557 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

txgoldrush wrote...

No, the forced "death" fits the theme, just like the damnation of the Nameless One in PST, or the exile of the Vault Dweller in Fallout, or the capture of the Avatar by th eGuardian in Ultima VII.....despite all the choices you made.

Deal with it. The entire game was about sacrifice.

The entire theme of the trilogy is about breaking cycles, nothing being inevitable..  The player is given choices that span all three games.  Nothing set in stone.  So, yeah kinda disagree there about "foreced sacrifice" being a theme.

And you still haven't answered my question.

[txgoldrush]

blueumi wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Essalor wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Face it.

The main theme of Mass Effect 3 is sacrifice. Therefore it is appropriate that Shepard will likely  have the option to sacrifice him or herself.

Fixed that for you.  Since, you know, the players are supposed to have choices.  

Forced sacrifice isn't, after all.

And its only a confused mess to you because you don't get it.

Well, you can't argue with logic like that. 

And really KOTOR came out at the right time....if it wasn't for the Star Wars liscence or that twist, it would be nothing. And KOTOR II is better.

Bioware does indeed deserve better fans...

Please, he DOES have the option of not sacrificing himself and has an ending where Shepard lives, but at the cost of EDI and the Geth. Which fits into the theme of the game as well of leadership decisions with lives on every decision.

Nevermind that two of the endings were covered throughout the entire game with Hackett and TIM, therfore easily fit in the endgame.

Ask yourself this...if it wasn't for the twist or the Star Wars liscence, would KOTOR be that good? The sequel is far better written, and its characters are far better developed.

KOTOR was a good overall game with impressive mechanics, plot, graphics and everything. So is ME. 
The ending of KOTOR was great because of the reveal of course. That's a great story and the twist once again comes not in the last 5 minutes and screws the whole logic over. It;s like the twist in the 6th Sense: it makes sense when you look back at the movie.  

Would ME ending be good without Star Child and his stupid choices?

And once again you say that the ending is thematically consistent but your argument only works for ME3. We're closing the whole trilogy here. The theme of trilogy is certainly NOT sacrifice. It's breaking the cycle and sruvival against impossible odds and most importantly choose your own destiny. You know... like space adventure. 

Hence the ending doesn't work either logically or thematically for the whole franchise. QED

Lets see.....ME3 certainly has the cycle broken, whoops. There goes your argument on that one. Survival against impossible odds.....thats not the theme, its more like doing the impossible...such as making the Starchild see that there are other possibilties that he hasn't seen or could impliment in billions of years, you know, getting the Child to admit that his methods don't work anymore.

And once again the main theme of the ENTIRE TRILOGY is the conflict between those that are created and the creators and the Starchild fits that perfectly. Or do you want to just ignore this clear argument.

you defend star child when  I said you were a yes man I was being sarcastic   but you really are

and you don't get what the ME3 ending is about.....its sad when the EC clearly defines the themes of teh game and of the trilogy but the fans are too clueless to pick it up. Know, it has to be my way, not the writers way...it has too.....lol

[txgoldrush]

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

No, the forced "death" fits the theme, just like the damnation of the Nameless One in PST, or the exile of the Vault Dweller in Fallout, or the capture of the Avatar by th eGuardian in Ultima VII.....despite all the choices you made.

Deal with it. The entire game was about sacrifice.

The entire theme of the trilogy is about breaking cycles, nothing being inevitable..  The player is given choices that span all three games.  Nothing set in stone.  So, yeah kinda disagree there about "foreced sacrifice" being a theme.

And you still haven't answered my question.

No, its about how people create things to advance their goals and how it blows up in their face. This happens throughout the entire trilogy, nevermind the fact that teh Reapers revolve around this.

Nevermind that Shepard DOES BREAK THE CYCLE.

[blueumi]

txgoldrush wrote...

blueumi wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Essalor wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Face it.

The main theme of Mass Effect 3 is sacrifice. Therefore it is appropriate that Shepard will likely  have the option to sacrifice him or herself.

Fixed that for you.  Since, you know, the players are supposed to have choices.  

Forced sacrifice isn't, after all.

And its only a confused mess to you because you don't get it.

Well, you can't argue with logic like that. 

And really KOTOR came out at the right time....if it wasn't for the Star Wars liscence or that twist, it would be nothing. And KOTOR II is better.

Bioware does indeed deserve better fans...

Please, he DOES have the option of not sacrificing himself and has an ending where Shepard lives, but at the cost of EDI and the Geth. Which fits into the theme of the game as well of leadership decisions with lives on every decision.

Nevermind that two of the endings were covered throughout the entire game with Hackett and TIM, therfore easily fit in the endgame.

Ask yourself this...if it wasn't for the twist or the Star Wars liscence, would KOTOR be that good? The sequel is far better written, and its characters are far better developed.

KOTOR was a good overall game with impressive mechanics, plot, graphics and everything. So is ME. 
The ending of KOTOR was great because of the reveal of course. That's a great story and the twist once again comes not in the last 5 minutes and screws the whole logic over. It;s like the twist in the 6th Sense: it makes sense when you look back at the movie.  

