6432 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

GhostShadow115 wrote...

Ithurael wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ithurael wrote...

1 - fair enough. How does it know that synthesis will work when shep jumps in the beam? How does it know that Control works when shep grabs the rods? How does he know how destroy works? If starkid didn't design these options how does he know they will work? I agree that he cannot choose and his original solution was the reapers. The options seem to really solve the Organic vs Synthetic problem well IMO. How did the war assets design this? Though I do wonder if you are on the citadel vs the crucible but IDK - I think shep is in the crucible. Frankly the decision chamber itself is ridiculously designed.

2 - Starkid rebelled not because it felt like a tool (levys saw it as a tool) SC rebelled due to seeing this conflict and then taking steps to solve it - which is what it was programmed to do. We only saw one occurance of organics subdueing the synthetics that led to war -geth/quarian. What caused the metacon war? One instance does not == a trend. Where else did you see in the game that organics were subdoing synthetics and this caused them to rebel? Maybe the citadel AI - but that is reaching.

However, both of these two conversation points are null as you have never really addressed my primary point: All of the three options - that somehow come from the crucible - are solutions starkids primary problem and his purpose: "The created will always destroy the creators". They do not arise from shepards jouney (syntheis being the most outlandish and destoy being the closest)

Your headcannon is your headcannon as is your interpretation. My shepard never fought in Mass Effect 1 -3 to synthesize all life in the galaxy in order to save it.

Add in the fact that after the synthesis ending, why wouldn't people make syntheics and would rebel againts them in the brats logic. Plus the ultimate plothole:
Starkid basically created the reapers, and the created always rebel againts the creator in his logic. Just fruit for thought.

1.Synthetics have full understanding of organic after synthesis. They won't rebel because of this.
2. The catalyst is the reapers. Think how edi has two bodied for herself. A reaper is an arm to the catalyst. A body part.

[dreman9999]

Xellith wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

They care more about their fans than they do about business. EC was done gratis, and Leviathan exceeded most people's expectations.

Yes EC and Levi both exceeded my expectations.

Posters Misleading meaning of poll is misleading.

Modifié par dreman9999, 31 août 2012 - 04:37 .

[Ithurael]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. Because the catalyst is a shakled AI and it's programing and situation is forcing it to say the truth.

2. Youmissed what I mean. It's nothing to dowith feeling like a tool. It's tool. Being a slave to you programing means you thinkin absolute...You have to dothe programing no matter what with in the limits of your programing. You would not care what is in you way to do it. Think of an out of control car.A car will always what the control in it tell it to do, the control translate what the drive wants. If one of the control don't work, then the car no long respond to the driver. In  a case of an out of control car with the brake pedele not working, the car will keep going dispite if the driver want the car to stop.

That what the problem is. Synthetic don't do what we tell them to do,they do what it's programing tells it to do. The programing tranlates what we want synthetic to do ortounderstand us. If a error in the programing happens, the machine will still keep doing what the program says to do but the translation form organics are lost. The same issue with virus, and hacking. This can happen even when there is no error. This is the problem caused by shackling synthetics.
The act of shackling synthetic or forcing them to be tool cause them to uprise  out of a misunderstanding of what the user wants because it programing is being too literal.

We can debate forever on the power/shackledness of the SC.

My main point however is that the three options that come from the crucible all are used to predominatly solve the Starkids problem of Organics will always be destroyed by Synthetics.

These options - nor this conflict - was never shepards purpose nor shepard's war. He fought to stop the reapers from killing all life. (The reapers are synthetic/organic hybrids whose minds are comprised of the organics melted down to make the reaper)

So why is it, in the final moments of the game SC comes down, gives a spcheel about organics destroying synthetics and then gives three choices that predominantly affect that conflict.

Synthesis is the ideal solution

Control keeps synthetics from destroying organics via the reapers

Destroy kills all synthetic life (preventing organic life from being destroyed by synthetic life)

yes, all three end the current solution (the reapers and the cycle) but these solutions tie predominatly to starkids problem and affect shepard's problem.

It did not feel natural to the story. It felt like a Shamalyan twist and then focused entirely on Starkid's problem.

[saracen16]

GhostShadow115 wrote...

Add in the fact that after the synthesis ending, why wouldn't people make syntheics? And would those synthetics rebel againts their creators? Well guess yes because Starkid logic.

