6432 réponses à ce sujet

[MegaSovereign]

3DandBeyond wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...
snipped


Oh wow that's hilarious. I'm not attacking you for holding a certain opinion.

I made my post because it's pretty clear that you believe your opinion about the galaxy being damned is fact. There is a clear discrepancy between what your interpretation of the endings is and what is actually being presented on screen.

You've contradicted yourself because earlier you were so sure that the endings presented a certain damnation of the galaxy.  Now you're saying they're too ambigious. It's statements like these that make it hard for Bioware to really get what exactly the fanbase wants. That's why you see them focusing more on surveys and polls rather than looking at anrgy BSN letters.

You are doing exactly that.  I never said that was a fact.  It's my opinion so for me it is a fact.  You see things differently and I'v said I don't want things changed if you like it and that's your reality.

I've said the explanations and what is shown make the endings ambiguous.  But that they should show the reality of it as I see it.  There's nothing contradictory there.  I believe they do bad things to the galaxy but are shown as super good things.  That is a real example of ambiguous.  They don't show the real consequences of what you just chose.  In control, people are happy with reapers fixing stuff?  In synthesis, with forever altered bodies?  Even though in ME there were people that never wanted any kind of implants at all, but now you just forced everyone to become whatever they become.  If you don't know what you just did to people, how on Earth can you say that's a great thing and that at least what you've done is force changes onto them internally with no permission.

Yes, I see that it should have been shown as having real consequences and I don't see those as good.  But, it's shown as too easy and too happy.  You see the happiness of it all and that's fine. 

We never actually see them acting all happy about the Reapers fixing stuff. It's just your interpretation.

I don't like Synthesis and I never choose it. You don't have to either.

After the Reaper war is over, the Galaxy can now rebuild. They now have a bright future ahead of them that they can work toward. What is shown on-screen is not wrong or "hiding" anything. You actually do see people comforting the lost in the epilogue. For example IIRC there was a slide where Jacob and his baby mama were comforting some chick who was crying.

Besides, do you actually want to see an even more nihilistic ending? Ofcourse you don't. You're only saying that now for the sake of arguing with me.

[Xamufam]

inversevideo wrote...

 The inclusion of synthesis goes beyond space magic, it actually breaks the logic of the Reapers existence.

Writer Arthur C. Clarke proposed that any civilization sufficiently advanced would have technology that is indistiguishable from magic.  

And that is the crux of the problem introduced by Starkid with synthesis.
Just how advanced would a technology need to be in order to combine
Shepard's DNA with all living things, galaxy wide, and with machines? 

Scientists have thought about the issue of advanced civilizations and their
theoretical capabilities, and even how to classify advancements.

The Kardashev
scale is a general method of classifying how technologically advanced a
civilization is. It was first proposed in 1964 by the Soviet astronomer
Nikolai Kardashev.

Kardashev defined three levels of civilizations, based on the order of magnitude and the amount of power available to them:

 
Type I: "Technological level close to the level presently (here
referring to 1964) attained on earth, with energy consumption at ≈4×1019
erg/sec[2] (4 × 1012 watts.) Guillermo A. Lemarchand stated this as "A
level near contemporary terrestrial civilization with an energy
capability equivalent to the solar insolation on Earth, between 1016 and
10 17 watts."[3]

Type II: "A civilization capable of harnessing the energy radiated by its own star (for example, the stage
of successful construction of a Dyson sphere), with energy consumption
at ≈4×1033 erg/sec.[2] Lemarchand stated this as "A civilization capable
of utilizing and channeling the entire radiation output of its star.
The energy utilization would then be comparable to the luminosity of our
Sun, about 4 × 1026 watts."[3]

Type III: "A civilization in possession of energy on the scale of its own galaxy, with energy
consumption at≈4×1044 erg/sec."[2] Lemarchand stated this as "A
civilization with access to the power comparable to the luminosity of
the entire Milky Way galaxy, about 4 × 1037 Watts."[3]

A fourth classification, Type IV, was added by Profesor Dr. Zoltan Galantai, and expanded upon by the late astrophysicist Carl Sagan, and also by theoretical physicist Dr. Michio Kaku. A Type IV civilization controls the energy output of the visible universe.

