398 réponses à ce sujet

[Davik Kang]

megamacka wrote...

I am sorry, but if you think that the ME3 ending was one of the best endings that you've ever seen then you are either not really that invested in the series, not thinking it through or perhaps.... you just happened to like it.
But seriously, this whole '' disney happy ending '' is not something that I think that the majority of the fans want.
We just want a good ending that goes along the theme and the plot that ME1 and 2 set up.

  I am glad that you liked the ending, but when people still acknowledges just how messed up the ending''s'' truly are six months later.... That says a lot. But these '' 
 ferocity of arguments  '' ... Welcome to the interwebs . It's just sad that a few people makes the rest look like morons that want a disney ending with cake and party time.

  AND WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED TO THE DARK ENERGY!?

Ok fair enough, I can see how they upset people.  But I was pretty invested in Shepard's story and I did give it a lot of thought, so much so that I just made a new thread for it to talk about some of the stuff.  I already had the EC before I finished it, and I had been warned that the ending was terrible, so that could have influenced what I thought.  But I really think that they made a really courageous finale, and it would be really sad if game developers were dissuaded from doing these kinds of risky things in the future because of the backlash from ME3.

[Nightwriter]

Davik Kang wrote...

The OP started the thread with "To people who liked the endings..." yet over 50% of the posts here are haters and whiners, people who most definitely did not like the ending.

I think it is really really sad that Bioware took such a brave decision to end the trilogy as they did, and over 6 months on people are STILL complaining how bad the ending was.

I finished ME3 last week, and knew nothing about it save that it was supposed to be bad... and was treated to one of the best endings I have ever seen in a video game.

Everyone's got their opinion and there's nothing wrong with disliking the ending, but the ferocity of arguments making demands that Bioware actually change the ending is really depressing. Executive Meddling would've given us a gutless "Everybody wins!" ending, with all the Normany crew members, even the dead ones, all singing songs and dancing around a fire, followed by a cutscene with baby Rachni being cradled by their parents while Geth and Quarians hugged and wept openly.

I hope in time this ending is recognised how it deserves to be in my opinion, as one of the best and most important thing to happen in videogames in recent times.

Look, I'm not sure you understand how a forum works.

You don't get to post a thread in a public place and expect only some people -- the people whose opinions you personally like -- to post in it. Especially when the thread essentially says "Yo reasonable people, do you hate these retarded ending whiners as much as I do or what? CAN I GET AN AMEN!"

This kind of OP invites responses from the "ending whiners," and you can't complain about responses the thread invites.

And Controversial =/= brave. Sorry. I know, I know, "brave and innovative" is one of people's like ohmigosh favorite things to say if they like the endings. But you seem to be operating under the misconception that just because the ending made a lot of people angry, it took balls to create.

Unfortunately, this requires BioWare to have foreseen the reaction.

And BioWare was nothing short of thunderstruck at the reaction. They did not create the ending thinking they were taking this big a risk. There was no courage involved, beyond the regular courage they show every time they release a game that they know the public will judge as they please.

DA2 and ME2 took more courage to publish than ME3.

And yeah, from BioWare's perspective, and from BioWare's supporters' perspectives, the insane degree of vitriol is depressing. If I were a BioWare employee, it would definitely be affecting my morale.

But there is a disturbing pattern of people putting blanket dismissals on all ending criticism just because some fans are being douches about it.

Talk about corny Disney endings all you like; we all know that what you wanted was an ending where puppies are raped on screen and the Starkid straps Shepard down to a surgical table where he tortures and sexually violates Shepard, culminating in Shepard eventually breaking free and committing suicide to escape the pain, while meanwhile Shepard's LI is turned into a husk before our eyes and Earth is blown up with --

What's that? You didn't want that at all, I'm just slandering your opinion with a ridiculous hyperbole? WELL GOLLY.

And lastly... you complain at length about people who say the ending is the worst thing ever -- and then you go and say the ending is the best thing ever?