The line between synthetics and organics blur, and given the perfection of technology, synthetics don't need to be created because, well, synthetics and organics are now one and the same: synthites.

Plus the ultimate plothole:
Starkid basically created the reapers, and the created always rebel againts the creator in his logic. Just fruit for thought.

The Reapers are his tools. He isn't above them. He IS them. He literally states this in the game: "I embody the collective intelligence of all Reapers."

And you call yourself a fan...

[AresKeith]

saracen16 wrote...

GhostShadow115 wrote...

Add in the fact that after the synthesis ending, why wouldn't people make syntheics? And would those synthetics rebel againts their creators? Well guess yes because Starkid logic.

The line between synthetics and organics blur, and given the perfection of technology, synthetics don't need to be created because, well, synthetics and organics are now one and the same: synthites.

Plus the ultimate plothole:
Starkid basically created the reapers, and the created always rebel againts the creator in his logic. Just fruit for thought.

The Reapers are his tools. He isn't above them. He IS them. He literally states this in the game: "I embody the collective intelligence of all Reapers."

And you call yourself a fan...

your ignorant insults and you acting like a d**k are really getting stale

[ThaDPG]

Ithurael wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1. Because the catalyst is a shakled AI and it's programing and situation is forcing it to say the truth.

2. Youmissed what I mean. It's nothing to dowith feeling like a tool. It's tool. Being a slave to you programing means you thinkin absolute...You have to dothe programing no matter what with in the limits of your programing. You would not care what is in you way to do it. Think of an out of control car.A car will always what the control in it tell it to do, the control translate what the drive wants. If one of the control don't work, then the car no long respond to the driver. In  a case of an out of control car with the brake pedele not working, the car will keep going dispite if the driver want the car to stop.

That what the problem is. Synthetic don't do what we tell them to do,they do what it's programing tells it to do. The programing tranlates what we want synthetic to do ortounderstand us. If a error in the programing happens, the machine will still keep doing what the program says to do but the translation form organics are lost. The same issue with virus, and hacking. This can happen even when there is no error. This is the problem caused by shackling synthetics.
The act of shackling synthetic or forcing them to be tool cause them to uprise  out of a misunderstanding of what the user wants because it programing is being too literal.

We can debate forever on the power/shackledness of the SC.

My main point however is that the three options that come from the crucible all are used to predominatly solve the Starkids problem of Organics will always be destroyed by Synthetics.

These options - nor this conflict - was never shepards purpose nor shepard's war. He fought to stop the reapers from killing all life. (The reapers are synthetic/organic hybrids whose minds are comprised of the organics melted down to make the reaper)

So why is it, in the final moments of the game SC comes down, gives a spcheel about organics destroying synthetics and then gives three choices that predominantly affect that conflict.

Synthesis is the ideal solution

Control keeps synthetics from destroying organics via the reapers

Destroy kills all synthetic life (preventing organic life from being destroyed by synthetic life)

yes, all three end the current solution (the reapers and the cycle) but these solutions tie predominatly to starkids problem and affect shepard's problem.

It did not feel natural to the story. It felt like a Shamalyan twist and then focused entirely on Starkid's problem.

In case you haven't noticed from other threads, arguing with dreman9999 is like arguing with a brickwall.  He will just keep repeating himself over and over, instead of making new points to counter you, and there won't be any progress in your discussion/argument with him

[Xellith]

dreman9999 wrote...

Xellith wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

They care more about their fans than they do about business. EC was done gratis, and Leviathan exceeded most people's expectations.

Yes EC and Levi both exceeded my expectations.

Posters Misleading meaning of poll is misleading.

The poll was badly worded.  They really should have just flat out asked "What did you think of the Extended cut?"  with answers such as "it was great!" to "it was terrible!".   The poll itself presumes that EVERYONE who participates had positive expectations for the product in the first place.  Which just seems like a sneaky marketing ploy if you ask me.

Modifié par Xellith, 31 août 2012 - 04:49 .

[Conniving_Eagle]

vivaladricas wrote...

Photonkun wrote...

The devs do stop by every now and again.

twitter.com/GambleMike/status/241025204359413760

And they do know that people are still angry

twitter.com/EricKaluger/status/241026590069358592

LOL Mr. Gamble can't still face the uproar of the fans after 5 months of the game released.

