557 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

Why am I even talking to you.

Hey, he gave me an excuse to use a phrase "beaten to dath with a Plot Hammer"  I call this a productive eveningt 

[txgoldrush]

Essalor wrote...

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?

First of all, The Catalyst knew of the designs of the Crucible, not what it does. He is in the dakr as everyone else.

Second, I told you he does NOT know the master, he says that the Reapers are servants of the pattern not its master, and it can not identify its master.

Third if the Protheans knew the Citadel was the final piece, they would have tailored the Crucible to fit with it. Nevermind that the Catalyst once again never knew that a power source connected to the Citadel can change things, until it happened. Hell, he thought that it was eradicated.

And the Reapers enforece the pattern because guess what, the Catalyst is the embodiement of the Reapers.

The fact is that Shepard's efforts lead this billion year old AI to believe that his methods do not work. Through Shepards persistance, organics finally resisted long enough to "present" the Catalyst with new solutions. One is removing the Reapers from the equation entirely at a cost, thematically covered in the series and the game.

[Iakus]

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

IF being the operative word.  Just because it can happen, doesn't mean it's destined to be.  And Shepard clearly did not believe death to be inevitable.  Therefore.  It should not have been.

Eve's crystal and advice reinforced a theme that actually did span the series:  That there's always hope.  Nothing is predetermined.

[AngryFrozenWater]

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.

Agreed. I do not even intend to keep Shepard alive. After all, I know it is the end of the series, but exterminating the geth is not a sacrifice, but betrayal of an ally by genocide. I select destroy anyway, because I see no other way out to get rid of the reapers. It feels dirty and it also feels like stabbing EDI in the back. It's not even a choice comparable to Virmire, where both Ashley and Kaidan knew what was at stake. EDI and the geth were victims of idiocracy: Martyrs of a hypothetical cause.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 10 août 2012 - 07:14 .

[Iakus]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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.

Agreed. I do not even intend to keep Shepard alive. After all, I know it is the end of the series, but exterminating the geth is not a sacrifice, but betrayal of an ally by genocide. I select destroy anyway, because I see no other way out to get rid of the reapers. It feels dirty and it even feels like stabbing EDI in the back. It's not even a choice comparable to Virmire, where both Ashley and Kaidan knew what was at stake. EDI and the geth were victims of idiocracy: Martyrs of a hypothetical cause.

Agreed 100%

 That we can't even we can't even warn EDI or the geth makes that feel more like a betrayal than a sacrifice..

DAO gave us several possible "sacrifices" to make, each with potential ups and downs.  That's a "real" sacrifice.  you choose what price is worth paying.

And most importantly, all the Grey Wardens knew the score, what may be asked of them.

[txgoldrush]

Essalor wrote...

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.

No, redemption is the theme of ROTJ. Why does Luke go through all that effort to help redeem his father? To see the good in him. Its quite clear.

And its not just willing self sacrifice, it is also the burden that a leader may have to be willing to sacrifice his men or the few to save the many. The theme of sacrifice is much more than just self sacrifice. Hell, TIM is a villianous representation of forceful sacrifice, but instead of good, its for lust for power.

Both are displayed on Virmire...Ash or Kaiden are willing to sacrifice their lives for the mission while Shepard has teh burden to choose who lives or dies.

Vigil on Ilos shut down life pods of non essential staff to conserve nergy for essential staff, to sabatoge the Keepers, giving the next cycle the chance.

Shepard dying to svae Joker in ME2.

Many paragon and renegade options throughout the trilogy involve sacrifice.

ME2 Arrival, need I say more.

Then it becomes the main theme of ME3.

[txgoldrush]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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.

Agreed. I do not even intend to keep Shepard alive. After all, I know it is the end of the series, but exterminating the geth is not a sacrifice, but betrayal of an ally by genocide. I select destroy anyway, because I see no other way out to get rid of the reapers. It feels dirty and it also feels like stabbing EDI in the back. It's not even a choice comparable to Virmire, where both Ashley and Kaidan knew what was at stake. EDI and the geth were victims of idiocracy: Martyrs of a hypothetical cause.

Wrong

EDI declares that she is willing to risk non functionality to defeat the Reapers.

[txgoldrush]

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

IF being the operative word.  Just because it can happen, doesn't mean it's destined to be.  And Shepard clearly did not believe death to be inevitable.  Therefore.  It should not have been.

Eve's crystal and advice reinforced a theme that actually did span the series:  That there's always hope.  Nothing is predetermined.

And yet through Shepard, hope is attained, dead or not.

