557 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

iakus wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

No, it is an acceptable portaryal of sacrifice. Why? Becuase Shepard is established as willing to sacrifice himself or herself to stop the Reapers.

What on Earth does that have to do with it being acceptable?

And for that matter, what specific instances are you referring to where Shepard expressed willingness to die?

all over the trilogy....both paragon and renegade.

Willing to sacrifice his or her life to stop the Reapers, while saying humanity and the other beings of the galaxy will do the same.

Nevermind he or she encouraging others to do so.

Perhaps you do not understand the concept of specificity.

oh and nevermind the fact that Shepard goes on a suicide mission.....

... You mean the one where he says "I plan to live to tell about it" or "I intend to prove them wrong"?

Miranda:  We all knew this was likely a one-way trip
Shepard:  I'll do whatever it take sto stop the COllectors, but I plan to live to tell about itintend to live to tell the tale afterwards
Joker:  I'm glad you're in charge

Quotes from the Suicide mission, after destroying the Collector cruiser and crash landing on the base.

and yet if he has to, he will sacrifice himself in that mission.

[Essalor]

But the fact is that the Catalyst and his motives were foreshadowed, you just don't like how its done, but facts are facts.

Oh and when does Shepard tell Joker to leave them on Ilos? He doesn't. There is no info given in the game that he was supposed to leave and rally the fifth fleet. Simply put, the writers forgot what they were doing and created a plot hole which casues a Deus Ex Machina. And the n people were complaining about Joker abandoning Shepard in ME3, wow hypocrites.

Nevermind you cannot prove the plot whole you claim ME3 has. How does Soverigns motives contradict the Catalyst from ME3? There is NO PROOF as Vigil's info may in fact be limited (as ME3 proves that Prothean VI's knowledge are limited with the fact that Vendetta was wrong about the true nature of the Catalyst). I can easily play your game. The Protheans sabotoged the Keepers, which allows Catalyst to open the Citadel relay. This leads to Sovereign to attempt to find a way to manually activate the relay. Basically the Protheans paralyzed the Catalyst's functions. But I can play this much easier...how. Because the Catalyst states that the Crucible is part of him, that means the Keepers.

Mhm.. whaaat?

Shepard can communicated with Joker beyond the radius of a relay. There are communication channels that work throughout the whole galaxy, that's how he orders the Human fleet attack from beyond the relay. Considering all the Geth ships that were on Ilos went to attack the Citadel, I think the whole thing is pretty reasonable if not very well explained. Then again there's a similar convenience in ME2 but it in neither game does it ruin the lore. Feels forced? Yes. Game altering? hardly...

Catalyst was clearly told us to be the Citadel. I don't invent stuff, your precious VI on Thessia tells it plainly to our face. How does he know that it's the Citadel? How does he know there's someone behind it all? Oh wait, he uses the same knowledge as Vigil basically mirroring his function in ME1. That's actually a clever circle which would work if he was right.

Then you claim that he was wrong about Citadel being the key but his by-bare-threads foreshadowing of an AI is irrefutable and clear and timely... ye, that's sound logic.

So the AI who is the collective consciousness of all the reapers lives on the Citadel yet the reapers leave one of their own every cycle to watch and activate the new cycle? Can't the AI do that himself? He engineered the whole thing, didn't he? The whole keepers got overridden thing is also a farce now because why would he allow that to happen? The guy has Reaper control/destroy and galaxy altering switches that function with an extra battery, but he doesn't do anything to enforce the cycles he's so hellbent on perpetuating? Why is Sovereign even left behind?

That's what happens when you introduce the new lame character in the end and you don't know what to do with him. And while they rectified his reasons with EC, they didn't rectify the whole reason for him being there. You know... because that would cost too much for a free DLC.

[Nightwriter]

txgoldrush wrote...

Or the fact that he realizes that may not happen and that its a one way trip. He plans to, but he realizes he may not be able to.

No such thing happened in my game.

txgoldrush wrote...