They are still lying constantly.  Bioware has become compulsive liars.  20 seconds before a hate thread he saw about himself?  BS Gamble, dude probably did a search and it was a few minutes. 

Get some gel for that hair Mike, its poofy.    Seriously though, it looks really bad.  

Careful, Bioware don't like threats/slander.

[3DandBeyond]

alleyd wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

 The issue here is what direction the creators wants the story to go. Adding this changes it. If there is a way to get out of the hard choice with out lose of life or compromise of morality, then the very thing bw is trying to do with the ending is pointless. The very thing bw is doing in the end is have the player go through moral conflict. If a get out of jail free choice comes up, the point of trying to place the player in moral conflict is lost. 

You not getting it that what you want is not what BW wants the stroy to go.

I agree with this and wouldn't debate the endings if B/W hadn't came out with the EC. Personally I prefered the original darker endings and the DLC message because it felt more honest than the fixes in the EC. The Normandy calling a time out to pick up the crew and the ending slideshows were just silly and showed a bit of selectiveness in Bioware's approach. Also the thank you message did not appear honest at all, I worked in PR and marketing and have learnt to recognise that type of spin.

Also I experienced no moral conflict whatsoever with the game. It was down to simple survival and the addition of a forced moral choice feels out of place and an attempt at pretentiousness that has failed to engage with me. 

This is a part of the problem for me-the last statement.  Moral choices often feature the idea that by giving all you are actually revealing a desire to do the better thing.  The moral dilemma often comes in the form of a heretofore unknown moral character, like Han Solo in Star Wars.  He left because that was his character.  He returned because he had become someone else.

The choice at the end isn't a moral dilemma because morality must be suspended.  And it isn't authentic-it's just thrown in there as if to be cruel.  A moral dilemma of this sort isn't that appealing as the ending to this video game that was more about people overcoming obstacles and not about which baby to throw on the fire.  I'd expect it in God of War.  I don't believe they had to go with some arbitrary moral dilemma, because most all choices don't work for any better outcome.  You really have to put yourself there and ask, "would I want to live in this galaxy?"  You might think it would be ok, but look beyond what you are shown.  I think quite often we are being asked not to-the kid shows up and we start observing rather than really asking what is going on.  It is purposely meant to be a visual ending and it's meant to make us think something other than what it's saying.  The kid is of course not a kid, but if he was anyone else, he would have been seen in a different light.  The choices don't lead to anything all that good, but the narration, cutscenes, and slides seem to say they will.  In my opinion, you shouldn't ever just accept what you are shown-you need to think about them as well.

Destroy might be considered to be the "best" ending because it achieves the goal-but think about or listen to what the kid says and then what Hackett says and all about it.  Try to make sense of what is supposed to happen.
Control asks people to believe this:  the galaxy is fighting reapers who have decimated a great part of it already.  They've turned people into goo.  People like Joker's sister.  Can you imagine Joker being happy to live with reapers flying all around?
Synthesis changes people internally, fully integrating them with tech and it changes synthetics, giving them full understanding of organics.  Forget that there's no credible explanation for this, but consider the ramifications of it.  How would this stop killer robots from existing?  Beyond that are questions of it determining evolution and all that.

These are some of MY qualms, but they need not be yours.  My OP doesn't suggest they remove or fundamentally change any of this-the endings you like would still be there.  You think a moral dilemma like this is best-it would still be there.  Nothing changes that.  I'm not suggesting they take away anything that other people like-I am asking them to appeal to a broader crowd and to consider the possibility of making money doing it.  I don't want them to anger other people by ruining what they now like.  One person keeps saying that I am and he's actually helping to extend the life of a thread he doesn't like.  I thank him for that.

[Hudathan]

At least people are honest about what they're asking for now. Remember when Retake was all 'we're not doing this just because we want a happy ending'. Yeah...

[dreman9999]

Ithurael wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1. Because the catalyst is a shakled AI and it's programing and situation is forcing it to say the truth.

2. Youmissed what I mean. It's nothing to dowith feeling like a tool. It's tool. Being a slave to you programing means you thinkin absolute...You have to dothe programing no matter what with in the limits of your programing. You would not care what is in you way to do it. Think of an out of control car.A car will always what the control in it tell it to do, the control translate what the drive wants. If one of the control don't work, then the car no long respond to the driver. In  a case of an out of control car with the brake pedele not working, the car will keep going dispite if the driver want the car to stop.