[Iakus]

txgoldrush wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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.

Agreed. I do not even intend to keep Shepard alive. After all, I know it is the end of the series, but exterminating the geth is not a sacrifice, but betrayal of an ally by genocide. I select destroy anyway, because I see no other way out to get rid of the reapers. It feels dirty and it also feels like stabbing EDI in the back. It's not even a choice comparable to Virmire, where both Ashley and Kaidan knew what was at stake. EDI and the geth were victims of idiocracy: Martyrs of a hypothetical cause.

Wrong

EDI declares that she is willing to risk non functionality to defeat the Reapers.

Hours earlier in the game.

Might have been more dramatic and meaningful if it happened during a final communication before Shepard walked into the pipe explosion...

You know, like
"Had to be me.  Someone else might have gotten it wrong"
"Legion, the answer to your question is 'yes'"
"You did good, son.  You did good"
"Guide this one, Kalahira, and he will be a companion to you as he was to me"

[Iakus]

txgoldrush wrote...

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

IF being the operative word.  Just because it can happen, doesn't mean it's destined to be.  And Shepard clearly did not believe death to be inevitable.  Therefore.  It should not have been.

Eve's crystal and advice reinforced a theme that actually did span the series:  That there's always hope.  Nothing is predetermined.

And yet through Shepard, hope is attained, dead or not.

There is no hope for Shepard, though.  And without hope, we might as well be machines...

[Nightwriter]

You can make an argument that victory is attained, though I'd fight you on even that.

But hope? Hope is an extremely personal emotion to the player, too intertwined in what we're invested in to be treated like some objective story edifice. I personally was invested in Shepard's life. Shepard was the window through which I experienced all of Mass Effect. I wanted him to live. I really don't think it would've cost BioWare anything to make that happen without forcing me to gun down my friends.

[txgoldrush]

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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.

Agreed. I do not even intend to keep Shepard alive. After all, I know it is the end of the series, but exterminating the geth is not a sacrifice, but betrayal of an ally by genocide. I select destroy anyway, because I see no other way out to get rid of the reapers. It feels dirty and it also feels like stabbing EDI in the back. It's not even a choice comparable to Virmire, where both Ashley and Kaidan knew what was at stake. EDI and the geth were victims of idiocracy: Martyrs of a hypothetical cause.

Wrong

EDI declares that she is willing to risk non functionality to defeat the Reapers.

Hours earlier in the game.

Might have been more dramatic and meaningful if it happened during a final communication before Shepard walked into the pipe explosion...

You know, like
"Had to be me.  Someone else might have gotten it wrong"
"Legion, the answer to your question is 'yes'"
"You did good, son.  You did good"
"Guide this one, Kalahira, and he will be a companion to you as he was to me"

Yet, she defined herself as willing to sacrifice her functionality. It is a key part of her character development.

[Iakus]

txgoldrush wrote...

Yet, she defined herself as willing to sacrifice her functionality. It is a key part of her character development.

Timing is everything.

[txgoldrush]

Nightwriter wrote...

You can make an argument that victory is attained, though I'd fight you on even that.

But hope? Hope is an extremely personal emotion to the player, too intertwined in what we're invested in to be treated like some objective story edifice. I personally was invested in Shepard's life. Shepard was the window through which I experienced all of Mass Effect. I wanted him to live. I really don't think it would've cost BioWare anything to make that happen without forcing me to gun down my friends.

and the fact is, it doesn't matter if he lives or not, hope is attained, the cycle is broken. Hope goes beyond the main character surviving.

[AngryFrozenWater]

txgoldrush wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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.

Agreed. I do not even intend to keep Shepard alive. After all, I know it is the end of the series, but exterminating the geth is not a sacrifice, but betrayal of an ally by genocide. I select destroy anyway, because I see no other way out to get rid of the reapers. It feels dirty and it also feels like stabbing EDI in the back. It's not even a choice comparable to Virmire, where both Ashley and Kaidan knew what was at stake. EDI and the geth were victims of idiocracy: Martyrs of a hypothetical cause.

Wrong

EDI declares that she is willing to risk non functionality to defeat the Reapers.

Of course you conveniently forget about the genocide of the geth and the reason why the geth and EDI had to die. If you want to discuss then respond in a comprehensible fashion. Do not try to isolate one argument and surround that with nonsense to derail this thread. I have no intention to discuss in such a destructive way. Pick someone else to project your aggression to.

Have a nice weekend.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 10 août 2012 - 07:29 .

