1214 réponses à ce sujet

[Elorin Silverblade]

For my it goes Destroy > P Control > Synthesis > R Control > Refuse

Modifié par Elorin Silverblade, 08 août 2012 - 02:15 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Seival wrote...

I understand that different people prefer different endings, but usually they don't say anything clear about their overall endings personal rating. I asked a question before in Control support thread, and wanna repeat it here...

...What is your final personal rating of the endings?
...But please, remember that Paragon Control =/= Renegade Control

So, my final personal rating is: Paragon Control > Synthesis > Renegade Control > Destroy > Refusal

For me it is:

Synthesis > Paragon Control > Destroy > Renegade Control >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Refusal.

Why I think Synthesis is a good choice?
Because it bridges the gap between organics and synthetics, something that was my Shep's old-time goal. It also frees the reapers. It unlocks their million-year old treasure trove of knowledge, memories of those lost species. If they didn't have free will before, they have now. The galaxy is left in a better shape technologically (after the reapers are done rebuilding) than before.

Why I think Control is a good choice?
because no one dies, and also none's rights are infringed upon. No one dies and suffers except Shepard. Shepard uses the reapers for good. Galaxy is rebuilt swiftly. S/He may declassify the reaper's knowledge archive in future, or maybe she'll not. Risk of Shepard going rogue remains but such risks exist in every choice.

Why I think Destroy is a good choice?
Reapers are dead. No risk of them raising their ugly head again. Whether they were free or not, they are gone. The future is free of them. Casualties among organics and a lot of useful tech lost. Synthetics destroyed altogather. We are left in a worse fate than the other two endings but we will rebuild!

Why I think Refusal is a good choice?
I don't. Sorry :/ Refusal may have some ideological and philosophical bright points (I die free and all that) but I can't see them behind the huge pile of dead bodies. I'd rather sacrifice my principles and morals than sacrificing the galaxy.

[Uncle Jo]

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 08 août 2012 - 02:17 .

[Eterna]

I support the ending.

[CDRSkyShepard]

MegaSovereign wrote...

There actually wasn't an original intended conclusion, at least not a concrete one. Multiple ideas were on the table on what the Reaper's directive would be. There were cut Codex entries. One of those entries detailed the issue of technological singularity, so take that as you will. masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Mass_Effect_2_Cut_Content

A year ago, that was the script. That was the first version that was ever leaked. Thus, I call it the "original" for simplicity's sake. A couple versions of that leaked out at various points until the demo beta was leaked in November. Then the script that was gleaned from those files was different. Several pieces of content from that script (which became the "final" verson we got in-game) were cut and modified from what they appear to be in-game. However, the Rannoch and genophage arcs were consistent between the two. In the first script, the Rannoch arc wrapped up the "organics vs. synthetic" mini-arc for that metaplot. Then it somehow became the metaplot for the "final" version.

I have no doubt the singularity idea was on the table, but the fact that it is cut and doesn't show up at all in ME2 when the dark energy stuff actually made it in at several points in the story is rather telling, don't you think? My personal theory is that they went back on their initial idea with the dark energy (which they had already kind of committed to) and decided the technological singularity idea was better for some reason. I don't think it's a bad idea, I just think it's silly that they'd go back on a metaplot like that. It shows.

In ME2, there was what, one mission that vaguely foreshadowed the dark energy plot? Be honest if you didn't read about it on the internet, would you have guessed that this was the Reapers' motivations for the harvesting cycle? Let's face it, they scrapped the dark energy plot because it was incredibly contrived and didn't make sense. How would human's genetic diversity fit into the dark energy issue? Organics/Synthetic relations has been a major theme since the first game.

Two missions. Both were Tali's in reference to Haestrom's sun. Parassini also spoke of the "troubling dark energy problem." Mention and foreshadowing of it was sprinkled in throughout ME2 for those who were paying attention. The fact it troubled so many and the quarians devoted so many precious resources to studying the phenomenon, and there is no resolution to this whatsoever. I could excuse it if it were wrapped up in some way, but it isn't, not at all.

And yes, I honestly though there was much more to the dark energy problem. Even to go as far as to say that it would be central to ME3's plot because it was mentioned several times and people seemed really worried about it. I'm not alone in that thought, many people caught it. There were many plot threads in the ME universe, and the organics vs. synthetics was one of them, but it was never THE plot thread. There was no central plot thread...yet, now it is, apparently.

The human Reaper could be explained with or without the dark energy plot. They create one Sovereign-class Reaper every cycle. Humans apparently had the best genetics to do this. The rest of the species are turned into Destroyers. Also after Sovereign's death, they needed a new vanguard to open up the relay to dark space.

ME2's true purpose was to set up the Genophage/Rannoch plot arcs that were later resolved in ME3. The Collector threat was always just a filler. So no, ME2 is not entirely irrelevant.