Sounds like you're just one end of the extreme criticizing the other end of the extreme.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 27 septembre 2012 - 01:42 .

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

clarkusdarkus wrote...

Wait...........there was an ending? shepards lying in rubble on my playthrough

Mine too.

A very unsatisfactory cliffhanger to the series, I must say...

They you should not watch inception or anything with an open ended ending.

[The Devlish Redhead]

Personally I think people just like to complain, just so that they can say something some of the time. I've thought about the endings, what they mean and so forth and at the end of the day I'm reasonably happy with all 3 endings. But also I view this as a game and am not really taking it as seriously as some folks have in other threads examing every single minute detail......

But if I did have a complaint it's the way they did the 4th choice if you choose nothing or shoot the hologram kid.... It really did sound like the game makers said F U for choosing that option. It's just so abrupt.

[Davik Kang]

Nightwriter wrote...

Look, I'm not sure you understand how a forum works.

Oh ok well thanks for explaining it to me!  

[dreman9999]

Nightwriter wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

The OP started the thread with "To people who liked the endings..." yet over 50% of the posts here are haters and whiners, people who most definitely did not like the ending.

I think it is really really sad that Bioware took such a brave decision to end the trilogy as they did, and over 6 months on people are STILL complaining how bad the ending was.

I finished ME3 last week, and knew nothing about it save that it was supposed to be bad... and was treated to one of the best endings I have ever seen in a video game.

Everyone's got their opinion and there's nothing wrong with disliking the ending, but the ferocity of arguments making demands that Bioware actually change the ending is really depressing. Executive Meddling would've given us a gutless "Everybody wins!" ending, with all the Normany crew members, even the dead ones, all singing songs and dancing around a fire, followed by a cutscene with baby Rachni being cradled by their parents while Geth and Quarians hugged and wept openly.

I hope in time this ending is recognised how it deserves to be in my opinion, as one of the best and most important thing to happen in videogames in recent times.

Look, I'm not sure you understand how a forum works.

You don't get to post a thread in a public place and expect only some people -- the people whose opinions you personally like -- to post in it. Especially when the thread essentially says "Yo reasonable people, do you hate these retarded ending whiners as much as I do or what? CAN I GET AN AMEN!"

This kind of OP invites responses from the "ending whiners," and you can't complain about responses the thread invites.

And Controversial =/= brave. Sorry. I know, I know, "brave and innovative" is one of people's like ohmigosh favorite things to say if they like the endings. But you seem to be operating under the misconception that just because the ending made a lot of people angry, it took balls to create.

Unfortunately, this requires BioWare to have foreseen the reaction.

And BioWare was nothing short of thunderstruck at the reaction. They did not create the ending thinking they were taking this big a risk. There was no courage involved, beyond the regular courage they show every time they release a game that they know the public will judge as they please.

DA2 and ME2 took more courage to publish than ME3.

And yeah, from BioWare's perspective, and from BioWare's supporters' perspectives, the insane degree of vitriol is depressing. If I were a BioWare employee, it would definitely be affecting my morale.

But there is a disturbing pattern of people putting blanket dismissals on all ending criticism just because some fans are being douches about it.

Talk about corny Disney endings all you like; we all know that what you wanted was an ending where puppies are raped on screen and the Starkid straps Shepard down to a surgical table where he tortures and sexually violates Shepard, culminating in Shepard eventually breaking free and committing suicide to escape the pain, while meanwhile Shepard's LI is turned into a husk before our eyes and Earth is blown up with --

What's that? You didn't want that at all, I'm just slandering your opinion with a ridiculous hyperbole? WELL GOLLY.

And lastly... you complain at length about people who say the ending is the worst thing ever -- and then you go and say the ending is the best thing ever?

Sounds like you're just one end of the extreme criticizing the other end of the extreme.

The fact that all the ending choices we have are morally conflicting in some way shows they did take the risk with ME3. The problem is that the original end is a mess. 
Don't lie to yourself and say you still be upset if the ec ending was the original ending. We would not have the contriversy if ec was the original ending.