Nevermind the fact that also in ME3 in conversation with James, Shepard explains about how being an N7 is not about saving everyone and to be willing to sacrifice yourself to get the job done. Or how when EDI states that she would risk non functionality....Shepard says "welcome to the crew EDI".

Certainly, placing others before yourself is an important principle when you're fighting for what you believe in, in this context. But placing others before yourself isn't the same as expecting to die, or accepting an inevitable personal doom. Shepard has plunged into impossible situations and emerged alive before, and the series gives us countless "there is always hope" and "we can do it" messages (Eve and her damned crystal that misled me into being hopeful about the endings, stupid BioWare trolling me).

[Essalor]

txgoldrush wrote...

iakus wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

No, it is an acceptable portaryal of sacrifice. Why? Becuase Shepard is established as willing to sacrifice himself or herself to stop the Reapers.

What on Earth does that have to do with it being acceptable?

And for that matter, what specific instances are you referring to where Shepard expressed willingness to die?

all over the trilogy....both paragon and renegade.

Willing to sacrifice his or her life to stop the Reapers, while saying humanity and the other beings of the galaxy will do the same.

Nevermind he or she encouraging others to do so.

Perhaps you do not understand the concept of specificity.

oh and nevermind the fact that Shepard goes on a suicide mission.....

... You mean the one where he says "I plan to live to tell about it" or "I intend to prove them wrong"?

Miranda:  We all knew this was likely a one-way trip
Shepard:  I'll do whatever it take sto stop the COllectors, but I plan to live to tell about itintend to live to tell the tale afterwards
Joker:  I'm glad you're in charge

Quotes from the Suicide mission, after destroying the Collector cruiser and crash landing on the base.

and yet if he has to, he will sacrifice himself in that mission.

And once again, in all 3 choices he sacrifices himself. That's like a non-choice considering his options.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Essalor wrote...

Yes, I said it.

You did. Ghehe. Compared to ME3's ending DA:O's ending was maybe not art, but state of the art comes close.

ME3's ending felt like it was dreamed by a team from another company who BW forget to give the script of the rest of the series.

It felt totally detached from everything Shepard stood for. And that does not only include diversity and self-determination for groups or individuals (to name a few), but also his/her job as a Spectre. All of a sudden Shepard needed to condone atrocities of the brat and its boys (control) or commit more of those (destroy) or violate the right of self-determination (synthesis). Shepard is forced to select an option which is supposed to be a solution to a hypothetical problem. Everything Shepard has accomplished up until the ending is thrown out of the window after the "boss fight" with Marauder Health. Even some of the choices you made in ME3 itself become meaningless.

So, yes. I rather have one that made at least some sense.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 10 août 2012 - 06:22 .

[Iakus]

txgoldrush wrote...

Or the fact that he realizes that may not happen and that its a one way trip. He plans to, but he realizes he may not be able to.

Nevermind the fact that also in ME3 in conversation with James, Shepard explains about how being an N7 is not about saving everyone and to be willing to sacrifice yourself to get the job done. Or how when EDI states that she would risk non functionality....Shepard says "welcome to the crew EDI".

Or when Shepard tells Chakwas to save the brandy, because he intends to do a proper toast on teh anniversary a few months later.

Or when Eve gives Shepard the crystal she used to dig her way out of her own grave, with the advice "Remember, in the darkest hour, there's always a way out"

Or when Shepard and Garrus are talking about retiring after this is all over "I think I'm done saving the galaxy after this"

[Nightwriter]

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Or the fact that he realizes that may not happen and that its a one way trip. He plans to, but he realizes he may not be able to.

Nevermind the fact that also in ME3 in conversation with James, Shepard explains about how being an N7 is not about saving everyone and to be willing to sacrifice yourself to get the job done. Or how when EDI states that she would risk non functionality....Shepard says "welcome to the crew EDI".

Or when Shepard tells Chakwas to save the brandy, because he intends to do a proper toast on teh anniversary a few months later.