It could have, but it never was. It's just a junker in TIM's garage. It was never expressly explained why they needed this human Reaper so quickly, before they even arrived. Why was it so important to have it "right meow?" (Also, that human Reaper was not a capital ship like we saw in ME3.) Why couldn't they wait until the cycle was over and process the humans at the same time as everyone else like normal? All of these possible explanations are just supposition, and are not actually wrapped up in the story in-game.

No, not the entirety of the plot. Mordin's Loyalty and Legion's Loyalty missions did mean more than the entire Collector metaplot, though, and that is...not right. To say the Collector threat is just filler is to say the entirety of ME2's metaplot (which focused on the Collectors and their attacks) was filler, just as I pointed out...only I used the word "irrelevant," not "filler," but it's basically the same. You don't make metaplot points filler...

Do you know what the "original" dark energy endings were suppose to be? They were much worse. You either let the Reapers continue their harvest of humanity so they could find a way to stop the dark energy issue, or you stop the Reapers and vow to find to a solution on our terms (and most likely fail). I don't even think the Crucible/Catalyst plot would have changed either.

Yes, I do. Also, I expressly stated this:

you can debate whether or not that's a good thing elsewhere, but not in reference to this post

So, I'm not here to debate whether or not it would be better.

However, I am going to point out that the Crucible was never supposed to work in the first script. It was a red herring designed by the Reapers to get us to use up all our last resources on a wild goose chase, and funnel our entire fleet into a nice fish-in-a-barrel shooting gallery. The Catalyst was still there, but he did not give you the three choices, and there was no "organics vs. synthetics" thing, it explained the Dark Energy problem to you, and humanity's stake - why humans were so badly needed in ME2.

I will also point out that the "uber-paragon-high-EMS" ending would have found a solution to the Dark Energy problem without sacrificing humanity, and everyone lives happily ever after. Supposedly that was the hardest-to-get ending and was one of the permutations of the two existing choices, much like with the EC how we have several permutations based on the 3 ending choices.

Seival wrote...
I like current conclusion very much. And I believe BioWare reserved Dark Energy and Reapers' Creators plots for future games in ME Universe.

The original Catalist has no reasons to lie. It could left Shepard to die near the Anderson, but instead it helped her and admitted its own mistakes.

...And I'm glad that you satisfied with the endings at least emotionally

Perhaps they do, and it is intriguing to think about in that way. I hope they do wrap up the dark energy problem somehow. Tali, Kal'Reegar, and Parassini make such a big deal about it in ME2, and it seems silly that it was never acknowledged again.

I find it ironic that the entity trying to convince us that all synthetic life will rise up against their creators ievitably is a synthetic AI. The Catalyst has even less reason to tell the truth than to lie, if you think about it. It controls the thing you are setting out to destroy, it is working against you and holds you in no higher regard than a bug. Given its established attitude, it is confusing that it genuinely wants to help you. The Catalyst clearly sees itself and its creations as superior, so why put the fate of everything into the hands of a lowly being that just happened to discover it? By all logic, it should have left Shepard to die. I never understood why, just because Shepard was standing there, it meant that it couldn't just let the cycle continue. It could have easily just let Shepard bleed out and its solution would work yet again, and again for all time. Instead, it decides to help because "its solution won't work anymore?" Sure it will work, just kill Shepard! Then the Reapers can continue to reap. But, that is what I mean about logical closure, I'll never get that. I'll just have to learn not to stare too intently at the plot holes and let the feels do all the heavy lifting. XD

Edit: Only one edit for format, thank goodness!

Modifié par CDRSkyShepard, 08 août 2012 - 04:44 .

[OMTING52601]

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

However, I am going to point out that the Crucible was never supposed to work in the first script. It was a red herring designed by the Reapers to get us to use up all our last resources on a wild goose chase, and funnel our entire fleet into a nice fish-in-a-barrel shooting gallery. The Catalyst was still there, but he did not give you the three choices, and there was no "organics vs. synthetics" thing, it explained the Dark Energy problem to you, and humanity's stake - why humans were so badly needed in ME2.

I will also point out that the "uber-paragon-high-EMS" ending would have found a solution to the Dark Energy problem without sacrificing humanity, and everyone lives happily ever after. Supposedly that was the hardest-to-get ending and was one of the permutations of the two existing choices, much like with the EC how we have several permutations based on the 3 ending choices.

Well, at least I'm not the only one who remembers this - the fact that in the original leaks there actually were some FTW endings. Also, when Shep and Liara have that convo in her room on the Normandy - the one where they talk about whether or not pouring resources into the Crucible is a good idea... I remember thinking, heck NO it's not a good idea! LOL, I remembered the diversion idea and was looking for a way to stop everyone from jumping on board with the freakin' idea through the whole game. *le sigh*

CDRSkyShepard wrote... 
Perhaps they do, and it is intriguing to think about in that way. I hope they do wrap up the dark energy problem somehow. Tali, Kal'Reegar, and Parassini make such a big deal about it in ME2, and it seems silly that it was never acknowledged again.

