358 réponses à ce sujet

[FabricatedWookie]

important changes were made to make the endings palatable, but by no means elevates them to amazing.

[Elite Midget]

I could get in a debate with you but I'm' not really feeling it today to make large posts, not when Bioware was concerned. They killed a lot of that fire a long time ago with DA2, SWTOR, and ME3. So I'm just going with, I hate it and nothing has changed. ME3 was still ruined for me and Refusal felt like they were flipping me off because I didn't want skittles.

[Gigaheart]

So here's my thoughts:

Endings are felt more complete now put theres still giant plotholes.

-Contol ending:
As it was stated on Forbes: a "bad guy choice" seems like the best one. You have united and saved as many ppl as possible and used Reapers and their tech to rebuild what was destroyed.
Now at least this ending have a clear explanation and you can see results of what you have done.
IMO now this is actually good enough ending to forgive star brat bullcrap.

-Destroy ending:
It is basically the same as control ending but w/o Reapers. Theres two problems:
1) why and how energy wave kills every synthetic lifeform. I mean toasters are still working but geth are not. What sort of energy can kill self-aware systems only?..
2) how do i understand Shepard breath scene?

-Synthesis ending:
 My "favourite". Mb it's just me but that "husk smiling at Cortez" (or whatever his name was?) scene gave me the creepsand made me laugh at the same time. What we see then? EDI gives a long and boring speech about how happy she is. Ok i got. Shes happy. She don't have to repeat herself for 10 minutes. She better tell me why she is so happy now. What impact had that choice on universe? And what synthesis actually is? Did i turn everyone to mindless husks? Did i turn every lifeform into borg-like collective now? Or they just have glowing eyes now?..what did i change? It is unclear. It seems everyone think that they live in a Ponyvlle now and their happiness w/o a clear reason raises more questions. Another problem is how the hell an energy burst did...whatever it did t...everything.

-Refusal ending:
Now thats stupid. Shep came a long way, sacrificed his friends, united the galaxy and and made everyone to work together to build crucible and oppose Reapers to what? To drop the ball on everything and say "i cant make a decision for everyone so i'll just undo years of hard work and let everyone die"? Really? He telling about fighting for people and freedom and blah-blah-blah then he leaving every living being to die without hope.

Overall it was a nice attempt to fix what was broken and they even made 1.5 endings that are making sense now but other than that EC doesn't change much. Sorry for my bad english.

Modifié par Gigaheart, 27 juin 2012 - 08:12 .

[GoblinSapper]

Because nothing about them changed. It's still ****.

[thisisme8]

mcguireptr1 wrote...

So they prettty much turn us into data and parts that are used for the repears.  if that is the case then why not just do it for every organic.  if there is no difference to them, then why the cycle.  It would be their final solution.  this cannot be.  his purpose was to make sure synthetics did not wipe out organics to he preserves them as synthetics thus making them no longer organics.  If this machine cannot destinguish the two then it would have turned all organics into reapers.  This is just bad writing.  I don't think it can be logically defended.  I hope I am proved wrong, but even if i am that only addresses one of the major issues with the Starchild.

First and foremost:  "How do you know it will happen again," should be replaced with, "what is the probability of it happening again when measured against historical data?"  The answer, because of the cycle, is irrelevent.

Second, why not do it to every organic?  You have to think like a computer a bit for that one, but maybe this post from another thread will help:

Anyway, the interesting thing about "rogue AI," is that it can be argued that a "learning computer" will only seek information from its creator until the creator can no longer teach it something new.  At this point, the creator is worthless to the computer.  If the creator - after this point - ever defines itself as a threat, or even as a slight hindrance to the computer's ability to further learn, it would simply eradicate the creator.

This is most likely what happened in the original synthetic vs. organic war, however; much like the Geth had different factions, the catalyst program was probably different - by design - to the rest of his synthetic bretheren, and this difference is what caused the catalyst program to decide to preserve the organics via synthetic ascension instead of the popular decision to eradicate.

Modifié par thisisme8, 27 juin 2012 - 08:13 .

[mcguireptr1]

thisisme8 wrote...

mcguireptr1 wrote...