Or when Eve gives Shepard the crystal she used to dig her way out of her own grave, with the advice "Remember, in the darkest hour, there's always a way out"

Or when Shepard and Garrus are talking about retiring after this is all over "I think I'm done saving the galaxy after this"

No matter which way you slice it, just as much foreshadowing was laid for Shepard's survival as Shepard's death. More, probably.

[Iakus]

txgoldrush wrote...

and yet if he has to, he will sacrifice himself in that mission.

Sure.  If he has too.  But he didn't go out of his way to die because the story Needz Moar Sadz to be artsy and original.  Whether Shepard lived or died was due to player choice.  Agency,  not Art.

[txgoldrush]

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Or the fact that he realizes that may not happen and that its a one way trip. He plans to, but he realizes he may not be able to.

Nevermind the fact that also in ME3 in conversation with James, Shepard explains about how being an N7 is not about saving everyone and to be willing to sacrifice yourself to get the job done. Or how when EDI states that she would risk non functionality....Shepard says "welcome to the crew EDI".

Or when Shepard tells Chakwas to save the brandy, because he intends to do a proper toast on teh anniversary a few months later.

Or when Eve gives Shepard the crystal she used to dig her way out of her own grave, with the advice "Remember, in the darkest hour, there's always a way out"

Or when Shepard and Garrus are talking about retiring after this is all over "I think I'm done saving the galaxy after this"

But oh wait, in the same conversation, Shepard states that if he or she does die, that he or she will be looking down and would always have Garrus's back.

Eve giving Shepard doesn't prove anything about sacrifice, just despair.

[txgoldrush]

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

and yet if he has to, he will sacrifice himself in that mission.

Sure.  If he has too.  But he didn't go out of his way to die because the story Needz Moar Sadz to be artsy and original.  Whether Shepard lived or died was due to player choice.  Agency,  not Art.

Once again, if he is called to sacrfice, he will.

All soliders know this.

And he was called to.

[txgoldrush]

Nightwriter wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Or the fact that he realizes that may not happen and that its a one way trip. He plans to, but he realizes he may not be able to.

No such thing happened in my game.

txgoldrush wrote...

Nevermind the fact that also in ME3 in conversation with James, Shepard explains about how being an N7 is not about saving everyone and to be willing to sacrifice yourself to get the job done. Or how when EDI states that she would risk non functionality....Shepard says "welcome to the crew EDI".

Certainly, placing others before yourself is an important principle when you're fighting for what you believe in, in this context. But placing others before yourself isn't the same as expecting to die, or accepting an inevitable personal doom. Shepard has plunged into impossible situations and emerged alive before, and the series gives us countless "there is always hope" and "we can do it" messages (Eve and her damned crystal that misled me into being hopeful about the endings, stupid BioWare trolling me).

However, he has also sacrificed himself before......you know ME2 opening.

[txgoldrush]

Essalor wrote...



And once again, in all 3 choices he sacrifices himself. That's like a non-choice considering his options.

However, once again, the main theme of ME3 is victory through sacrifice...I wonder why the choices revolve around this theme.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 10 août 2012 - 06:33 .

[Essalor]

txgoldrush wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Or the fact that he realizes that may not happen and that its a one way trip. He plans to, but he realizes he may not be able to.

No such thing happened in my game.

txgoldrush wrote...

Nevermind the fact that also in ME3 in conversation with James, Shepard explains about how being an N7 is not about saving everyone and to be willing to sacrifice yourself to get the job done. Or how when EDI states that she would risk non functionality....Shepard says "welcome to the crew EDI".

Certainly, placing others before yourself is an important principle when you're fighting for what you believe in, in this context. But placing others before yourself isn't the same as expecting to die, or accepting an inevitable personal doom. Shepard has plunged into impossible situations and emerged alive before, and the series gives us countless "there is always hope" and "we can do it" messages (Eve and her damned crystal that misled me into being hopeful about the endings, stupid BioWare trolling me).

