they wanted a Disney Style ending with rainbow crapping unicorns
And what do you think synthesis is? The hero sacrifices and suddenly all the galaxy is at peace and prosperity and future inmortality (I guess they´ll stop having children or they´ll get the krogan uprising for every race...).
I´ll just stay away from anything Hudson & Walters have a hand in.
A happy-go-lucky sunrise culminating in blue babies wouldn't have been nearly as revolting as Synthesis is.
Their artistic integrity leaves many fans of Mass Effect with the impression that the moral of the game is "genocide is sometimes justified."
Am I the only one who thinks that's bad?
If anything I felt they pushed hard against this by trying to promote synthesis. But destroy is fine with me. I don't consider it genocide, which is really a human orientated term anyway. I can understand it being expanded to other races in the galactic community that is the ME3 world but I can't really accept expanding it to machines, especially those that were recently trying to kill us.
And now, we have people denying the personhood of their victims, and claiming that they have committed no crime by killing them. Man, I should make a bingo card. This is seriously the freakiest thing I've seen in a long time. I'm beginning to wonder if this is some kind of human psycholology experiment.
I'm somewhat offended. Are you seriously likening victims in Rwanda, Cambodia and **** europe, who were singled out and killed because of their racial genes or politcial beliefs, to sacrificing a bunch of machines to save trillions of sentient life forms? Genocide is an extremely terrible crime where the perpertrators deliberately and methodically carry it out. I think it is scary you are using the word genocide.
I think it's scary that a work of fiction would cause so many hundreds of people to think that eradicating an entire sentient race was "not a big deal" and "not genocide."
There are options where you don't have to eradicate an entire sentient race. You make the choice to do so. This is considered by many to be the "good" ending. I find a work of fiction that asks its participants to equivocate in this way is really, really questionable.
Just because something occurs fictionally doesn't mean it has no relationship to real world terms. If I read a mystery where one person kills another person, it's called a "Murder mystery." If I read a comic book where humans are trying to kill all mutants, I'd say it was a story about genocide. If I play a game where a person decides to kill all members of a minority, I'd say that's a metaphor for genocide too.
You're misuing the word genocide. Genocide requires intent. It is a deliberate and methodical erradication of selected people. I never said it wasn't a big deal, but it is chosing the lesser of several evils, not genocide.
Now what u guys feel its still missing ? i know some stuff can be added in other DLCs later but there are some that they should have added in the end (Racchni being one of the most important).
The problem is not so much that things are missing (the opportunity to use the geth and EDI to utterly crush the Catalyst's logic would've been nice but was strictly unnecessary), but rather that the catalyst's premises are still thematically incongruent with the other 200+ hours of the series, making them seem more glaring and tacked on. Forcing the player to choose one of the Catalyst's "solutions" as the only way to have a halfway satisfying ending only exacerbates this issue by legitimizing the thematic shift in the last ten minutes.
I'd have also liked more epilogue information ala Fallout or DAO.
Still, it is a great improvement (bringing the ending from terribad to simply bad), so I think i'll still buy Bioware products in the future.
Once they've been reviewed by fans, of course.
Modifié par Cpl_Facehugger, 26 juin 2012 - 10:46 .
I'm unsatisfied because of the same problem exist in the extended cut. Choice and how it given. In order for game with multiple endings to work there has to be a point where you can no longer make a choice. Having all the choices available at the end of the game invalidate the choices made throughout because then every path can lead to the same ending. That just how I feel about it and to those that feel satisfied I'm happy for you I only ask do you see yourself doing anymore playthroughs of the game?
It would really depend on your (personal or game) outlook on the Geth. Are they simply machines? Then yes, Genocide is not the right word. But for many of the vocal people here (myself included), the Geth are Sentient and thus Genocide applies to the Destroy ending. The destruction of the Geth is deliberate; you willingly chose the option not matter that it is the "Greater Good" (i.e. Millions to save Trillions)
Is it perhaps just a larger "collateral damage"? Perhaps to some. I can't think of it that way. "Planned Extinction?" Again, the word feels lacking for what you wind up doing to the Geth.
No, it is NOT genocide because you are not deliberately trying to destroy the geth. It is the difference between leaving someone to stay behind to save the rest, knowing that they'll probably die and shooting that person.
You can argue about whether it was the right choice, whether it was justified or utterly unacceptable but it simply is not genocide.
they wanted a Disney Style ending with rainbow crapping unicorns
Nope you get that with Synthesis. No thank you.
Indeed.
