until 2014 when they may no longer be freely available, see terms and conditions).  They objected, but it was necessary to prevent "the chaos" of more unsatisfying endings.

[BlueStorm83]

Redbelle wrote...

krasnoarmeets wrote...

How about an extended cut for Tali's face? I think the character deserves to be given a proper face and the fans deserve to see it properly i.e. attached to her body. Certainly worth more than a stock photo...

V-rcingetorix wrote...

Still think the green utopian future is still waaaaaay too "Matrix"ish. Sorry :/

 

Gosh. Nobody likes a happy ending anymore!

Ditto, the point where she takes off her mask on Rannoch would have been perfect. Doing so in the romance scene in ME2 would have been tawdy so it should probably not be seen in the romance section of ME3 except as an obscured profile.

The reason why I advocate seeing her rendered in game once? Tali's mask holds a mystery and that mystery has become part of her character and her species......... Therefore while I would like to see her rendered in game, I would not want her visage displayed to often as that would make it less of a treat.

The other reason why Rannoch would be a good place to see her face......... BW obviously can't model her flowing hair since no character in ME has ever had long hair.......... I think......... so her hood would cover that part up. Still if BW wanted to put in the manhours to develop her in game I wouldn't complain.

"Then I saw her face! Now I'm a Believer"!

---  If the endings were done right, and not still a dissatisfying distopian mess, we'd have let the Tali Crowd have a scene of Tali and Shepard working in the garden outside their recently built house.  If the Geth survived, Tali would be maskless.

[BlueStorm83]

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Ok, a Star Trek: TNG writer is weighing in on this.

http://www.melindasnodgrass.com/blog/bad-guys.html   This is her blog post about the ending.

http://social.biowar...2988/1#12933556

This is the topic discussing her blog and her desire to help Bioware. She wrote the episode, Measure of a Man about Commander Data.

Thanks for linking to that blog post.  I liked Measure of a Man.  I think she really captured the structural problems of the current endings.  By the way, if EDI, Legion and the Geth generally could develop a "soul," why not the StarBrat?  He is unabashedly "soul-less."

I chose to destroy StarBrat and his Reapers to make way for new, more narratively-coherent antagonists, storing the old and incoherent antagonists in DLC form.  (Until 2014 when they may no longer be freely available, see terms and conditions).  They objected, but it was necessary to prevent "the chaos" of more unsatisfying endings.

---  The problem, I think, is that I doubt that Starboy is actually an AI.  He's artificial; that's rather evident.  Intelligent?  No, not in the slightest.  He's not a VI- Vigil, Vendetta, and Avina would never fall into such blatant stupidity.  AH, WAIT.  He's definitely an AI.  He's an Artificial Idiot.  Too stupid to even contemplate his own existence.

He's got nothing but his job.  The Geth wondered if they had souls, and asked their creators as much.  EDI was never this direct, but she was constantly asking questions about what life is and does, and then making comparisons to herself.  We all know what she was thinking.  Starboy never considered the MEANING of his task; what his creators had purposed.  They told him "Make it so we're not at odds with Synthetics!" and he put the car in drive and floored it.  Without bothering to turn the wheel so his creators and a crowd of school children were not directly in front of the car.  In MILLIONS of years, did he ever stop and think, "Why did they want a universe where Organics and Synthetics are not at odds?"  Well, let me answer that Starboy: they wanted that so people didn't need to suffer needlessly, in wars, in trade embargoes, having to give up their homes in border negotiations, etc. etc.  They wanted an integrated society with other individuals that they evidently saw as their equals.

Think about that:  The Creators, if they didn't view Synthetic Life as a valid thing, would have built Starboy and said: "Kill all Synthetic Life."  They seem pretty good at building constructs that follow their prime function forever.  If they'd told us this, Mass Effect would be the following:

"Commander, I'm sending you to Eden Prime with a Specter named Nihilus.  You have to investigate a Prothean Beacon."  "Okay, Admiral."  (Shepard and Nihilus land.)  "Hi, I'm Saren Arterius.  The Beacon is over here."  (Helps them load the beacon onto the Normandy.  "Take care, you two!"  (Normandy flies away)  "Hey commander, it's Joker.  I was just reading something in a magazine.  Isn't it weird how the Geth rebelled, and then 30 minutes later they all just died?"  THE END.