However, he has also sacrificed himself before......you know ME2 opening.

In a cutscene. 

Where you're not in control.

Where he gets blasted away and can't possibly reach the pod. 

It's just bad luck and he just dies not willful sacrifice for any cause.

[Essalor]

txgoldrush wrote...

Essalor wrote...



And once again, in all 3 choices he sacrifices himself. That's like a non-choice considering his options.

However, once again, the main theme of ME3 is victory through sacrifice...I wonder why the choices revolve around this theme.

Main theme of the series is not victory through sacrifice though. You can't take ME3 as a separate game because it doesn't work solo. Just as ME2 and ME1 don't because they have litterary no ending to the overarching plot.

Why are we pigeonholing the ending of the whole trilogy into the contrived-by-your-logic-only theme of one game?

If last Star Wars went suddenly all dark and everyone would die in Death Star explosion, or shot by Empire would it be okay, or totally against the adventure theme of the previous two movies, especially the cheer of New Hope? I mean Darth Vader sacrificed himself so i suppose that was the theme of all the franchize... like when Ben sacrificed himself for Luke....

[Nightwriter]

txgoldrush wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Or the fact that he realizes that may not happen and that its a one way trip. He plans to, but he realizes he may not be able to.

No such thing happened in my game.

txgoldrush wrote...

Nevermind the fact that also in ME3 in conversation with James, Shepard explains about how being an N7 is not about saving everyone and to be willing to sacrifice yourself to get the job done. Or how when EDI states that she would risk non functionality....Shepard says "welcome to the crew EDI".

Certainly, placing others before yourself is an important principle when you're fighting for what you believe in, in this context. But placing others before yourself isn't the same as expecting to die, or accepting an inevitable personal doom. Shepard has plunged into impossible situations and emerged alive before, and the series gives us countless "there is always hope" and "we can do it" messages (Eve and her damned crystal that misled me into being hopeful about the endings, stupid BioWare trolling me).

However, he has also sacrificed himself before......you know ME2 opening.

And then was freaking resurrected. And led a suicide mission. With no casualties.

Look, enough.

The point of this is that none of what came before the endings justifiably prepares the player for overwhelming forced death. Instead the series prepares us for a mix of choices, like we've always gotten, to correspond with the mix of signals we've received throughout the story.

ME3 failed to give us this mix. It forced grimdark down our throats. It sucked.

[txgoldrush]

Essalor wrote...

But the fact is that the Catalyst and his motives were foreshadowed, you just don't like how its done, but facts are facts.

Oh and when does Shepard tell Joker to leave them on Ilos? He doesn't. There is no info given in the game that he was supposed to leave and rally the fifth fleet. Simply put, the writers forgot what they were doing and created a plot hole which casues a Deus Ex Machina. And the n people were complaining about Joker abandoning Shepard in ME3, wow hypocrites.

Nevermind you cannot prove the plot whole you claim ME3 has. How does Soverigns motives contradict the Catalyst from ME3? There is NO PROOF as Vigil's info may in fact be limited (as ME3 proves that Prothean VI's knowledge are limited with the fact that Vendetta was wrong about the true nature of the Catalyst). I can easily play your game. The Protheans sabotoged the Keepers, which allows Catalyst to open the Citadel relay. This leads to Sovereign to attempt to find a way to manually activate the relay. Basically the Protheans paralyzed the Catalyst's functions. But I can play this much easier...how. Because the Catalyst states that the Crucible is part of him, that means the Keepers.

Mhm.. whaaat?

Shepard can communicated with Joker beyond the radius of a relay. There are communication channels that work throughout the whole galaxy, that's how he orders the Human fleet attack from beyond the relay. Considering all the Geth ships that were on Ilos went to attack the Citadel, I think the whole thing is pretty reasonable if not very well explained. Then again there's a similar convenience in ME2 but it in neither game does it ruin the lore. Feels forced? Yes. Game altering? hardly...