So they prettty much turn us into data and parts that are used for the repears.  if that is the case then why not just do it for every organic.  if there is no difference to them, then why the cycle.  It would be their final solution.  this cannot be.  his purpose was to make sure synthetics did not wipe out organics to he preserves them as synthetics thus making them no longer organics.  If this machine cannot destinguish the two then it would have turned all organics into reapers.  This is just bad writing.  I don't think it can be logically defended.  I hope I am proved wrong, but even if i am that only addresses one of the major issues with the Starchild.

First and foremost:  "How do you know it will happen again," should be replaced with, "what is the probability of it happening again when measured against historical data?"  The answer, because of the cycle, is irrelevent.

Second, why not do it to every organic?  You have to think like a computer a bit for that one, but maybe this post from another thread will help:

Anyway, the interesting thing about "rogue AI," is that it can be argued that a "learning computer" will only seek information from its creator until the creator can no longer teach it something new.  At this point, the creator is worthless to the computer.  If the creator - after this point - ever defines itself as a threat, or even as a slight hindrance to the computer's ability to further learn, it would simply eradicate the creator.

This is most likely what happened in the original synthetic vs. organic war, however; much like the Geth had different factions, the catalyst program was probably different - by design - to the rest of his synthetic bretheren, and this difference is what caused the catalyst program to decide to preserve the organics via synthetic ascension instead of the popular decision to eradicate.

To the first i can only say. what the hell are you talking about?

to the second. yeah ok, I can somewhat buy it.  It sounds like a desprete explaination and I really don't think bioware put that much thought into this specificly but ok I can buy it.

[thisisme8]

mcguireptr1 wrote...

To the first i can only say. what the hell are you talking about?

You asked:

How do they know that synthetics will comletely annihilate teh organics.

And that was my answer.

To elaborate:  By historical evidence, the answer is very high.  With the cycle, it is impossible.

[Blarty]

MaleQuariansFTW wrote...

Saul Iscariot wrote...

I can not for the life of me figure out how people that didn't like the ending are happy now. All you got what was you should have been able to figure out on your own, do you enjoy books that come with numbers and crayons? Get used to both, you'll become more acquainted with them as your domicile gets comfier walls.

Duh-doy. People feel they shouldn't have to have guessed what happens. People don't like thnking up their own ending. They want to be spoon fed, especially with this series. We've invested so much time into it, we want pay off and closure. 

Now I'm the one who can't figure out why you can't figure that out.

But between the art, the exploration of the science of the ME universe, the comics and the fan-fiction that's a hallmark of these boards and many of the very creative and innovative people that often post here, why on earth would you want to be spoon fed? Why do you need something that's tantamount to a Codex entry that leaves little to no interpretation for the player?

[mcguireptr1]

thisisme8 wrote...

mcguireptr1 wrote...

To the first i can only say. what the hell are you talking about?

You asked:

How do they know that synthetics will comletely annihilate teh organics.

And that was my answer.

To elaborate:  By historical evidence, the answer is very high.  With the cycle, it is impossible.

What historical evidence, I never asked how they know it will happen *again*, i asked how does the starchild know it will happen in the first place.

I brake this down a simply as I can. 

The star child says in the EC that he was created to solve the problem of synthetics destroying organics.  Assumably he was created by organics.

If this first assumption is correct, and it has to be. Then synthetics up until this point have never fully destroyed organics.

So the starchild has to be making an assumption that synthetics will 'eventually' destroy those organic creators.  But he then goes further to say they will also destroy all organics. 

This is based on no evidence.  only possible maybe even plausible evidence. 

He also says he turned his creators into the reapers against their will.  meaning he was created to save them from synthetics but to do that it needed to destroy them, or turn them into reapers, which ever way you put it still doesn't make sense. 

He is making assumptions based off of nothing but data, but what data where did it come from.  If it came from the creators then they gave it data to save themselves most likely from another synthetic threat.  But instead it preserved them in the reapers.  If this is what happened then this was a very poorly designed AI and not something that would be capable of the cycle of which it created.  I got tired of this argument even before I finished it.

The more i try to simplify it the more complicated it gets and I know that bioware did not do that on purpose, if they had it would be more coherent.

[Xenite]

Impact from your choices in the ending still doesn't exist. Star-child is still some of the worst writing ever in a game. The way they plugged some holes is just stupid, like the Normandy coming down and NONE of the reapers even take a shot at it.... please.