Would ME ending be good without Star Child and his stupid choices?

And once again you say that the ending is thematically consistent but your argument only works for ME3. We're closing the whole trilogy here. The theme of trilogy is certainly NOT sacrifice. It's breaking the cycle and sruvival against impossible odds and most importantly choose your own destiny. You know... like space adventure. 

Hence the ending doesn't work either logically or thematically for the whole franchise. QED

Lets see.....ME3 certainly has the cycle broken, whoops. There goes your argument on that one. Survival against impossible odds.....thats not the theme, its more like doing the impossible...such as making the Starchild see that there are other possibilties that he hasn't seen or could impliment in billions of years, you know, getting the Child to admit that his methods don't work anymore.

And once again the main theme of the ENTIRE TRILOGY is the conflict between those that are created and the creators and the Starchild fits that perfectly. Or do you want to just ignore this clear argument.

you defend star child when  I said you were a yes man I was being sarcastic   but you really are

and you don't get what the ME3 ending is about.....its sad when the EC clearly defines the themes of teh game and of the trilogy but the fans are too clueless to pick it up. Know, it has to be my way, not the writers way...it has too.....lol

then explain Kaidan and Ashleys mass effect 1 dead bodies being there

also why the ending is so disconected to the rest of the three games

by the way I got what they did but I have talked endlessly on other threads about why destroy is the only right choice and how messed up and wrong synthesis is

I never said I didn't understand what they chose to do

I just think starchild came out of no where was not forshadowed and that bioware did not earn such a strange ending with the narrative structure that they set up

[Iakus]

txgoldrush wrote...

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

No, the forced "death" fits the theme, just like the damnation of the Nameless One in PST, or the exile of the Vault Dweller in Fallout, or the capture of the Avatar by th eGuardian in Ultima VII.....despite all the choices you made.

Deal with it. The entire game was about sacrifice.

The entire theme of the trilogy is about breaking cycles, nothing being inevitable..  The player is given choices that span all three games.  Nothing set in stone.  So, yeah kinda disagree there about "foreced sacrifice" being a theme.

And you still haven't answered my question.

No, its about how people create things to advance their goals and how it blows up in their face. This happens throughout the entire trilogy, nevermind the fact that teh Reapers revolve around this.

Nevermind that Shepard DOES BREAK THE CYCLE.

And here I thought it was complacency and inaction, falling into the reapers' trap of developing along the lines the reapers set out that brought the galaxy to the brink of ruin

And while yes Shepard did break the cycle it was by the three stupidest means anyone could have thought of,  None of them should have demanded Shepard's death.

[txgoldrush]

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

No, the forced "death" fits the theme, just like the damnation of the Nameless One in PST, or the exile of the Vault Dweller in Fallout, or the capture of the Avatar by th eGuardian in Ultima VII.....despite all the choices you made.

Deal with it. The entire game was about sacrifice.

The entire theme of the trilogy is about breaking cycles, nothing being inevitable..  The player is given choices that span all three games.  Nothing set in stone.  So, yeah kinda disagree there about "foreced sacrifice" being a theme.

And you still haven't answered my question.

No, its about how people create things to advance their goals and how it blows up in their face. This happens throughout the entire trilogy, nevermind the fact that teh Reapers revolve around this.

Nevermind that Shepard DOES BREAK THE CYCLE.

And here I thought it was complacency and inaction, falling into the reapers' trap of developing along the lines the reapers set out that brought the galaxy to the brink of ruin

And while yes Shepard did break the cycle it was by the three stupidest means anyone could have thought of,  None of them should have demanded Shepard's death.

Please....Destroy and Control are discussed throughout ME3, once again....nevermind that in fact, high EMS Destroy, Sheps death is never mentioned, while low EMS Destroy has basically Catalyst telling Shepard that he will die. Nevermind that its obvious that Control would "kill" Shepard...however, he doesn't really die. Only synthesis truly asks for Shepards true death. 2 of the 3 endings did not come from out of nowhere, neither were all the themes presented in the ending. You were just not paying attention and trying to frame the trilogy to be about something is not. And if overcoming odds was the main theme, then what are the odds of someone basically changing the Catalyst's "mind", that alone is a victory for Shepard. He basically shows that Catalysts solution is flawed after billions of years, talk about odds. You just have to think about it a little more, an dyou are not doing this.

Nevermind teh cycle was created becuase a rogue AI turned against his creators. Once Leviathan is out, there will be no doubt what the main theme of the entire trilogy is.

[Essalor]

txgoldrush wrote...

Essalor wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Face it.

The main theme of Mass Effect 3 is sacrifice. Therefore it is appropriate that Shepard will likely  have the option to sacrifice him or herself.

Fixed that for you.  Since, you know, the players are supposed to have choices.  

Forced sacrifice isn't, after all.

And its only a confused mess to you because you don't get it.

Well, you can't argue with logic like that. 

