78 réponses à ce sujet

[Kamfrenchie]

MerchantGOL wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

plfranke wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Are you gonna actually listen to the feed back and accept the validity of the opinions of others or are you just argue if you see some thing you don't agree with?

I'm not going to argue. If I see something you say though that I don't understand I will question it though. For instance if some just says "I Love Synthesis!" and their explanation of it is something like it's just beautiful. I'll ask How do you deal with Husks and Cannibals having self awareness now. Stuff like that. But no I'm through with arguing.

well ill start with broad reasons.

It is shot and scored epicly for starters, angles used, dialouge spoken, the music the imagery is all grand.

moving on to the more complex story reasons. i find it to be the perfect ender to the serise,  its always been about choice, big  Choices and they aren't easy, they cant be Betrayal and genocide has always been presented as a viable option as far back as me1. Futher more The first me game set the tone for the serise perfectly where in the span of an half an hour you not only are forced to sacrafice a squad mate and potential love intrest, but you can gun down a freind in some what cold blood. These are the stakes and main themes the game was founded on Choice, Sacrafice, and questionable methods. and the ending lives up to the promise the first  game made completley to me.

Shepard Sacrafices himself, making the choice he feels is the best for every one he fights for, it cant and should not be an easy choice. vicotry should not be some thing easily and completly acomilished when facing the threat they did. Shepard giving every thing for every one is the perfect cap to his character and his story [even if he survies  he still went into it beliving he would die]

The choices all have their pros and cons, and they both have some forshadowing.

Alot of Critisim comes from syntheisi  for having it no Explenation [it dose It is a confirmed fact  people can be implanted via energy] forshadowing [It dose: Saren, Shepard himself]. and that  it may rid  gnetic diversity no these are debatable, but  people  fail to see the overwhelming postive the races of the galaxy now have a bridge and a path to a true lasting  peace via understanding.

Control is the best ending for me because shepard lives on in way but  he can also safegaurd the galaxy, i do not belive a paragon shepard will become a dictator, after the rebuilding the most i see him doing out side construction [even thats a maybe] is steping in to stop an armed conflict. Leaving shepard as the eternal garudian makes for a fitting end to my  cannon shepard.

synthsis has no explanation at all seriouly, peope being imlante with energy has nothing to do with synthesis

i  dont see how you can say that, its clearly the same process on a much grander scale.

is it ?how ?

You can't change people dna instantly wth a green shockwave. That'd kill them. Think about all the enzymes still present in their bodies. If everyone had the sme DNA to bgin with, it'd b more elievable.
HEck, if the reapers had to manually change the whole population in  a small process it would be less absur, but it's still stupid synthtic DNA and whatnot.


Changing everyone DNA with a shockwav of radiation or nanomachines would equir you to know exactly whre are each individual you change, and to know the DNA of each of those people, because th process must be adapted to all individuals, if you don't want to give evryone a super cancer

[SeptimusMagistos]

It's easy:

Shepard won.

Shepard made it to the Citadel, past the Reaper forces and The Illusive Man. He calmly heard the Catalyst out, disagreed with his premise, then looked at the options available to him, chose the one that appealed the most to his personal morality, and stopped the Reapers with it. One way or the other the galaxy is at peace and the people Shepard's been trying to keep safe are safe now. Victory. Happy end.

Speaking personally it helped that I didn't deliberately make up the worst possible interpretation for each ending. So my canon Paragon Control Shepard isn't a galactic tyrant, isn't going to turn to the Reapers' original purpose, and hasn't become an emotionless machine. He's still the same hero he ever was, just with the understanding and power that let him help the entire galaxy at once.

[Hudathan]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

please maaze, i understand the ending well, and it's stupid, just like the whole plot. But whatever, for you it's the perfect game and you don't see any flaw in it, even despite he bioware lies.
I've played many games and undrstod all endinngs, ME3 ending is stupid

You're wrong. See everyone can do this.

[thefallen2far]

The first thing you have to do is stop liking the rest of Mass Effect. If you have any attachment to the universe, its diversity, its themes, its emotions. Ignore all of it and pretend it doesn't matter [because it doesn't].