I don't think I'd be interested in seeing a dark energy plot resolved in some other version of ME. Personally, it'd just tick me off, LOL. But hey, I'm not saying others couldn't/shouldn't like it.

[DirtyPhoenix]

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

...why put the fate of everything
into the hands of a lowly being that just happened to discover it? By
all logic, it should have left Shepard to die. I never understood why,
just because Shepard was standing there, it meant that it couldn't just
let the cycle continue. It could have easily just let Shepard bleed out
and its solution would work yet again, and again for all time. Instead,
it decides to help because "its solution won't work anymore?" Sure it
will work, just kill Shepard! Then the Reapers can continue to reap.
But, that is what I mean about logical closure, I'll never get that.
I'll just have to learn not to stare too intently at the plot holes and
let the feels do all the heavy lifting. XD

"The crucible changed me, created new possibilities."

"You have altered the variables."

Yeah I know, but that's how the game explains the catalyst's willingness. In crude sense, it got hacked by the crucible.



Also,
I'm sure someone more eloquent can explain it better, but the Reapers
are the starkid's secondary solution, until he finds a better solution.
The crucible enabled him to find them. Its an AI designed to find the
perfect "solution" for his problem, so he is intent on finding them at
all costs and is not hesitant on discarding previous solutions once he
finds better ones.

EDIT: This thread has some good explanations: http://social.biowar.../index/13006636

Modifié par pirate1802, 08 août 2012 - 05:05 .

[CDRSkyShepard]

pirate1802 wrote...

Seival wrote...

I understand that different people prefer different endings, but usually they don't say anything clear about their overall endings personal rating. I asked a question before in Control support thread, and wanna repeat it here...

...What is your final personal rating of the endings?
...But please, remember that Paragon Control =/= Renegade Control

So, my final personal rating is: Paragon Control > Synthesis > Renegade Control > Destroy > Refusal

For me it is:

Synthesis > Paragon Control > Destroy > Renegade Control >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Refusal.

*snip*

Why I think Destroy is a good choice?
Reapers are dead. No risk of them raising their ugly head again. Whether they were free or not, they are gone. The future is free of them. Casualties among organics and a lot of useful tech lost. Synthetics destroyed altogather. We are left in a worse fate than the other two endings but we will rebuild!

Why I think Refusal is a good choice?
I don't. Sorry :/ Refusal may have some ideological and philosophical bright points (I die free and all that) but I can't see them behind the huge pile of dead bodies. I'd rather sacrifice my principles and morals than sacrificing the galaxy.

@pirate - In reference to the bold: that only happens in low-EMS Destroy. In high-EMS destroy, the only casualties are the geth and EDI.

Now, in reference to Seival's original question:

Destroy > All. Control > Synthesis. Refuse is not an option.

My only ending is Destroy. It's the only one that makes sense to choose given the information you have - not taking into account the epilogue, assuming complete ignorance as to what your actions will do. That is the information Shepard has to go on before making the choice, so that's what I base my logic on.

Destroy is the only option I take canonically, because that's what I set out to do from the beginning. EDI and the geth are combatants and have both expressed their willingness to die to defeat the Reapers.

When presented with the other two options, my Shep gives this face:


"So, you're telling me I *have* to die/give up my physical being for these other two options. And I'm gonna just have to take your word for it it'll work. Riiiiiiiiight."

That goes back to my complete inability to trust the Catalyst.

Other reasons I never choose Control or Synthesis (other than for giggles, not for serious PTs):

Synthesis gives me a weird Stepford vibe. This "oh yes everyone is so happy!" thing that would creep me out to no end. No, I don't like it. No, I will never like it. It reminds me of the Borg Collective a lot. I will not turn my friends into Borg or give them collective consciousness. I believe in the power of the individual. Remember how the Reapers were so easily able to adapt to Prothean resistence? Yeah, because they all thought the same way and had the same doctrine as an empire. Whenever you get a collective consciousness going, a homogenization of thought occurs. We even get this as individuals when we work in the same groups all the time; it's called groupthink.

I will not give my Shep the kind of power the Catalyst has. The Catalyst is obviously a very flawed intelligence, and Shepard will not be any better in the long run. I also severly doubt Shepard's ability to control the Reapers indefinitely.

Ultimately? The only good Reaper is a dead Reaper.

Why I do not like Refusal as a legitimate ending:

"Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters. The silence is your answer."

All things considered, I am satisfied with my high-EMS Destroy ending. It has all the hope of a bright future I need, absolutely free from Reaper influence.