And really KOTOR came out at the right time....if it wasn't for the Star Wars liscence or that twist, it would be nothing. And KOTOR II is better.

Bioware does indeed deserve better fans...

Please, he DOES have the option of not sacrificing himself and has an ending where Shepard lives, but at the cost of EDI and the Geth. Which fits into the theme of the game as well of leadership decisions with lives on every decision.

Nevermind that two of the endings were covered throughout the entire game with Hackett and TIM, therfore easily fit in the endgame.

Ask yourself this...if it wasn't for the twist or the Star Wars liscence, would KOTOR be that good? The sequel is far better written, and its characters are far better developed.

KOTOR was a good overall game with impressive mechanics, plot, graphics and everything. So is ME. 
The ending of KOTOR was great because of the reveal of course. That's a great story and the twist once again comes not in the last 5 minutes and screws the whole logic over. It;s like the twist in the 6th Sense: it makes sense when you look back at the movie.  

Would ME ending be good without Star Child and his stupid choices?

And once again you say that the ending is thematically consistent but your argument only works for ME3. We're closing the whole trilogy here. The theme of trilogy is certainly NOT sacrifice. It's breaking the cycle and sruvival against impossible odds and most importantly choose your own destiny. You know... like space adventure. 

Hence the ending doesn't work either logically or thematically for the whole franchise. QED

Lets see.....ME3 certainly has the cycle broken, whoops. There goes your argument on that one. Survival against impossible odds.....thats not the theme, its more like doing the impossible...such as making the Starchild see that there are other possibilties that he hasn't seen or could impliment in billions of years, you know, getting the Child to admit that his methods don't work anymore.

And once again the main theme of the ENTIRE TRILOGY is the conflict between those that are created and the creators and the Starchild fits that perfectly. Or do you want to just ignore this clear argument.

Ye because books, videogames and everything we create is the enemy. Solid theme. The conflict between the creators and the created is not a theme of ME1 or ME2. It's just a thrown obscure argument just like "artistic integrity" to justify bad decisions and "it would cost too much money to remake the ending". 
Which is true it would, there's no shame in that.

[Essalor]

txgoldrush wrote...

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

No, the forced "death" fits the theme, just like the damnation of the Nameless One in PST, or the exile of the Vault Dweller in Fallout, or the capture of the Avatar by th eGuardian in Ultima VII.....despite all the choices you made.

Deal with it. The entire game was about sacrifice.

The entire theme of the trilogy is about breaking cycles, nothing being inevitable..  The player is given choices that span all three games.  Nothing set in stone.  So, yeah kinda disagree there about "foreced sacrifice" being a theme.

And you still haven't answered my question.

No, its about how people create things to advance their goals and how it blows up in their face. This happens throughout the entire trilogy, nevermind the fact that teh Reapers revolve around this.

Nevermind that Shepard DOES BREAK THE CYCLE.

And here I thought it was complacency and inaction, falling into the reapers' trap of developing along the lines the reapers set out that brought the galaxy to the brink of ruin

And while yes Shepard did break the cycle it was by the three stupidest means anyone could have thought of,  None of them should have demanded Shepard's death.

Please....Destroy and Control are discussed throughout ME3, once again....nevermind that in fact, high EMS Destroy, Sheps death is never mentioned, while low EMS Destroy has basically Catalyst telling Shepard that he will die. Nevermind that its obvious that Control would "kill" Shepard...however, he doesn't really die. Only synthesis truly asks for Shepards true death. 2 of the 3 endings did not come from out of nowhere, neither were all the themes presented in the ending. You were just not paying attention and trying to frame the trilogy to be about something is not. And if overcoming odds was the main theme, then what are the odds of someone basically changing the Catalyst's "mind", that alone is a victory for Shepard. He basically shows that Catalysts solution is flawed after billions of years, talk about odds. You just have to think about it a little more, an dyou are not doing this.

Nevermind teh cycle was created becuase a rogue AI turned against his creators. Once Leviathan is out, there will be no doubt what the main theme of the entire trilogy is.

Ye because nothing better than retconning with paid DLC.

[txgoldrush]

blueumi wrote...


then explain Kaidan and Ashleys mass effect 1 dead bodies being there

also why the ending is so disconected to the rest of the three games

by the way I got what they did but I have talked endlessly on other threads about why destroy is the only right choice and how messed up and wrong synthesis is

I never said I didn't understand what they chose to do

I just think starchild came out of no where was not forshadowed and that bioware did not earn such a strange ending with the narrative structure that they set up

once again for the thousandth damn time.....the endings are connected to the entire trilogy, nevermind the game has a debate on two of them throughout the entire game.

and its called moral ambiguity, while synthesis is the "happiest" ending, its also the most morally questionable, thats intentional.

And once again the Catalyst WAS foreshadowed by Vendetta on Thessia and teh Catalyst's motives WERE foreshadowed by the Reaper on Rannoch.