Most compliner forget the fact the original adverizing stated the player has many hard choice to make and not of them easy and they have to make sacrifices.
 
 

The 3 choices in the end of ME3 fallow this concept. The issue is not that ending is bad any more. If the catalyst was not there we still have these 3 choices to pick. Your issue here is that they are too extreme. I get you don't like the choices in the end but that does not mean the ending are bad because you don't like the choice on hand. It was made so you would not like the choice given at all. To bring the player to moral conflict. No different for virmire, the citadel choice, the geth choice, the collector base choice and the tuchanka choice.

And you don't even understand how contridicting you sound.

[Nightwriter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

And Controversial =/= brave. Sorry. I know, I know, "brave and innovative" is one of people's like ohmigosh favorite things to say if they like the endings. But you seem to be operating under the misconception that just because the ending made a lot of people angry, it took balls to create.

Unfortunately, this requires BioWare to have foreseen the reaction.

And BioWare was nothing short of thunderstruck at the reaction. They did not create the ending thinking they were taking this big a risk. There was no courage involved, beyond the regular courage they show every time they release a game that they know the public will judge as they please.

DA2 and ME2 took more courage to publish than ME3.

The fact that all the ending choices we have are morally conflicting in some way shows they did take the risk with ME3. The problem is that the original end is a mess. 
Don't lie to yourself and say you still be upset if the ec ending was the original ending. We would not have the contriversy if ec was the original ending.

Most compliner forget the fact the original adverizing stated the player has many hard choice to make and not of them easy and they have to make sacrifices.
 
 

The 3 choices in the end of ME3 fallow this concept. The issue is not that ending is bad any more. If the catalyst was not there we still have these 3 choices to pick. Your issue here is that they are too extreme. I get you don't like the choices in the end but that does not mean the ending are bad because you don't like the choice on hand. It was made so you would not like the choice given at all. To bring the player to moral conflict. No different for virmire, the citadel choice, the geth choice, the collector base choice and the tuchanka choice.

And you don't even understand how contridicting you sound.

... But BioWare's games have always been morally conflicting. They're taking no more risk there than they've ever taken.

Things would be much better if the EC had been the original ending. Like, tons. I can't recall telling myself otherwise. The EC is why so many latecomers are playing the ending and not understanding the degree of backlash.

However, if you like, I can lie to myself about it so you can tell me not to lie to myself about it.

I have no idea what the concept of sacrifice and difficulty has to do with it, but okay. I mean, the genophage choice was very difficult for me. I really didn't know if the krogan were ready. And it involved sacrifice as well. But it was GREAT. Loved it. So, I'm not sure I see your point.

What I don't like about the ending is that it is poorly written. It has the same elements as a lot of other great parts of the ME series -- sacrifice, an attempt at moral difficulty -- but it is awful. So awful.

BDtS, Virmire, Tuchanka, Rannoch, heretic geth -- so awesome.

ME3 ending -- so awful.

Tragic, tragic.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 27 septembre 2012 - 02:08 .

[dreman9999]

Nightwriter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

And Controversial =/= brave. Sorry. I know, I know, "brave and innovative" is one of people's like ohmigosh favorite things to say if they like the endings. But you seem to be operating under the misconception that just because the ending made a lot of people angry, it took balls to create.

Unfortunately, this requires BioWare to have foreseen the reaction.

And BioWare was nothing short of thunderstruck at the reaction. They did not create the ending thinking they were taking this big a risk. There was no courage involved, beyond the regular courage they show every time they release a game that they know the public will judge as they please.

DA2 and ME2 took more courage to publish than ME3.

The fact that all the ending choices we have are morally conflicting in some way shows they did take the risk with ME3. The problem is that the original end is a mess. 
Don't lie to yourself and say you still be upset if the ec ending was the original ending. We would not have the contriversy if ec was the original ending.

Most compliner forget the fact the original adverizing stated the player has many hard choice to make and not of them easy and they have to make sacrifices.
 
