275 réponses à ce sujet

[Jadebaby]

WRONG! Every choice HE gives YOU, means you are cooperating with him if you play along in his little sick game of "pick your colour".

Synthesis is just his preferred choice.

Also, he tells you that synths and organics can't get along. So then you're just proving his point if you choose destroy because it shows you don't care about the Geth. Because if you do, you wouldn't pick destroy.

Again, you're missing the ****ing point. I already told you I know you can't save everyone, but it's because those events occured naturally throughout the plot. NOT BECAUSE THE LEADER OF YOUR ENEMY TOLD YOU YOU COULDN'T!

And I attack your spelling because the amount of time you spend of these forums, one would think it would actually improve.
Plus, most of your comments you've posted in the past are so outrageously stupid that I don't even bother trying to debate with you, because as 3D said. "you live in a bubble."

[dreman9999]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

WRONG! Every choice HE gives YOU, means you are cooperating with him if you play along in his little sick game of "pick your colour".

Synthesis is just his preferred choice.

Also, he tells you that synths and organics can't get along. So then you're just proving his point if you choose destroy because it shows you don't care about the Geth. Because if you do, you wouldn't pick destroy.

Again, you're missing the ****ing point. I already told you I know you can't save everyone, but it's because those events occured naturally throughout the plot. NOT BECAUSE THE LEADER OF YOUR ENEMY TOLD YOU YOU COULDN'T!

And I attack your spelling because the amount of time you spend of these forums, one would think it would actually improve.
Plus, most of your comments you've posted in the past are so outrageously stupid that I don't even bother trying to debate with you, because as 3D said. "you live in a bubble."

You telling me that he want you to blow him up or enslave him just because?

And you wonder why you don't undestand it?

It's not trying to mess with you, nor would it risk get itself destroy  to mess with you. It's a machine doing what it's program to do. It has no free will.

Destroy and control is not what it wants. It want synthesis.

And wht happen with the destory chouce does happen naturaly in the plot. How mean converstions in ME3 did you have questioning if the crucible was a double edge sword?

Face it, you just want to take the moral high ground and is upset you can't.

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 octobre 2012 - 08:12 .

[inversevideo]

No she's reacting to the fact that you are trolling or being deliberately obtuse.

[ld1449]

Again...why are you bothering???

Here are names you people can blacklist/equate to talking to a brick.

Dreman. TXgoldrush, Blueprotoss.

After a certain point, there's no reason to even bother.

Modifié par ld1449, 02 octobre 2012 - 08:29 .

[inversevideo]

And there is no proof that anything you do , to the Reapers, negatively impacts Starkid, as Starkid is not a Reaper.

Even allowing for the possibility that one of the choices you make can impact Starkid, death, for Starkid, has either a different meaning or no meaning for Starkid. It tells you it is preserving you in Reaper form, so as long as your DNA /information is preserved Syarkid does not consider you dead.

[ld1449]

inversevideo wrote...

No she's reacting to the fact that you are trolling or being deliberately obtuse.

Or is, genuinely this stupid.

[Jadebaby]

ld1449 wrote...

Again...why are you bothering???

Here are names you people can blacklist/equate to talking to a brick.

Dreman. TXgoldrush, Blueprotoss.

After a certain point, there's no reason to even bother.

I know, and I usually do. Some days it gets to me more than other days.

[Jadebaby]

ld1449 wrote...

inversevideo wrote...

No she's reacting to the fact that you are trolling or being deliberately obtuse.

Or is, genuinely this stupid.

lol

[inversevideo]

ld1449 wrote...

Again...why are you bothering???

Here are names you people can blacklist/equate to talking to a brick.

Dreman. TXgoldrush, Blueprotoss.

After a certain point, there's no reason to even bother.

You may be right. I am guilty of 'rising to the bate' when I should know better.

You are right. Thanks for the reality check.

[dreman9999]

inversevideo wrote...

No she's reacting to the fact that you are trolling or being deliberately obtuse.