Now, pretend that the theme of the game is centered around man vs. machine. That is the only thing that matters. Now, imagine that your character is spineless. Truly gutless. Don't put yourself in that position, no one wants to be spineless in their portrayed fiction. Unless you're a nihilist or depressed. If you're depressed or a nihilist,you probably already like the ending.

There.... you take away everything good about the game, the ending is acceptable. Your welcome.

Modifié par thefallen2far, 31 août 2012 - 02:11 .

[Kamfrenchie]

maaaze wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

It's a question of standards for entertainment andstory telling, now I say this with no offense mant, but imo the people who love the ending either have low standard and fall for the "emotion" or they just can invent some hidden briliance no mtter how poo the story is.

No offense again, I myself have quite low standards for food, I'm happy with basic stuff i can put in the microwave an eat 5 min later

I can not lower my standards, and the nding havin any kind of greatnes is just implausible to me. The whole ME3 scenario is terribad, wth the contrived crucible, reapers becoming stupid invincible instead of smart and though, cerbberus going fll retard, Hackett sitting on his ass and using no stategy at all, C-sec incompetence, vndetta and asari stupdity, Legion's forcd sacrifice, etc.

nd also, seriously, no drafts ? no massiv mobilisation ? no vault project ? nothing ? le the galaxy burn, it deserves it. Wait, there is garus and tali left, they deserve to live. Let's pick destroy and be done with this universse

It's just too much.

I take offense in what you said. 

I could also say "no offense, but you are to stupid to understand the ending."
It is the same kind of arguement.

please maaze, i understand the ending well, and it's stupid, just like the whole plot. But whatever, for you it's the perfect game and you don't see any flaw in it, even despite he bioware lies.
I've played many games and undrstod all endinngs, ME3 ending is stupid

1. never said it was the perfect game
2. I was talking about your arguements that are just "I don´t like it and if you disagree you have low standart."
   Something I really disagree and find quite offensive.
3. This Thread is about the reasons people to like the ending and not why you did not like them and what´s your oppinion about people who like them.

you said in another thread something to the effect that ME3 was perfect for you, an I have yet to see you admit ME3 had any flaw.


2) wel, it's obbjectively mediocre. And aain, having low standard isn't necessarily meant to be tken as an insult. I have low sandard for cooking, again:P

[CaptainZaysh]

thefallen2far wrote...

The first thing you have to do is stop liking the rest of Mass Effect. If you have any attachment to the universe, its diversity, its themes, its emotions. Ignore all of it and pretend it doesn't matter [because it doesn't].

Now, pretend that the theme of the game is centered around man vs. machine. That is the only thing that matters. Now, imagine that your character is spineless. Truly gutless. Don't put yourself in that position, no one wants to be spineless in their portrayed fiction. Unles you're a nihilist or depressed. If you're depressed or a nihilist,you probably already like the ending.

There.... you take away everything goo about the game, the ending is acceptable. Your welcome.

Yawn.

[MerchantGOL]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

plfranke wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Are you gonna actually listen to the feed back and accept the validity of the opinions of others or are you just argue if you see some thing you don't agree with?

I'm not going to argue. If I see something you say though that I don't understand I will question it though. For instance if some just says "I Love Synthesis!" and their explanation of it is something like it's just beautiful. I'll ask How do you deal with Husks and Cannibals having self awareness now. Stuff like that. But no I'm through with arguing.

well ill start with broad reasons.

It is shot and scored epicly for starters, angles used, dialouge spoken, the music the imagery is all grand.

moving on to the more complex story reasons. i find it to be the perfect ender to the serise,  its always been about choice, big  Choices and they aren't easy, they cant be Betrayal and genocide has always been presented as a viable option as far back as me1. Futher more The first me game set the tone for the serise perfectly where in the span of an half an hour you not only are forced to sacrafice a squad mate and potential love intrest, but you can gun down a freind in some what cold blood. These are the stakes and main themes the game was founded on Choice, Sacrafice, and questionable methods. and the ending lives up to the promise the first  game made completley to me.