Another extension, to the Kardashev scale, was introduced by theoretical physicist and mathematician Dr. John D. Barrow who has postualated that civilizations may also and/or instead, focus on the micro rather than the macro.

"Type I-minus is capable of manipulating objects over the scale of
themselves: building structures, mining, joining and breaking solids; 

Type II-minus is capable of manipulating genes and altering the development
of living things, transplanting or replacing parts of
themselves, reading and engineering their genetic code; 

Type III-minus is capable of manipulating molecules and molecular bonds, creating new materials; 

Type IV-minus is capable of manipulating individual atoms, creating
nanotechnologies on the atomic scale and creating complex forms of
artificial life; 

Type V-minus is capable of manipulating the atomic nucleus and engineering the nucleons that compose it; 

Type VI-minus is capable of manipulating the most elementary particles of
matter (quarks and leptons) to create organized complexity among
populations of elementary particles; 

Type Omega-minus is capable of manipulating the basic structure of space and time"

Which brings us back to Synthesis. In order for Starkid to effect Synthesis,
and use Shepard's DNA to combine living tissue, plants, animals, both
levo-protein races (Asari, Human) and dextro-protein species (Quarians),
with non-organic technology,  Starkid, would need to understand and
have access to technology at the level of either a Type IV or Type
IV-minus civilization.

This would make Starkid a 'god'. To paraphrase Kirk 'what does god want with Shepard?'  

If Starkid has that type of power, the power of a Type IV or TypeIV-minus
civilization, then nothing, even Leviathan, nothing in the galaxy could
oppose him. At that level Starkid is truly invincible. The denizens of
the galaxy would be like amoeba in comparison to Starkid.

There
would be no reason for the Reapers.In fact the war would be over before
we knew there was supposed to be a war. Starkid could usurp Shepard's
DNA, enact Synthesis, and it would be a done deal.One moment human, the
next transhuman, with no explanation of how it was done.

 If the
designers, of the Crucible, were a type IV or Type Iv-minus
civilization, they would have far outpaced the Reapers and Starkid, and
would have destroyed or neutralized the threat.  

If the plans,
for the Crucible, originated with a Type IV civilization, why not just
outright help? Why give a super WMD to the, in comparison to them,
'amoeba'?

If Leviathan originated the Crucible, and the Crucible
is a tool made by a Type IV or Type IV-minus civilization, then
Leviathan are that Civilization, and they should not be running from
anything.  

And so at best, the introduction of Synthesis has created a paradox.

Why go through endless cycles of harvesting, when you have the power of creation?

Modifié par Troxa, 04 octobre 2012 - 04:59 .

[Ozida]

Seival wrote...

If you can't accept the main concept of the story, then you don't like the story.

You have only two valid options:
 - Accept the endings, and become a pro-ender.
 - Remain an anti-ender, and leave.

Anything else is just a waste of time.

If you cannot accept the main concept of this thread, then you just don't like what OP has suggested.

You have only two valid options:
 - Accept the claim, and become a supporter of this thread
 - Remain a pro-ender, and leave.

Any other discussions is a waste of time. Fair enough?

[AresKeith]

Seival wrote...

If you can't accept the main concept of the story, then you don't like the story.

You have only two valid options:
 - Accept the endings, and become a pro-ender.
 - Remain an anti-ender, and leave.

Anything else is just a waste of time.

.. oh you was serious

btw hows that thread you just made going, oh wait

Modifié par AresKeith, 14 septembre 2012 - 09:50 .

[Redbelle]

Adanu wrote...


ME3 is dark, gritty, and a last ditch effort to stop an EONS old cycle of harvesting that changes everything. You have to make sacrifices to make it work, then the ending is kept vague enough that you can infer as you wish. You people will never be satisfied until you get a disney ending. ME was never going to get a disney ending.

