236 réponses à ce sujet

[Podge 90]

My point, and I'd hope many others, is that I would rather have established characters that have been thoroughly developed, than characters who have no backstory and who receive no development.

The former would be a strength of the series, the latter makes characters shallow, and, ultimately expendable.

[Blueprotoss]

Tomwew wrote...

bringing up a resolved issue (can syntehetics and organics co-exist) in the last ten minutes was a mistake, not giving you the option to disagree, and forcing you to accept the catalyst's beliefs is antithesis to everything mass effect stood for, freedom of choice.

If that was really forced then the Geth wouldn't have been a focal point in ME1 and ME2 along with their Quarian creators.

N7 Assass1n wrote...

For me, they completed literary suicide with the way they handled the game. Personally, the plot Drew had going, with Dark Energy sounded much more enticing than what was brought forth. The Organic vs Synthetic conflict was shallow and barely presented in the series up until the last ten minutes. It wasn't directly represented (if you want to include the Geth) because the Geth were not under total control of the Reapers it was only the Heretics, which in reality is a small minority of the Geth. I really wish they handled the Reapers with more finesse. No matter what kind of being/construct something is, vulnerability is inevitable. They should of taken the route that Harry Potter took by exploiting Voldemort's weakness. But alas, its not going to be for anything now. Lucas, I really like your insightful threads. You don't utterly bash people for opposing your opinion, your opinion actually has some kind of logical backing and you don't impose your opinion. That, and at least your grammar is at a substantial level as opposed to the general forum.

Its easy to say that you would like the other without seeing the other as an ending.  Creator vs Created was always present in the ME series especially with the Citadel ban on AI creation, the Morning War, and the Reaper conflict.

Ironhandjustice wrote...

Top 10 argument in the list of reasons of why endings suck.

It wasn't that hard. We wan archetipical endings with epic scenes.

Nothing more. WE DIDN'T WANT ART

To be fair if you really thought this then you would have a lot of problems with ME1 and ME2 before ME3.

Mcfly616 wrote...

I'm not going to debate the topic, as I've done many times before. But I will say OP....to the part about the synth vs organics conflict and all that. The Geth were deliberately humanized in order to make the ending choice more difficult.

That's it. Otherwise, everybody would shoot the tube

I can easily see this because the Geth did become a favorable and likable character with ME2 and ME3.

Masha Potato wrote...

i can't even tell what the core plot was after all the nonsense

Defeating the Reapers indirectly in ME1 or directly in ME2.

sdinc009 wrote...

But that's the dumbest part of the DLC's explanation. The Leviathans observe a problem which is that their thrall races build sythetics which eventually rebel against them and their solution to this problem is to do the exact same thing!? And then, SURPRISE, the Intelligence does just that. Why didn't they just tell the thrall races to stop building AI's? Stick to VI's, much more reliable.

If thats the case then what do you think about the Qaurians and the Geth?

sdinc009 wrote...

So, this just in, apparently Director Frank Oz didn't have a problem changing the ending of "Little Shop of Horrors" from the original:

http://movies.yahoo....-234230378.html

Seems, originally Seymour and Audrey both get eaten and Audrey II grows to Godzilla size and begins destroying New York. Test audiences didn't like this dark ending because they came to care for the main characters and so it was changed to the "happy" ending that everyone now knows. So apparently the existing presidence is that if the audience doeesn't like it, give the audience what they want.

Thats a strawman just like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle with Sherlock Holmes.  You seem to forget that Little Shop originally started as a Broadway show before it was a Hollywood movie.  Its okay that Creators stick to their guns even when thats what most of them do.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 11 octobre 2012 - 03:40 .

[dreman9999]

Podge 90 wrote...

My point, and I'd hope many others, is that I would rather have established characters that have been thoroughly developed, than characters who have no backstory and who receive no development.

The former would be a strength of the series, the latter makes characters shallow, and, ultimately expendable.

James gets devolopment and has a backstory.

My point is just because a character is astablished does not mean they have to be on the squad. Who like to be on the squad is an issue of preferance and not having certain characters on the squad does not detour develoment.

All characters have equal right to be on the squad even if you prefer others to be on it more then others.

[Comsky159]

Don't agree sorry. ME3 needs to add something to the mythos, or people would lose interest in it as a stand alone game.

[Podge 90]

So Vega telling you he wants to be an N7 equals character development? Sheesh, no wonder people are happy with the ending to Mass Effect being in the form of a slideshow.

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...
Not really. Seeing the character develop develops your relationship with that character...But it does not develop the plot outside of wanting that character to live or not.

A squad mate they don't have dramatic influences on to the plot. If Garrus dies, there is nothing lost out side of a great character. The same can be said for all your squad. Only Tali has influence on the story on hand but that's only on rennoch....After that she has no influence on the plot.