Shepard Sacrafices himself, making the choice he feels is the best for every one he fights for, it cant and should not be an easy choice. vicotry should not be some thing easily and completly acomilished when facing the threat they did. Shepard giving every thing for every one is the perfect cap to his character and his story [even if he survies  he still went into it beliving he would die]

The choices all have their pros and cons, and they both have some forshadowing.

Alot of Critisim comes from syntheisi  for having it no Explenation [it dose It is a confirmed fact  people can be implanted via energy] forshadowing [It dose: Saren, Shepard himself]. and that  it may rid  gnetic diversity no these are debatable, but  people  fail to see the overwhelming postive the races of the galaxy now have a bridge and a path to a true lasting  peace via understanding.

Control is the best ending for me because shepard lives on in way but  he can also safegaurd the galaxy, i do not belive a paragon shepard will become a dictator, after the rebuilding the most i see him doing out side construction [even thats a maybe] is steping in to stop an armed conflict. Leaving shepard as the eternal garudian makes for a fitting end to my  cannon shepard.

synthsis has no explanation at all seriouly, peope being imlante with energy has nothing to do with synthesis

i  dont see how you can say that, its clearly the same process on a much grander scale.

is it ?how ?

They  can creat biologic Implants through energy this is a fact, its how saren and  t.i.m got their implants and they can create husks that way Sythesis is tthe process refined

You can't change people dna instantly wth a green shockwave. hat'd kill them.

says who you? You dont know the properties of the wave. also its spelt That.





Changing everyone DNA with a shockwav of radiation or nanomachines would equir you to know exactly whre are each individual you change,

the shock wave covers the entire galaxy.



and to know the DNA of each of those people, because th process must be adapted to all individuals, if you don't want to give evryone a super cancer

you have no scintific basis for this claim, it it is nanobots then the bots would adapt nomater what the dna people have.

[plfranke]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

It's easy:

Shepard won.

Shepard made it to the Citadel, past the Reaper forces and The Illusive Man. He calmly heard the Catalyst out, disagreed with his premise, then looked at the options available to him, chose the one that appealed the most to his personal morality, and stopped the Reapers with it. One way or the other the galaxy is at peace and the people Shepard's been trying to keep safe are safe now. Victory. Happy end.

Speaking personally it helped that I didn't deliberately make up the worst possible interpretation for each ending. So my canon Paragon Control Shepard isn't a galactic tyrant, isn't going to turn to the Reapers' original purpose, and hasn't become an emotionless machine. He's still the same hero he ever was, just with the understanding and power that let him help the entire galaxy at once.

I think that's one problem I had with the endings. From the beginning of the game when I found out TIM was after control I figured that would be some sort of option. I figured I'd get to control the Reapers and then get to make decisions as the Reaper Leader. Then I get there and Shepard has gone out of my hands, that makes the ending unacceptable to me. It also angers me that I wasn't allowed to agree with this line of thinking for the whole game. If Shepard didn't believe in control for all of me3 he shouldn't have believed it in the ending.

[thefallen2far]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

thefallen2far wrote...

The first thing you have to do is stop liking the rest of Mass Effect. If you have any attachment to the universe, its diversity, its themes, its emotions. Ignore all of it and pretend it doesn't matter [because it doesn't].

Now, pretend that the theme of the game is centered around man vs. machine. That is the only thing that matters. Now, imagine that your character is spineless. Truly gutless. Don't put yourself in that position, no one wants to be spineless in their portrayed fiction. Unles you're a nihilist or depressed. If you're depressed or a nihilist,you probably already like the ending.

There.... you take away everything goo about the game, the ending is acceptable. Your welcome.

Yawn.

See? Remove all emotional attachment and its's acceptable.

[Kamfrenchie]

Hudathan wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

please maaze, i understand the ending well, and it's stupid, just like the whole plot. But whatever, for you it's the perfect game and you don't see any flaw in it, even despite he bioware lies.
I've played many games and undrstod all endinngs, ME3 ending is stupid

You're wrong. See everyone can do this.

 pointed out how the plot i stupid, but whatever.