 How completely out of character Shepard was written when it comes to the pick a color ending. But hey we did get a "new" ending, a special little screw you from Bioware to those who complained about the choices.

RIP Mass Effect
2012

Modifié par Xenite, 27 juin 2012 - 08:42 .

[zyntifox]

Well, recently watched the endings on youtube due to me being a European with a PS3. I honestly don't understand why they did this EC at all to be honest. All they managed to do was erase some of the confusions of the original ending; but that confusion was all that kept my hope alive that there is more to this ending than was given at face value, be it indoctrination theory or something else.

Fortunately there are still a lot of really good written fanfics out there that not only gives me the closure i want but gives me a ending that mirrors the quality of the rest of the series.

[Commander Castillo]

*sigh* LI runion is left up to your own imagination again

[Blarty]

mcguireptr1 wrote...

I don't understand how anyone thought the endings were good, or even acceptable. the last ten minutes underminds the rest of the series, we are confronted with magic and god like AI, the logic for the very heart of the conflict is flawed beyond belief(and desproven depending on how you play) and in the end the choices are always the same and the outcome of those choices led to nothing or ambaguity. If this was an end to the series then we should get the end, not maybe this will and maybe that will happen, but instead get legitimate outcomes.
I am ok with Shepard having to die, hell I could deal even if all the normady died. What I am not ok with is the nonsencical child giving fundamentally flawed choices and me going "Yeah, ok I will do whatever you say migical Starchild because it is not like you are the leader and creator of those reaper things that are trying to kill us all," "oh, wait you are. Oh, wait....oops"

Although I see the 'catalyst logic is flawed' argument pretty much everywhere, it's often used in a very isolationist manner - take the single sentence of (more or less) 'Reapers kill organics to stop organics being wiped out by synthetics' and the shout 'Y U NO MAKE SENSE' at it.

In the EC further exposition is provided, that the Catalyst has tried other means of brokering peace between Organics and synthetics and all options have failed and if left unchecked, eventually, it believes that organic-made synthetics, presumably upon processing available data, will come to the conclusion that ALL organic life needs to be destroyed, for whatever reason (organic propensity for war, emotion clouding logic, so on and so on, as other fictions, outside of Mass Effect, draw upon as well)

It is this 'cull advanced civilisations, leaving lesser ones to grow over time, so they cannot walk too far down the path of synthetic creation and lose all organic life' which is essentailly the conclusion that the Catalyst has arrived at, thus the Reapers and the Cycle, and remembering that the Catalyst is an AI itself meaning that once a conclusion or consensus is reached, it's very hard to change it - Shepard reaching the Catalyst allegedly 'changes the variables' that drive the conclusion that the Catalyst has held for probably millions of years.

[Dusen]

Hicks233 wrote...

Some of the plot holes were plugged - though there are still loose ends. High EMS on destroy for example.

Reject seems to come across as more of a crap slinging contest when the potential it had could have been incredible. It does come across as the perfect launch pad for a continuation of IT. "Artistic integrity" wasn't going to allow that though now was it...

Control and Synthesis? No intention of picking either of them so don't know the changes.

It does still come across as though someone at Bioware has a major thing for synthesis and dry lectures.

The EC was a step in the right direction but it still rings hollow. Offered some token clarity, very little closure and still not much choice.

THIS . . . especially the bold.

EDIT: I also have to admit that it was very insulting the first time through considering that it had everthing I was wanting to do since the original endings.

Modifié par Dusen, 27 juin 2012 - 08:52 .

[Darman]

Not unsatisfied by the endings. I soon realized they won't be changed in their meaning. But Im unsatisfied by the fact that there is no LI-Epilouge scene. Or even the announced Reunion.

I won't go into detail. I've done this in too many threads already.

Modifié par Darman, 27 juin 2012 - 08:53 .

[mcguireptr1]

The catalyst logic is horribly flawed. Anyone that doesn't see it is an idiot or desperate. If you want to see why the logic is flawed read some of my earlier post. don't bother replying to this. I am going to sleep and will never be on this sight again.

Goodbye

[ElementL09]

Still got some questions unanswered, as usual with this kind of stuff.

[Blarty]

mcguireptr1 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Random Geth wrote...
Starkid is still BS, his logic is still faulty.