How is anything I said wrong? All you do when yiu don't have a counter point to what I said is"Lolz, trolling"

You don't een get what I'm trying to say.

In fact, plese tell me how the option to destroy the catalyst or enslave him is doing what he wants.

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 octobre 2012 - 08:53 .

[Jadebaby]

dreman9999 wrote...

inversevideo wrote...

No she's reacting to the fact that you are trolling or being deliberately obtuse.

How is anything I said wrong? All you do when yiu don't have a counter point to what I said is"Lolz, trolling"

You don't een get what I'm trying to say.

In fact, plese tell me how the option to destroy the catalyst or enslave him is doing what he wants.

Personally I never said it's doing what he wants, I already said synthesis is what he wants. HOWEVER, Destroy is still cooperating with him because it's still a choice in his ultimatum.

I did not play through the ME series for 100+ hours to compromise with the ****ing Reapers in the final 10 minutes.


"I'm going to win this war, and I'm not going to sacrifice the soul of our species to do it"

haha yea bull****.

[What a Succulent Ass]

/did not read



http://fourfour.type...0182d970c-800wi

[The Spamming Troll]

dreman9999 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The catalyst has no morality, It has no concept of good or evil. It's just a machine doing what it's programed to do.

so how do we turn the catalyst off?

riddle me that.

You shot the pipe.

its like you intentionaly miss the point.

as if shooting the pipe doesnt whipe out an entire race of people. i jsut want a button that stops the catalyst, so i can go on with my life and not argue about a non-issue with a machine thats as dissilusioned as you are. actually i never even argued with it. he said heres what you do, i said ok. and the credits rolled.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 02 octobre 2012 - 12:58 .

[Jadebaby]

@Random Jerface. Holy crap, so THAT'S why we didn't get our blue babies!!

Mother F....

[mrs_anomaly]

ld1449 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

 because you obviously don't grasp the significance of the scenes inclusion. Sorry, not trying to sound rude, I know it can come off that way in the form of text. For one, its a videogame....who's protagonist has died before and come back, along with many other characters that have survived certain death situations....I'm willing to suspend disbelief based on those merits. Then again, my "suspension of.disbelief" is not even called into question because of the presentation of the memorial wall scene along with the breathe scene.

"A stubborn enough person can survive just about anything. Rage is a hell of an anesthetic." - Zaeed

I'm fairly certain soldiers KIA were quite angry right before that bullet found them.

In all seriousness however, the point made is that there is plenty of reason to believe Shepard is dead and simply arguing that "they put it in there so he must obviously live" does not fly with many people, and for good reason.

If I told you in a story a submarine gets hit, starts to sink at 700 feet below the surface, then I cut to black and come back with the glimpse of the protagonist breaking the surface and taking a gasp of air before cutting to black again, would you breathe in relief "Oh thank god he's obviously alive." or look at your screen like "Huh? But- he didn't have diving gear! Even if he did the pressure and cold would kill him! And...and...he's in the dead middle of the atlantic ocean!"

It doesn't work HERE for similar reasons. There is FAR too much between point A (Submarine/Crucible firing) and point B (Protagonist gasping scene)  and point C (rescue). They're DEMANDING blatant LEAPS. Not even skips or steps LEAPS of logic.

"Oh but you know maybe his injuries arent as bad as they look/seem. Maybe he didn't fall that far from the Crucible platform. Maybe the explosion missed most of him. Maybe they found him in time. Maybe his cibernetics sustained him. Maybe the Catalyst was lying about the beam wiping out all sinthetics when he added that shep was partly synthetic.

Maybe maybe maybe maybe.

When you require that word in an explanation to your work, you have failed on some level. Authors detest the word maybe unless the story supports open speculation and puzzle workouts like "Dark Souls" and "Demon Souls"

There are stories that support "trick" or complex endings like 2001 Space Odisey for example, or Neon Genesis Evangelion, or "The sixth sense" or this other movie "The Others" I believe it was called or any number of other genres.