Remind me why the reapers don't bumrush the citadel in the first place, and why they don't close the mass relays? how legion dying could possibly be helping the geth ?
Why are the reapers invading earth and letting the flet go ? Why are we gahering flet when our goal is to make the crucible and conventionnal victory is impossible ?
To protect it ? Nope, we can't stop the reapers remember ? If they do a half assed try at attacking they'll win

now let's see you do the same

Modifié par Kamfrenchie, 31 août 2012 - 02:15 .

[MerchantGOL]

plfranke wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

It's easy:

Shepard won.

Shepard made it to the Citadel, past the Reaper forces and The Illusive Man. He calmly heard the Catalyst out, disagreed with his premise, then looked at the options available to him, chose the one that appealed the most to his personal morality, and stopped the Reapers with it. One way or the other the galaxy is at peace and the people Shepard's been trying to keep safe are safe now. Victory. Happy end.

Speaking personally it helped that I didn't deliberately make up the worst possible interpretation for each ending. So my canon Paragon Control Shepard isn't a galactic tyrant, isn't going to turn to the Reapers' original purpose, and hasn't become an emotionless machine. He's still the same hero he ever was, just with the understanding and power that let him help the entire galaxy at once.

I think that's one problem I had with the endings. From the beginning of the game when I found out TIM was after control I figured that would be some sort of option. I figured I'd get to control the Reapers and then get to make decisions as the Reaper Leader. Then I get there and Shepard has gone out of my hands, that makes the ending unacceptable to me. It also angers me that I wasn't allowed to agree with this line of thinking for the whole game. If Shepard didn't believe in control for all of me3 he shouldn't have believed it in the ending.

he wasn't given a reason to belive rally, maybe a line at sanctuary. but u can atleast play shepard like he just wants to stop t.i.mcause of his methods

[ziyon conqueror]

I don't like the endings because Shepard didn't survive. I just couldn't stomach it, as i always want the hero of any science fiction survive

Modifié par ziyon conqueror, 31 août 2012 - 02:20 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

plfranke wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

It's easy:

Shepard won.

Shepard made it to the Citadel, past the Reaper forces and The Illusive Man. He calmly heard the Catalyst out, disagreed with his premise, then looked at the options available to him, chose the one that appealed the most to his personal morality, and stopped the Reapers with it. One way or the other the galaxy is at peace and the people Shepard's been trying to keep safe are safe now. Victory. Happy end.

Speaking personally it helped that I didn't deliberately make up the worst possible interpretation for each ending. So my canon Paragon Control Shepard isn't a galactic tyrant, isn't going to turn to the Reapers' original purpose, and hasn't become an emotionless machine. He's still the same hero he ever was, just with the understanding and power that let him help the entire galaxy at once.

I think that's one problem I had with the endings. From the beginning of the game when I found out TIM was after control I figured that would be some sort of option. I figured I'd get to control the Reapers and then get to make decisions as the Reaper Leader. Then I get there and Shepard has gone out of my hands, that makes the ending unacceptable to me. It also angers me that I wasn't allowed to agree with this line of thinking for the whole game. If Shepard didn't believe in control for all of me3 he shouldn't have believed it in the ending.

I agree the final bit was an overshight.

The former thing didn't really bother me personally though since cutscene Shepard essentially said what my Shepard would have said - "I'm going to kill evil people and protect everyone else." That's what Shepard has always done. That's what he's going to do now.

If you disagree with the Shepard in the cutscene...well, I always disagreed with any scene that had my Adept Shepard reaching for a gun before so much as trying to fry everything with his biotics. I worked around it. Pretend that one scene was different.

[Mazebook]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

you said in another thread something to the effect that ME3 was perfect for you, an I have yet to see you admit ME3 had any flaw.


2) wel, it's obbjectively mediocre. And aain, having low standard isn't necessarily meant to be tken as an insult. I have low sandard for cooking, again:P

1. I expressed several flaws I found in ME 3.

 for example the late introduction of the Catalyst
 (should have been introduced in the 3 act of the game,in my oppinion.)
 the bad Journal systems.
 the lack of emotional resolution in the original ending.

for me a 10/10 game has not to be flawless. That would be unrealistic. It just has to exceed my expections in fields that are most important to me.