...........Noooooo, I don't think you've grasped the concept of what 'ending' the pro ME crew want. Or for that matter, how to end a story, whether that story be book, movie, tv episode or game.

Every ending has to resolve the 'problem' that is presented in the narrative........ And that resolution has to make sense in so far as it is a believable resolution the character portreyed would enact. Remaking Ghandi, for example, would not be resolved it ended by him walking into the British embassy, proclaimed the British Rule a disease and he is the cure and proceed to gun everyone down. It's not in his character. (It also didn't happen which helps as well).

Now granted, Shepard is a moldable character. But break him down past the variable choices. Who is he? He's a soldier. He has consistantly been portrayed in the narrative as a soldier who does solider things using soldier gear to maximum effect. Then suddenly, when Harby takes a shot, Shepard is stripped of this soldier persona, in so far as his abilities are cut, his squad is gone and the gameplay mechanics, with no preparation to the player are altered. We are left with an infinite ammo gun and a shambling Shep whose walk speed would make more sense if it was a device to give the game time to load truely mind blowing background scenes in a way that GoW did when you crossed a reaaaaaally long bridge. Unfortunately instead of raising it's game at this point with something actively challenging the game, like Shepard, shambles along. It's like not having those chest opening puzzles from ME1 and 2. The difficulty has been set to zero. So Shep's changed his role, the game no longer provides challenge, unless you count Mauradar Shields, and the pacing slows to a crawl. This is leading up to the finale? Darn

It's not so much 'ending' as 'endings'. Endings that reflect what your Shepard did throughout the journey. Not what choice you suddenly have shoehorned in because the story teller refused to let the whole writing team feed into how this sequence would play out. One writer wrote that the Pre ECDLC ending was a low emotion, high intellect ending that he likes to write so he thought the rest of us would like it too. High intellect is always good....... ahahah provided........ the intellectural content is refined into a conise form and is not an outpouring of thought. Narrators are responsible for leading their audiences through their stories. If a large majority of the audience loses the plot then the narrator went to fast or got to complicated.

Then we get to the ECDLC and the idea's from the original are expeanded upon in a way that we can understand. Many don't agree with the logic, indeed the logic resembles the logic of G0-T0 from KOTOR2. Or Viki from I Robot. Indeed many elements from the ending feel like reheated left overs from other Sci-Fi storys. The war against machines? That story has been told in the Terminator, BSG, Robo-cop had a different take on the concept. The 6 million dollar man could probably pass as a future human in ME with all the tech in him. The story of synths vrs orgs is such a minor story in the larger ME universe that to make it front and centre of the plot was........... a bit underwhelming. And of course not forgetting that for all their tech the Reapers have a juicy gooey centre with a crunchy outer shell.

www.youtube.com/watch

All which is a bit of a long winded way of saying, if Adanu and Seiv think we're after disney and only disney............ They really haven't been focusing on the wider debates contained in this thread. Maybe they are consumers who will accept what is put on their plate without complaint and remain compliant in the hopes that doing so earns them brownie points somewhere down the road. This is ok. I've a boss who never rocks the boat too. Unforntunately as a result he can't represent the department he's supposed to take care of which is more damaging in the long run, and the same is true with the ending debate. Put up with it and the writer may do it again. Push the writer to do better and chances are next time he'll have learned from his mistakes and will produce a better end product.

If he'll just make use of the people around him who are there to help in future we will probably never have to facepalm ourselves and ask for another ECDLC with what new IP EA have ok'd CH to produce.

[3DandBeyond]

MegaSovereign wrote...The issue people had with the Catalyst was obviously not ignored. Half of the EC's content was extra dialogue with the Catalyst in order to "clarify" and mitigate the notion that the concept was a God-like figure.

I have no interest in continuing an argument.  You win.  You get the catalyst.  Please accept yes for an answer.  I don't care.  He exists and no one is threatening your concept of him or that you can keep him.  You came here today for an argument.  It's evident.  I've wanted to discuss but apparently today, arguing is the mood that suits you. 