Synthesis has Keiji coming back from the frakking dead. But Destroy+, Bioware couldn't even bother to spend the resources to show Shep getting out of the rubble, let alone have him send a message to the crew/LI that he's alive?
How often do you argue with your computer and achieve positive results? Arguing with it was not going to change anything both because this is the story Bioware wanted to create even though they gave you a choice to say no to it with a consequence for doing such and secondly it would need to probably be reprogrammed not bickered with.
So this supposedly multi-millenea old A.I. is incapable of acknowledging easily established facts? It is incapable of simple logical progression of ideas?
No wonder the universe is screwed....they got a retard A.I. running things.
I liked the the EC...im at peace now.
About the complainers: i think nothing BW does could change their mind, or make them stop whining in this forum...
War Crime A: Mass Slavery War Crime B: Galactic-wide Eugenics War Crime C: Genocide
We don't like feeling like we're doing this:
That's why.
Victory against the Reapers was always implied to come at great cost. It's the result of a galaxy that waited until after the last minute to prepare for the threat, and therefore had to rely on the solutions created by previous cycles. Shepard had to make the best of a bad situation, hence why the classification of any of the choices as "war crime" is false.
No it's still true. It's why some people felt empty for days after finishing the game. It's because those of us who did thought too much about it. Something bothered us. The EC still doesn't address the fundamental flaw.
The writers were toying with us and then pulling the "artistic integrity" card. That makes me angry. They were in charge of writing the story. They could have written a better plot. They could have had the galaxy better prepared. They could have followed their lore -- from the view at the end of ME2 judging by that distance would have allowed 9 years for preparation. No instead they made the leaders have IQs of around 80, and then supercharged the reapers making them invincible, and violated their lore, just so that they could pull this stunt.
Victory was going to come at great cost? Look at the state of the galaxy! Look at the home worlds! Look at Khar'shan, Palaven, Earth, Thessia. And those are the only ones we've seen. Tell me, that's not great enough cost for you? We have to commit moral and ethical crimes just to END the game? This is what enrages me. It's just to end the suffering. Note that I said end, and not win the war, because even if you are able to metagame your way to a genocide-free destroy ending you still don't "win" the war.
In this BioWare universe, genocide, slavery, and eugenics are acceptable solutions. Another nation tried these things between 1939 and 1945.
Funny, I think the refusing of the Starchild was in the EC as a big middle finger to the fans who hate the ending, but I found that ending to be the best. All the other ones envolve excepting what this illogical AI is telling us. Nothing he says makes any sense.
My favorite is when Starchild says somehting about 'is fire in confict when it burns' calling Shepard out on his 'we're at conflict with the reapers right now' logic. My first though was 'yes' at a cellular level when fire burns it *is* at conflict with the world around it. But i am sure super advanced AI from a god like raise would know that about the world in which it has excited for millions of years. Which is why it makes no sense. Bad writing.
I would have preferred the motives for the Reapers being left ambigious, it is far more terrifing that way. Better then being spoon fed this B.S.
Because Bioware still didn't fulfill the promises they made since the first game, that our choices would shape the ultimate outcome of the series. After all the time, money, energy, and emotion I've invested into this story and these characters, I am royally PISSED.
I was willing to give Bioware a chance when they announced the EC, I believed Bioware when they said they were listening and taking our feedback seriously. But they obviously weren't, because the fundamental flaw of the original endings is still present: it doesn't matter if you killed or spared the rachni, your decision regarding the genophage is irrelevant, you might as well have spared the Collector Base even if you destroyed it and vice-versa, saving the Council in ME1 doesn't matter, not one single decision you made at any point in any of the 3 games, big or small, made even the slightest difference.
We were lied to and duped out of money and time by a company that has apparently either forgotten how to satisfy its fans or never gave a **** in the first place.
The high standards we have come to expect from Bioware are nowhere to be seen. They claim "artistic integrity," well guess what, "artistic integrity" means actually delivering the product you promised. They have no more artistic integrity, no credibility, and have squandered the goodwill and faith many of us previously placed in them.
I once called Mass Effect the greatest video game series of all time, and the EC could have re-affirmed that status by delivering on Bioware's promises. It did improve the original ending, but without fulfilling the promise integral to the Mass Effect series, the improvement doesn't matter, because it's still a **** ending. It might stink less, but it's still ****.