2. well is it not objectively. Art never is. Saying I have low standarts is an insult. It implies that I don´t care and that
I am simple minded this matter.

[Kamfrenchie]

MerchantGOL wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

plfranke wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Are you gonna actually listen to the feed back and accept the validity of the opinions of others or are you just argue if you see some thing you don't agree with?

I'm not going to argue. If I see something you say though that I don't understand I will question it though. For instance if some just says "I Love Synthesis!" and their explanation of it is something like it's just beautiful. I'll ask How do you deal with Husks and Cannibals having self awareness now. Stuff like that. But no I'm through with arguing.

well ill start with broad reasons.

It is shot and scored epicly for starters, angles used, dialouge spoken, the music the imagery is all grand.

moving on to the more complex story reasons. i find it to be the perfect ender to the serise,  its always been about choice, big  Choices and they aren't easy, they cant be Betrayal and genocide has always been presented as a viable option as far back as me1. Futher more The first me game set the tone for the serise perfectly where in the span of an half an hour you not only are forced to sacrafice a squad mate and potential love intrest, but you can gun down a freind in some what cold blood. These are the stakes and main themes the game was founded on Choice, Sacrafice, and questionable methods. and the ending lives up to the promise the first  game made completley to me.

Shepard Sacrafices himself, making the choice he feels is the best for every one he fights for, it cant and should not be an easy choice. vicotry should not be some thing easily and completly acomilished when facing the threat they did. Shepard giving every thing for every one is the perfect cap to his character and his story [even if he survies  he still went into it beliving he would die]

The choices all have their pros and cons, and they both have some forshadowing.

Alot of Critisim comes from syntheisi  for having it no Explenation [it dose It is a confirmed fact  people can be implanted via energy] forshadowing [It dose: Saren, Shepard himself]. and that  it may rid  gnetic diversity no these are debatable, but  people  fail to see the overwhelming postive the races of the galaxy now have a bridge and a path to a true lasting  peace via understanding.

Control is the best ending for me because shepard lives on in way but  he can also safegaurd the galaxy, i do not belive a paragon shepard will become a dictator, after the rebuilding the most i see him doing out side construction [even thats a maybe] is steping in to stop an armed conflict. Leaving shepard as the eternal garudian makes for a fitting end to my  cannon shepard.

synthsis has no explanation at all seriouly, peope being imlante with energy has nothing to do with synthesis

i  dont see how you can say that, its clearly the same process on a much grander scale.

is it ?how ?

They  can creat biologic Implants through energy this is a fact, its how saren and  t.i.m got their implants and they can create husks that way Sythesis is tthe process refined

You can't change people dna instantly wth a green shockwave. hat'd kill them.

says who you? You dont know the properties of the wave. also its spelt That.





Changing everyone DNA with a shockwav of radiation or nanomachines would equir you to know exactly whre are each individual you change,

the shock wave covers the entire galaxy.



and to know the DNA of each of those people, because th process must be adapted to all individuals, if you don't want to give evryone a super cancer

you have no scintific basis for this claim, it it is nanobots then the bots would adapt nomater what the dna people have.

Dude, I have some scientific backgound, stop tying to be a smartss
Saren and TIM didn't have ther DNA changed, your comparison is irrelevant, and impant don't appear with energy alone

You can't change people dna instantly wth a green shockwave. hat'd kill them.

says who you? You dont know the properties of the wave. also its spelt That.

Thanks fo pointing out typos, I have a bad keyboard but whatever. Oh and you know the property of the wave i suppose ?


I've studied science a fair bit, the amount of enzymes and other chemical substance in your  body would mess you up badly if your DNA changed abruptly.


Andhah, you don't know what the shockwave iss, care to ell me how you can justify it then ? Somehow the cruibl can generate an almost endless amount of super intelligent nanomachines, spread them in al direcction at high speed through space an make em use the mass relays ? please.

