6432 réponses à ce sujet

[Jadebaby]

Because you say a definitive ending would ruin it for those that want a sacrifice destroy ending. But that's BS, if you want a sacrificial destroy ending. Don't do as much so you don't survive the blast.

SIMPLE!

[Dragoonlordz]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

No, I agree, it's not perfect. I'd love a perfect ending, but I'll take an imperfect ending that provides closure. The current EC endings do not provide that for me.

The problem with the endings isn't Shepard sacrificing herself, it's the atrocities you inflict.

(a) Genocide on allies and friends
( Become a reaper, come back and reap later
© Indoctrinate everyone

None of these appeal to me. They can be tweaked to make them more palatable. Destroy could not, you know, kill the geth and EDI, just reapers. Or Synthesis could not be space magic and instead just be brokered peace.

I can't even begin to tell you how much I enjoyed being an orator in the Mass Effect games. Particularly in ME1 and ME2, I could talk people down and change worlds with words alone. With words. I do the same thing in ME3 and I'm rewarded for it, until the ending, where suddenly words fail me. I mean, I've already brokered the peace between synthetics and organics (Geth & Quarians), but suddenly in the face of indoctrination, I can't use that as an example of how yes, peace can be established and yes, the Catalyst is completely fahrbot and full of dren.

You have no proof of the latter part of your option (.

The first part is dubious too. The catalyst was not a Reaper. It controlled the Reapers.

Actually, I do. You need to listen to the Catalyst again. He specifically says it's a temporary solution and that the cycle will repeat. Bonus: He says the same thing about the Destroy option. The cycle will repeat, indoctrination is the only solution!

And it is well established that the Catalyst created the Reapers and is thus their maker -- which by extension makes it the "first Reaper."

Guess you never played Leviathan, they said in that the first Reaper was Harbinger.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 29 septembre 2012 - 05:35 .

[dreman9999]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. We were never told control is impossible. The organic vs Synthetic theme was open on the very first mission of mass effect and then driven in by the vision Shepard got later on that mission.
As shepard stated in ME1.
"I saw a vision of synthetics killing organics....Butchering them."

2.It called an open ended ending. Is inseption a bad movie because it ended open ended? The problem here is that you don't want to imagine Shepard alive. BW left that concept up to our minds if he lived or died.

1. Control was VERY heavily implied through-out the entire series as impossible. The same way Hackett's single opinion of "we cant beat them conventionally" doesn't say that we can't.
FACEPALM! The very first mission was the Geth being under Reaper control, same for the rest of ME1.

"I saw a vision of synthetics butchering organics." - These synthetics are the ****ing Reapers, you idiot!

2. Oh really? Because according to Priestly, it's not open-ended...

1. No it not. Infact, please link me to the moment it is spacifilcy stated in ME3 to be impossible. If you can't, stop saying it.

2.The reaper are part of the organic vs synthetic conflict. They are not even the start of it. You don't get this?

Modifié par dreman9999, 29 septembre 2012 - 05:48 .

[CronoDragoon]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Because you say a definitive ending would ruin it for those that want a sacrifice destroy ending. But that's BS, if you want a sacrificial destroy ending. Don't do as much so you don't survive the blast.

SIMPLE!

Uh huh.

Hey guys, I'm going to hack the game and invert the EMS requirements, so that in order to get the Shep breaths scene, you have to have 3000 EMS or below. Anything above and he is dead.

What's that? You're upset? Just play less of the game!

SIMPLE.

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

In trhis case closer is for us to make. BW ending the story of SHepard like this is just them giving us the pen to write the rest of Sheps story.
That's the point of open end ending. For the veiwer to decide for themselves. It's like how inception left it up to the veiw to pick if the ending was a dream or reality. 

thats BS, Control and Synthesis gets a sense of closure but Destroy, they want us do it for them? Chris already said its not a open ending. We should be allowed to a scene where Shepard is fully alive or die

[RedTail F22]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

1. Control was VERY heavily implied through-out the entire series as impossible. The same way Hackett's single opinion of "we cant beat them conventionally" doesn't say that we can't.
FACEPALM! The very first mission was the Geth being under Reaper control, same for the rest of ME1.

"I saw a vision of synthetics butchering organics." - These synthetics are the ****ing Reapers, you idiot!