[txgoldrush]

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Yet, she defined herself as willing to sacrifice her functionality. It is a key part of her character development.

Timing is everything.

Which is timed right because it occurs right before the final two missions.

Face it, she defined herself. you are just moving the goalposts.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 10 août 2012 - 07:29 .

[Nightwriter]

txgoldrush wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

You can make an argument that victory is attained, though I'd fight you on even that.

But hope? Hope is an extremely personal emotion to the player, too intertwined in what we're invested in to be treated like some objective story edifice. I personally was invested in Shepard's life. Shepard was the window through which I experienced all of Mass Effect. I wanted him to live. I really don't think it would've cost BioWare anything to make that happen without forcing me to gun down my friends.

and the fact is, it doesn't matter if he lives or not, hope is attained, the cycle is broken. Hope goes beyond the main character surviving.

... And I just said that that is not how hope is defined for everyone. Just you.

[Essalor]

First of all, The Catalyst knew of the designs of the Crucible, not what it does. He is in the dakr as everyone else.

Second, I told you he does NOT know the master, he says that the Reapers are servants of the pattern not its master, and it can not identify its master.

Third if the Protheans knew the Citadel was the final piece, they would have tailored the Crucible to fit with it. Nevermind that the Catalyst once again never knew that a power source connected to the Citadel can change things, until it happened. Hell, he thought that it was eradicated.

And the Reapers enforece the pattern because guess what, the Catalyst is the embodiement of the Reapers.

The fact is that Shepard's efforts lead this billion year old AI to believe that his methods do not work. Through Shepards persistance, organics finally resisted long enough to "present" the Catalyst with new solutions. One is removing the Reapers from the equation entirely at a cost, thematically covered in the series and the game.

So how does Vendetta know they are servants of the pattern exactly? Did he read the script? Only the secret AI on the Citadel does in a huge unexplored room with 3 doomsday devices. The AI whose logic can be apparently overridden by a device constructed by beings who knew nothing of his existence, of which existence he knew but didn't know the function of?

Oh wait I thought nobody knew what the Crucible does... now even the AI doesn't until it's docked?
Who designed that thing? (please download the Leviathan DLC to know that the race who built the AI also started the Crucible design in secret - 7$!) Why is everyone convinced it'd work? Did they all read the script?

Note that Vendetta says that Crucible docks to Citadel because it extends the Crucible's power and focuses it on the Reapers. you know, because the citadel is built by Reapers... makes sense.. And then it's vice versa now because by coincidence the literal Deus Ex Machina happens to live on the Citadel and Crucible is the power source now?

Modifié par Essalor, 10 août 2012 - 07:33 .

[txgoldrush]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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.

Agreed. I do not even intend to keep Shepard alive. After all, I know it is the end of the series, but exterminating the geth is not a sacrifice, but betrayal of an ally by genocide. I select destroy anyway, because I see no other way out to get rid of the reapers. It feels dirty and it also feels like stabbing EDI in the back. It's not even a choice comparable to Virmire, where both Ashley and Kaidan knew what was at stake. EDI and the geth were victims of idiocracy: Martyrs of a hypothetical cause.

Wrong

EDI declares that she is willing to risk non functionality to defeat the Reapers.

Of course you conveniently forget about the genocide of the geth and the reason why the geth and EDI had to die. If you want to discuss then respond in a comprehensible fashion. Do not try to isolate one argument and surround that with nonsense to derail this thread. I have no intention to discuss in such a destructive way. Pick someone else to project your aggression to.

Have a nice weekend.

Please tell me the reason that they had to die? Oh wait, it isn;t given, except for that the Crucible firing doesn;t discriminate between Reapers and synthetics. Nevermind it gets much worse at lower EMS.

If you are assuming its part of the Catalyst's plan, then where is your clear evidence?

In fact, the Catalyst tries to DISCOURAGE you from destroying the Reapers.

[Iakus]

txgoldrush wrote...

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Yet, she defined herself as willing to sacrifice her functionality. It is a key part of her character development.

Timing is everything.

Which is timed right because it occurs right before the final two missions.

Face it, she defined herself. you are just moving the goalposts.

No, I'm saying that EDI declaring she's willing to risk death to stop the Reapers has a lot less impact while having a private conversation on the bridge of the Normandy than it would when she is facing  her own imminent death.  EDI's death in ME3 was not artistic, or moving.  It was perfunctory, callous, and  arbitrarilly tragic.

[txgoldrush]

Nightwriter wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

You can make an argument that victory is attained, though I'd fight you on even that.