Thats quite a higher tech than what the reaper use. You need to instruct all the nanomachines, that's why you need to know where evryone is and what their DNA is, because various factors like the solar radiation, pollution and stress would affect the process too. Do your research.

Oh, but silly me, thesenanomachines know everything, hurray ! I just wonder how, with all ths tec, the reapers couldn't do their own cruciblen or find the plans for it and destroy them, or ot find lios, nor the various prothean artifact, nor the leviathans, and I think you get the point

[plfranke]

@Kamfrenchie
I'll just add to this that even the catalyst can't explain to you how synthesis works and this is significant because it's the writers speaking to us, meaning synthesis has no real explanation.

[Kamfrenchie]

maaaze wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

you said in another thread something to the effect that ME3 was perfect for you, an I have yet to see you admit ME3 had any flaw.


2) wel, it's obbjectively mediocre. And aain, having low standard isn't necessarily meant to be tken as an insult. I have low sandard for cooking, again:P

1. I expressed several flaws I found in ME 3.

 for example the late introduction of the Catalyst
 (should have been introduced in the 3 act of the game,in my oppinion.)
 the bad Journal systems.
 the lack of emotional resolution in the original ending.

for me a 10/10 game has not to be flawless. That would be unrealistic. It just has to exceed my expections in fields that are most important to me.

2. well is it not objectively. Art never is. Saying I have low standarts is an insult. It implies that I don´t care and that
I am simple minded this matter.

So you give a flawless score to a game that isn't flawless ? Rather than a good score ?


2) oh yes it can be.  good writing has objective rules

It's like that entirely blank page from some kown artist (twomby i think) that's worth 2 millions o something. That ain't art. it's a joke. And i don't mean it's not art because I don't like it. I'm not a fan of picasso, style, but i still recognize his work as art. But I won't accept poorly thought out and rushed stuff as art. It's an insult to the real artists.

Well then, shall i feel insulted because in a earlier thread, you called me a whiner because i wasn't happy at bioware's lies before release ?

But fine, if you want i'll replace low standard with easily pleased

[AlienWolf728]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

maaaze wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

you said in another thread something to the effect that ME3 was perfect for you, an I have yet to see you admit ME3 had any flaw.


2) wel, it's obbjectively mediocre. And aain, having low standard isn't necessarily meant to be tken as an insult. I have low sandard for cooking, again:P

1. I expressed several flaws I found in ME 3.

 for example the late introduction of the Catalyst
 (should have been introduced in the 3 act of the game,in my oppinion.)
 the bad Journal systems.
 the lack of emotional resolution in the original ending.

for me a 10/10 game has not to be flawless. That would be unrealistic. It just has to exceed my expections in fields that are most important to me.

2. well is it not objectively. Art never is. Saying I have low standarts is an insult. It implies that I don´t care and that
I am simple minded this matter.

So you give a flawless score to a game that isn't flawless ? Rather than a good score ?


2) oh yes it can be.  good writing has objective rules

It's like that entirely blank page from some kown artist (twomby i think) that's worth 2 millions o something. That ain't art. it's a joke. And i don't mean it's not art because I don't like it. I'm not a fan of picasso, style, but i still recognize his work as art. But I won't accept poorly thought out and rushed stuff as art. It's an insult to the real artists.

Well then, shall i feel insulted because in a earlier thread, you called me a whiner because i wasn't happy at bioware's lies before release ?

But fine, if you want i'll replace low standard with easily pleased

+1. Inb4QQ.

Modifié par AlienWolf728, 31 août 2012 - 02:46 .

[Hudathan]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

pointed out how the plot i stupid, but whatever.

Remind me why the reapers don't bumrush the citadel in the first place, and why they don't close the mass relays? how legion dying could possibly be helping the geth ?
Why are the reapers invading earth and letting the flet go ? Why are we gahering flet when our goal is to make the crucible and conventionnal victory is impossible ?
To protect it ? Nope, we can't stop the reapers remember ? If they do a half assed try at attacking they'll win

now let's see you do the same

I don't need to explain why the Reapers do the things they do because I'm not an ancient machine. But even if I wanted to apply my human logic to it, I could easily say because Reapers no longer had the element of surprise. They're already flying in from dark space so why not just divide and conquer the galaxy as they go? Why would they waste time going after the most heavily defended place in the galaxy when they could just attack all of our homeworlds and divide our efforts? And they eventually took the Citadel anyway so what's your point?