Catalyst was clearly told us to be the Citadel. I don't invent stuff, your precious VI on Thessia tells it plainly to our face. How does he know that it's the Citadel? How does he know there's someone behind it all? Oh wait, he uses the same knowledge as Vigil basically mirroring his function in ME1. That's actually a clever circle which would work if he was right.

Then you claim that he was wrong about Citadel being the key but his by-bare-threads foreshadowing of an AI is irrefutable and clear and timely... ye, that's sound logic.

So the AI who is the collective consciousness of all the reapers lives on the Citadel yet the reapers leave one of their own every cycle to watch and activate the new cycle? Can't the AI do that himself? He engineered the whole thing, didn't he? The whole keepers got overridden thing is also a farce now because why would he allow that to happen? The guy has Reaper control/destroy and galaxy altering switches that function with an extra battery, but he doesn't do anything to enforce the cycles he's so hellbent on perpetuating? Why is Sovereign even left behind?

That's what happens when you introduce the new lame character in the end and you don't know what to do with him. And while they rectified his reasons with EC, they didn't rectify the whole reason for him being there. You know... because that would cost too much for a free DLC.

And no, where is your proof that Joker can listen in on Shepard?

Face it, its a plot hole. The game makes absolutely no attempt to expalin how Joker got from Ilos to the Citadel without knowledge of the Conduit, and makes no attempt to explain it after he did it. Thats bad storytelling.and a very unnecessary DEM.

And my preciuous Thessia VI can't identify the master, only that the Reapers are servants to a pattern. This shows the VIs lack of knowledge while foreshadowing a force behind the Reapers.

Because the AI is limited to the Citadel....notice that he can't fire the Crucible and is powerless to do so.....there goes him being a Deus Ex Machina, he can't solve the problem.

And while the OC didn;t know what to do with him, the EC does.

[txgoldrush]

Essalor wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Essalor wrote...



And once again, in all 3 choices he sacrifices himself. That's like a non-choice considering his options.

However, once again, the main theme of ME3 is victory through sacrifice...I wonder why the choices revolve around this theme.

Main theme of the series is not victory through sacrifice though. You can't take ME3 as a separate game because it doesn't work solo. Just as ME2 and ME1 don't because they have litterary no ending to the overarching plot.

Why are we pigeonholing the ending of the whole trilogy into the contrived-by-your-logic-only theme of one game?

If last Star Wars went suddenly all dark and everyone would die in Death Star explosion, or shot by Empire would it be okay, or totally against the adventure theme of the previous two movies, especially the cheer of New Hope? I mean Darth Vader sacrificed himself so i suppose that was the theme of all the franchize... like when Ben sacrificed himself for Luke....

Speaking of Star Wars, you prove my point. A single entry can have its own theme not introduced as the trilogy's theme and then have the finale revolve around it. The first trilogy was never about Vader's redemption until Return of the Jedi. But what destroys the Sith, the main problem of the trilogy and brings final victory....the redemption of Vader. The theme of corruption is throughout the trilogy, but the theme of redemption is only ROTJ., Both themes take part in the ending.

Nevermind that sacrifice was a big part of ME1 and ME2 as well.

[txgoldrush]

Nightwriter wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Or the fact that he realizes that may not happen and that its a one way trip. He plans to, but he realizes he may not be able to.

No such thing happened in my game.

txgoldrush wrote...

Nevermind the fact that also in ME3 in conversation with James, Shepard explains about how being an N7 is not about saving everyone and to be willing to sacrifice yourself to get the job done. Or how when EDI states that she would risk non functionality....Shepard says "welcome to the crew EDI".

Certainly, placing others before yourself is an important principle when you're fighting for what you believe in, in this context. But placing others before yourself isn't the same as expecting to die, or accepting an inevitable personal doom. Shepard has plunged into impossible situations and emerged alive before, and the series gives us countless "there is always hope" and "we can do it" messages (Eve and her damned crystal that misled me into being hopeful about the endings, stupid BioWare trolling me).

However, he has also sacrificed himself before......you know ME2 opening.