I don't know why it's necessary to argue and defend what you already have.  Enjoy it.  All we are asking for is additional content so we can too.  That is seemingly a capital offense.  I guess I was raised on another planet where asking for things was not considered demanding, disliking inanimate objects was not considered hating, where an opinion is not considered a statement of fact, and diverse opinion was allowed and advocated, and where discussion is not a contact sport. 

[Seival]

Ozida wrote...

Seival wrote...

If you can't accept the main concept of the story, then you don't like the story.

You have only two valid options:
 - Accept the endings, and become a pro-ender.
 - Remain an anti-ender, and leave.

Anything else is just a waste of time.

If you cannot accept the main concept of this thread, then you just don't like what OP has suggested.

You have only two valid options:
 - Accept the claim, and become a supporter of this thread
 - Remain a pro-ender, and leave.

Any other discussions is a waste of time. Fair enough?

Nope. Making your phrase similar to mine doesn't make your reply valid.

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...


If you can't accept the main concept of the story, then you don't like the story.

You have only two valid options:
 - Accept the endings, and become a pro-ender.
 - Remain an anti-ender, and leave.

Anything else is just a waste of time.

That's a lovely sentiment, really. But you have twice ignored some important questions regarding your perceptions of ME3, so seeing as your actions have indicated a complete disconnect with debating issues and a hard line resolve to belittle thoughts and idea's you do not agree with, please take this reply in the spirit in which it was intended.

http://t0.gstatic.co...DEA9uQfjNHWMNoQ

*Edit* You also seem to operating under a misconception. We are the Pro enders in that we want ME to possess the endings that is a fitting finale to the ME saga.

You are attempting to prevent the pro enders from establishing what went wrong so we, and by extention BW, know in future how to get it right. This discussion, and other discussions that BW instigated to raise the level of debate are therefore a potential resource to our game making comrades......... you therefore, by attempting to stifle debate by telling people to be more like you is............. well, I won't say your anti the game, but you clearly do not respect those who love it.

Modifié par Redbelle, 14 septembre 2012 - 10:22 .

[3DandBeyond]

@Troxa, that is truly an interesting post.  And I must say that in the very least what the ending debacle has done for me is to help me learn things from people like you.  Thank you.  And for that and many other instances of such things, thank you Bioware.  Part of me wants to believe this is what you hoped for-if so, you are geniuses.  If not, you got lucky (or we did) through some bad circumstances.

[obZen DF]

Just completed the survey 3D suggested a few pages back. Thanks for letting me know.

[Ozida]

Seival wrote...

Ozida wrote...

Seival wrote...

If you can't accept the main concept of the story, then you don't like the story.

You have only two valid options:
 - Accept the endings, and become a pro-ender.
 - Remain an anti-ender, and leave.

Anything else is just a waste of time.

If you cannot accept the main concept of this thread, then you just don't like what OP has suggested.

You have only two valid options:
 - Accept the claim, and become a supporter of this thread
 - Remain a pro-ender, and leave.

Any other discussions is a waste of time. Fair enough?

Nope. Making your phrase similar to mine doesn't make your reply valid.

Ok, I will put in more straight words then: if you have nothing else to say rather than we are wrong because you just think otherwise, say nothing and leave. This is not a productive discussion.

Modifié par Ozida, 14 septembre 2012 - 10:01 .

[MegaSovereign]

3DandBeyond wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...The issue people had with the Catalyst was obviously not ignored. Half of the EC's content was extra dialogue with the Catalyst in order to "clarify" and mitigate the notion that the concept was a God-like figure.

I have no interest in continuing an argument.  You win.  You get the catalyst.  Please accept yes for an answer.  I don't care.  He exists and no one is threatening your concept of him or that you can keep him.  You came here today for an argument.  It's evident.  I've wanted to discuss but apparently today, arguing is the mood that suits you. 