[DirtyPhoenix]

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

...why put the fate of everything into the hands of a lowly being that just happened to discover it? By all logic, it should have left Shepard to die. I never understood why, just because Shepard was standing there, it meant that it couldn't just let the cycle continue. It could have easily just let Shepard bleed out and its solution would work yet again, and again for all time. Instead, it decides to help because "its solution won't work anymore?" Sure it will work, just kill Shepard! Then the Reapers can continue to reap. But, that is what I mean about logical closure, I'll never get that. I'll just have to learn not to stare too intently at the plot holes and let the feels do all the heavy lifting. XD

"The crucible changed me, created new possibilities."
"You have altered the variables."
Yeah I know, but that's how the game explains the catalyst's willingness. In crude sense, it got hacked by the crucible.

Also,
I'm sure someone more eloquent can explain it better, but the Reapers
are the starkid's secondary solution, until he finds a better solution.
The crucible enabled him to find them. Its an AI designed to find the
perfect "solution" for his problem, so he is intent on finding them at
all costs and is not hesitant on discarding previous solutions once he
finds better ones.

EDIT: This thread has some good explanations: http://social.biowar.../index/13006636

[DirtyPhoenix]

The catalyst does say: "There will be losses, but not more than what has already been lost", and "technology as you know will be affected, but those who survive can rebuild it". I got these lines on my high-EMS playthrough O.O

[CDRSkyShepard]

pirate1802 wrote...


"The crucible changed me, created new possibilities."

"You have altered the variables."

Yeah I know, but that's how the game explains the catalyst's willingness. In crude sense, it got hacked by the crucible.

Also, I'm sure someone more eloquent can explain it better, but the Reapers are the starkid's secondary solution, until he finds a better solution. The crucible enabled him to find them. Its an AI designed to find the perfect "solution" for his problem, so he is intent on finding them at all costs and is not hesitant on discarding previous solutions once he finds better ones.

EDIT: This thread has some good explanations: http://social.biowar.../index/13006636

Yeah, I've been in that thread. It still makes zip sense to me.

I guess it's just my unique perspective on things. I am military trained. I am trained not to take the words of someone who is considered to be the enemy at face value. You have to earn my trust. The Catalyst makes absolutely 0 effort to do so. Maybe that's the game, or whatever, but it is going to take a lot more than "the Crucible changed me" for me to believe a word of it. As far as I (and my Shepard) are concerned, you are still the enemy, you are still killing my people, and you are not to be trusted. In fact, I should consider myself your POW because you brought me here to this strange place...why should I trust you, again?

I think something that sorely needed to be in the EC was some "Why should I trust you?" dialogue options beyond just "why would you help me?" And the question needed to be answered in a non-vague fashion. The mere fact the Catalyst is so dodgy makes me even less inclined to trust him.

[CDRSkyShepard]

pirate1802 wrote...

The catalyst does say: "There will be losses, but not more than what has already been lost", and "technology as you know will be affected, but those who survive can rebuild it". I got these lines on my high-EMS playthrough O.O

That's a generic one-size-fits-all line for all the endings, I do believe he says something about how well the Crucible was built (referring to your EMS score) being a factor in how much is destroyed.

It is implied in high-EMS Destroy that the damage to regular technology is minimal, given that you see the fleets leaving the Sol System (lots of ships, in low-EMS there are many less), and you see tech being used to help rebuild. In Low-EMS (it is so depressing, lol) Earth is basically rubble and that's it. So, Low-EMS = bombed back to the stone age, and High-EMS = not that bad off, things still work fine, it's just the geth and EDI are gone.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Destroy is fine. The tech may be "destroyed", but the plans and how to make the tech is not destroyed. Patent offices have detailed records on how to build the tech. Don't people keep records? Duh? Nothing really is lost forever. It's like They could build the stuff again in a few months.

And then there are parts that are not connected to anything that are in drawers that won't be destroyed. I think the wave only hits stuff that is actually in use.

Reapers are dead and not coming back.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Oh yes, the EC still leaves large gaps in places like, as you said, the trust issue. Its the biggest issue, no 10 minute conversation can convince you that the reaper-king's words are as true as they come. I agree fully there. Better just remove the kid and replace it with something neutral, that'll take care of the trust problem.

About additional damage, I think along these lines: Since he says the lines no matter what, additional destruction happens but is kept at minimum with high-EMS Destroy and is the maximum at Low-EMS Destroy..

[inko1nsiderate]

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

However, I am going to point out that the Crucible was never supposed to work in the first script. It was a red herring designed by the Reapers to get us to use up all our last resources on a wild goose chase, and funnel our entire fleet into a nice fish-in-a-barrel shooting gallery. The Catalyst was still there, but he did not give you the three choices, and there was no "organics vs. synthetics" thing, it explained the Dark Energy problem to you, and humanity's stake - why humans were so badly needed in ME2.