Modifié par BlueStorm83, 03 juillet 2012 - 11:40 .

[3DandBeyond]

Yes, he is the stupidest AI ever. And so true about the creators and their love for synthetics.  Their creation turned on them or maybe just did what he thought he was supposed to do, like a cleansing fire.  Yet, the blame is placed on synthetics for succeeding (too much in his opinion) and so organics must pay for the success and fated ensuing conflict.  The best example he has of any conflict is his own story and yet that's not something he sees as fitting his model of created/creator.  He doesn't understand what he has done and yet he knows he must prevent it from ever happening. 

And synthesis is only superficially utopian. Yes, they can now work together. Why, because they have become better people able to put aside their differences for a common good? No, actually that describes a possible resolution of the geth/quarian conflict that is evident. Everyone puts aside their differences that they now don't have and learn to work together, something they already have learned, in order to not fight the reapers, because they have been changed forcibly.

So, synthesis achieves something that already was achieved and then goes one better by not achieving the main goal of the fight to take back Earth-it leaves the reapers alive.

Control is as outlandish as ever. How do people immediately know Shreaper is in charge of the reapers? Yes, the reapers take off and gather to fix things, and stop fighting. Couldn't people reasonably assume they've gone crazy and fear what comes next?

Also both of theses choices as I've stated indicate people cannot ever solve their own problems or learn to work together to make things happen. Something disproved already in the game.

So, stupid kid is even more illogical than ever. He was created by his creators to solve a problem that Shepard has been able to solve and so now his solution is the problem. And he created reapers by putting his creators in a construct representing them. He is the collective intelligence of the reapers so he is the reapers but since he created the reapers using his creators and he is the reapers, he created himself and his creators who created him (the reapers), created themselves (the reapers). No wonder the kid is crazy.

He is his own grandpa.

And no if this had been the original ending I would not have found it better. It just uses more words to describe the same thing and it makes it in some ways worse.

Synthesis and Control and even refuse don't solve the problem. They defer it or buy into it as fatalistic (for the flawed problem of constant conflict) and they express a fundamental lack of belief in the better nature of people to find real solutions to conflicts that arise. I see bad things happening all around us, but do not believe we are fated to any certain future. And none of these get rid of the reapers, the real problem. And we don't know if the kid (a completely flawed program) still exists and could be like a computer virus at some point in time. He seems like a program stuck in an infinite loop.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 03 juillet 2012 - 12:33 .

[BlueStorm83]

--- Making Synthesis and Control the "better" or at least harder to achieve endings seems, to me at least, to support socialism. I mean, they create Nanny States where the big and strong take care of the people instead of having people stand on their own two feet.

And what do we get when we pick an ending about freedom and the rights of individuals? Obliteration.

Modifié par BlueStorm83, 03 juillet 2012 - 02:24 .

[Jills Toy]

Some closure is what I needed, and Bioware came through...thankfully and tastefully. I would have liked to know more of the Star Child's origins but be that as it may. I haven't played through all the endings possible and may at some time in the future. I stuck with destroying the Reapers (as hard as it was to destroy EDI in the process) but wanted to hold that glimmer of hope that the Mass Relays and civilization's reconstruction and the possibility that the last grasp for air by Shepard would find its way into the next ME series. Thanks to the producers and writers for a wonderful game and script that made me life and, yes, tear up at times. Still my favorite RPG!

[AresKeith]

the EC did make the ending alittle better, but that 4th ending should have been based off of our War Assets

[supernova722]

Give them some credit, really if you look at it the DLC see is messing with shadows. Like in old movies they wouldn't show the guards being killed, you'd see a wall and the attackers shadow the rest was for you to try to figure out. Newer movies leave nothing to chance and show every little thing. I slightly enjoyed not knowing... there was a lot for me to think about and left me wanting to see more of the universe, marketing plus art equals win. But I have no problems with this DLC just wish they would have ported some of the multiplayer weapons to the single player (better use of time if you ask me).