2. Oh really? Because according to Priestly, it's not open-ended...

While I love your enthusiasm  and hate the ending as much as you do I also like this thread. I don't want to see it get locked. I understand you want to voice your opinions but I feel there could be better ways to dissagree with those opposing your view that wouldn't put this thread at risk. Thanks  
 

[Dragoonlordz]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. We were never told control is impossible. The organic vs Synthetic theme was open on the very first mission of mass effect and then driven in by the vision Shepard got later on that mission.
As shepard stated in ME1.
"I saw a vision of synthetics killing organics....Butchering them."

2.It called an open ended ending. Is inseption a bad movie because it ended open ended? The problem here is that you don't want to imagine Shepard alive. BW left that concept up to our minds if he lived or died.

1. Control was VERY heavily implied through-out the entire series as impossible. The same way Hackett's single opinion of "we cant beat them conventionally" doesn't say that we can't.
FACEPALM! The very first mission was the Geth being under Reaper control, same for the rest of ME1.

"I saw a vision of synthetics butchering organics." - These synthetics are the ****ing Reapers, you idiot!

2. Oh really? Because according to Priestly, it's not open-ended...

Lose the attitude, calling people idiots and trolls will only earn you time away from the forums to calm down before returning.

[N7 Lisbeth]

CronoDragoon wrote...

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

And it is well established that the Catalyst created the Reapers and is thus their maker -- which by extension makes it the "first Reaper."

No, it doesn't. God isn't a human.

(I am not religious, but this is an appropriate metaphor)

For starters, bad example on your part because anytime "God" is brought up nothing is ever possible. God itself is a metaphor.

Instead let's say Adam and Eve, since you're a biblical person. They're technically not human, no belly buttons, etc. They were created, not born. But as the first people, as our progenitors, we retroactively dub them as human.

This applies to the Catalyst. Obviously something created it (it's an artificial AI), and it created the Reapers. By extention, it is a Reaper as their progenitor as the first of their kind.

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...

iakus wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

As someone who believes Shepard lives, I disagree. What we have now is ambiguity, which is far better than if BW came out and said, "Shepard's dead in that scene, it's his last breath." I have a feeling you'd feel much worse hearing that than you do now.

At least I would have closure 

But seriously.  No, I doubt I would feel much worse, given I uninstalled the game weeks ago.  I can't see going back to Mass Effect with th eendings as they are.  What could get worse than that?

In trhis case closer is for us to make. BW ending the story of SHepard like this is just them giving us the pen to write the rest of Sheps story.

I'll believe that when they allow modding tools for all the platforms.  At least so we can make our own ending slides.

Then I'll believe we have a pen to finsh the story with.

[Jadebaby]

Yep, sorry about the swearing and everything people. I can't deal with this right now. I'm gonna go cool off. Again, regardless of how much I disagree with the three of you. Sorry.

[Dragoonlordz]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

And it is well established that the Catalyst created the Reapers and is thus their maker -- which by extension makes it the "first Reaper."

No, it doesn't. God isn't a human.

(I am not religious, but this is an appropriate metaphor)

For starters, bad example on your part because anytime "God" is brought up nothing is ever possible. God itself is a metaphor.

Instead let's say Adam and Eve, since you're a biblical person. They're technically not human, no belly buttons, etc. They were created, not born. But as the first people, as our progenitors, we retroactively dub them as human.

This applies to the Catalyst. Obviously something created it (it's an artificial AI), and it created the Reapers. By extention, it is a Reaper as their progenitor as the first of their kind.

I already corrected this, you are told quite clearly in Leviathan DLC that Harbinger is the first Reaper. Keyword being the first meaning the catalyst is not one as it came before Harbinger..

[CronoDragoon]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

And it is well established that the Catalyst created the Reapers and is thus their maker -- which by extension makes it the "first Reaper."

No, it doesn't. God isn't a human.

(I am not religious, but this is an appropriate metaphor)

For starters, bad example on your part because anytime "God" is brought up nothing is ever possible. God itself is a metaphor.

Instead let's say Adam and Eve, since you're a biblical person. They're technically not human, no belly buttons, etc. They were created, not born. But as the first people, as our progenitors, we retroactively dub them as human.

This applies to the Catalyst. Obviously something created it (it's an artificial AI), and it created the Reapers. By extention, it is a Reaper as their progenitor as the first of their kind.

It's a fine example, because the Bible is a story just like Mass Effect is. In that story, God created humans. By your logic, that makes him human. It would also make humans wrenches.