I don't know why it's necessary to argue and defend what you already have.  Enjoy it.  All we are asking for is additional content so we can too.  That is seemingly a capital offense.  I guess I was raised on another planet where asking for things was not considered demanding, disliking inanimate objects was not considered hating, where an opinion is not considered a statement of fact, and diverse opinion was allowed and advocated, and where discussion is not a contact sport. 

I never argued for or against anything you've said with the OP. I was arguing with you over your claims of the galaxy being screwed over with all the endings, which is separate from your requests in the OP. At one point I even clearly said I wouldn't mind them expanding the endings even further.

You're desperately trying to make me look like the villian in this conversation. It really isn't working.

EDIT:

OKay I get it now. You want me to leave. Fine.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 14 septembre 2012 - 10:03 .

[3DandBeyond]

MegaSovereign wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...The issue people had with the Catalyst was obviously not ignored. Half of the EC's content was extra dialogue with the Catalyst in order to "clarify" and mitigate the notion that the concept was a God-like figure.

I have no interest in continuing an argument.  You win.  You get the catalyst.  Please accept yes for an answer.  I don't care.  He exists and no one is threatening your concept of him or that you can keep him.  You came here today for an argument.  It's evident.  I've wanted to discuss but apparently today, arguing is the mood that suits you. 

I don't know why it's necessary to argue and defend what you already have.  Enjoy it.  All we are asking for is additional content so we can too.  That is seemingly a capital offense.  I guess I was raised on another planet where asking for things was not considered demanding, disliking inanimate objects was not considered hating, where an opinion is not considered a statement of fact, and diverse opinion was allowed and advocated, and where discussion is not a contact sport. 

I never argued for or against anything you've said with the OP. I was arguing with you over your claims of the galaxy being screwed over with all the endings, which is separate from your requests in the OP. At one point I even clearly said I wouldn't mind them expanding the endings even further.

You're desperately trying to make me look like the villian in this conversation. It really isn't working.


EDIT:

OKay I get it now. You want me to leave. Fine.

I never said that, but it would be nice to discuss things and to have you ask questions before making assumptions.

You took my opinions and said I stated they were fact.  This is beneath you.  I shouldn't have to say specifically that I am going to state an opinion before every opinion I state.  I also stated that you should be aware why people have similar opinions since it's been stated all over the place.  I didn't say you argued about the OP, but about my opinions on the kid and the choices.  I never said it was fact as to what happens, but I do think that such things could well be extrapolated from what we are shown or what's said.  I've also said you win.  You're totally right.  I don't care to be right or wrong or anything here.  It's a moot point. 

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 14 septembre 2012 - 10:13 .

[Seival]

Ozida wrote...

Seival wrote...

Ozida wrote...

Seival wrote...

If you can't accept the main concept of the story, then you don't like the story.

You have only two valid options:
 - Accept the endings, and become a pro-ender.
 - Remain an anti-ender, and leave.

Anything else is just a waste of time.

If you cannot accept the main concept of this thread, then you just don't like what OP has suggested.

You have only two valid options:
 - Accept the claim, and become a supporter of this thread
 - Remain a pro-ender, and leave.

Any other discussions is a waste of time. Fair enough?

Nope. Making your phrase similar to mine doesn't make your reply valid.

Ok, I will put in more straight words then: if you have nothing else to say rather than we are wrong because you just think otherwise, say nothing and leave. This is not a productive discussion.

Well, maybe I'm indeed repeating that too often. I'll not bother you anymore, but you should consider what I suggested about becoming a pro-ender. This will solve all your problems with the endings.

Have a nice day.



...That was a reply to all anti-enders, not just the particular one.

[Crysis I]

Reality Check

[3DandBeyond]

Redbelle wrote...

Adanu wrote...


ME3 is dark, gritty, and a last ditch effort to stop an EONS old cycle of harvesting that changes everything. You have to make sacrifices to make it work, then the ending is kept vague enough that you can infer as you wish. You people will never be satisfied until you get a disney ending. ME was never going to get a disney ending.