It would really depend on your (personal or game) outlook on the Geth. Are they simply machines? Then yes, Genocide is not the right word. But for many of the vocal people here (myself included), the Geth are Sentient and thus Genocide applies to the Destroy ending. The destruction of the Geth is deliberate; you willingly chose the option not matter that it is the "Greater Good" (i.e. Millions to save Trillions)
Is it perhaps just a larger "collateral damage"? Perhaps to some. I can't think of it that way. "Planned Extinction?" Again, the word feels lacking for what you wind up doing to the Geth.
No, it is NOT genocide because you are not deliberately trying to destroy the geth. It is the difference between leaving someone to stay behind to save the rest, knowing that they'll probably die and shooting that person.
You can argue about whether it was the right choice, whether it was justified or utterly unacceptable but it simply is not genocide.
It's nothing like that. It's like an alien race blowing up the entire planet earth because one country fired a missile at them. If an alien race killed every single creature on earth because it was the easiest way to kill the one person who attacked them, it would still be genocide,
Deliberate means "with full realization of what one is doing." Unless you don't realize that the red beam will kill the geth, you are deliberately killing them. If that's not genocide, it's pretty darn close.
Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 26 juin 2012 - 10:54 .
The new EC takes some of the bitterness out of the game for me, and I can understand the endings still being not what we want but that is mostly from the 2GB dlc restriction on Xbox. But I still haven't seen all of the EC as I just loaded my game from when you go back to the citadel.
One thing that is still not answered was how my squadmates got picked up on earth.
Another thing for sure is that the indoctrination theory has been put to rest.
The new endings are much better, in fact they are the best they can be without the removal of Mack Walters ego from the equation. The endings still invoke a Deus Ex Machina and starchild is still a jarring entity that has little place in the mass effect universe but he is less jarring now. The game itself still has major design flaw such as abandoning dialogue in favour of action and being way too short but I blame EA for that more than I blame bioware. Had these endings shiped with the game i probably wouldn't have complained, well not much anyway, ME3 will still have the best combat and the worst story of the series but now it's send off is more like a nice funeral with decent burial instead of the chucked in a hole and left to rot ending it had before.
Again, Shepard's limited options are the result of countless civilizations making the Crucible to certain specifications, the current galactic community ignoring the threat until it was already on their doorstep, and the Reapers themselves for necessitating such rash actions. It is not a war crime to use the Crucible, in fact the only true war crime is the ending in which Shepard refuses to use it.
They didn't fix any of the problems, they just made it "satisfying" on a basic level. Some people are "happier" about it rather than being able to say that it makes any more sense than it did before.
Reposted from a thread I started that quickly plummeted to page 3 without response:
clennon8 wrote...
Yes, I suppose I'm one of those pesky, entitled whiners who can never be pleased. Funny thing is I was immensely pleased for the many hundreds of hours (yes, that many) that I had spent in the Mass Effect universe. I'd wager there aren't many people who completed more ME and ME2 play-throughs than I did. When my fellow forumites would complain about various elements of the first two games, I would either leap to Bioware's defense or shake my head sadly. Why are these people complaining? Nothing is perfect, I would say to myself, but these games are practically nirvana! Why dwell on such petty deficiencies?
Now I find that I am one of those complainers. Because Bioware fell on their face, and they fell hard. The ending of Mass Effect 3 was precipitously bad, a calamitous abandonment of themes and narrative coherence. I won't bother elaborating much beyond that. You've either seen the videos (such as Tasteful Understated Nerdrage's) and read the relevant threads (such as Made Nightwing's popular thread), or you don't care to, so there's little point in me parroting the specifics here. Suffice it to say that I approached my analysis of the ending from a literary standpoint, as have others, and found it extremely wanting. Sorry if that sounds pretentious. I usually try really hard not to.
Anyway, I tried to keep my expectations of the EC low. I really did. And I still ended up very disappointed. Because it did very little to solve the core problems with the ending. The one small redemptive element was the addition of the Reject/Refusal ending. It ends badly for Shepard and the current cycle of galactic civilization, but at least Shepard was able to stick to his guns and not accept any of the half-witted and varyingly repugnant solutions proposed by a crazy Reaper construct. Ultimately, the next cycle benefited from the things Shepard accomplished during this cycle, and the Reapers were finally defeated, albeit fifty thousand years or so after Shepard's passing. So at least there's that. That's almost enough. Maybe if it had been in the original ending, I would be more accepting. But three months later? No. Far too little, far too late.