But hope? Hope is an extremely personal emotion to the player, too intertwined in what we're invested in to be treated like some objective story edifice. I personally was invested in Shepard's life. Shepard was the window through which I experienced all of Mass Effect. I wanted him to live. I really don't think it would've cost BioWare anything to make that happen without forcing me to gun down my friends.

and the fact is, it doesn't matter if he lives or not, hope is attained, the cycle is broken. Hope goes beyond the main character surviving.

... And I just said that that is not how hope is defined for everyone. Just you.

and the writers...notice how with Shep dead, there is still hope.

[Iakus]

txgoldrush wrote...

Please tell me the reason that they had to die? Oh wait, it isn;t given, except for that the Crucible firing doesn;t discriminate between Reapers and synthetics. Nevermind it gets much worse at lower EMS.

If you are assuming its part of the Catalyst's plan, then where is your clear evidence?

In fact, the Catalyst tries to DISCOURAGE you from destroying the Reapers.

That's the in-game excuse.

What's the reason?  Why did Bioware put that in?  Why the arbitrary tragedy?

[txgoldrush]

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Please tell me the reason that they had to die? Oh wait, it isn;t given, except for that the Crucible firing doesn;t discriminate between Reapers and synthetics. Nevermind it gets much worse at lower EMS.

If you are assuming its part of the Catalyst's plan, then where is your clear evidence?

In fact, the Catalyst tries to DISCOURAGE you from destroying the Reapers.

That's the in-game excuse.

What's the reason?  Why did Bioware put that in?  Why the arbitrary tragedy?

Because the dilemma of that moment is established in two ways.

1) Hackett and Anderson trying to see how to direct the Crucible where it hits only Reapers, and not everyone else.

2) the establishment of the theme throughout the series of how a leader may have to sacrifice the few to save the many (and high ems Catalyst explaining destroy sets it up that way, basically defining what will be lost as the "the few" without using the word). Garrus in ME3 especially establishes this theme in the various conversations about the ruthless calculus of war on the normandy.

[Nightwriter]

txgoldrush wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

You can make an argument that victory is attained, though I'd fight you on even that.

But hope? Hope is an extremely personal emotion to the player, too intertwined in what we're invested in to be treated like some objective story edifice. I personally was invested in Shepard's life. Shepard was the window through which I experienced all of Mass Effect. I wanted him to live. I really don't think it would've cost BioWare anything to make that happen without forcing me to gun down my friends.

and the fact is, it doesn't matter if he lives or not, hope is attained, the cycle is broken. Hope goes beyond the main character surviving.

... And I just said that that is not how hope is defined for everyone. Just you.

and the writers...notice how with Shep dead, there is still hope.

The writers also thought that Tali's stock image photo was a good idea and that no one who romanced Jacob would be upset that he cheated on them. They're not infallible.

Look, you love that Shepard got thrown under the bus and you've embraced whatever wonderful happy world you think you created with his sacrifice. I get it. Great. It works for you.

But the position that Shepard should've died no matter what is indefensible.

[txgoldrush]

Nightwriter wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

You can make an argument that victory is attained, though I'd fight you on even that.

But hope? Hope is an extremely personal emotion to the player, too intertwined in what we're invested in to be treated like some objective story edifice. I personally was invested in Shepard's life. Shepard was the window through which I experienced all of Mass Effect. I wanted him to live. I really don't think it would've cost BioWare anything to make that happen without forcing me to gun down my friends.

and the fact is, it doesn't matter if he lives or not, hope is attained, the cycle is broken. Hope goes beyond the main character surviving.

... And I just said that that is not how hope is defined for everyone. Just you.

and the writers...notice how with Shep dead, there is still hope.

The writers also thought that Tali's stock image photo was a good idea and that no one who romanced Jacob would be upset that he cheated on them. They're not infallible.

Look, you love that Shepard got thrown under the bus and you've embraced whatever wonderful happy world you think you created with his sacrifice. I get it. Great. It works for you.

But the position that Shepard should've died no matter what is indefensible.

No, Jacob going with someone else is supposed to make you a bit upset, however, this is actually a GOOD thing. Bioware has the balls to do this.....not everyone stays true, not everything works out the way you want them to.

No, Shepard dies in accordance with the theme of the story. Deal with it. Nevermind he doesn;t really die in high EMS Destroy and doesn't really die in Control either, however he does pay the price here. Only lower EMS destroy and synthesis does he die...and in low EMS destroy explanations.....Catalyst outright says that you will die. Not so with high EMS.