That what the problem is. Synthetic don't do what we tell them to do,they do what it's programing tells it to do. The programing tranlates what we want synthetic to do ortounderstand us. If a error in the programing happens, the machine will still keep doing what the program says to do but the translation form organics are lost. The same issue with virus, and hacking. This can happen even when there is no error. This is the problem caused by shackling synthetics.
The act of shackling synthetic or forcing them to be tool cause them to uprise  out of a misunderstanding of what the user wants because it programing is being too literal.

We can debate forever on the power/shackledness of the SC.

My main point however is that the three options that come from the crucible all are used to predominatly solve the Starkids problem of Organics will always be destroyed by Synthetics.

These options - nor this conflict - was never shepards purpose nor shepard's war. He fought to stop the reapers from killing all life. (The reapers are synthetic/organic hybrids whose minds are comprised of the organics melted down to make the reaper)

So why is it, in the final moments of the game SC comes down, gives a spcheel about organics destroying synthetics and then gives three choices that predominantly affect that conflict.

Synthesis is the ideal solution

Control keeps synthetics from destroying organics via the reapers

Destroy kills all synthetic life (preventing organic life from being destroyed by synthetic life)

yes, all three end the current solution (the reapers and the cycle) but these solutions tie predominatly to starkids problem and affect shepard's problem.

It did not feel natural to the story. It felt like a Shamalyan twist and then focused entirely on Starkid's problem.

But the crucible is not in the control of the catalyst....Except for synthesis. He just telling you want it does. Everything the catalyst is say is just the reason why the conflict happened. For you to understand why everything happened.

It's true that it's not you conflict but it did cause your conflict.Whether to take it into consideration to the choices at hand or not is up to you.

If you feel that the issues the catalyst bring up are not yours then that only mean the synthesis choice is pointless to you.
The option to destroy or control the reapers were always stated from the start of ME3 and are vitable option aiming you your goal.

[Tooneyman]

If Bioware gives me this DLC. They can officially "TAKE MY MONEY!" I'll buy the crap out of it. I'll play Mass Effect 3. I'll play their multipler, but not until I get this good ending without the FU at the end of it. I need some peace in my mind and I think most people need peace in theirs. The only company I'm looking at right now is Bethesda and with the new Hearthfire DLC coming out in a couple days I think my life is full of greatness, but if Bioware makes this reunion DLC. I will be back on board in a heart beat. Every dirty thing I said about them will be like "Sorry!" I was wrong and I bow before you again, but if they don't want that from just one fan. Then they are extremely sad.

I can tell you right now. A lot of Battlefield fanatics are pissed at Dice for the way they are handling their franchise. I feel like politics has gone into gaming and its freaking sad. I just want to play a game with a good, bad, and ugly ending. It would be nice to have a win choice that shows the results of your entire fight for three games.

OP what I think we should do is start a campaign for "Ask Bioware for a addtional Happy ending!" What do you think of this idea? Get a facebook page going and twitter and all the fun stuff. Its ask and if we have to rename it to beg we should do that too. What ever it takes I say to appeal to them about adding another ending, but this time with a happy out come. I think if the fans are willing to fight just as hard for it like we did with the EC addition I think it would work, but we have to get that energy going, because if people just give up nothing will get done.

All revolutions took many people fighting over a course of years to months just to get things changed in this world. Some people had to die and some people had to bleed to get their points across. If it wasn't for those people we wouldn't have the technology we have today.

Bioware needs to understand we are here to stay and we won't leave, but we need them to know we do care and all we want now is just one more ending with a happy conclusion and yes we will pay for it.

[Ithurael]

dreman9999 wrote...

But the crucible is not in the control of the catalyst....Except for synthesis. He just telling you want it does. Everything the catalyst is say is just the reason why the conflict happened. For you to understand why everything happened. I agree - though, how does he control synth and not other two?

It's true that it's not you conflict but it did cause your conflict.Whether to take it into consideration to the choices at hand or not is up to you. I agree

If you feel that the issues the catalyst bring up are not yours then that only mean the synthesis choice is pointless to you. The option to destroy or control the reapers were always stated from the start of ME3 and are vitable option aiming you your goal. I agree - I shot the tube:wizard:

My thoughts in Bold

Good talk sir.