I will also point out that the "uber-paragon-high-EMS" ending would have found a solution to the Dark Energy problem without sacrificing humanity, and everyone lives happily ever after. Supposedly that was the hardest-to-get ending and was one of the permutations of the two existing choices, much like with the EC how we have several permutations based on the 3 ending choices.

Having 'uber-paragon-high-ems' being the only way to unlock the ending that doesn't sacrifice humanity strikes me as incredibly lame.  Not the high ems part, just the paragon part.  Where's the love for complicated and nuanced characters?

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 08 août 2012 - 06:15 .

[Garrus is my Shepard]

Forgive me if this has been discussed earlier in the thread, but how exactly does ME3's ending make the human reaper pointless? The Catalyst says that they preserve the species in Reaper form, which the Collectors are doing in ME2.
Didn't an interview with Mac explain that the cuttlefish form of the Reapers was just the shell and the core of the Reaper looked like the species used to create it?

Again, not trying to troll or anything, I'm just curious.

Also, I'm in full support of this threat 100%. The endings, while still not perfect, are almost exactly what I wanted from the end of the trilogy.

[Grubas]

idont support the endings, neither do i oppose them. For me they just exist, why they exist
is beyond my comprehension.

[Ozzy]

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

There actually wasn't an original intended conclusion, at least not a concrete one. Multiple ideas were on the table on what the Reaper's directive would be. There were cut Codex entries. One of those entries detailed the issue of technological singularity, so take that as you will. masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Mass_Effect_2_Cut_Content

A year ago, that was the script. That was the first version that was ever leaked. Thus, I call it the "original" for simplicity's sake. A couple versions of that leaked out at various points until the demo beta was leaked in November. Then the script that was gleaned from those files was different. Several pieces of content from that script (which became the "final" verson we got in-game) were cut and modified from what they appear to be in-game. However, the Rannoch and genophage arcs were consistent between the two. In the first script, the Rannoch arc wrapped up the "organics vs. synthetic" mini-arc for that metaplot. Then it somehow became the metaplot for the "final" version.

I have no doubt the singularity idea was on the table, but the fact that it is cut and doesn't show up at all in ME2 when the dark energy stuff actually made it in at several points in the story is rather telling, don't you think? My personal theory is that they went back on their initial idea with the dark energy (which they had already kind of committed to) and decided the technological singularity idea was better for some reason. I don't think it's a bad idea, I just think it's silly that they'd go back on a metaplot like that. It shows.

In ME2, there was what, one mission that vaguely foreshadowed the dark energy plot? Be honest if you didn't read about it on the internet, would you have guessed that this was the Reapers' motivations for the harvesting cycle? Let's face it, they scrapped the dark energy plot because it was incredibly contrived and didn't make sense. How would human's genetic diversity fit into the dark energy issue? Organics/Synthetic relations has been a major theme since the first game.

Two missions. Both were Tali's in reference to Haestrom's sun. Parassini also spoke of the "troubling dark energy problem." Mention and foreshadowing of it was sprinkled in throughout ME2 for those who were paying attention. The fact it troubled so many and the quarians devoted so many precious resources to studying the phenomenon, and there is no resolution to this whatsoever. I could excuse it if it were wrapped up in some way, but it isn't, not at all.

And yes, I honestly though there was much more to the dark energy problem. Even to go as far as to say that it would be central to ME3's plot because it was mentioned several times and people seemed really worried about it. I'm not alone in that thought, many people caught it. There were many plot threads in the ME universe, and the organics vs. synthetics was one of them, but it was never THE plot thread. There was no central plot thread...yet, now it is, apparently.

The human Reaper could be explained with or without the dark energy plot. They create one Sovereign-class Reaper every cycle. Humans apparently had the best genetics to do this. The rest of the species are turned into Destroyers. Also after Sovereign's death, they needed a new vanguard to open up the relay to dark space.

ME2's true purpose was to set up the Genophage/Rannoch plot arcs that were later resolved in ME3. The Collector threat was always just a filler. So no, ME2 is not entirely irrelevant.

It could have, but it never was. It's just a junker in TIM's garage. It was never expressly explained why they needed this human Reaper so quickly, before they even arrived. Why was it so important to have it "right meow?" (Also, that human Reaper was not a capital ship like we saw in ME3.) Why couldn't they wait until the cycle was over and process the humans at the same time as everyone else like normal? All of these possible explanations are just supposition, and are not actually wrapped up in the story in-game.