[Essalor]

txgoldrush wrote...

blueumi wrote...


then explain Kaidan and Ashleys mass effect 1 dead bodies being there

also why the ending is so disconected to the rest of the three games

by the way I got what they did but I have talked endlessly on other threads about why destroy is the only right choice and how messed up and wrong synthesis is

I never said I didn't understand what they chose to do

I just think starchild came out of no where was not forshadowed and that bioware did not earn such a strange ending with the narrative structure that they set up

once again for the thousandth damn time.....the endings are connected to the entire trilogy, nevermind the game has a debate on two of them throughout the entire game.

and its called moral ambiguity, while synthesis is the "happiest" ending, its also the most morally questionable, thats intentional.

And once again the Catalyst WAS foreshadowed by Vendetta on Thessia and teh Catalyst's motives WERE foreshadowed by the Reaper on Rannoch.

So for the thousandth time, you have no argument that the central theme of the whole trilogy is sacrifice and conflict between creators and created. Because it isn't, not in saren, not in Collector's plot. We get only Quarians, and we resolve that in ME3 having true if inideal choices.

How about Mass genocide being the central theme because of Krogan and Salarian and Rachni? And then it's echoed because reapers want to kill everone? i don't know... sounds just as legit as pulling synth vs organic voodoo.

[blueumi]

txgoldrush wrote...

blueumi wrote...


then explain Kaidan and Ashleys mass effect 1 dead bodies being there

also why the ending is so disconected to the rest of the three games

by the way I got what they did but I have talked endlessly on other threads about why destroy is the only right choice and how messed up and wrong synthesis is

I never said I didn't understand what they chose to do

I just think starchild came out of no where was not forshadowed and that bioware did not earn such a strange ending with the narrative structure that they set up

once again for the thousandth damn time.....the endings are connected to the entire trilogy, nevermind the game has a debate on two of them throughout the entire game.

and its called moral ambiguity, while synthesis is the "happiest" ending, its also the most morally questionable, thats intentional.

And once again the Catalyst WAS foreshadowed by Vendetta on Thessia and teh Catalyst's motives WERE foreshadowed by the Reaper on Rannoch.

no they are not

star child did nothing in mass effect 1 as the leader of the reapers if he had always been in the story he would have stoped sheapard back in mass effect 1

you are making things up as you go to make mass effect 3 anything but the mess that it is

the last ten mins are like a completely different game

major coats is the one having his helmit removed by a keeper how the hell is he there when we hear him ordering the retreat

again kaidan and ashley from mass effect 1 over and over how the hell did that happen

you will just ignore that like everything else that shows bioware just did whatever they felt like and ignored the lore and narrative  of their game

indoctrination was at least established and during arriveal shepard woke up in a hospital bed

the dreams were like what codex said indoctrinated people saw as they became indoctrinated

so I.T had more thought behind it then the endings you defend


just because they ignore it does not mean the rest of us will

[Tritium315]

The theme of ME is about overcoming impossible odds, not sacrifice. Simply because a few characters die does not make sacrifice the central theme of a story.

Also, the theme of Torment had nothing to do with TNO's inevitable damnation. The theme there was about change and not being defined by your past (what can change the nature of a man?). TNO going to the lower planes regardless is supposed to show he finally accepted that he must pay for what he did because, wait for it, he changed.

[txgoldrush]

Essalor wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Essalor wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Face it.

The main theme of Mass Effect 3 is sacrifice. Therefore it is appropriate that Shepard will likely  have the option to sacrifice him or herself.

Fixed that for you.  Since, you know, the players are supposed to have choices.  

Forced sacrifice isn't, after all.

And its only a confused mess to you because you don't get it.

Well, you can't argue with logic like that. 

And really KOTOR came out at the right time....if it wasn't for the Star Wars liscence or that twist, it would be nothing. And KOTOR II is better.

Bioware does indeed deserve better fans...

Please, he DOES have the option of not sacrificing himself and has an ending where Shepard lives, but at the cost of EDI and the Geth. Which fits into the theme of the game as well of leadership decisions with lives on every decision.

Nevermind that two of the endings were covered throughout the entire game with Hackett and TIM, therfore easily fit in the endgame.

Ask yourself this...if it wasn't for the twist or the Star Wars liscence, would KOTOR be that good? The sequel is far better written, and its characters are far better developed.

KOTOR was a good overall game with impressive mechanics, plot, graphics and everything. So is ME. 
The ending of KOTOR was great because of the reveal of course. That's a great story and the twist once again comes not in the last 5 minutes and screws the whole logic over. It;s like the twist in the 6th Sense: it makes sense when you look back at the movie.  

Would ME ending be good without Star Child and his stupid choices?

And once again you say that the ending is thematically consistent but your argument only works for ME3. We're closing the whole trilogy here. The theme of trilogy is certainly NOT sacrifice. It's breaking the cycle and sruvival against impossible odds and most importantly choose your own destiny. You know... like space adventure. 

Hence the ending doesn't work either logically or thematically for the whole franchise. QED

Lets see.....ME3 certainly has the cycle broken, whoops. There goes your argument on that one. Survival against impossible odds.....thats not the theme, its more like doing the impossible...such as making the Starchild see that there are other possibilties that he hasn't seen or could impliment in billions of years, you know, getting the Child to admit that his methods don't work anymore.