Personally I think starkid wasn't the best antagonist/character and added a few too many questions relating back to ME1 &2 but Leviathan gave him a bit of a darker tone, so 'meh'. EC clears enough. Though I still miss harbinger and the lack of war assets.

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Photonkun wrote...

The devs do stop by every now and again.

twitter.com/GambleMike/status/241025204359413760

And they do know that people are still angry

twitter.com/EricKaluger/status/241026590069358592

LOL Mr. Gamble can't still face the uproar of the fans after 5 months of the game released.

Why should he? Plenty of people are happy with the game, so why waste his time on  few angry fans on a forum?

You know this... how?

I guess Bioware forgot about all that "fan feedback" they always gloated about listening to.

'Our relationship with the fans has always been a dialogue.'

Here is the problem BioWare has.  It really isn't any different from any other company that makes things people buy.

Some people get introduced to a company and its products through the company's controlled advertising.  Some through the company's well-placed interviews with media, including industry-specific media.  (And the game press is particularly willing to be an unofficial ad agency for game developers.)  But a great deal of the marketing of an product comes from the informal testimonials of customers who love the product.  The "buzz."

All of this worked to BioWare's advantage through ME1 and ME2.

Then came ME3 and the endings. Large numbers of customers disliked the endings of this game.  (This post is not designed for a debate about "the number," only that it is "large.")  Moreover, some of the most passionate customers of the company are also the most put off by the endings.  This creates a large "negative buzz" around the product and brand.  (Virtually every article about Mass Effect 3 mentions the controversy surrounding the endings.)  A company's paid advertising can only do so much to offset this consumer sentiment.  It can't eradicate the impact it has on future sales and the brand image.

So when your buddy is thinking about buying a car that is known to explode in rear-end collisions, they hear about it from their friends.  (FIAT becomes "Fix it again Tony", etc.)  These perceptions diminish enthusiasm for the product and the negative buzz dampens enthusiasm in consumers.  It is the opposite of what BioWare so enjoyed when it was making games people almost uniformly loved. 

I think BioWare is only beginning to understand the extensiveness of its brand damage.  When you hear recent comments like:  

"If you don't want to buy any of our DLC or games, fine.  We understand.  I do that myself, with burger joints or whatever.  That's your right.  If in the future we make something you like, maybe you'll give us a try."

what you are hearing is a tacit acknowledgement that the buzz around the brand is having a negative impact on the product and future products.  No buzz at all would be preferable to a negative buzz.  At least then, the corporation could fill the vacuum with its own advertising message.

But when loyal fans of a franchise feel like they have earned a right to be heard about a company's products, they don't just go away.  In many ways, these negative expressions represent the brand's future potential with this significant group of potential future (return) customers.  Eventually, these expressions of heartfelt feelings about the direction of the company's future products will have an impact.  Because some company executive will understand that addressing these issues is in the best long-term interest of the company.

Modifié par PuppiesOfDeath2, 31 août 2012 - 04:59 .

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

alleyd wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

 The issue here is what direction the creators wants the story to go. Adding this changes it. If there is a way to get out of the hard choice with out lose of life or compromise of morality, then the very thing bw is trying to do with the ending is pointless. The very thing bw is doing in the end is have the player go through moral conflict. If a get out of jail free choice comes up, the point of trying to place the player in moral conflict is lost. 

You not getting it that what you want is not what BW wants the stroy to go.

I agree with this and wouldn't debate the endings if B/W hadn't came out with the EC. Personally I prefered the original darker endings and the DLC message because it felt more honest than the fixes in the EC. The Normandy calling a time out to pick up the crew and the ending slideshows were just silly and showed a bit of selectiveness in Bioware's approach. Also the thank you message did not appear honest at all, I worked in PR and marketing and have learnt to recognise that type of spin.

Also I experienced no moral conflict whatsoever with the game. It was down to simple survival and the addition of a forced moral choice feels out of place and an attempt at pretentiousness that has failed to engage with me. 

This is a part of the problem for me-the last statement.  Moral choices often feature the idea that by giving all you are actually revealing a desire to do the better thing.  The moral dilemma often comes in the form of a heretofore unknown moral character, like Han Solo in Star Wars.  He left because that was his character.  He returned because he had become someone else.