 

The 3 choices in the end of ME3 fallow this concept. The issue is not that ending is bad any more. If the catalyst was not there we still have these 3 choices to pick. Your issue here is that they are too extreme. I get you don't like the choices in the end but that does not mean the ending are bad because you don't like the choice on hand. It was made so you would not like the choice given at all. To bring the player to moral conflict. No different for virmire, the citadel choice, the geth choice, the collector base choice and the tuchanka choice.

And you don't even understand how contridicting you sound.

... But BioWare's games have always been morally conflicting. They're taking no more risk there than they've ever taken.

Things would be much better if the EC had been the original ending. Like, tons. I can't recall telling myself otherwise. The EC is why so many latecomers are playing the ending and not understanding the degree of backlash.

However, if you like, I can lie to myself about it so you can tell me not to lie to myself about it.

I have no idea what the concept of sacrifice and difficulty has to do with it, but okay. I mean, the genophage choice was very difficult for me. I really didn't know if the krogan were ready. And it involved sacrifice as well. But it was GREAT. Loved it. So, I'm not sure I see your point.

What I don't like about the ending is that it is poorly written. It has the same elements as a lot of other great parts of the ME series -- sacrifice, an attempt at moral difficulty -- but it is awful. So awful.

BDtS, Virmire, Tuchanka, Rannoch, heretic geth -- so awesome.

ME3 ending -- so awful.

Tragic, tragic.

How are the ending poorly written?
Think about it? You brought to a state where you have to sacrific yourself or you morals to stop the reapers. An event that after would have you questioning if you did the right thing. This is an issue many leader of wars have to ask themselves. You don't think the leaders of the US  during WW2 did not have conflicts with themselve over dropping a nuke on Japan?
That is the very concept ME is trying to illustrate, the difficulty of choices vs the extreme.

If your issue is the catalyst, he is only there for you to understand the reapers, he has no control over the situation, that why he ask you to choose.
If you understand the nature of the catalyst the ending is much more clear.

The point here is that we are ask a quetion in regarde to moral vs logic. Our morality vs the reality of what we have to do to stop the reapers. The catalyst is only there to tell us how it started.

Modifié par dreman9999, 27 septembre 2012 - 02:24 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreman9999 wrote...

How are the ending poorly written?
Think about it? You brought to a state where you have to sacrific yourself or you morals to stop the reapers. An event that after would have you questioning if you did the right thing. This is an issue many leader of wars have to ask themselves. You don't think the leaders of the US  during WW2 did not have conflicts with themselve over dropping a nuke on Japan?
That is the very concept ME is trying to illustrate, the difficulty of choices vs the extreme.

If your issue is the catalyst, he is only there for you to understand the reapers, he has no control over the situation, that why he ask you to choose.
If you understand the nature of the catalyst the ending is much more clear.

The point here is that we are ask a quetion in regarde to moral vs logic. Our morality vs the reality of what we have to do to stop the reapers. The catalyst is only there to tell us how it started.

Dropping nukes is actually a very bad comparison from a historical perspective just to let you know, I really wish people would stop using it. For the record the scientists understood only to some degree what they had unleashed but even they underestimated it's effects. The political/military leaders didn't give a hoot about it, not until Russia got the bomb and suddenly it could have been used against them.

[Cigarette Smoking Man]

dreman9999 wrote...

iakus wrote...

clarkusdarkus wrote...

Wait...........there was an ending? shepards lying in rubble on my playthrough

Mine too.

A very unsatisfactory cliffhanger to the series, I must say...

They you should not watch inception or anything with an open ended ending.

You really don't understand how Inception's ending isn't. at all, comparable in this situation given the fact that is done in such a manner as to be a satisfactory conclusion to a story, yet also thematically fits extremely well with its story.

You also really don't understand how Inception is a singular film, and that singular films work much differently than long, branching storylines.

Just because Inception was the most challenging ending to a film, for you, doesn't necessarily mean it is for others.