And once again the main theme of the ENTIRE TRILOGY is the conflict between those that are created and the creators and the Starchild fits that perfectly. Or do you want to just ignore this clear argument.

Ye because books, videogames and everything we create is the enemy. Solid theme. The conflict between the creators and the created is not a theme of ME1 or ME2. It's just a thrown obscure argument just like "artistic integrity" to justify bad decisions and "it would cost too much money to remake the ending". 
Which is true it would, there's no shame in that.

WRONG

While its not the MAIN theme of ME1 and ME2 (all three games have different main themes), its a very strong secondary theme.

Lets see.....

Cerebrus turns against the Alliance.
The Krogan against the salarians.
Rogue VI on Luna against the alliance.
The Geth against the quarians (but for good reason, but that point is irrelvant, only the fact that they did rebel)
The Thorian against Exogeni
The Rachni against Binary Helix AND Cerebrus
Miranda against her father, you know the dueteragonist of ME2.
Jack against the scientists that brutalized her and Cerberus
The infected VI against everybody (ME2 N7 mission)
Krogan tank breed against the Blue Suns and Jedore.
The Yahg against the Broker he replaced
The Overlord AI turning aginst everyone putting the galaxy at risk.
The Racni and Zhatil against the Protheans and Zha
EDI against Cerebrus

And the Catalyst against his creators, and Leviathan against the Reapers.

Its a pretty strong secondary theme throughout the trilogy and I haven't gone through indirect examples such as the Purgatory prison.

[blueumi]

txgoldrush wrote...

Essalor wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Essalor wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Face it.

The main theme of Mass Effect 3 is sacrifice. Therefore it is appropriate that Shepard will likely  have the option to sacrifice him or herself.

Fixed that for you.  Since, you know, the players are supposed to have choices.  

Forced sacrifice isn't, after all.

And its only a confused mess to you because you don't get it.

Well, you can't argue with logic like that. 

And really KOTOR came out at the right time....if it wasn't for the Star Wars liscence or that twist, it would be nothing. And KOTOR II is better.

Bioware does indeed deserve better fans...

Please, he DOES have the option of not sacrificing himself and has an ending where Shepard lives, but at the cost of EDI and the Geth. Which fits into the theme of the game as well of leadership decisions with lives on every decision.

Nevermind that two of the endings were covered throughout the entire game with Hackett and TIM, therfore easily fit in the endgame.

Ask yourself this...if it wasn't for the twist or the Star Wars liscence, would KOTOR be that good? The sequel is far better written, and its characters are far better developed.

KOTOR was a good overall game with impressive mechanics, plot, graphics and everything. So is ME. 
The ending of KOTOR was great because of the reveal of course. That's a great story and the twist once again comes not in the last 5 minutes and screws the whole logic over. It;s like the twist in the 6th Sense: it makes sense when you look back at the movie.  

Would ME ending be good without Star Child and his stupid choices?

And once again you say that the ending is thematically consistent but your argument only works for ME3. We're closing the whole trilogy here. The theme of trilogy is certainly NOT sacrifice. It's breaking the cycle and sruvival against impossible odds and most importantly choose your own destiny. You know... like space adventure. 

Hence the ending doesn't work either logically or thematically for the whole franchise. QED

Lets see.....ME3 certainly has the cycle broken, whoops. There goes your argument on that one. Survival against impossible odds.....thats not the theme, its more like doing the impossible...such as making the Starchild see that there are other possibilties that he hasn't seen or could impliment in billions of years, you know, getting the Child to admit that his methods don't work anymore.

And once again the main theme of the ENTIRE TRILOGY is the conflict between those that are created and the creators and the Starchild fits that perfectly. Or do you want to just ignore this clear argument.

Ye because books, videogames and everything we create is the enemy. Solid theme. The conflict between the creators and the created is not a theme of ME1 or ME2. It's just a thrown obscure argument just like "artistic integrity" to justify bad decisions and "it would cost too much money to remake the ending". 
Which is true it would, there's no shame in that.

WRONG

While its not the MAIN theme of ME1 and ME2 (all three games have different main themes), its a very strong secondary theme.

Lets see.....

Cerebrus turns against the Alliance.
The Krogan against the salarians.
Rogue VI on Luna against the alliance.
The Geth against the quarians (but for good reason, but that point is irrelvant, only the fact that they did rebel)
The Thorian against Exogeni
The Rachni against Binary Helix AND Cerebrus
Miranda against her father, you know the dueteragonist of ME2.
Jack against the scientists that brutalized her and Cerberus
The infected VI against everybody (ME2 N7 mission)
Krogan tank breed against the Blue Suns and Jedore.
The Yahg against the Broker he replaced
The Overlord AI turning aginst everyone putting the galaxy at risk.
The Racni and Zhatil against the Protheans and Zha
EDI against Cerebrus

And the Catalyst against his creators, and Leviathan against the Reapers.