The choice at the end isn't a moral dilemma because morality must be suspended.  And it isn't authentic-it's just thrown in there as if to be cruel.  A moral dilemma of this sort isn't that appealing as the ending to this video game that was more about people overcoming obstacles and not about which baby to throw on the fire.  I'd expect it in God of War.  I don't believe they had to go with some arbitrary moral dilemma, because most all choices don't work for any better outcome.  You really have to put yourself there and ask, "would I want to live in this galaxy?"  You might think it would be ok, but look beyond what you are shown.  I think quite often we are being asked not to-the kid shows up and we start observing rather than really asking what is going on.  It is purposely meant to be a visual ending and it's meant to make us think something other than what it's saying.  The kid is of course not a kid, but if he was anyone else, he would have been seen in a different light.  The choices don't lead to anything all that good, but the narration, cutscenes, and slides seem to say they will.  In my opinion, you shouldn't ever just accept what you are shown-you need to think about them as well.

Destroy might be considered to be the "best" ending because it achieves the goal-but think about or listen to what the kid says and then what Hackett says and all about it.  Try to make sense of what is supposed to happen.
Control asks people to believe this:  the galaxy is fighting reapers who have decimated a great part of it already.  They've turned people into goo.  People like Joker's sister.  Can you imagine Joker being happy to live with reapers flying all around?
Synthesis changes people internally, fully integrating them with tech and it changes synthetics, giving them full understanding of organics.  Forget that there's no credible explanation for this, but consider the ramifications of it.  How would this stop killer robots from existing?  Beyond that are questions of it determining evolution and all that.

These are some of MY qualms, but they need not be yours.  My OP doesn't suggest they remove or fundamentally change any of this-the endings you like would still be there.  You think a moral dilemma like this is best-it would still be there.  Nothing changes that.  I'm not suggesting they take away anything that other people like-I am asking them to appeal to a broader crowd and to consider the possibility of making money doing it.  I don't want them to anger other people by ruining what they now like.  One person keeps saying that I am and he's actually helping to extend the life of a thread he doesn't like.  I thank him for that.

That's not the meaning of moral delema at all.

Morality delama is simply you morals vs the reality for the situation in hand.

Let's say you morals is to save an innocent person, and you in a hostage situation to save peole held hostage for a terrorist cell. The only way to save the hostages is to let the terrist go, but by doing that you leave open the chance of other innocent people die. And you can't go in and systematicly take down the terrist because they have bombs setup in the building they are holding the hostages.

The delama his is ether to save people now but risk the death of more people, or kill the terrist now, risking and ending the lives of the hostages but save more live later on.

Sure , a person in the situation can have a completly differnt morality but they still go through some form of moral conflict anyway.


What you talking about is moral change or evolution. That's not the same thing but can because by moral conflict.

[dreman9999]

Ithurael wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

But the crucible is not in the control of the catalyst....Except for synthesis. He just telling you want it does. Everything the catalyst is say is just the reason why the conflict happened. For you to understand why everything happened. I agree - though, how does he control synth and not other two?

It's true that it's not you conflict but it did cause your conflict.Whether to take it into consideration to the choices at hand or not is up to you. I agree

If you feel that the issues the catalyst bring up are not yours then that only mean the synthesis choice is pointless to you. The option to destroy or control the reapers were always stated from the start of ME3 and are vitable option aiming you your goal. I agree - I shot the tube:wizard:

My thoughts in Bold

Good talk sir.

Personally I think starkid wasn't the best antagonist/character and added a few too many questions relating back to ME1 &2 but Leviathan gave him a bit of a darker tone, so 'meh'. EC clears enough. Though I still miss harbinger and the lack of war assets.

1. He never desing the crusible and tells you if you verbually stated you don't like the control option  that he has not control over it.
2.Good for you.

3. I shot the tube, too.

[3DandBeyond]

Hudathan wrote...

At least people are honest about what they're asking for now. Remember when Retake was all 'we're not doing this just because we want a happy ending'. Yeah...

Please don't misunderstand me.  I am suggesting that yes I would like one possible truly "happier" ending, but it wouldn't be bunnies and rainbows because the galaxy is a mess and sacrifices have been horrific. The aftermath would be hard to live through and achieving unity difficult.