...........Noooooo, I don't think you've grasped the concept of what 'ending' the pro ME crew want. Or for that matter, how to end a story, whether that story be book, movie, tv episode or game.

Every ending has to resolve the 'problem' that is presented in the narrative........ And that resolution has to make sense in so far as it is a believable resolution the character portreyed would enact. Remaking Ghandi, for example, would not be resolved it ended by him walking into the British embassy, proclaimed the British Rule a disease and he is the cure and proceed to gun everyone down. It's not in his character. (It also didn't happen which helps as well).

Now granted, Shepard is a moldable character. But break him down past the variable choices. Who is he? He's a soldier. He has consistantly been portrayed in the narrative as a soldier who does solider things using soldier gear to maximum effect. Then suddenly, when Harby takes a shot, Shepard is stripped of this soldier persona, in so far as his abilities are cut, his squad is gone and the gameplay mechanics, with no preparation to the player are altered. We are left with an infinite ammo gun and a shambling Shep whose walk speed would make more sense if it was a device to give the game time to load truely mind blowing background scenes in a way that GoW did when you crossed a reaaaaaally long bridge. Unfortunately instead of raising it's game at this point with something actively challenging the game, like Shepard, shambles along. It's like not having those chest opening puzzles from ME1 and 2. The difficulty has been set to zero. So Shep's changed his role, the game no longer provides challenge, unless you count Mauradar Shields, and the pacing slows to a crawl. This is leading up to the finale? Darn

It's not so much 'ending' as 'endings'. Endings that reflect what your Shepard did throughout the journey. Not what choice you suddenly have shoehorned in because the story teller refused to let the whole writing team feed into how this sequence would play out. One writer wrote that the Pre ECDLC ending was a low emotion, high intellect ending that he likes to write so he thought the rest of us would like it too. High intellect is always good....... ahahah provided........ the intellectural content is refined into a conise form and is not an outpouring of thought. Narrators are responsible for leading their audiences through their stories. If a large majority of the audience loses the plot then the narrator went to fast or got to complicated.

Then we get to the ECDLC and the idea's from the original are expeanded upon in a way that we can understand. Many don't agree with the logic, indeed the logic resembles the logic of G0-T0 from KOTOR2. Or Viki from I Robot. Indeed many elements from the ending feel like reheated left overs from other Sci-Fi storys. The war against machines? That story has been told in the Terminator, BSG, Robo-cop had a different take on the concept. The 6 million dollar man could probably pass as a future human in ME with all the tech in him. The story of synths vrs orgs is such a minor story in the larger ME universe that to make it front and centre of the plot was........... a bit underwhelming. And of course not forgetting that for all their tech the Reapers have a juicy gooey centre with a crunchy outer shell.

www.youtube.com/watch

All which is a bit of a long winded way of saying, if Adanu and Seiv think we're after disney and only disney............ They really haven't been focusing on the wider debates contained in this thread. Maybe they are consumers who will accept what is put on their plate without complaint and remain compliant in the hopes that doing so earns them brownie points somewhere down the road. This is ok. I've a boss who never rocks the boat too. Unforntunately as a result he can't represent the department he's supposed to take care of which is more damaging in the long run, and the same is true with the ending debate. Put up with it and the writer may do it again. Push the writer to do better and chances are next time he'll have learned from his mistakes and will produce a better end product.

If he'll just make use of the people around him who are there to help in future we will probably never have to facepalm ourselves and ask for another ECDLC with what new IP EA have ok'd CH to produce.