And then was freaking resurrected. And led a suicide mission. With no casualties.

Look, enough.

The point of this is that none of what came before the endings justifiably prepares the player for overwhelming forced death. Instead the series prepares us for a mix of choices, like we've always gotten, to correspond with the mix of signals we've received throughout the story.

ME3 failed to give us this mix. It forced grimdark down our throats. It sucked.

Doesn't matter...he still proved that he is willing to sacrifiice himself for his mission and his friends. It doesn;t matter if he was resurrected. He already proved it, making you wrong.

And yet, the ME3 EC ending is FAR from grimdark.

[Nightwriter]

Shepard's willingness to sacrifice himself is pretty meaningless to your argument. Do you know how many fictional heroes there are who were willing to sacrifice themselves, but still lived in the end? It's a common trait in a hero.

An ending where I can't live unless I kill EDI and the geth is pretty bitter to me.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 10 août 2012 - 06:52 .

[txgoldrush]

Nightwriter wrote...

Shepard's willingness to sacrifice himself is pretty meaningless to your argument. Do you know how many fictional heroes there are who were willing to sacrifice themselves, but still lived in the end? It's a common trait in a hero.

An ending where I can't live unless I kill EDI and the geth is pretty bitter to me.

Nope, it just proves that he is willing to sacrifice himself when called.

You are wrong plain and simple.

Face it, you don't like the ending because you just don't like it, not because its flawed.

[AntiChri5]

Wow, you are a fucking moron.

[Essalor]

txgoldrush wrote...

Essalor wrote...

But the fact is that the Catalyst and his motives were foreshadowed, you just don't like how its done, but facts are facts.

Oh and when does Shepard tell Joker to leave them on Ilos? He doesn't. There is no info given in the game that he was supposed to leave and rally the fifth fleet. Simply put, the writers forgot what they were doing and created a plot hole which casues a Deus Ex Machina. And the n people were complaining about Joker abandoning Shepard in ME3, wow hypocrites.

Nevermind you cannot prove the plot whole you claim ME3 has. How does Soverigns motives contradict the Catalyst from ME3? There is NO PROOF as Vigil's info may in fact be limited (as ME3 proves that Prothean VI's knowledge are limited with the fact that Vendetta was wrong about the true nature of the Catalyst). I can easily play your game. The Protheans sabotoged the Keepers, which allows Catalyst to open the Citadel relay. This leads to Sovereign to attempt to find a way to manually activate the relay. Basically the Protheans paralyzed the Catalyst's functions. But I can play this much easier...how. Because the Catalyst states that the Crucible is part of him, that means the Keepers.

Mhm.. whaaat?

Shepard can communicated with Joker beyond the radius of a relay. There are communication channels that work throughout the whole galaxy, that's how he orders the Human fleet attack from beyond the relay. Considering all the Geth ships that were on Ilos went to attack the Citadel, I think the whole thing is pretty reasonable if not very well explained. Then again there's a similar convenience in ME2 but it in neither game does it ruin the lore. Feels forced? Yes. Game altering? hardly...

Catalyst was clearly told us to be the Citadel. I don't invent stuff, your precious VI on Thessia tells it plainly to our face. How does he know that it's the Citadel? How does he know there's someone behind it all? Oh wait, he uses the same knowledge as Vigil basically mirroring his function in ME1. That's actually a clever circle which would work if he was right.

Then you claim that he was wrong about Citadel being the key but his by-bare-threads foreshadowing of an AI is irrefutable and clear and timely... ye, that's sound logic.

So the AI who is the collective consciousness of all the reapers lives on the Citadel yet the reapers leave one of their own every cycle to watch and activate the new cycle? Can't the AI do that himself? He engineered the whole thing, didn't he? The whole keepers got overridden thing is also a farce now because why would he allow that to happen? The guy has Reaper control/destroy and galaxy altering switches that function with an extra battery, but he doesn't do anything to enforce the cycles he's so hellbent on perpetuating? Why is Sovereign even left behind?