Plus there's the fact that I'm still faced with the reality that we were really, truly supposed to accept Synthesis as the best solution. And, indeed, that would appear to be the case, wouldn't it? I've seen the extended Synthesis ending. Everyone is inexplicably happy and peaceful, and benevolent Reapers stroll the earth, rebuilding what they once had destroyed. All that's missing is a rainbow to silhouette them against. I could try to convey to you the full extent of the vitriol I feel toward this ending and explain all the underlying reasons for that vitriol, but I'm not interested in perpetrating another revolution of the circular "Do the ends justify the means?" debate. There are other threads for that.
So, why am I writing this? Why am I creating yet another whiny thread? Well, I suppose because I'm hoping it might help me feel a little better. And to say this: Thanks for the good times, Bioware. But I'm done with Mass Effect. You can keep your DLC.
Again, Shepard's limited options are the result of countless civilizations making the Crucible to certain specifications, the current galactic community ignoring the threat until it was already on their doorstep, and the Reapers themselves for necessitating such rash actions. It is not a war crime to use the Crucible, in fact the only true war crime is the ending in which Shepard refuses to use it.
So you're saying that if you have a weapon that can end a war in three ways, two of which have no casulaties and one which commits genocide, it's not a warcrime to use the weapon on the "warcrime" setting rather than on one of the other settings?
Makes sense.
I'm not saying that the other endings are better. They aren't necessarily... but I don't understand why people will not admit that they picked an option with full knowledge that it would kill every member of an entire race, thus deliberately killing every member of the race, and then claim that there's nothing wrong with that.
My argument is that there's something horribly wrong with all the endings, and it's horrifying to see people twist themselves into knots to say "no no, when I extinguish an entire race with full knowledge of what I'm doing, it's OK."
Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 26 juin 2012 - 11:02 .
The EC exceeded all my expectations. This is a much more polished ending to not just the game but the series. Complaining about the slideshow despite all the additional fully rendered cutscenes proves how desperate the haters are. It's basic psychology that some people tend to hold on to their pre-existing beliefs long after the situation has changed. I respect those ReTakers who give the EC proper credit despite hating on the original ending. It shows that they can think for themselves and change their minds when the facts change.
In ME1 Soverign said "you exist because we allow it and you end because we demand it"
In ME 2 we fought against that.
At the end of ME3(EC), effectively this same axiom: do what I say/offer or else, is dictated to us and we comply or are exterminated. The interim "supposed good" choice is to perhaps impose the horror of Borg-style modification on all life in the radius of effect... which is possibly in excess of our galaxy but not demonstrated to be anything signficiantly further than that - so I gues Andromeda is exempt? (hey maybe it didn't even reach the large magellanic cloud)... Thus making the local Synthetic/Organic resolution as it stands largely irrelevant - because it is limited to the immediate (Galactic) vicintiy. Anything sufficiently nasty (be it synthetic, organic, or just plain xenophobic) and advanced enough lurking somewhere in our universe can quite easily stroll up at some point and wipe out our new galactic"utopia" without issue.
Hearing that the Crucible is just a glorified "Power Source" was absolutely irritating. No mention of how it was designed to integrate with the Citadel, just more words which added more confusion
Still no explanation as to how TIM was able to control Anderson and Shepard
Starbrat's explanation that his creators were the first ... ah uncooperative ascendants pretty much tells me that I have no desire to do business with him
Re: synthesis - saying that they've tried it before and failed because organics were "not ready," but hey ... NOW you're ready is a cop-out almost as big as the deus ex machina that is the Catalyst itself.
The new endings are much better, in fact they are the best they can be without the removal of Mack Walters ego from the equation. The endings still invoke a Deus Ex Machina and starchild is still a jarring entity that has little place in the mass effect universe but he is less jarring now. The game itself still has major design flaw such as abandoning dialogue in favour of action and being way too short but I blame EA for that more than I blame bioware. Had these endings shiped with the game i probably wouldn't have complained, well not much anyway, ME3 will still have the best combat and the worst story of the series but now it's send off is more like a nice funeral with decent burial instead of the chucked in a hole and left to rot ending it had before.
Again, Shepard's limited options are the result of countless civilizations making the Crucible to certain specifications, the current galactic community ignoring the threat until it was already on their doorstep, and the Reapers themselves for necessitating such rash actions. It is not a war crime to use the Crucible, in fact the only true war crime is the ending in which Shepard refuses to use it.
So you're saying that if you have a weapon that can end a war in three ways, two of which have no casulaties and one which commits genocide, it's not a warcrime to use the weapon on the "warcrime" setting rather than on one of the other settings?
Makes sense.
So you're basically agreeing with me that we're not forced to commit a warcrime. Good on ya.
Retour en haut