No, not the entirety of the plot. Mordin's Loyalty and Legion's Loyalty missions did mean more than the entire Collector metaplot, though, and that is...not right. To say the Collector threat is just filler is to say the entirety of ME2's metaplot (which focused on the Collectors and their attacks) was filler, just as I pointed out...only I used the word "irrelevant," not "filler," but it's basically the same. You don't make metaplot points filler...

Do you know what the "original" dark energy endings were suppose to be? They were much worse. You either let the Reapers continue their harvest of humanity so they could find a way to stop the dark energy issue, or you stop the Reapers and vow to find to a solution on our terms (and most likely fail). I don't even think the Crucible/Catalyst plot would have changed either.

Yes, I do. Also, I expressly stated this:

you can debate whether or not that's a good thing elsewhere, but not in reference to this post

So, I'm not here to debate whether or not it would be better.

However, I am going to point out that the Crucible was never supposed to work in the first script. It was a red herring designed by the Reapers to get us to use up all our last resources on a wild goose chase, and funnel our entire fleet into a nice fish-in-a-barrel shooting gallery. The Catalyst was still there, but he did not give you the three choices, and there was no "organics vs. synthetics" thing, it explained the Dark Energy problem to you, and humanity's stake - why humans were so badly needed in ME2.

I will also point out that the "uber-paragon-high-EMS" ending would have found a solution to the Dark Energy problem without sacrificing humanity, and everyone lives happily ever after. Supposedly that was the hardest-to-get ending and was one of the permutations of the two existing choices, much like with the EC how we have several permutations based on the 3 ending choices.

Seival wrote...
I like current conclusion very much. And I believe BioWare reserved Dark Energy and Reapers' Creators plots for future games in ME Universe.

The original Catalist has no reasons to lie. It could left Shepard to die near the Anderson, but instead it helped her and admitted its own mistakes.

...And I'm glad that you satisfied with the endings at least emotionally

Perhaps they do, and it is intriguing to think about in that way. I hope they do wrap up the dark energy problem somehow. Tali, Kal'Reegar, and Parassini make such a big deal about it in ME2, and it seems silly that it was never acknowledged again.

I find it ironic that the entity trying to convince us that all synthetic life will rise up against their creators ievitably is a synthetic AI. The Catalyst has even less reason to tell the truth than to lie, if you think about it. It controls the thing you are setting out to destroy, it is working against you and holds you in no higher regard than a bug. Given its established attitude, it is confusing that it genuinely wants to help you. The Catalyst clearly sees itself and its creations as superior, so why put the fate of everything into the hands of a lowly being that just happened to discover it? By all logic, it should have left Shepard to die. I never understood why, just because Shepard was standing there, it meant that it couldn't just let the cycle continue. It could have easily just let Shepard bleed out and its solution would work yet again, and again for all time. Instead, it decides to help because "its solution won't work anymore?" Sure it will work, just kill Shepard! Then the Reapers can continue to reap. But, that is what I mean about logical closure, I'll never get that. I'll just have to learn not to stare too intently at the plot holes and let the feels do all the heavy lifting. XD

Edit: Only one edit for format, thank goodness!

Quoting this in its entirety because I could not agree more. Since finishing ME3 again a few days ago, this was something that was bothering me and I was finding it difficult to articulate it. 

I don't have an issue of ME3's ending when taking into account ME3 only, I have an issue with it when turning back to look at ME2. ME2 had its fair share of problems but it was forgivable given that it was the middle entry and that things could be taken back on track. That's not to say that they should have ignored its underlying implications completely. There's just such a dissonance between the foreshadowing in ME2 and the big reveal in ME3. It's not that the dark energy plot was a red herring or anything, it was just completely and utterly ignored in ME3.

Heck, I wouldn't have minded if it had made it as a minor plot point in ME3. 

[BrookerT]

AstusOz wrote...

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

There actually wasn't an original intended conclusion, at least not a concrete one. Multiple ideas were on the table on what the Reaper's directive would be. There were cut Codex entries. One of those entries detailed the issue of technological singularity, so take that as you will. masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Mass_Effect_2_Cut_Content

A year ago, that was the script. That was the first version that was ever leaked. Thus, I call it the "original" for simplicity's sake. A couple versions of that leaked out at various points until the demo beta was leaked in November. Then the script that was gleaned from those files was different. Several pieces of content from that script (which became the "final" verson we got in-game) were cut and modified from what they appear to be in-game. However, the Rannoch and genophage arcs were consistent between the two. In the first script, the Rannoch arc wrapped up the "organics vs. synthetic" mini-arc for that metaplot. Then it somehow became the metaplot for the "final" version.

I have no doubt the singularity idea was on the table, but the fact that it is cut and doesn't show up at all in ME2 when the dark energy stuff actually made it in at several points in the story is rather telling, don't you think? My personal theory is that they went back on their initial idea with the dark energy (which they had already kind of committed to) and decided the technological singularity idea was better for some reason. I don't think it's a bad idea, I just think it's silly that they'd go back on a metaplot like that. It shows.