BUT the key in these stories is that the narative supported such a thing. Either because they involved heavy symbolism since the start, or were made to make you think, or always hada vague aura of "wrongness" about the whole situation. Like something just wasn't clicking for the audience throughout the length of the story.

Mass Effect however, did not have any of these things because everything was explained in minute detail. They even have an in game codex with approximately 700 pages or so worth of information for the audience to read so they can understand everything.

So there is no symbolism involved. Neither is there a sense of "wrongness" or "missing a puzzle piece"

Theonly criteria that Mass Effect had out of the ones above was "To make you think" and even then its mostly Metagame thinking rather than ingamethinking.

Take Heavy rain. Heavy rain had "In game thinking" because you were wondering who the hell was the Origami killer with the ingame information provided Your entire thinking process revolved aroundin game information.

Mass Effect however has always made the audience use Metagame thinking to answer the questions they bring up with the audience.

Themoral implications of letting the rachni live or killing them is not something that can be decided in the vacuum of in-game thinking. The person's own morality and knowledge of other genres is gonna come into play when deciding which is right or wrong.

So right there you're removing the isolation of in game or in world thinking that is necessary to support the suspension of disbelief required for a complex ending to be pulled off right. Its what lead to so many people taking such a grim view in the original endings. Because with lack of in game knowledge on WTF is going on, they went to external sources. The implication that everyone's gonna end up killing eachother in the Sol system for the last few resources, the fact that the Normandy crew is stranded and gonna die on that plannet ect. Which was not helped by the in game knowledge of the necessity of Mass Relays and the implications they bring when blowing up.

And its what continues to bring negative interpretations. With control decriers bringing up AI's like Hal 2000 and Mendicant Bias and Synthesis decriers bringing up all the moral implications like slavery in deciding the fate of the entire galaxy and so on and so forth.

You can't ask people to bring in their out world knowledge throughout your narrative to determine what decisions they'll be making to then suddenly demand that they cut off their thought process at the begining and end of the established universe. If its to accept the choices presented or a Torso taking a gasp it doesn't click with many and this is why many people STILL hate the ending because it is literally not clicking with them and still seems like it deserves to be in an ENTIRELY different game just by the structure it has taken.

Unless the LI has telepathy him/her not putting up the plaque could be considered token sentimentalism of not wanting to let go. Many people do it.

Given the personality traits of many of the LI's them not putting up the plaque is actually more in character than them putting it up without hesitation in Control/Synthesis.

Garrus is like a dog with a bone when it comes to certain things. His desire to escape the rules of C-sec, His desire to kill Sidonis. Its not unbelievable this trait would extend to his belief in Shepards survival.

Tali practically Hero worships Shepard, I can easilly see her choosing not to believe Shepard is dead until she sees a body.

Kaidain is a "romantic" he'd hold out as much hope as possible.

Cortez Liara and Traynor I've never romanced so I don't know them that well but Liara right off the bat I can tell you borders on obsessive given her work in pursuit of the Shadow Broker alone so her clinging to that plaque also falls into denial.

I understand what you're saying that they wouldn't put it in there if it doesn't mean something. But for people like me, who practically demand that things presented hold water, ME3's "he lives" ending doesn't hold up to a lick of scrutiny. So even without the structural problems of the ending it doesn't even stand up to even a half assed perusal.

What I take issue with is the apparently rampant belief that has taken over the boards that the people who hate the endings are just inherentlyin the wrong and that they just want to hate on the game just because we can and "Haters gonna hate". Its not that we WANT to hate on the game. I WANT to be able to play the game again. I don't WANT to be on boards discussing everything wrong with the Hack's writing abilities.

I for my part have very valid reasons why I simply cannot accept a good chunk of the things presented within the last 10 mins of this game and I've pointed out here why many people still find them wrong and unnaceptable. I could write MORE because ME3's original ending fails on almost every single literary level I've ever heard of.