[Eluril]

It's super annoying and repetitive. Almost no one has anything new to say and most of the ending negativity is simply a difference in understanding of tone or plot or style. Honestly a lot of people are idiots especially the ones that expected some kind of Return of the Jedi style happy dance moment. I love the philosophical ambiguity/controversy of the ending and story but others apparently hate it.

[Isz Niv]

The original endings were downright awful in my opinion. But I was glad to see Bioware put effort into the extended cut and they still might improve the game even further with future DLC. Bioware is very different than most other gaming companies they try their best to work with the fans, that is hard to come by nowadays. But this moment will go down in gaming history as one of the biggest fanrages ever.

[Cigarette Smoking Man]

It's super annoying and repetitive. Almost no one has anything new to say and most of the ending positivity is simply a difference in understanding of tone or plot or style. Honestly a lot of people are idiots especially the ones that think their enjoyment of try hard base level philosophy rushed right when the game went gold makes them smart. I love good storytelling where information dumps and new characters introduced aren't there but others apparently hate it.

[D24O]

Eluril wrote...

It's super annoying and repetitive. Almost no one has anything new to say and most of the ending negativity is simply a difference in understanding of tone or plot or style. Honestly a lot of people are idiots especially the ones that expected some kind of Return of the Jedi style happy dance moment. I love the philosophical ambiguity/controversy of the ending and story but others apparently hate it.

I wanted Dinosaurs to be dancing on the cotton candy/teddy bear clouds, thank you very much.

[Nightwriter]

dreman9999 wrote...

How are the ending poorly written?
Think about it? You brought to a state where you have to sacrific yourself or you morals to stop the reapers. An event that after would have you questioning if you did the right thing. This is an issue many leader of wars have to ask themselves. You don't think the leaders of the US  during WW2 did not have conflicts with themselve over dropping a nuke on Japan?
That is the very concept ME is trying to illustrate, the difficulty of choices vs the extreme.

If your issue is the catalyst, he is only there for you to understand the reapers, he has no control over the situation, that why he ask you to choose.
If you understand the nature of the catalyst the ending is much more clear.

The point here is that we are ask a quetion in regarde to moral vs logic. Our morality vs the reality of what we have to do to stop the reapers. The catalyst is only there to tell us how it started.

Do you really want me to explain? I mean, that would be getting into some heavy wall of text sh*t that puts the previous wall of texts to shame.  

I guess what I'm saying is ARE YOU READY TO COMMIT, EARTH RUMBLE SIX, THE BOULDER VS THE BLIND BANDIT.

[GimmeDaGun]

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

How are the ending poorly written?
Think about it? You brought to a state where you have to sacrific yourself or you morals to stop the reapers. An event that after would have you questioning if you did the right thing. This is an issue many leader of wars have to ask themselves. You don't think the leaders of the US  during WW2 did not have conflicts with themselve over dropping a nuke on Japan?
That is the very concept ME is trying to illustrate, the difficulty of choices vs the extreme.

If your issue is the catalyst, he is only there for you to understand the reapers, he has no control over the situation, that why he ask you to choose.
If you understand the nature of the catalyst the ending is much more clear.

The point here is that we are ask a quetion in regarde to moral vs logic. Our morality vs the reality of what we have to do to stop the reapers. The catalyst is only there to tell us how it started.

Dropping nukes is actually a very bad comparison from a historical perspective just to let you know, I really wish people would stop using it. For the record the scientists understood only to some degree what they had unleashed but even they underestimated it's effects. The political/military leaders didn't give a hoot about it, not until Russia got the bomb and suddenly it could have been used against them.

Sorry for the off topic, but I can't help but put a few historical facts straight here.

Before the US dropped those nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki they already knew that the blast would be devastating: by the Trinity bomb test in New Mexico (July 16. 1945.). That's where Robert Oppenheimer's (a theoretical physicist and professor of physics who was one of the fathers of the atomic bomb) famous qoute came from:  "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds...". 