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

In trhis case closer is for us to make. BW ending the story of SHepard like this is just them giving us the pen to write the rest of Sheps story.
That's the point of open end ending. For the veiwer to decide for themselves. It's like how inception left it up to the veiw to pick if the ending was a dream or reality. 

thats BS, Control and Synthesis gets a sense of closure but Destroy, they want us do it for them? Chris already said its not a open ending. We should be allowed to a scene where Shepard is fully alive or die

He just gave his opinion of the ending. Not what spacifily happened. Him saying Shepard is dead is like saying the end of inception is a dream.

It's opened end. If you feel he's dead....then he's dead. If you feel he's alive he's alive.

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

iakus wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

As someone who believes Shepard lives, I disagree. What we have now is ambiguity, which is far better than if BW came out and said, "Shepard's dead in that scene, it's his last breath." I have a feeling you'd feel much worse hearing that than you do now.

At least I would have closure 

But seriously.  No, I doubt I would feel much worse, given I uninstalled the game weeks ago.  I can't see going back to Mass Effect with th eendings as they are.  What could get worse than that?

In trhis case closer is for us to make. BW ending the story of SHepard like this is just them giving us the pen to write the rest of Sheps story.

I'll believe that when they allow modding tools for all the platforms.  At least so we can make our own ending slides.

Then I'll believe we have a pen to finsh the story with.

People are modding the ending with all platforms. If you can do that just imagine it up. Point being, Shepards fate really does not matter to the story because the next game will  be many years after.

[N7 Lisbeth]

CronoDragoon wrote...

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

Shepard dying in Synthesis is the opposite: it is not a meaningful death. There's no reason for you to be atomised, there's no logic to it (nor was there in Legion's death). Worse, you sacrifice yourself not to save everyone, but to indoctrinate everyone. Worst. Ending. Ever.

I envy Tarquin for having such a clear-cut, triumphant sacrifice scene. Mordin and Thane as well. Me? I galactically frelled everyone for the Reapers. Hooray!

Obviously if you start with the premise that Synthesis indoctrinates everyone then his death isn't meaningful. Not many people believe this interpretation of Synthesis, though.

But this isn't relevant to whether or not Destroy people could find Shepard's death meaningful.

Actually, a lot of people did believe just that -- or, as close second, they believed it was a violation on a galactic level. Both are correct. Synthesis is a war crime.

If Synthesis was peachy, then nobody would've minded the endings. Therein lies your discombobulation.

[N7 Lisbeth]

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

In trhis case closer is for us to make. BW ending the story of SHepard like this is just them giving us the pen to write the rest of Sheps story.
That's the point of open end ending. For the veiwer to decide for themselves. It's like how inception left it up to the veiw to pick if the ending was a dream or reality. 

thats BS, Control and Synthesis gets a sense of closure but Destroy, they want us do it for them? Chris already said its not a open ending. We should be allowed to a scene where Shepard is fully alive or die

He just gave his opinion of the ending. Not what spacifily happened. Him saying Shepard is dead is like saying the end of inception is a dream.

It's opened end. If you feel he's dead....then he's dead. If you feel he's alive he's alive.

Poor comparison. Inception had a happy ending.

[GarvakD]

AndreasShepard wrote...

Here's my issue with it all, you create a fantastic universe with amazing characters that you can't help but fall in love with and then you just shut it all down in the last five minutes of your series and say "sorry we're not going to tell you what happened to the most important character in the entire trilogy."

That relationship you might have spent years developing between Shepard and his/her love interest, guess what you'll never see it pan out. We'll just leave you with Shepard buried beneath rubble and you can use your imagination to figure out the rest.

It's like ending lord of the rings the minute after Frodo gets his finger bitten off and the ring is destroyed, yeah sure the ring is destroyed but what happened to Frodo? Is he gonna bleed out, will Sam survive too? Wont Gandalf and the rest of the crew want to try and save him? If you care at all about these characters you want to see this kind of thing resolved before being able to put a story to rest.

This game is about the characters for me, I never really cared what became of the alliance soldiers on earth or getting a higher N7 rating in multiplayer but Mass effect 3 just totally did away with the character focus at the end of this game, leaving many fans like me heartbroken at how Shepard was just tossed aside (especially pre-extended cut).