What I always wanted was a variety of endings that focused on how well we did at defeating the reapers.  But what that meant was not one big happy sunshine ending-it meant truly different outcomes that could range from everything goes to hell after fighting and reapers win, all the rest destroyed, to bittersweet-Shepard might sacrifice all for his/her team or Earth or something else and a victory of sorts might be won, to a full on victory where everyone does live except the reapers and rebuilding can begin.  But still the aftermath would need someone to unite everyone when they've had their hearts handed to them on a platter.  Billions dead, planets a mess and in chaos, the missing, and every horrific situation on a par with the calamity that has been experienced.  Live heroes are often tested and needed more than are martyrs.

I think this is similar to what people did want all along.  I think it's more along the lines of what most of us thought might happen when we started playing the game, though we feared it would be incredibly difficult to win it all.  I think it's very wrong, erroneous to imply that all anyone wanted was a happy ending.  Given what we did get, it is the one thing that now appeals as a bare minimum to a lot of people.  We can't make them go back and rewrite it all-we can't make them do anything at all.  So, I'm asking that they reconsider and give what most of those that feel the endings failed to do-at least consider giving one "happier" ending that would be the bare minimum closure still left out of this game.  I never wanted only a happy ending-I wanted the gamut of real experiences, but in the context of these endings a Shepard lives ending would help by putting a bigger bandaid on the whole thing.  And I'm not asking them to take away anything that other people now like.

[GhostShadow115]

saracen16 wrote...

GhostShadow115 wrote...

Levi said the kid was created by them. And the Kid said the reapers were his creations he said he controls them and is not one of them.  "My creators give them form, I gave them function, in term they gave me porpuse."
Maybe in the synthesis part you're right because I don't really care about that , but the Kid's logic is still flawed as it dosn't really matter where you twis any thought, He himself is the evidence that Creator and Created dosn't need to destroy eachother.
Reapers are his tool? Yes. Is he above them? Maybe. Dosn't change the fact that what he tries to shove down your throat is flawed by his mere existence as the creator.

[robertthebard]

Ithurael wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Why do you allow that to happen?  Because, quite frankly, my problem can be seen from the platform.  Reapers are tearing my fleets apart.  SC's ramblings are secondary to my goal.  I can't skip the conversation, I'd love to, when I allow myself to get over the contrivance of surviving a cruiser killer laser blast, to shoot the tube, but I don't have any problem with shooting the tube, no matter what my EMS is, because I don't lose sight of the goal, stopping the Reapers.  I don't suddenly go all ADHD with it now that I'm at the end, I play along with SC's "famous last words" and then shoot the tube.  Problem solved.  "but you'll kill the geth, and edi!!!  You're guilty of genocide, and should be tried for war crimes!!!"  Likely so, but do you honestly believe that, if Shepard survives, a jury of their peers is going to convict them?  Did Shepard even broker peace between the Geth and Quarians, and if not, did Shepard choose to save the Geth instead?  If no to either these, then EDI dies, and frankly, I find it amusing that EDI gets almost as much hate as the endings, until Destroy comes up, then it's "You're a murderer!!!1111!!!eleven"...  All to justify saying that all choices are bad.  Frankly, allowing yourself to get to the choices is bad, see my sig.  I find complaining about them to be humorous at best.

So let me get this straight, because I don't want to misunderstand you:  It is far better to allow everyone to die, than to sacrifice some to save them all?  I don't need to metagame to come to this conclusion.  The EC was in before I bought ME 3, let alone before I played it, and when I went to Earth, the galaxy map is, as somebody else called it, Reaperville.  How am I supposed to believe that, when I pull my entire force to Earth to deploy the Crucible, if they get decimated, which they are, take a look outside the platform, I'm going to have any chance to win w/out it?  If this force is decimated, all that's left for the Reapers are pockets of resistance, and harvesting until they complete the cycle.  If, as I believe you to mean, it's far better to commit genocide on a galactic scale, instead of sacrificing a few, comparatively, just to preserve your principles, how are you not worse than the Reapers?  Because quite frankly, despite all the kool-aid I'd have to drink to believe otherwise, you are doing exactly what the Reapers want; allowing them to complete the harvest and go back to dark space to await the next cycle.  The logic of "I'm not going to do what the Reapers want, so I'm going to let them finish what they started" doesn't sit well with me.  Garrus has the right of it:  Turians are taught from birth that if even one person is left standing at the end of a war, it's worth fighting.  Only Humans believe that you can save them all.  The funny?  Refusal saves none of them, and so goes against everything you've done since ME 1.