Works will always disregard one or two rules. Its almost Necesary to get an "original" idea going these days. But ME3 discarded every single rule ever written. And the EC patched things up but that's all it did. Its not a full healing salve, the wound remains very much bleeding to a lot of people. And even to people that are ok with it. That's it. Its
limited to being Ok. And there is a big difference between satisfied and resigned.



@Ms anomaly

You can choose to headcannon it, that's fine. In fact, I somewhat envy your ability to do so. I'm not saying its wrong to like the endings. As I said above, I just dislike it when people state that there are no reasons to dislike it.

I've never liked or supported the endings original or EC. I agree with your points regarding the inconsistency in the plot requiring the gamer to constantly use Metagame thinking to inform our choices in game- and then the game requiring a tremendous amount of suspension of disbelief to swallow the last 10 min. Agreed. 
I'm just simply in a state of beleagured acceptance that the ending is never going to be as good as we all (mostly all of us) wanted it to be. I waited so long for my successive playthroughs because I had to ..calm down lol about the ending. 

Oh and btw- Kaidan as your LI does post the death plaque on the Normandy with the Synthesis ending. I don't know about the Control ending- I have never picked that one and I doubt I ever will. My instinct is to always choose Destroy and I only ever chose Synthesis because I didn't realize what I was doing when I chose it . 

[mrs_anomaly]

MyChemicalBromance wrote...

Terminus Echoes wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

You only need 3100 to get the breath scene, so with over 5000 you'll be fine.

"That's Shepard's last breath!"

That doesn't sound like a last breath to me. That sounds like a "waking up from unconsciousness" breath. I never understood that speculation.

Destroy destroys all synthetics.

Shepard is partially synthetic. The part of his/her brain that controls memory almost has to be synthetic (after ME2). Even if he/she did survive, it may not be them anymore.

I'm confused about this whole line of thinking -
Everyone talks about whether Shepard would have survived the Destroy choice because of the wipe out of "synthetics" and I have to point out that if everything synthetic were truly destroyed the Normandy would be wiped out also- I think the actual wipe out was for Articifical Intelligences. All synthetic,concious, self aware beings were destroyed. Not just an implant- unless Sheps implants were intrinsically AI that is a non issue IMO. 


@Random Jerkface- ROFL  surely there is someone around the real universe that can create an excellent engine for making unique Shep+Liara progeny. 

Modifié par mrs_anomaly, 02 octobre 2012 - 02:36 .

[mrs_anomaly]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

mrs_anomaly wrote...

SPOILERS:


I'm about to finish my second playthrough of ME3. I just landed on Earth....my husband wanted to watch football so I just saved and got on Youtube because I haven't spoiled myself on the newer extended cut endings yet. 



Wow. I am officially a hypocrite. I say this because I was a staunchly interested in having  a "good death" to save the Galaxy. I didn't care how- at least let me die to win if necessary and give me a good ending and let me know what happens a bit afterwards. An epilogue. 

Now that I've seen the variations that would apply to my Sheps- I'm just thinking...I want my Shepard to survive. But I know that really doesn't even make sense. Shepard had so little chance of surviving this entire time anyway and she made the final decision to save the Galaxy. But but but..  


I'm going to have to read a novel with an HEA to get me out of this post ME3 blues . At least ..the galaxy was saved.  

Changing your mind about something doesn't make you a hypocrite. It makes you a person who changed their mind.

In Mass Effect 1, Tali hated the Geth and believed they all needed to die to reconquer Rannoch.

In Mass Effect 3, Tali's experience with Legion made her believe want a peaceful settlement was possible and she was completely open to it.

Does that make her a hypocrite? no.

You sir, have a very good point and thank you! I stupidly never considered this when doing the ending of my recent playthrough. I just got a sense, such as you see in films and books, where my Shep was headed toward the ending and I didn't want her to just die. I wanted her to live! Just jumping onto the Synthesis beam seemed so - upsetting. 

[NM_Che56]

mrs_anomaly wrote...

SPOILERS:


I'm about to finish my second playthrough of ME3. I just landed on Earth....my husband wanted to watch football so I just saved and got on Youtube because I haven't spoiled myself on the newer extended cut endings yet. 