The US government knew perfectly what it had at its disposal and how devastating an effect would it have on a city full of civilians. They dropped the bomb on Hiroshima on the 4th of August 1945. They could witness the effects of the hell they unleashed with their own eyes...hell they even made video footage of the whole operation. Not like it was enough for the US government: they had to drop another prototype (a bigger one) on the town of Nagasaki on the 9th of August, 1945.. Now here they really had no excuse to do so - not like the first one could be justified in any way. 

Yes, the Soviets had a nuclear weapon program of their own at the time (though they were allied with the US at that point), but it was unsuccesfull due to the lack of resources (lack of uranium ore for one) and knowledge - thus they used espionage (succesfully I must add, but it payed off way later). The first Soviet atomic bomb test happened on the 29th of August 1949 (four years after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings)!
The N.a.z.i German Reich had no real nuclear weapon program: Hitler never believed in it, so they concentrated on tactical interballistic rocket technology instead (V2).

During the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombings Japan and all the Axis-nations (icluding The Third Reich) were losing the war, and the Allied forces were on the offensive. So there was no need to drop two nukes on two towns which did not really have any military value. 

They didn't drop it on Europe because they didn't dare to destroy Euoropean cities for their history and potential as later allies (and even americans haven't forgotten where they came from... it was their civilization too). So they dropped it on Japan right under the nose of the Soviets, but instead of dropping them on an island without civilians or on a military base, they chose two towns full of civilians. 

Lets face it: those two bombs were experiments on humans and pure calculated genocide - not any better than those the n.a.z.is or Soviets or anybody else (e.g. the British at the Drezda bombing) - commited in that war. There was only two reasons behind these bombings: getting across the message (especially to the rising Soviet empire): the US has the world's most devastating weapons, and the other one was the aforementioned human experiment (the one which aimed to have a field test with the nuke... and wanted to examine the effects it had on human physiology and the nuclear fallout). 

So much for American heroism. No offence intended, but history knows no heroism, it's ruthless politics and tactics no matter how fancy the wrapping it is shown to the common folk. Also we have a saying about wars
here in Europe: there are no guilty amongst the victorious, only among the defeated. 

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 27 septembre 2012 - 09:37 .

[Kamfrenchie]

Davik Kang wrote...

The OP started the thread with "To people who liked the endings..." yet over 50% of the posts here are haters and whiners, people who most definitely did not like the ending.

I think it is really really sad that Bioware took such a brave decision to end the trilogy as they did, and over 6 months on people are STILL complaining how bad the ending was.

I finished ME3 last week, and knew nothing about it save that it was supposed to be bad... and was treated to one of the best endings I have ever seen in a video game.

Everyone's got their opinion and there's nothing wrong with disliking the ending, but the ferocity of arguments making demands that Bioware actually change the ending is really depressing. Executive Meddling would've given us a gutless "Everybody wins!" ending, with all the Normany crew members, even the dead ones, all singing songs and dancing around a fire, followed by a cutscene with baby Rachni being cradled by their parents while Geth and Quarians hugged and wept openly.

I hope in time this ending is recognised how it deserves to be in my opinion, as one of the best and most important thing to happen in videogames in recent times.

I'm sorry, but every ending except maybe refuse are very happy unless you're devastated by shepard's death. They all end up with someone telling you how happy things are now, and barely mention the moral implication or anything.

The ending is bad because it introduces a new protagonist and conflict in the last 10 minutes

http://youtu.be/6nVf_yDYftY?t=1m21s

also, yes the guy is being a bit of a jerk but he has a point

[Cashmoney007]

This topic the op started just makes me laugh. I always love when people are like oh I haven't been here in a while and just see negative posts on this forum. There are other posts as well on here. I personally thought ME3 was a good game but can't say it doesn't have issues. But I was not one of those people that would ever demand Bioware change anything in this game. Just imagine if they decided to not come out with the EC?  There was some real good constructive critisim so I am glad I waited on buying ME3.  This game has even gone as far to explain where the Reapers come from.  I still don't agree with that.  

Modifié par Cashmoney007, 27 septembre 2012 - 10:08 .