Great post!  I think it is so much that there isn't the wide variety of endings.  As I see it the choices all give off the same feeling.  And for many it just isn't a happy one.  Intellectualism and emotion do have to go hand in hand especially in a game, but in a movie or any story.  You can get the intellect really wrong, but you never want to get the emotion wrong.  I have no wish for anyone to not like what they have-I don't want that taken from them, but I truly really wanted that "hell yeah" ending.  At least let me have that for Shepard that allows me to have the Shepard I loved back again.  I don't know that person that could kill EDI and the Geth to end this.  And the other 2 choices are just foreign concepts I could never expose the galaxy to.  I see my Shepard in refusal, but I can't be happy with making her commit suicide.  I can't do anything that I like.  I have finished the game, forced myself to so I can see what my endings are as they happen and in context with all that I've done-more than once.  And I never have liked it nor have I felt good about it.  I like to feel good after playing a game.  I know I'm not alone in this.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Seival wrote...
Well, maybe I'm indeed repeating that too often. I'll not bother you anymore, but you should consider what I suggested about becoming a pro-ender. This will solve all your problems with the endings.

Have a nice day.

...That was a reply to all anti-enders, not just the particular one.

So would a lobotomy, no thanks.

[ld1449]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Seival wrote...
Well, maybe I'm indeed repeating that too often. I'll not bother you anymore, but you should consider what I suggested about becoming a pro-ender. This will solve all your problems with the endings.

Have a nice day.

...That was a reply to all anti-enders, not just the particular one.

So would a lobotomy, no thanks.

Lol.

[Archonsg]

Seival wrote...

...That was a reply to all anti-enders, not just the particular one.

I don't think you understand or that you want to. 
To clarify.
As you mentioned, the endings are THERE. Its there to stay.  Agreed?
No point being "anti-ending" at this point.

However, why can't you understand or respect that we want ALTERNATIVE, IN ADDITION TO, that is, more endings? 
Your stance is "No, because they wont!" while we are trying to say, "No harm asking, because they might."

Maybe they will, maybe they won't. 
Are you so insecure to feel that threatened simply by people asking for something you won't or don't want to?

[Redbelle]

Archonsg wrote...

Seival wrote...

...That was a reply to all anti-enders, not just the particular one.

I don't think you understand or that you want to. 
To clarify.
As you mentioned, the endings are THERE. Its there to stay.  Agreed?
No point being "anti-ending" at this point.

However, why can't you understand or respect that we want ALTERNATIVE, IN ADDITION TO, that is, more endings? 
Your stance is "No, because they wont!" while we are trying to say, "No harm asking, because they might."

Maybe they will, maybe they won't. 
Are you so insecure to feel that threatened simply by people asking for something you won't or don't want to?

Seiv has posted in the past that ECDLC was great on the basis that it was an addition and not a re-imaging. On that basis BW handling more addition's to expand on end game content would be a good thing. They;ve expanded twice in different ways with the past 2 SP DLC's. The only question now is will they, and if they do, how far do BW think they can take it

Modifié par Redbelle, 14 septembre 2012 - 10:56 .

[CronoDragoon]

3DandBeyond wrote...

@CronoDragoon, we can go round and round till eternity.  You have formed your opinions and they diverge from what I've seen as major complaints that were never addressed.  And, in case that's not apparent, I have been on the BSN a lot and I have posted and read a lot.  I answer things here about why I feel as I do about the endings because to not do so seems to indicate that many don't have good reasons for their opinions - as happened with the one post where I did not write a complete college dissertation in a post. 

I have seen you post a lot and I know you must have seen more than you state as the main points.  But, I no longer care to rehash my opinions with someone who should know better.  I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but you want a fight and I don't.  The kid was always the biggest problem in the game.  If polls didn't reflect that oh well-statistics are only as good as those that really seek to understand them and there's no way a person could not have understood from the pre-EC threads that the kid was the problem.  It's just that everyone always agreed (just as is the case here) that they weren't going to ever get rid of him, so people lowered their sights on things they thought had a chance of being changed.

You don't need to be so defensive. I don't want a fight, I want a discussion. I would also like to see the endings changed further, but I disagree with some of your specifics of what you want - things like the endings are nihilistic or the Catalyst is the main problem. I'm not spamming your thread with hate, haven't insulted you or called you names, and as far as I can tell have not been condescending, either. I don't see why you want to cut off this discussion unless you feel belittled or insulted, neither of which I believe I have done.