The whole thing just seems incredibly sadistic the way they provide the possibility for him to live and then vehemently deny that they'll ever show anything beyond the breath scene. 

And the simple fact is that Casey and Mac may have created this universe but remember how they forgot to show us what happened to the squad after harbringers beam or how the crew got off earth?  It makes me seriously question just how much they care about these characters to have had such a gross oversight take place and I just feel there's a certain lack of sympathy/understanding in regards to character closure.

Once again, another statement I agree with and would like to re-display due to possible overlook.  

Modifié par GarvakD, 29 septembre 2012 - 05:50 .

[N7 Lisbeth]

CronoDragoon wrote...

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

And it is well established that the Catalyst created the Reapers and is thus their maker -- which by extension makes it the "first Reaper."

No, it doesn't. God isn't a human.

(I am not religious, but this is an appropriate metaphor)

For starters, bad example on your part because anytime "God" is brought up nothing is ever possible. God itself is a metaphor.

Instead let's say Adam and Eve, since you're a biblical person. They're technically not human, no belly buttons, etc. They were created, not born. But as the first people, as our progenitors, we retroactively dub them as human.

This applies to the Catalyst. Obviously something created it (it's an artificial AI), and it created the Reapers. By extention, it is a Reaper as their progenitor as the first of their kind.

It's a fine example, because the Bible is a story just like Mass Effect is. In that story, God created humans. By your logic, that makes him human. It would also make humans wrenches.

Re-read the example I used. Adam and Eve were clearly created, but by an unknown (God). Catalyst was clearly created (artificial AI), but by an unknown. Direct parallel. I also notice you refute it by bringing up God again. <Rolls eyes>

[dreman9999]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

In trhis case closer is for us to make. BW ending the story of SHepard like this is just them giving us the pen to write the rest of Sheps story.
That's the point of open end ending. For the veiwer to decide for themselves. It's like how inception left it up to the veiw to pick if the ending was a dream or reality. 

thats BS, Control and Synthesis gets a sense of closure but Destroy, they want us do it for them? Chris already said its not a open ending. We should be allowed to a scene where Shepard is fully alive or die

He just gave his opinion of the ending. Not what spacifily happened. Him saying Shepard is dead is like saying the end of inception is a dream.

It's opened end. If you feel he's dead....then he's dead. If you feel he's alive he's alive.

Poor comparison. Inception had a happy ending.

..........

Let me ask you a question about the end of inception....Did you see the top fall?

[Lunch Box1912]

GarvakD wrote...

AndreasShepard wrote...

Here's my issue with it all, you create a fantastic universe with amazing characters that you can't help but fall in love with and then you just shut it all down in the last five minutes of your series and say "sorry we're not going to tell you what happened to the most important character in the entire trilogy."

That relationship you might have spent years developing between Shepard and his/her love interest, guess what you'll never see it pan out. We'll just leave you with Shepard buried beneath rubble and you can use your imagination to figure out the rest.

It's like ending lord of the rings the minute after Frodo gets his finger bitten off and the ring is destroyed, yeah sure the ring is destroyed but what happened to Frodo? Is he gonna bleed out, will Sam survive too? Wont Gandalf and the rest of the crew want to try and save him? If you care at all about these characters you want to see this kind of thing resolved before being able to put a story to rest.

This game is about the characters for me, I never really cared what became of the alliance soldiers on earth or getting a higher N7 rating in multiplayer but Mass effect 3 just totally did away with the character focus at the end of this game, leaving many fans like me heartbroken at how Shepard was just tossed aside (especially pre-extended cut).

The whole thing just seems incredibly sadistic the way they provide the possibility for him to live and then vehemently deny that they'll ever show anything beyond the breath scene. 

And the simple fact is that Casey and Mac may have created this universe but remember how they forgot to show us what happened to the squad after harbringers beam or how the crew got off earth?  It makes me seriously question just how much they care about these characters to have had such a gross oversight take place and I just feel there's a certain lack of sympathy/understanding in regards to character closure.

Once again, another statement I agree with and would like to re-display due to possible overlook.  

Touché

[Iakus]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

In trhis case closer is for us to make. BW ending the story of SHepard like this is just them giving us the pen to write the rest of Sheps story.
That's the point of open end ending. For the veiwer to decide for themselves. It's like how inception left it up to the veiw to pick if the ending was a dream or reality. 

thats BS, Control and Synthesis gets a sense of closure but Destroy, they want us do it for them? Chris already said its not a open ending. We should be allowed to a scene where Shepard is fully alive or die

He just gave his opinion of the ending. Not what spacifily happened. Him saying Shepard is dead is like saying the end of inception is a dream.