[Kamfrenchie]

Eluril wrote...

It's super annoying and repetitive. Almost no one has anything new to say and most of the ending negativity is simply a difference in understanding of tone or plot or style. Honestly a lot of people are idiots especially the ones that expected some kind of Return of the Jedi style happy dance moment. I love the philosophical ambiguity/controversy of the ending and story but others apparently hate it.

synthesis says hi, well all endings are happy in fact.

[Kamfrenchie]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

How are the ending poorly written?
Think about it? You brought to a state where you have to sacrific yourself or you morals to stop the reapers. An event that after would have you questioning if you did the right thing. This is an issue many leader of wars have to ask themselves. You don't think the leaders of the US  during WW2 did not have conflicts with themselve over dropping a nuke on Japan?
That is the very concept ME is trying to illustrate, the difficulty of choices vs the extreme.

If your issue is the catalyst, he is only there for you to understand the reapers, he has no control over the situation, that why he ask you to choose.
If you understand the nature of the catalyst the ending is much more clear.

The point here is that we are ask a quetion in regarde to moral vs logic. Our morality vs the reality of what we have to do to stop the reapers. The catalyst is only there to tell us how it started.

Dropping nukes is actually a very bad comparison from a historical perspective just to let you know, I really wish people would stop using it. For the record the scientists understood only to some degree what they had unleashed but even they underestimated it's effects. The political/military leaders didn't give a hoot about it, not until Russia got the bomb and suddenly it could have been used against them.

Sorry for the off topic, but I can't help but put a few historical facts straight here.

Before the US dropped those nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki they already knew that the blast would be devastating: by the Trinity bomb test in New Mexico (July 16. 1945.). That's where Robert Oppenheimer's (a theoretical physicist and professor of physics who was one of the fathers of the atomic bomb) famous qoute came from:  "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds...". 

The US government knew perfectly what it had at its disposal and how devastating an effect would it have on a city full of civilians. They dropped the bomb on Hiroshima on the 4th of August 1945. They could witness the effects of the hell they unleashed with their own eyes...hell they even made video footage of the whole operation. Not like it was enough for the US government: they had to drop another prototype (a bigger one) on the town of Nagasaki on the 9th of August, 1945.. Now here they really had no excuse to do so - not like the first one could be justified in any way. 

Yes, the Soviets had a nuclear weapon program of their own at the time (though they were allied with the US at that point), but it was unsuccesfull due to the lack of resources (lack of uranium ore for one) and knowledge - thus they used espionage (succesfully I must add, but it payed off way later). The first Soviet atomic bomb test happened on the 29th of August 1949 (four years after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings)!
The N.a.z.i German Reich had no real nuclear weapon program: Hitler never believed in it, so they concentrated on tactical interballistic rocket technology instead (V2).

During the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombings Japan and all the Axis-nations (icluding The Third Reich) were losing the war, and the Allied forces were on the offensive. So there was no need to drop two nukes on two towns which did not really have any military value. 

They didn't drop it on Europe because they didn't dare to destroy Euoropean cities for their history and potential as later allies (and even americans haven't forgotten where they came from... it was their civilization too). So they dropped it on Japan right under the nose of the Soviets, but instead of dropping them on an island without civilians or on a military base, they chose two towns full of civilians. 

Lets face it: those two bombs were experiments on humans and pure calculated genocide - not any better than those the n.a.z.is or Soviets or anybody else (e.g. the British at the Drezda bombing) - commited in that war. There was only two reasons behind these bombings: getting across the message (especially to the rising Soviet empire): the US has the world's most devastating weapons, and the other one was the aforementioned human experiment (the one which aimed to have a field test with the nuke... and wanted to examine the effects it had on human physiology and the nuclear fallout). 

So much for American heroism. No offence intended, but history knows no heroism, it's ruthless politics and tactics no matter how fancy the wrapping it is shown to the common folk. Also we have a saying about wars
here in Europe: there are no guilty amongst the victorious, only among the defeated. 