In ME2, there was what, one mission that vaguely foreshadowed the dark energy plot? Be honest if you didn't read about it on the internet, would you have guessed that this was the Reapers' motivations for the harvesting cycle? Let's face it, they scrapped the dark energy plot because it was incredibly contrived and didn't make sense. How would human's genetic diversity fit into the dark energy issue? Organics/Synthetic relations has been a major theme since the first game.

Two missions. Both were Tali's in reference to Haestrom's sun. Parassini also spoke of the "troubling dark energy problem." Mention and foreshadowing of it was sprinkled in throughout ME2 for those who were paying attention. The fact it troubled so many and the quarians devoted so many precious resources to studying the phenomenon, and there is no resolution to this whatsoever. I could excuse it if it were wrapped up in some way, but it isn't, not at all.

And yes, I honestly though there was much more to the dark energy problem. Even to go as far as to say that it would be central to ME3's plot because it was mentioned several times and people seemed really worried about it. I'm not alone in that thought, many people caught it. There were many plot threads in the ME universe, and the organics vs. synthetics was one of them, but it was never THE plot thread. There was no central plot thread...yet, now it is, apparently.

The human Reaper could be explained with or without the dark energy plot. They create one Sovereign-class Reaper every cycle. Humans apparently had the best genetics to do this. The rest of the species are turned into Destroyers. Also after Sovereign's death, they needed a new vanguard to open up the relay to dark space.

ME2's true purpose was to set up the Genophage/Rannoch plot arcs that were later resolved in ME3. The Collector threat was always just a filler. So no, ME2 is not entirely irrelevant.

It could have, but it never was. It's just a junker in TIM's garage. It was never expressly explained why they needed this human Reaper so quickly, before they even arrived. Why was it so important to have it "right meow?" (Also, that human Reaper was not a capital ship like we saw in ME3.) Why couldn't they wait until the cycle was over and process the humans at the same time as everyone else like normal? All of these possible explanations are just supposition, and are not actually wrapped up in the story in-game.

No, not the entirety of the plot. Mordin's Loyalty and Legion's Loyalty missions did mean more than the entire Collector metaplot, though, and that is...not right. To say the Collector threat is just filler is to say the entirety of ME2's metaplot (which focused on the Collectors and their attacks) was filler, just as I pointed out...only I used the word "irrelevant," not "filler," but it's basically the same. You don't make metaplot points filler...

Do you know what the "original" dark energy endings were suppose to be? They were much worse. You either let the Reapers continue their harvest of humanity so they could find a way to stop the dark energy issue, or you stop the Reapers and vow to find to a solution on our terms (and most likely fail). I don't even think the Crucible/Catalyst plot would have changed either.

Yes, I do. Also, I expressly stated this:

you can debate whether or not that's a good thing elsewhere, but not in reference to this post

So, I'm not here to debate whether or not it would be better.

However, I am going to point out that the Crucible was never supposed to work in the first script. It was a red herring designed by the Reapers to get us to use up all our last resources on a wild goose chase, and funnel our entire fleet into a nice fish-in-a-barrel shooting gallery. The Catalyst was still there, but he did not give you the three choices, and there was no "organics vs. synthetics" thing, it explained the Dark Energy problem to you, and humanity's stake - why humans were so badly needed in ME2.

I will also point out that the "uber-paragon-high-EMS" ending would have found a solution to the Dark Energy problem without sacrificing humanity, and everyone lives happily ever after. Supposedly that was the hardest-to-get ending and was one of the permutations of the two existing choices, much like with the EC how we have several permutations based on the 3 ending choices.

Seival wrote...
I like current conclusion very much. And I believe BioWare reserved Dark Energy and Reapers' Creators plots for future games in ME Universe.

The original Catalist has no reasons to lie. It could left Shepard to die near the Anderson, but instead it helped her and admitted its own mistakes.

...And I'm glad that you satisfied with the endings at least emotionally

Perhaps they do, and it is intriguing to think about in that way. I hope they do wrap up the dark energy problem somehow. Tali, Kal'Reegar, and Parassini make such a big deal about it in ME2, and it seems silly that it was never acknowledged again.

I find it ironic that the entity trying to convince us that all synthetic life will rise up against their creators ievitably is a synthetic AI. The Catalyst has even less reason to tell the truth than to lie, if you think about it. It controls the thing you are setting out to destroy, it is working against you and holds you in no higher regard than a bug. Given its established attitude, it is confusing that it genuinely wants to help you. The Catalyst clearly sees itself and its creations as superior, so why put the fate of everything into the hands of a lowly being that just happened to discover it? By all logic, it should have left Shepard to die. I never understood why, just because Shepard was standing there, it meant that it couldn't just let the cycle continue. It could have easily just let Shepard bleed out and its solution would work yet again, and again for all time. Instead, it decides to help because "its solution won't work anymore?" Sure it will work, just kill Shepard! Then the Reapers can continue to reap. But, that is what I mean about logical closure, I'll never get that. I'll just have to learn not to stare too intently at the plot holes and let the feels do all the heavy lifting. XD

Edit: Only one edit for format, thank goodness!