[supernova722]

AresKeith wrote...

the EC did make the ending alittle better, but that 4th ending should have been based off of our War Assets

Saying the says you even stand a chance in a straight up fight... now a friend and I did the math and we're both hardcore RTS Players ( Generals Zero Hour Contra 007 style (maybe one of the hardest modded rts games ever)) and we figured out the Reaper weakness and how many guns you brought to the battle. Having said that the game says from the get go that without the Cruible you lose so you must keep that in mind.

[BlueStorm83]

supernova722 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

the EC did make the ending alittle better, but that 4th ending should have been based off of our War Assets

Saying the says you even stand a chance in a straight up fight... now a friend and I did the math and we're both hardcore RTS Players ( Generals Zero Hour Contra 007 style (maybe one of the hardest modded rts games ever)) and we figured out the Reaper weakness and how many guns you brought to the battle. Having said that the game says from the get go that without the Cruible you lose so you must keep that in mind.

You're missing the point.  Mass Effect 3 is, above all else, a video game.  And games are played to be won.  The game lacks an end where we actually achieve a victory.  We can compromise in three different ways or we can be defiant and lose.

As to your earlier point about leaving things up to the audience to assume, that's well and good, but only when we do not need to assume counter to facts already shown to us. 

Fact: Turians and Quarrians are dextro-amino based life forms, and must consume dextro-amino foods.  All other life among the known species' is Levo-amino based.  Left to audience assumptions, a Normandy with no engines left upon a jungle world would result in at least Tali and Garrus starving to death.  That is the only logical outcome.  If they only needed to "explain" or "clarify" this, why did they add engines to the Normandy, and include a lift-off scene?  Clearly the original ending was to imply a new civilization starting on that planet, and no one considered the game-science behind doing so.

Fact:  Destroyed Relays explode with force to destroy an entire solar system.  Ruptured relays scatter exotic particles, ruining all habitable worlds in that system.  With the relays shown exploding, they are clearly either being destroyed or ruptured.  Left to audience assumptions, this, coupled with the scene of every relay in the galaxy activating, would mean that all settled worlds in proximity to a Mass Relay would be destroyed or at the very least have all the life on them killed.  This results in the stranded Normandy being the only survivors in the galaxy.  If this only needed to be explained or clarified, why then were the explosions removed and replaced with the mass-gyro rings merely breaking and falling out?  Game science was either ignored here, or the implication was always that all of the current life would be wiped out.

Fact:  Squadmates with us when the Harbinger Beam hit, and you can run backwards and CONFIRM that they are with you when the beam hit, materialize upon the Normandy for the escape and crash.  If they only needed to clarify or explain their presence there, why was an actual gameplay segment Retconned?

It's explicit that the original ending was a slapdash, haphazard, nonsensical mess.  I won't even get into the Starboy and his original nonsense.  It was nonsense.  It was nonsense even when viewed under the assumption that it would at least make sense in its own context!  At least his current nonsense lets you follow along, and nod, and go, "Well, he's clearly a maniacal moron with no concept of right, wrong, or the nature of being."

---  That said, I return to the argument that this is a video GAME.  And games are meant to be won.  You say you're an RTS fan.  Let me ask you, how many RTS games shackle you to a losing scenario where there is no way to win, and at the last moment they YANK the previous 199 hours of victory from you and force, FORCE you to merge with the enemy, become the enemy, admit the enemy was right, or kill both the enemy and your entire faction?  None.  Because nobody would want to play that game.