This is a forum and you should be open to discussing the specifics of how an ending paid DLC should work. I was one of the first to post my belief, in the first week of ME3's release, that the best answer was a paid ending DLC. And I got roasted for it. Perhaps you were in the same boat as me, but what I don't appreciate is being effectively told to go away in a thread that aligns with my general wishes but has some points of contention with the specifics.

Now, back to the discussion about the Catalyst: I challenge that the Catalyst going away would solve 95% of the ending. When people say that, what they really have in mind is the youtube video where Shepard activates the Crucible, and it skips over the Catalyst and right to the Destroy ending Crucible firing and wiping out the Reapers. In this case, we are looking not just for the removal of the Catalyst but the removal of the ending choice in its entirety, along with the negative consequences of Destroy.

Alternatively, if we keep the Catalyst, but take away the geth/EDI destruction, we will have a situation similar to ME2, where the general sentiment would be, "The boss was kind of stupid, but the rest was awesome." In other words, I believe the Catalyst came to represent and be associated with the ending choice, which is not altogether unfair since he presents and explains the choices (and it is not ruled out that he comes up with them, as well) However, I do think it means that what really got people angry was not the Catalyst himself, but rather what the player, through his presence, is forced to endure in the endings. I also think that when people talk about the disconnect between the ME series and the ending, it is more important for them that the tone seems so out of place rather than the lack of Catalyst foreshadowing.

In summary, I believe what is missing from the endings currently is not the removal of the Catalyst, but the lack of a triumph over his ideals. While Destroy is not what he wants, it is also not really what you the player want. There's not as much catharsis as there could be.

[AresKeith]

Redbelle wrote...

Archonsg wrote...

Seival wrote...

...That was a reply to all anti-enders, not just the particular one.

I don't think you understand or that you want to. 
To clarify.
As you mentioned, the endings are THERE. Its there to stay.  Agreed?
No point being "anti-ending" at this point.

However, why can't you understand or respect that we want ALTERNATIVE, IN ADDITION TO, that is, more endings? 
Your stance is "No, because they wont!" while we are trying to say, "No harm asking, because they might."

Maybe they will, maybe they won't. 
Are you so insecure to feel that threatened simply by people asking for something you won't or don't want to?

Seiv has posted in the past that ECDLC was great on the basis that it was an addition and not a re-imaging. On that basis BW handling more addition's to expand on end game content would be a good thing. They;ve expanded twice in different ways with the past 2 SP DLC's. The only question now is will they, and if they do, how far do BW think they can take it

that might depend on how many SP DLCs they make

[Xamufam]

3DandBeyond wrote...

@Troxa, that is truly an interesting post.  And I must say that in the very least what the ending debacle has done for me is to help me learn things from people like you.  Thank you.  And for that and many other instances of such things, thank you Bioware.  Part of me wants to believe this is what you hoped for-if so, you are geniuses.  If not, you got lucky (or we did) through some bad circumstances.

OK NP, but the post contridicts the entire point of synthesis.(Bioware created a paradox)
Levaiathan is nothing more than a late type 2 or a early type 3 or they would have run the universe.(they also state they don't know anything about what the crucible does)
The creators of the crucible would have blasted the reapers away before the harvest began, The reapers didn't give the organics time to develop the tech level required.

And those were just hypothesis.Only civ type 1-3 are theory.

Modifié par Troxa, 15 septembre 2012 - 12:30 .

[MegaSovereign]

In summary, I believe what is missing from the endings currently is not the removal of the Catalyst, but the lack of a triumph over his ideals. While Destroy is not what he wants, it is also not really what you the player want. There's not as much catharsis as there could be.

You just blew my ****ing mind. This was exactly what I was thinking for a while but I could never quite put it in words.

TDKR also had the same problem. The main villains die believing they were right about society.

[Benchpress610]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Everyone, please remember to go and take Bioware's Community Survey.

http://social.biowar.../index/14081735

Bioware is asking for our input.

Did it