Quoting this in its entirety because I could not agree more. Since finishing ME3 again a few days ago, this was something that was bothering me and I was finding it difficult to articulate it. 

I don't have an issue of ME3's ending when taking into account ME3 only, I have an issue with it when turning back to look at ME2. ME2 had its fair share of problems but it was forgivable given that it was the middle entry and that things could be taken back on track. That's not to say that they should have ignored its underlying implications completely. There's just such a dissonance between the foreshadowing in ME2 and the big reveal in ME3. It's not that the dark energy plot was a red herring or anything, it was just completely and utterly ignored in ME3.

Heck, I wouldn't have minded if it had made it as a minor plot point in ME3. 

They did pay some lip service in a sense. The Crucible is reffered to as a Dark energy device, and it seems like the maybe tryed to work in Haelstrom as evidence of the Crucible's power, but yeah, it's still could have been more

[DirtyPhoenix]

AstusOz wrote...

I don't have an issue of ME3's ending when taking into account ME3 only, I have an issue with it when turning back to look at ME2. ME2 had its fair share of problems but it was forgivable given that it was the middle entry and that things could be taken back on track. That's not to say that they should have ignored its underlying implications completely. There's just such a dissonance between the foreshadowing in ME2 and the big reveal in ME3. It's not that the dark energy plot was a red herring or anything, it was just completely and utterly ignored in ME3.

Heck, I wouldn't have minded if it had made it as a minor plot point in ME3. 

That's exactly what happens when you change the plot midway through.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Grubas wrote...

idont support the endings, neither do i oppose them. For me they just exist, why they exist
is beyond my comprehension.

WE ARE A LEVEL BEYOND YOUR COMPREHENSION. SURRENDER YOUR FORM TO US, HUMAN. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

Modifié par pirate1802, 08 août 2012 - 08:41 .

[Seival]

Garrus is my Shepard wrote...

Forgive me if this has been discussed earlier in the thread, but how exactly does ME3's ending make the human reaper pointless? The Catalyst says that they preserve the species in Reaper form, which the Collectors are doing in ME2.
Didn't an interview with Mac explain that the cuttlefish form of the Reapers was just the shell and the core of the Reaper looked like the species used to create it?

Again, not trying to troll or anything, I'm just curious.

Also, I'm in full support of this threat 100%. The endings, while still not perfect, are almost exactly what I wanted from the end of the trilogy.

Someone really said that Proto-Reaper was pointless? That's strange. For the original Reapers creating new Reapers is a regular work. And for us Proto-Reaper remains provide ways to lower EMS requirements for Control or Destroy. Personally, can't call that "pointless".

[DirtyPhoenix]

But I expected a bit more, because apparently it is pointless for anyone who doesn't play like an idiot. I didn't even know its impact apart from the trivial EMS difference until I can on BSN after finishing the game. Personally I can't help but feel the entire Mass Effect 2 game was pointless. :/

You know, what would have been brilliant? Using the collector base to find out a weapon against the reapers. that would have made ME2, collector plot and the human reaper impactful, and also save us from the ludicrous way the crucible is introduced in ME3.

[Mazebook]

pirate1802 wrote...

But I expected a bit more, because apparently it is pointless for anyone who doesn't play like an idiot. I didn't even know its impact apart from the trivial EMS difference until I can on BSN after finishing the game. Personally I can't help but feel the entire Mass Effect 2 game was pointless. :/

Really...the entire game? ...what about legion, mordin, miranda, the illusive man, aria ect.

You can argue that the main plot does not have the impact on ME 3 than it desevered...
but the enitre game is far more than the main plot.

But I also think that bioware is to carful not to screw the player over for making decisions...
I would have loved only have the option to choose control only if I saved the collector base.

but i understand why bioware did not do that...maybe this would be a good question for a poll.

[DirtyPhoenix]

yeah i meant more like the plot. Don't get me wrong. ME2 is my favorite in the trilogy and one of the best games I've played. Its just in hindsight it seemed the plot was not relevant for ME3. What I mean to say is:

ME1: Knowing about the reapers
ME2: Fighting the collectors
ME3: defeating the reapers

ME2 should have been about finding a way to defeat the reapers, then it all would have fit in perfectly, is what I mean.

And yes it would have been great if they structured it as you said. Getting the option to destroy/control based on what you did with the collector base, and not just at low EMS.