Wow. I am officially a hypocrite. I say this because I was a staunchly interested in having  a "good death" to save the Galaxy. I didn't care how- at least let me die to win if necessary and give me a good ending and let me know what happens a bit afterwards. An epilogue. 

Now that I've seen the variations that would apply to my Sheps- I'm just thinking...I want my Shepard to survive. But I know that really doesn't even make sense. Shepard had so little chance of surviving this entire time anyway and she made the final decision to save the Galaxy. But but but..  


I'm going to have to read a novel with an HEA to get me out of this post ME3 blues . At least ..the galaxy was saved.  

Shoot the tube (w/ high EMS).

[Massa FX]

Best way to defeat the Reapers is... find the kid AI's blue box and smash it to bits. Soo... easy. No relay destruction or red, green, blue colors.

Safe, simple and effective. Kill the Reaper control stick and the galaxy has a better future.


@everyone Posters like dre..99 are comic relief. I love reading the wording... the typos... the awesome brilliant odd logic. We don't need to feed these people but damn, the lolz are great!

Modifié par Massa FX, 02 octobre 2012 - 04:21 .

[dreman9999]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

inversevideo wrote...

No she's reacting to the fact that you are trolling or being deliberately obtuse.

How is anything I said wrong? All you do when yiu don't have a counter point to what I said is"Lolz, trolling"

You don't een get what I'm trying to say.

In fact, plese tell me how the option to destroy the catalyst or enslave him is doing what he wants.

Personally I never said it's doing what he wants, I already said synthesis is what he wants. HOWEVER, Destroy is still cooperating with him because it's still a choice in his ultimatum.

I did not play through the ME series for 100+ hours to compromise with the ****ing Reapers in the final 10 minutes.


"I'm going to win this war, and I'm not going to sacrifice the soul of our species to do it"

haha yea bull****.

You not understanding. You never wondered why he can't choose the option he give? Why is he asking you to pick when he is an AI the proven it can pick it's own solutions?

It not him who control what the crucble does.

[dreman9999]

Massa FX wrote...

Best way to defeat the Reapers is... find the kid AI's blue box and smash it to bits. Soo... easy. No relay destruction or red, green, blue colors.

Safe, simple and effective. Kill the Reaper control stick and the galaxy has a better future.

Catalyst:I'm the colective intellegence of the reapers...


So that would mean doing that won't work.

[NM_Che56]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The catalyst has no morality, It has no concept of good or evil. It's just a machine doing what it's programed to do.

so how do we turn the catalyst off?

riddle me that.

You shot the pipe.

its like you intentionaly miss the point.

as if shooting the pipe doesnt whipe out an entire race of people. i jsut want a button that stops the catalyst, so i can go on with my life and not argue about a non-issue with a machine thats as dissilusioned as you are. actually i never even argued with it. he said heres what you do, i said ok. and the credits rolled.

1) Geth are not "people".
2) The options only exist because of the crucible. 
3) I have a button for you...F7   *runs away*

[AresKeith]

still don't listen to what people write Dreman

[NM_Che56]

Massa FX wrote...

Best way to defeat the Reapers is... find the kid AI's blue box and smash it to bits. Soo... easy. No relay destruction or red, green, blue colors.

Safe, simple and effective. Kill the Reaper control stick and the galaxy has a better future.

Located...?

[dreman9999]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The catalyst has no morality, It has no concept of good or evil. It's just a machine doing what it's programed to do.

so how do we turn the catalyst off?

riddle me that.

You shot the pipe.

its like you intentionaly miss the point.

as if shooting the pipe doesnt whipe out an entire race of people. i jsut want a button that stops the catalyst, so i can go on with my life and not argue about a non-issue with a machine thats as dissilusioned as you are. actually i never even argued with it. he said heres what you do, i said ok. and the credits rolled.

What was stated in the ME1 AD....Many choices lie ahead, none of them easy...


War has consiquences. You can't always take the hight road.

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 octobre 2012 - 04:23 .