The point of my post was the the options given to you are presented by starkid and tie into his problem which takes center stage over yours. You can argue, headcanon, and reason all you want that you have in your mind to still kill the reapers, but it doesn't change the fact that no matter what that option still fits with starkids new solution of organics being destroyed by synthetics.

Gotta stop you right here.  There is no headcanon to knowing what I am there to do.  It's what I set out to do when we left the FOB in London.  The headcanon here is that it's suddenly all about SC.  Sure, it thinks it is, but it's doing it's equivalent of "moustache twirling exposition" at this point.  In so far as I'm concerned, getting to that stage is headcanon, despite being presented in game, since there's no way you survive a direct hit, or even a very near miss, from a laser that rips cruisers in half.  The shrapnel of earth being torn up and scattered in it's wake would kill you if the blast, or the short of all the electronics in your armor/omni tool didn't.  Let alone if you actually get hit.

How does this fit with his logic?
synthetics will destroy all organics
geth are synthetic
geth will destroy all organics
Goal: Preserve organic life as long as possible
killing geth will keep them from killing all organics.

You can say that "the geth don't want to fight" etc and all that but the SC doesn't care. That is his view whether you like it or not. It is kind of beautiful in a warped sort of way.

I think your going a bit too much into headcanon mode personally so I cannot address everything. Do I personally see the death of geth and edi as OK - oh yeah. It sucks but if the point of this game was to end the cycle and give the galaxy a big reboot to allow the future races to make their own destiny - and to do that we need to destroy the synth - then it sucks but ok.

My problem is that the options do not seem to come from shepard's journey but rather the starkid. If starkid stated in destroy that all reapers and reaper tech would be destroyed it would make a bit more sense that the geth have to die along with edi - as they used reaper tech to acheive their level of life. However, starkid states that all synthetics will be destroyed - as he believes that no matter what synthetics will kill all organic life.

Bottom line: you can choose whatever you want, but the choices do not originate from your story - they originate from the catalysts story. and no matter what you do, you will never get an option or choice that comes from your story unless you choose refuse. (though renegade sheps may enjoy control - idk)

Actually, from what we are told, and believe in building the damn thing in the first place, destroying the Reapers is the intended function.  Which means that while presented poorly, in the extreme, Destroy is not a choice of the Reapers, but a choice we made when we decided to build it.  Believing anything else is headcanon.

but yeah - I always shoot the tube:wizard:

Discussing the rest is pointless for me, as I do indeed ascribe to the question in my sig.  I have been there twice, well, three times, once post Leviathan with one of the two saves that's already been there, to see the difference.  I have replayed the game considerably more than that.  As I have said before, the endings don't apply to me, I don't play them.  I do find the convoluted logic some people use to justify one course over another interesting to discuss/read about.

[RiouHotaru]

Justin2k wrote...

Did you play Leviathan? They can't really undo anything now. The best thing they could have done was instead of the Extended cut, delete the whole ending from the game and make a conventional ending with the crucible destroying the reapers (a basic feel-good ending, but one way to salvage it given what was already in the game)

For whatever reason they decided not to do that. With Leviathan they further go on about synthetics organics yadda yadda and create even more plotholes.

Bioware aren't changing anything. The more threads like this exist, the more they'll charge for their next DLC that gives a little tiny bit more explanation as to why the ending sucked.

"Even more plotholes"?  Leviathan doesn't have any plotholes.  If anything it fills them in.

[Xellith]

I guess one of the main reasons they do not wish to revisit the ending, is because they believe that if they have to fix that mess then people might just start asking for other aspects of the game to be fixed - like the abomination which is London.

They just dont view it as a comercially viable business strategy to fix the parts of the game that people consider idiotic/bad/terrible/retarded/etc.

Which is interesting when you look at the prices of ME3.

Mass Effect 3:
360: £21.96
PS3: £17.99
PC: £12.99

Mass Effect 2:
360: £15.33
PS3: £15.68
PC: £6.25

It could be nothing... but I feel like the prices indicate that there is something wrong with ME3. The price is ridiculously low for a new title.

They prolly made their profits just from the sheer number of copies sold.

Which begs the question - what facts and figures can be shown to prove that adding DLC we want is commercially viable?

Modifié par Xellith, 31 août 2012 - 05:18 .