Its a pretty strong secondary theme throughout the trilogy and I haven't gone through indirect examples such as the Purgatory prison.

no the theme was stopping the reapers when did it say oh yeah shepard needs to talk to a starchild we only forshadow if you can call it that in the last two hours of the third game

that child should have been foreshadowed from mass effect 1 to earn that kind of ending

that did not happen you are wrong but this is like talking to a wall

[txgoldrush]

blueumi wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

blueumi wrote...


then explain Kaidan and Ashleys mass effect 1 dead bodies being there

also why the ending is so disconected to the rest of the three games

by the way I got what they did but I have talked endlessly on other threads about why destroy is the only right choice and how messed up and wrong synthesis is

I never said I didn't understand what they chose to do

I just think starchild came out of no where was not forshadowed and that bioware did not earn such a strange ending with the narrative structure that they set up

once again for the thousandth damn time.....the endings are connected to the entire trilogy, nevermind the game has a debate on two of them throughout the entire game.

and its called moral ambiguity, while synthesis is the "happiest" ending, its also the most morally questionable, thats intentional.

And once again the Catalyst WAS foreshadowed by Vendetta on Thessia and teh Catalyst's motives WERE foreshadowed by the Reaper on Rannoch.

no they are not

star child did nothing in mass effect 1 as the leader of the reapers if he had always been in the story he would have stoped sheapard back in mass effect 1

you are making things up as you go to make mass effect 3 anything but the mess that it is

the last ten mins are like a completely different game

major coats is the one having his helmit removed by a keeper how the hell is he there when we hear him ordering the retreat

again kaidan and ashley from mass effect 1 over and over how the hell did that happen

you will just ignore that like everything else that shows bioware just did whatever they felt like and ignored the lore and narrative  of their game

indoctrination was at least established and during arriveal shepard woke up in a hospital bed

the dreams were like what codex said indoctrinated people saw as they became indoctrinated

so I.T had more thought behind it then the endings you defend


just because they ignore it does not mean the rest of us will

now you are making stuff up...please.

"again kaidan and ashley from mass effect 1 over and over how the hell did that happen "

WTF?

[txgoldrush]

blueumi wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Essalor wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Essalor wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Face it.

The main theme of Mass Effect 3 is sacrifice. Therefore it is appropriate that Shepard will likely  have the option to sacrifice him or herself.

Fixed that for you.  Since, you know, the players are supposed to have choices.  

Forced sacrifice isn't, after all.

And its only a confused mess to you because you don't get it.

Well, you can't argue with logic like that. 

And really KOTOR came out at the right time....if it wasn't for the Star Wars liscence or that twist, it would be nothing. And KOTOR II is better.

Bioware does indeed deserve better fans...

Please, he DOES have the option of not sacrificing himself and has an ending where Shepard lives, but at the cost of EDI and the Geth. Which fits into the theme of the game as well of leadership decisions with lives on every decision.

Nevermind that two of the endings were covered throughout the entire game with Hackett and TIM, therfore easily fit in the endgame.

Ask yourself this...if it wasn't for the twist or the Star Wars liscence, would KOTOR be that good? The sequel is far better written, and its characters are far better developed.

KOTOR was a good overall game with impressive mechanics, plot, graphics and everything. So is ME. 
The ending of KOTOR was great because of the reveal of course. That's a great story and the twist once again comes not in the last 5 minutes and screws the whole logic over. It;s like the twist in the 6th Sense: it makes sense when you look back at the movie.  

Would ME ending be good without Star Child and his stupid choices?

And once again you say that the ending is thematically consistent but your argument only works for ME3. We're closing the whole trilogy here. The theme of trilogy is certainly NOT sacrifice. It's breaking the cycle and sruvival against impossible odds and most importantly choose your own destiny. You know... like space adventure. 

Hence the ending doesn't work either logically or thematically for the whole franchise. QED

Lets see.....ME3 certainly has the cycle broken, whoops. There goes your argument on that one. Survival against impossible odds.....thats not the theme, its more like doing the impossible...such as making the Starchild see that there are other possibilties that he hasn't seen or could impliment in billions of years, you know, getting the Child to admit that his methods don't work anymore.

And once again the main theme of the ENTIRE TRILOGY is the conflict between those that are created and the creators and the Starchild fits that perfectly. Or do you want to just ignore this clear argument.

Ye because books, videogames and everything we create is the enemy. Solid theme. The conflict between the creators and the created is not a theme of ME1 or ME2. It's just a thrown obscure argument just like "artistic integrity" to justify bad decisions and "it would cost too much money to remake the ending". 
Which is true it would, there's no shame in that.

WRONG

While its not the MAIN theme of ME1 and ME2 (all three games have different main themes), its a very strong secondary theme.

Lets see.....