Also, ems does not make the game whishy washy. In war, value are placed on things to how they relate to the war. The thing you miss was the general question ME as a series asked....what are you willing to do to stop an unstopable force. You have more then one why to do that. YOu missing that fact there is more then one way to get to your goal.

The characters are central to the plot-it is a character driven story.  They are the reason Shepard has the character s/he does.  It's the reason Shepard is fighting.  It was the main and most important part of ME up until ME3. 

The death of a squadmate definitely does have a dramatic influence on the plot.  The problem is because they are central to why Shepard is doing what s/he is doing (these are what matters to the hero), ME3 rendering them meaningless tends to ruin the story.  They set the story up so that you care about these people.  Stories do that-you have conflict, you also have a protagonist and you set up the story to explain why the hero is doing what s/he is doing.  Is it for money, for fame, for love, or what.  For Shepard there were many reasons (not Earth), but central to all of that was Shepard's friends-the most important reasons.  Any soldier will tell you why they do what they do-love of country, family, and so on, but in the heat of war, they do it for the person standing next to them as well.

EMS does make the story wishy washy-not setting anything as canon is the biggest problem with EMS.  You essentially can get the same EMS no matter what decision you make, more than enough for all the choices.  EMS is used to give you all the choices, no matter what you do as long as you get enough of it.  You can do what technically might be a bad thing and get just about the same EMS or even a small bit more than if you do what might be a good thing, but it all evens out.  That makes it wishy washy.  Save the collector base/destroy it.  Cure the genophage or don't.  Side with the quarians or geth.  Whatever you do it's all the same.

I have no problem and certainly do understand there is more than one way to achieve a goal, but at the end there is only one goal and the game doesn't allow you to know that you have done that unambiguously.  You have no idea if you will or if you have achieved that and have done so acceptably and for a greater good.  You may even damn people to a far worse fate than death.  The goal is the goal.  And it wasn't about stopping them-it was about destroying them.  It wasn't about helping the kid or the Leviathans do what they wanted to do, it was about doing what you needed to do, so that you clearly rid the galaxy of the reapers.  And so that you could do so and remember who you were and what you were fighting for.

I'm really going to stop discussing this with you dreman-because it's going to get into shackled AI and needing balance and a lot of black holes of discussion and you believe what you believe, but I tend to think a lot of it makes no sense.  Sorry, but true.

[Xilizhra]

ME2 badly screwed with the chances of the squadmates in that game because all of them could die. I really, really wish this hadn't been the case; it would have led to far more possibilities for all of them.

I have no problem and certainly do understand there is more than one way to achieve a goal, but at the end there is only one goal and the game doesn't allow you to know that you have done that unambiguously. You have no idea if you will or if you have achieved that and have done so acceptably and for a greater good. You may even damn people to a far worse fate than death. The goal is the goal. And it wasn't about stopping them-it was about destroying them. It wasn't about helping the kid or the Leviathans do what they wanted to do, it was about doing what you needed to do, so that you clearly rid the galaxy of the reapers. And so that you could do so and remember who you were and what you were fighting for.

That's what the slides are for. They show what's canon. After that, well, that's pretty much your own choice to decide how things would go. Why jump to pessimistic interpretations?
In any case, for me, this was always about stopping them. I just thought destruction was the only valid route until the end, and changed my mind based on new information. Nothing wrong with that.

[3DandBeyond]

Podge 90 wrote...

My point, and I'd hope many others, is that I would rather have established characters that have been thoroughly developed, than characters who have no backstory and who receive no development.

The former would be a strength of the series, the latter makes characters shallow, and, ultimately expendable.

I agree with this.  I will say it again that I came to like Vega, but his story also needs retconning-because it kind of contradicts the reason why TIM was using Shepard in the first place-the Alliance wasn't taking the Collector threat all that seriously.  But James makes it appear that they were.  And Shepard just doesn't question this, ever.

It was like you were assembling this team, only to have them end up as phone a friend goodbyes at the end.  The Kasumi mission in ME3 was laughable.  And I really do like Miranda, but it was like she kept popping up to tell Shepard, she didn't need Shep's help.  Um ok.  And you have about 5 minutes with Jack and all of them, if that.  It seems like you have more dialogue with Kelly than most of them.  Though there are good moments.

But I find it particularly sad that they kept uh teasing people as they did.  You have an LI in ME1, that doesn't carry over to ME2 (or sort of does with Liara).  To feed your fish, you have to cheat on your LI.  Then an LI that you may get in ME2, is not there for much of ME3.  Wow, but as Bioware's marketing guy said, it's all out war.  Who cares or would remember what happened 8 years ago.  It's like you won't care if you romanced someone, because it's war.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
There generally 4 themes in ME as a series.