As far as your attempt to discredit the plot by simplifying the conventional victory issue, all I can say is that you're not even representing a portion of the facts. No one in the game ever denied that you can't fight the Reapers and inflict some casualties, no one said that the Reapers were gods and can't be killed. However, it's obvious that despite our best efforts the Reapers will always defeat us at the end. We are only losing more worlds/populations/resources the longer we go on fighting while the Reapers simply boster their forces with our fallen. So yeah, we need something as powerful as the Crucible to try and defeat them in one fell swoop before it's too late.

All of this is presented clearly in the game and makes perfect sense. Just because you claim it's 'stupid' doesn't make you right.

[JasonDaPsycho]

If you feel the ending violates key themes, there is nothing possible for one to reconcile with it.

The following is of my opinion.
The ending completely turned its back on the series' repeated notion of defying all odds. In addition, ME3 is all about closure-seeking and it failed to provide that for me, especially in the Destroy ending. Why the hell is Shepard alive? If she dies, she dies; if she lives, she lives. Leaving the "breath" scene there is just confusing me. Furthermore, Starchild just won't cut it for me.

There is simply no way for one to convince me that the Starchild allowing you to defeat him is a case of defy all odds. It just won't cut it for me.

[Kamfrenchie]

Hudathan wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

pointed out how the plot i stupid, but whatever.

Remind me why the reapers don't bumrush the citadel in the first place, and why they don't close the mass relays? how legion dying could possibly be helping the geth ?
Why are the reapers invading earth and letting the flet go ? Why are we gahering flet when our goal is to make the crucible and conventionnal victory is impossible ?
To protect it ? Nope, we can't stop the reapers remember ? If they do a half assed try at attacking they'll win

now let's see you do the same

I don't need to explain why the Reapers do the things they do because I'm not an ancient machine. But even if I wanted to apply my human logic to it, I could easily say because Reapers no longer had the element of surprise. They're already flying in from dark space so why not just divide and conquer the galaxy as they go? Why would they waste time going after the most heavily defended place in the galaxy when they could just attack all of our homeworlds and divide our efforts? And they eventually took the Citadel anyway so what's your point?

As far as your attempt to discredit the plot by simplifying the conventional victory issue, all I can say is that you're not even representing a portion of the facts. No one in the game ever denied that you can't fight the Reapers and inflict some casualties, no one said that the Reapers were gods and can't be killed. However, it's obvious that despite our best efforts the Reapers will always defeat us at the end. We are only losing more worlds/populations/resources the longer we go on fighting while the Reapers simply boster their forces with our fallen. So yeah, we need something as powerful as the Crucible to try and defeat them in one fell swoop before it's too late.

All of this is presented clearly in the game and makes perfect sense. Just because you claim it's 'stupid' doesn't make you right.

Strategically speaking (yes i'm into strategy aswell), the reapers behaviour is objectively stupid. And i mean really stupid, like Gamelin's plan in WW2

The council is still at the citadel, thy can still block the relay and gain instant win by docking with it. It should be their priority numbr 1, it's only basic logic. It has always worked for them.


Again, why are we gathering fleet whn the objective is to build to cucible and we cant face a serious assaultby th reapers ? It's like gthering men to shot at a tank with  SMG, you on't achieve anything. If the reapers attack the crucble we can't defend it because they ar much stronger, hence why gthering flets in the first place makes no sense

[Kamfrenchie]

look, this game had more endings than ME3 before EC, and they are much more different

spoilers ofc


see ? lazy job from bioware + the lies... I can't accept what they sold us as good/decent art, it's just insulting to people who actually worked to make a good story/game

[dreman9999]

If you don't like it. Then you don't like. No need to force your self.

I personally like the endings because I see it on a concept of morality vs logic of your Shepard.