That's what happens when you introduce the new lame character in the end and you don't know what to do with him. And while they rectified his reasons with EC, they didn't rectify the whole reason for him being there. You know... because that would cost too much for a free DLC.

And no, where is your proof that Joker can listen in on Shepard?

Face it, its a plot hole. The game makes absolutely no attempt to expalin how Joker got from Ilos to the Citadel without knowledge of the Conduit, and makes no attempt to explain it after he did it. Thats bad storytelling.and a very unnecessary DEM.

And my preciuous Thessia VI can't identify the master, only that the Reapers are servants to a pattern. This shows the VIs lack of knowledge while foreshadowing a force behind the Reapers.

Because the AI is limited to the Citadel....notice that he can't fire the Crucible and is powerless to do so.....there goes him being a Deus Ex Machina, he can't solve the problem.

And while the OC didn;t know what to do with him, the EC does.

Oh and here we went from Reapers enforce the pattern to Reapers follow the pattern. Once again ruining them completely as villains and throwing the whole premise of the series on it's head.

How does he know that? If he knows the master why is he incorrect about Citadel? What's going on? For all we know the AI solved the probelm and built the Reapers. The whole additional choices because Crucible is attached is once again pure BS. Why an extra battery would suddenly unlock extra choices or computations?
Was he low on power? The three reactors already existed on the Citadel, even the Synthesis magic one? Why this cycle is ready if the Crucilbe is the design of previous cycles which were wiped out?  Why are we still fed all of this headache because they wanted to thematically fit the unfitting ending?

[Nightwriter]

Why am I even talking to you.

[Essalor]

txgoldrush wrote...

Essalor wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Essalor wrote...



And once again, in all 3 choices he sacrifices himself. That's like a non-choice considering his options.

However, once again, the main theme of ME3 is victory through sacrifice...I wonder why the choices revolve around this theme.

Main theme of the series is not victory through sacrifice though. You can't take ME3 as a separate game because it doesn't work solo. Just as ME2 and ME1 don't because they have litterary no ending to the overarching plot.

Why are we pigeonholing the ending of the whole trilogy into the contrived-by-your-logic-only theme of one game?

If last Star Wars went suddenly all dark and everyone would die in Death Star explosion, or shot by Empire would it be okay, or totally against the adventure theme of the previous two movies, especially the cheer of New Hope? I mean Darth Vader sacrificed himself so i suppose that was the theme of all the franchize... like when Ben sacrificed himself for Luke....

Speaking of Star Wars, you prove my point. A single entry can have its own theme not introduced as the trilogy's theme and then have the finale revolve around it. The first trilogy was never about Vader's redemption until Return of the Jedi. But what destroys the Sith, the main problem of the trilogy and brings final victory....the redemption of Vader. The theme of corruption is throughout the trilogy, but the theme of redemption is only ROTJ., Both themes take part in the ending.

Nevermind that sacrifice was a big part of ME1 and ME2 as well.

Erm... the theme of redemption is not the theme of Star Wars. If you think that you completely missed the point just as Lucas has when he decided that was the main point and made prequels focused on the most marketable character he had. 

Sacrifice was never a theme of ME1 or ME2, in fact almost noone willingly sacrifices himself in any of the first two game. You can choose who to KILL on Virmire and you can screw up and choose who to KILL on Collector base. But willful sacrifice... no.

[Iakus]

txgoldrush wrote...

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

and yet if he has to, he will sacrifice himself in that mission.

Sure.  If he has too.  But he didn't go out of his way to die because the story Needz Moar Sadz to be artsy and original.  Whether Shepard lived or died was due to player choice.  Agency,  not Art.

Once again, if he is called to sacrfice, he will.

All soliders know this.

And he was called to.

No, he wasn't.

There was no call.  There was no choice, save i whether to die by fire, electricity, or space magic.  A sacrifice is when you willingly give something up.  Shepard was beaten to death with a Plot Hammer.