You have a very one sided view of things. Japanese were being completely unreasonnable and were telling their own civilians to die for the chance of killing an american soldiers.

Japanese troops were barbaric for the whole war.  At least most of the whermarcht respected the rules of war. And treated most prisonners in a decent way.

Japaneses would shoot unarmed medics so much that the crosses had to be painted green because red made them easy targets. They used kamikazes tactics.

The bomb being dropped was a logical decision, meant to save american soldiers lives.

It's the fault of the emperor and his generals for not surrendering earlier.


And before anyone tell me i think USA are heros, I don't, I'm french, I know they just abused bombings and "recon by fire" on our cities, but the A-bomb use was justified.

And that saying is wrong, Stalin was obviously guilty

[Kamfrenchie]

dreman9999 wrote...

How are the ending poorly written?
Think about it? You brought to a state where you have to sacrific yourself or you morals to stop the reapers. An event that after would have you questioning if you did the right thing. This is an issue many leader of wars have to ask themselves. You don't think the leaders of the US  during WW2 did not have conflicts with themselve over dropping a nuke on Japan?
That is the very concept ME is trying to illustrate, the difficulty of choices vs the extreme.

If your issue is the catalyst, he is only there for you to understand the reapers, he has no control over the situation, that why he ask you to choose.
If you understand the nature of the catalyst the ending is much more clear.

The point here is that we are ask a quetion in regarde to moral vs logic. Our morality vs the reality of what we have to do to stop the reapers. The catalyst is only there to tell us how it started.

google the dos and don't of endings and look at the writer's digest web page.

And the catalyst controls the reapers

And the catalyst is contrived and not foreshadowed, so is this new conflict dropped on us.

Modifié par Kamfrenchie, 27 septembre 2012 - 10:15 .

[Feanor_II]

I divide al the criticism in two groups:
- Rational and/or constructive criticism: I may not share them but I respect them.... This group rather than making an outcry because Shepard can't have a family life in lakeside, tend to expose what they undestand as structural weaknesses of the plot, act more calmly and are more open minded about how the story should have been developed (I've read interesting posts on how Priority: Earth should have been managed). About them I can only say that it's good to know other points of view.
- Whinning: Most of them are complains about their "fanfic"-esque fantasies weren't fulfilled making a fuss of them, I don't even bother reading those. I also include in this group any of those who try to "impose" their vision of the ending as the only valid and legitimate one.

[inko1nsiderate]

Kamfrenchie wrote...


google the dos and don't of endings and look at the writer's digest web page.

And the catalyst controls the reapers

And the catalyst is contrived and not foreshadowed, so is this new conflict dropped on us.

Writer's digest says it can be forshadowed, no matter how mysteriously.  Re-read it.  I submit to evidence the conversation with Vendetta, and the fact that trying to find out what the Catalyst was/did served to advance the plot for over 2/3rds of the game.

It also says you need to save your biggest surprises/novelty for the end.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 27 septembre 2012 - 10:49 .

[inko1nsiderate]

My favorite part about the complaining was when the EC released and most of the things I had been arguing to explain why the mass effect universe wasn't totally blown up with everyone dead, would up being shown explicitly in the EC.

I'd rather a million people mindlessly quoting MrBTongue or the flavor of the week review of ME3 over a return to those pre-EC days when the community was caught in the fever grip of outright stupidity.  So I guess you can say I've come to terms with the negativity.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 27 septembre 2012 - 10:55 .

[Cashmoney007]

Catalyst - You will listen to me!
Shepard - No!
Catalyst - Ghost Dad!
Shepard - Whats a Ghost Dad?
Catalyst - It was a movie with Billy Cosby
Shepard - That is crazy!
Catalyst - yes and so am I!
Harbinger - Still a live!
Joker - Now that shepard is out of the picture, I can get all his women!
Aria - When do I get to do more besides sitting in the citadel? 

People will just never know what that crazy Catalyst will do next!

Modifié par Cashmoney007, 27 septembre 2012 - 11:17 .