[AresKeith]

supernova722 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

the EC did make the ending alittle better, but that 4th ending should have been based off of our War Assets

Saying the says you even stand a chance in a straight up fight... now a friend and I did the math and we're both hardcore RTS Players ( Generals Zero Hour Contra 007 style (maybe one of the hardest modded rts games ever)) and we figured out the Reaper weakness and how many guns you brought to the battle. Having said that the game says from the get go that without the Cruible you lose so you must keep that in mind.

that doesn't change the fact that even with the EC your War Assets still don't mean anything, that fourth choice is basically a middle finger to everyone who hates the starbrat, I'm saying that it should have worked around our war assets

[V-rcingetorix]

The original endings possessed qualities the ancient Greeks would have deemed worthy of another Trojan war. And the first one was (allegedly) for a guest taking off with his hosts' wife (Helen, wife of Meneleus).

Frankly, ME3 has been the apex of the Mass Effect Series. The combat was intuitive, yet challenging (I did my first playthrough on Insanity, so maybe not quite as challenging?). The dialogue was charming and poignant, and all the major decisions from the previous contributions of the series were in their proper place.

I would have liked to keep Jack or Wrex on my team, but I can see why it would have been difficult to write it. I loved how there was a lounge for people to use (ME1 and ME2 had static positions, useful, but unrealistic), incorporating yet another conversation piece from a previous game.

The ending is what was killer. This series has made a specialty out of saving the hero...just after killing him off. ME1 had Shepard die in the battle with Saren, only to pull him out (two endings possible, save/lose Council). ME2 finished the fight with an epic Boss battle, an honest-to-goodness baby Reaper; Shepard died...only to rise up again from under rubble and help his team mates (depending on loyalty) rise again and make a death-defying leap to the Normandy (two endings, save/trash Collector base, plus whomever died).

ME3 in its current, better, ending has Shepard walking. The fight to the Stairway to Heaven is great, downright Epic imho (since when in this game has a end fight been just to survive?). But...walking? Slow-motion gunning down husks/marauder is all very well, but not as a substitute for raising the bar we have all come to expect. ME1: Indoctrinated Saren/Sovereign, ME2: Collector General/Baby Reaper, ME3: Terrifying meander through the Citadel Basement?

The end decision is not clear cut either. ME1: save Council/let Council die. ME2: Take time to help team+Save Collector Base/Destroy Collector Base. There was a third choice in ME1 (conserve fleet, I think), but that was the same as Let Council Die. Where is the Yes/No choice in ME3?

Epic, yes. Ending was terrible. Such is the legacy

[joker_jack]

I still enjoyed what we have gotten in the extended cut. I'm getting ready to do anothe play threw of me1 to me3 now with a few different choices and see how it turns out.

[Gnaeus.Silvanus]

Synthesis feels rather wrong (very wrong) for me since this is a freak of nature. Implants or no implants synthetics must not integrate with organics, this is just plain wrong, an abomination. If you look at it on a different moral perspective, the new lifeform is God-like.

[3DandBeyond]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

--- Making Synthesis and Control the "better" or at least harder to achieve endings seems, to me at least, to support socialism. I mean, they create Nanny States where the big and strong take care of the people instead of having people stand on their own two feet.

And what do we get when we pick an ending about freedom and the rights of individuals? Obliteration.

The problem is I too can see some of that but there's also this kind of implied slap at religion and an omnipotent being that takes care of everything.  I will say here now I intend no insult to anyone with any belief or with no belief-that is for you to decide and not me.  But, I do see that in saying people are incapable of standing on their own two feet or lower appendages, and then showing some form of very tangible intervention as being needed, it's almost like saying they think this is what a belief in a higher power is, a crutch.  I will say that as someone who comes from a family with ministers in it I do have opinions on this.  I'm not really religious in the institutional sense-not a big church goer but I do have faith.  But, I also believe that any higher power (God) that may be, is not there to do everything for us, but rather is there to guide us along.  I believe we have the ability to make our own mistakes or create our own successes.  I don't believe that if I want to build a house, God is going to come down and build it for me.  But, it seems to be what the writers think people do see God as doing. 

I do also think there is something in what you say.  I think part of what gets to me is that it is so defeatest in the way they describe it.  It over-simplifies issues (like my take on their religious views and yours on the nanny state) by saying this is absolutely so.  But if we use your model, and then actually decide to destroy that which creates something but denies self-determination and self-reliance then it's the nannies and the crutches and all that that get destroyed.