Cerebrus turns against the Alliance.
The Krogan against the salarians.
Rogue VI on Luna against the alliance.
The Geth against the quarians (but for good reason, but that point is irrelvant, only the fact that they did rebel)
The Thorian against Exogeni
The Rachni against Binary Helix AND Cerebrus
Miranda against her father, you know the dueteragonist of ME2.
Jack against the scientists that brutalized her and Cerberus
The infected VI against everybody (ME2 N7 mission)
Krogan tank breed against the Blue Suns and Jedore.
The Yahg against the Broker he replaced
The Overlord AI turning aginst everyone putting the galaxy at risk.
The Racni and Zhatil against the Protheans and Zha
EDI against Cerebrus

And the Catalyst against his creators, and Leviathan against the Reapers.

Its a pretty strong secondary theme throughout the trilogy and I haven't gone through indirect examples such as the Purgatory prison.

no the theme was stopping the reapers when did it say oh yeah shepard needs to talk to a starchild we only forshadow if you can call it that in the last two hours of the third game

that child should have been foreshadowed from mass effect 1 to earn that kind of ending

that did not happen you are wrong but this is like talking to a wall

Wrong, the objective is to stop the Reapers, thats not the theme. The theme is the message of the story.

And the Catakyst was foreshadowed, it simply just did not be foreshadowed when you wanted it to be.

[Nightwriter]

txgoldrush wrote...

WRONG

While its not the MAIN theme of ME1 and ME2 (all three games have different main themes), its a very strong secondary theme.

Lets see.....

Cerebrus turns against the Alliance.
The Krogan against the salarians.
Rogue VI on Luna against the alliance.
The Geth against the quarians (but for good reason, but that point is irrelvant, only the fact that they did rebel)
The Thorian against Exogeni
The Rachni against Binary Helix AND Cerebrus
Miranda against her father, you know the dueteragonist of ME2.
Jack against the scientists that brutalized her and Cerberus
The infected VI against everybody (ME2 N7 mission)
Krogan tank breed against the Blue Suns and Jedore.
The Yahg against the Broker he replaced
The Overlord AI turning aginst everyone putting the galaxy at risk.
The Racni and Zhatil against the Protheans and Zha
EDI against Cerebrus

And the Catalyst against his creators, and Leviathan against the Reapers.

Its a pretty strong secondary theme throughout the trilogy and I haven't gone through indirect examples such as the Purgatory prison.

These really aren't very strong examples of the theme.

[TheRealJayDee]

txgoldrush wrote...

Please, he DOES have the option of not sacrificing himself and has an ending where Shepard lives, but at the cost of EDI and the Geth. Which fits into the theme of the game as well of leadership decisions with lives on every decision.

Urm, well, yeah. For all he knows he's sacrificing himself in the Destroy ending. And my canon Shepard didn't get some ambiguous breath scene - because I didn't play multiplayer. So every singleplayer-only ending pre retcon-DLC has Shepard dead. The "better than DA:O" ending of ME3 was "main character dies, but before that he can kinda influence the degree in which his ideals and the whole universe he's fighting for are mutilated".

Bleh.

[blueumi]

txgoldrush wrote...

blueumi wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

blueumi wrote...


then explain Kaidan and Ashleys mass effect 1 dead bodies being there

also why the ending is so disconected to the rest of the three games

by the way I got what they did but I have talked endlessly on other threads about why destroy is the only right choice and how messed up and wrong synthesis is

I never said I didn't understand what they chose to do

I just think starchild came out of no where was not forshadowed and that bioware did not earn such a strange ending with the narrative structure that they set up

once again for the thousandth damn time.....the endings are connected to the entire trilogy, nevermind the game has a debate on two of them throughout the entire game.

and its called moral ambiguity, while synthesis is the "happiest" ending, its also the most morally questionable, thats intentional.

And once again the Catalyst WAS foreshadowed by Vendetta on Thessia and teh Catalyst's motives WERE foreshadowed by the Reaper on Rannoch.

no they are not

star child did nothing in mass effect 1 as the leader of the reapers if he had always been in the story he would have stoped sheapard back in mass effect 1

you are making things up as you go to make mass effect 3 anything but the mess that it is

the last ten mins are like a completely different game

major coats is the one having his helmit removed by a keeper how the hell is he there when we hear him ordering the retreat

again kaidan and ashley from mass effect 1 over and over how the hell did that happen

you will just ignore that like everything else that shows bioware just did whatever they felt like and ignored the lore and narrative  of their game

indoctrination was at least established and during arriveal shepard woke up in a hospital bed

the dreams were like what codex said indoctrinated people saw as they became indoctrinated

so I.T had more thought behind it then the endings you defend


just because they ignore it does not mean the rest of us will

now you are making stuff up...please.

"again kaidan and ashley from mass effect 1 over and over how the hell did that happen "

WTF?

next to both makos after you are hit by the beam the bodies of Kaidan and ashley from mass effect 1 are piled up hundreds of them

also once you enter the beam no making it up





Kaidan had blue onix armer ashleys pink and white phoenix armor

NOT MADE UP

[txgoldrush]

Tritium315 wrote...

The theme of ME is about overcoming impossible odds, not sacrifice. Simply because a few characters die does not make sacrifice the central theme of a story.