It's opened end. If you feel he's dead....then he's dead. If you feel he's alive he's alive.

Poor comparison. Inception had a happy ending.

Yup.  If Inception followed ME3 the last scene would have been Cobb taking a breath on the airplane.

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

In trhis case closer is for us to make. BW ending the story of SHepard like this is just them giving us the pen to write the rest of Sheps story.
That's the point of open end ending. For the veiwer to decide for themselves. It's like how inception left it up to the veiw to pick if the ending was a dream or reality. 

thats BS, Control and Synthesis gets a sense of closure but Destroy, they want us do it for them? Chris already said its not a open ending. We should be allowed to a scene where Shepard is fully alive or die

He just gave his opinion of the ending. Not what spacifily happened. Him saying Shepard is dead is like saying the end of inception is a dream.

It's opened end. If you feel he's dead....then he's dead. If you feel he's alive he's alive.

wanna know the difference between Inception and Mass Effect besides one being a movie and the other a game, Mass Effect gives you choices and the Destroy option lets Shepard live and people knew that. Bioware could have easily done two versions of Destroy like that but no they made them ambiguous and lacked closure while the other endings did give a sense of closure

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

In trhis case closer is for us to make. BW ending the story of SHepard like this is just them giving us the pen to write the rest of Sheps story.
That's the point of open end ending. For the veiwer to decide for themselves. It's like how inception left it up to the veiw to pick if the ending was a dream or reality. 

thats BS, Control and Synthesis gets a sense of closure but Destroy, they want us do it for them? Chris already said its not a open ending. We should be allowed to a scene where Shepard is fully alive or die

He just gave his opinion of the ending. Not what spacifily happened. Him saying Shepard is dead is like saying the end of inception is a dream.

It's opened end. If you feel he's dead....then he's dead. If you feel he's alive he's alive.

Poor comparison. Inception had a happy ending.

..........

Let me ask you a question about the end of inception....Did you see the top fall?

the top started to wobble

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

In trhis case closer is for us to make. BW ending the story of SHepard like this is just them giving us the pen to write the rest of Sheps story.
That's the point of open end ending. For the veiwer to decide for themselves. It's like how inception left it up to the veiw to pick if the ending was a dream or reality. 

thats BS, Control and Synthesis gets a sense of closure but Destroy, they want us do it for them? Chris already said its not a open ending. We should be allowed to a scene where Shepard is fully alive or die

He just gave his opinion of the ending. Not what spacifily happened. Him saying Shepard is dead is like saying the end of inception is a dream.

It's opened end. If you feel he's dead....then he's dead. If you feel he's alive he's alive.

Poor comparison. Inception had a happy ending.

..........

Let me ask you a question about the end of inception....Did you see the top fall?

the top started to wobble

So? But did you see it drop? Just becauseit wobble does not mean it dropped.

An open ended  ending ends with a quetions left to the viewer to awnser with clue supporting all assumptions.

Total recall did this as well. Is it's ending a dream or real?

We have no definate awnser, just thjing we have we can mak e assumptions.

[GarvakD]

That wobbling, as some moderators or forumgoers from this realm of the internet would say, is equivalent to Shepard's breath scene.  It could be viewed as a living breath or his final, dying breath (even though it was a gasp for air :/).

AresKeith wrote...

GarvakD wrote...
I just imagine my Shepard(s) toughing it out (within limits.  A man can only go so long without water and food.  Or bleeding out) to witness the fruits of his labor. The destruction of Reapers. Galactic peace Reunite with crew and LI. I'm not letting my friends live without me. I think they'd miss me. A boatload of people owe me drinks. I promised Tali a house (her father already let her down, horribly...and I'm better). And I do enjoy living. 

"And if the day ever comes when you're tempted to sell me out, remember this: whatever their price, I'll beat it. I like living."

You can expect to see me in this thread for another several months despite naysayers.  Maybe their right.  Maybe we can't win this.  But we'll fight regardless.Because submission is not preferable to extinction.

QFT lol

 Do I win? 

Modifié par GarvakD, 29 septembre 2012 - 06:00 .