I never expected for My Shepard to live, nor a conventional victory..I got that concept back in ME2.
I saw the game as a question of what lengths I was will to go to stop the reapers. My only goal was to save may squad and as much of the universe I could.
I saw the ending as a test of the lengths of my morality.

But that my opinion...It doesn't have to be yours.

[MerchantGOL]

Kamfrenchie wrote...


Dude, I have some scientific backgound,

  I'm having a real hard time beliving



Saren and TIM didn't have ther DNA changed, your comparison is irrelevant, and impant don't appear with energy alone

Except they do read the evolution comic book, those implants came from the energy, the implants gave T.I.M the abiity to understand the languages of every species






I've studied science a fair bit, the amount of enzymes and other chemical substance in your  body would mess you up badly if your DNA changed abruptly.

Since no one is sick or dying the Wave adjusts for that obviously

Andhah, you don't know what the shockwave iss, care to ell me how you can justify it then ? Somehow the cruibl can generate an almost endless amount of super intelligent nanomachines, spread them in al direcction at high speed through space an make em use the mass relays ? please.

Well if their nano machines being carried on the energy wave that spans entire galaxies they dont need Direction as for how their genrated  i imagine the tech in the crucible/Catalyst is advanced enough to create them

Thats quite a higher tech than what the reaper use.

Well 1. the reapers didn't build the crucible, 2 i dont agree with this statment.


You need to instruct all the nanomachines, that's why you need to know where evryone is and what their DNA is, because various factors like the solar radiation, pollution and stress would affect the process too. Do your research.

They wouldnt because of how its carried the energy cant be stoped it effects every thing  it u get shocked you get "iinfected"

Oh, but silly me, thesenanomachines know everything, hurray ! I just wonder how, with all ths tec, the reapers couldn't do their own cruciblen or find the plans for it and destroy them, or ot find lios, nor the various prothean artifact, nor the leviathans, and I think you get the point

 those things arent related, also again they didnt build the crucible, the reapers found asolution that worked and didnt do any hting diffrent till an outside factor introduced a diffrent varriable, they kept tech at the same level so they could controll it. what ever race made the crucible or atleast came up with using the citadel and mass relays as a deliver system were ingenuisly using the reapers own short sightedness as  a loophole

[Hudathan]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

Strategically speaking (yes i'm into strategy aswell), the reapers behaviour is objectively stupid. And i mean really stupid, like Gamelin's plan in WW2

The council is still at the citadel, thy can still block the relay and gain instant win by docking with it. It should be their priority numbr 1, it's only basic logic. It has always worked for them.


Again, why are we gathering fleet whn the objective is to build to cucible and we cant face a serious assaultby th reapers ? It's like gthering men to shot at a tank with  SMG, you on't achieve anything. If the reapers attack the crucble we can't defend it because they ar much stronger, hence why gthering flets in the first place makes no sense

How does taking the Citadel equate with instant win? Their goal is to harvest all advanced organic species. That takes time and effort no matter where they start. If they wanted to instantly win then they could have just showed up before we even had starships and killed everyone when they're defenseless.

The Reapers are not interested in winning a war as human beings would understand it. They have a specific plan to implement and taking our worlds is basically the crux of that plan. Again, why fly by all the systems you're going to harvest when you can just get right to the harvesting? What's more crippling than losing all your bases right off the bat rather than just your capital?

The same plan no longer works this cycle, that's already been proven in ME1 and further explain in ME2 Arrival. The Reapers no longer had a back door into the galaxy, they gotta fly there the old fashioned way. They deviated from their usual logic because it has already failed by the end of ME1, it's time for a different but equally effective plan. They simply brute forced their way into the galaxy and it's the same result as if they had came through a relay.

What do you mean why the galaxy is combining its fleets? Just because you don't plan on winning a long term war conventionally doesn't mean you dont need weapons for the hail mary plan you came up with. That's like saying the Rebels shouldn't need ships because all they can do is try to blow up the Death Star while the Emperor is on it. The Rebels can't beat the Empire in a straight up fight so they shouldn't try to mobilize for their one daring strike for victory?