Also, the theme of Torment had nothing to do with TNO's inevitable damnation. The theme there was about change and not being defined by your past (what can change the nature of a man?). TNO going to the lower planes regardless is supposed to show he finally accepted that he must pay for what he did because, wait for it, he changed.

Once again, notice how I am dividing the themes of the game itself and the themes of the whole trilogy.

Here are the themes of the games and the series.

ME1 was about defining humanity's place in the galaxy.
ME2 was about earning the trust and loyalty of people who may have difficulties because of their own agendas.
ME3 is about victory through sacrifice.

Each game has a different main theme.

But the strongest overall theme throughout the trilogy is how those that create are ignorant of those they created. At many issues throughout the whole story are caused because the creators did not respect the created, either the values of their lives or their capabilities.

Nevermind the EC basically defining the main antagonist as a rogue AI that turned against its creators, causing the Reapers cycle. Than the theme about overcoming all odds comes in in the grand sequence (not what its presented, but the order of events chronologically).

Nevermind once again, what are the odds of an organic being changing the mind of a powerful AI after billions of years.

[blueumi]

txgoldrush wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

The theme of ME is about overcoming impossible odds, not sacrifice. Simply because a few characters die does not make sacrifice the central theme of a story.

Also, the theme of Torment had nothing to do with TNO's inevitable damnation. The theme there was about change and not being defined by your past (what can change the nature of a man?). TNO going to the lower planes regardless is supposed to show he finally accepted that he must pay for what he did because, wait for it, he changed.

Once again, notice how I am dividing the themes of the game itself and the themes of the whole trilogy.

Here are the themes of the games and the series.

ME1 was about defining humanity's place in the galaxy.
ME2 was about earning the trust and loyalty of people who may have difficulties because of their own agendas.
ME3 is about victory through sacrifice.

Each game has a different main theme.

But the strongest overall theme throughout the trilogy is how those that create are ignorant of those they created. At many issues throughout the whole story are caused because the creators did not respect the created, either the values of their lives or their capabilities.

Nevermind the EC basically defining the main antagonist as a rogue AI that turned against its creators, causing the Reapers cycle. Than the theme about overcoming all odds comes in in the grand sequence (not what its presented, but the order of events chronologically).

Nevermind once again, what are the odds of an organic being changing the mind of a powerful AI after billions of years.

thats what you are doing when the games never did that

again talking to a wall

[Essalor]

WRONG

While its not the MAIN theme of ME1 and ME2 (all three games have different main themes), its a very strong secondary theme.

Lets see.....

Cerebrus turns against the Alliance.
The Krogan against the salarians.
Rogue VI on Luna against the alliance.
The Geth against the quarians (but for good reason, but that point is irrelvant, only the fact that they did rebel)
The Thorian against Exogeni
The Rachni against Binary Helix AND Cerebrus
Miranda against her father, you know the dueteragonist of ME2.
Jack against the scientists that brutalized her and Cerberus
The infected VI against everybody (ME2 N7 mission)
Krogan tank breed against the Blue Suns and Jedore.
The Yahg against the Broker he replaced
The Overlord AI turning aginst everyone putting the galaxy at risk.
The Racni and Zhatil against the Protheans and Zha
EDI against Cerebrus

And the Catalyst against his creators, and Leviathan against the Reapers.

Its a pretty strong secondary theme throughout the trilogy and I haven't gone through indirect examples such as the Purgatory prison.

I assume those are the examples of a creators vs created? Oh my...
Some of those are true, obviously like Quarian vs Geth only that falls under organic life vs synthetic life, just as VIs and AIs.
Others are just wrong. I'm sorry but Alliance didn't create Cerberus, it's not a rogue alliance military. Nor is Thorian, Rachni and many others.
Moreover all those conflicts are resolved. Miranda, Jack and Krogan and Cerberus and AI and else, we solve them in-game, with proper structure and coherence. There's no need for a last second rehash of the same theme which is suddenly central and so important that needs an introduction of the new character in the last 5 minutes of the game.

[txgoldrush]

blueumi wrote...


next to both makos after you are hit by the beam the bodies of Kaidan and ashley from mass effect 1 are piled up hundreds of them

also once you enter the beam no making it up





Kaidan had blue onix armer ashleys pink and white phoenix armor

NOT MADE UP

Never seen it.....and its a freak glitch as in the original endings they did show Ashley or Kaiden dead after the beam hit you if you ems is low.

[blueumi]

a trilogy should flow and make sense from game to game not change everything that was established to have some twist ending that was never earned thats why no one saw it coming it makes no sense

[Essalor]

ME1 was about defining humanity's place in the galaxy.
ME2 was about earning the trust and loyalty of people who may have difficulties because of their own agendas.
ME3 is about victory through sacrifice.

Better, but still doesn't mean that the end of the whole trilogy must fit the theme of the last game. After all most times you can save everyone. Even Mordin, Legion and others. Certainly all the main protagonists of ME3 are all easy to save.

And still doesn't mean that we should sacrifice the integrity of the lore and narrative for that to happen. Logically the ending is still bollocks compared to DA:O.