His assesment of the conflict was based on the countless cycles in which synthetics tried to exterminate organics.  The Catalyst's logic would be faulty at this point if he didn't admit that his solution was no longer valid, but he does.  The Geth are unique to a repeating pattern, and really, they're actually the solution to the whole problem.

His logic is faulty from the begining.  if he was created to stop the synthetics from killing the organics and he accomplishes this by making synthetics, reapers, out the organics that created him thus killing them or enslaving them he violated his initial programing and purpose thus created the reapers, who by his own logic of the created will always rebel against the creator, who should now turn against him millions of years ago.  and destroy the cycle that has been repeating.  The logic is so flawed that you actual have to go out of your way to come up with this nonsense.  You don't make mistakes like that on accident.

I get that, I really do apart from one simple issue - the Catalyst says they harvest advanced civilisations to stop synthetics from wiping out all organic life (not some organic life), and the Reapers leave lesser civilisations alone to evolve in the next Cycle.

As an allegory, if your friend had a family member who was, for argument's sake, a danger to themselves and they take a decision where they had to do something that took something away from them, 'for their own good', i.e. ala mental institution, taking away their freedom, etc. would you still view that as 'flawed logic'? Doing something bad to a person to protect them from something bad? As far as the Catalyst is concerned, if all other avenues have been tried and been found wanting, it has to do something drastically abhorrent to Life in order to protect the ultimate continuity of Life, particularly organic.

The Catalyst does the culling and keeps the reapers in check (whether they would rebel against another AI, is a question yet to be explored), because as Mordin says,'Had to be me someone else might have gotten it wrong'. 

Modifié par Blarty, 27 juin 2012 - 09:11 .

[Mr.Smith17]

mcguireptr1 wrote...

The catalyst logic is horribly flawed. Anyone that doesn't see it is an idiot or desperate. If you want to see why the logic is flawed read some of my earlier post. don't bother replying to this. I am going to sleep and will never be on this sight again.

Goodbye

Ok, get out!

[dsl08002]

to be honest with you all.i thought that the ending was not able to be saved, the extended cut was actually a step in the right direction but still it was build on the same ending.

and now it is defenatly in my opinion at least that the ending in this state even is unsalvagble, it truly cannot be saved. you get more facts about your choices but even in that i find many of them For example syntethis quite repulsing and terrible.

[thisisme8]

mcguireptr1 wrote...
What historical evidence, I never asked how they know it will happen *again*, i asked how does the starchild know it will happen in the first place.

I posted this in another thread:

Actually, the logic of the catalyst makes much more sense now since we know that "the created will always rebel against their creators" is the foundation of its programming.

In other words, somebody created a program to answer one simple question:  How do you stop the created from trying to destroy their creators?

A program only concerns itself with solving its original problem.  So regardless how much it learns in the process, it never veers from its original design until it has an answer - at that point, it no longer needs to learn.

The catalyst's entire purpose was to solve the question outlined above - to the catalyst, synthetics rebelling against their creators was the only thing it understood, as that is all it had to understand.

EDIT:  Oh, I guess he left.  Shame.

Modifié par thisisme8, 27 juin 2012 - 09:14 .

[Dusen]

Blarty wrote...

. . . As an allegory, if your friend had a family member who was, for argument's sake, a danger to themselves and they take a decision where they had to do something that took something away from them, 'for their own good', i.e. ala mental institution, taking away their freedom, etc. would you still view that as 'flawed logic'? Doing something bad to a person to protect them from something bad? As far as the Catalyst is concerned, if all other avenues have been tried and been found wanting, it has to do something drastically abhorrent to Life in order to protect the ultimate continuity of Life, particularly organic. . .
 

Actually, a more apt metaphor to the Catalyst/Reaper-logic would be that in order to protect my family member from him/herself I instead kill them and use their decaying corpse to build a machine that then does the same to other people's family members regardless of the circumstances.

[Fangalho]

I liked the EC! It's a great improvement from the previous one.

I wish i could have had a drink and a nice chat with good guy harbinger though


 

[JeosDinas]

Because they are people.

[thisisme8]

Dusen wrote...

Actually, a more apt metaphor to the Catalyst/Reaper-logic would be that in order to protect my family member from him/herself I instead kill them and use their decaying corpse to build a machine that then does the same to other people's family members regardless of the circumstances.

I guess that is an option. . .