The morality of freedom vs control
The morality of advancement.
The morality of ends vs means.
the issue of organic vs synthetic.

You are taking them out of context.  The organic vs synthetic theme is always a solved issue within ME and so it is not a main theme-it's like an overblown side mission.  The ends vs the means is only paragon vs. renegade and every story has that as an element-it adds to the conflict.  It's always this in almost every story because it's about solving a problem, meeting a goal and how the protagonist does this.  It's not a main theme, it is a story element. 

The validity of advancement is a theme, but it's abandoned as a concern at the end-to make a choice you basically have to not care about it because you are denying it's relevance.  Every rational person along the way stated that advancement had problems-and it wasn't its morality.  It was its effects.  It isn't that it's immoral to advance people, it's that it harms them in unforseeable ways.  It's not immoral to give a family with a kid marbles to play with.  It's harmful to do it if the kid is not of an age to be playing with marbles or if the kid just likes to throw things.  If you don't know this will happen you should not give the family marbles for their kid.

This is the thing about advancement.  You don't know what effects it will have.  You may be doing it to even help people, so you aren't being immoral.  You are being stupid.  That's what happened to the Krogan.  They were advanced to solve a problem.  But, the advancement they were given was something they were not ready for.  They got bored and fought and they bred.  The morality of it comes into question in deciding to try to put the genie back in the bottle by stopping them from breeding.

Then there's freedom vs. control.  No this was not a recurrent theme because it was also a rejected idea.  Even TIM rejected it for Shepard.  He didn't want to control Shepard because he wanted Shepard to be Shepard.  It wasn't about freedom so much as it was about remaining true to oneself.  Control was seen as changing the person, not taking freedom away per se, but it made people react and be different.  That's what indoctrination (extreme control) did.  People were changed and ultimately died because of control.  They all reached a state, a point where the dichotomy was too great to ignore and overcome.  Benezia was fighting control because it had changed her-she became herself again before dying.  Saren is actually seen to be figthing it-he had some actually good motives at one time perhaps but indoctrination had changed him.  At last the division within him of who he was and who he had become was too great-he has realization at last and so he kills himself.  TIM is kind of the same but he takes more convincing.  He does have this realization too but he may force you to kill him.  It isn't about freedom-it's about people being themselves.  Under control, they are not.

The themes that most often resonate are unity, diversity, self-determination and autonomy (there's your freedom), and redemption.  These are the parts of this character-driven story.  And in such stories, heroes must be bigger than life and so must the bad guys-the reapers were, until the kid got a hold of them.

"The organic vs synthetic theme is always a solved issue within ME and so it is not a main theme-it's like an overblown side mission. "
No it's not. The reapers are partof that issue.

"The ends vs the means is only paragon vs. renegade and every story has that as an element-it adds to the conflict.  It's always this in almost every story because it's about solving a problem, meeting a goal and how the protagonist does this.  It's not a main theme, it is a story element.  "

No it's not. The player has always been asked what they are willing to do to stop an unstopplbe force, bring the issue of morality on hand. This is no every heavy choice including the ending choices.


"but it's abandoned as a concern at the end-to make a choice you basically have to not care about it because you are denying it's relevance.  Every rational person along the way stated that advancement had problems-and it wasn't its morality.  It was its effects.  It isn't that it's immoral to advance people, it's that it harms them in unforseeable ways.  It's not immoral to give a family with a kid marbles to play with.  It's harmful to do it if the kid is not of an age to be playing with marbles or if the kid just likes to throw things.  If you don't know this will happen you should not give the family marbles for their kid"

Not it was not thrown away inthe ending...It just a case you just don't like the choices at the end. every end choice is basedon the concept of advancement becuase you choosing so the races of the galexy do not die off. Every choice is a valid form of advancement...It just that you don't like how it's done.
And the issue of advancement is not about effect...If it was about effect only the we can say that doing harmful thing to advanceis ok as long as the end effect benifits all. The issue is a how we do it as well, not just if we are ready. Cerberus illustated the ill effect of how we advance is an issue...As well as synthesis and the reaper solution.

"No this was not a recurrent theme because it was also a rejected idea.  Even TIM rejected it for Shepard.  He didn't want to control Shepard because he wanted Shepard to be Shepard.  It wasn't about freedom so much as it was about remaining true to oneself.  Control was seen as changing the person, not taking freedom away per se, but it made people react and be different.  That's what indoctrination (extreme control) did.  People were changed and ultimately died because of control.  They all reached a state, a point where the dichotomy was too great to ignore and overcome.  Benezia was fighting control because it had changed her-she became herself again before dying.  Saren is actually seen to be figthing it-he had some actually good motives at one time perhaps but indoctrination had changed him.  At last the division within him of who he was and who he had become was too great-he has realization at last and so he kills himself.  TIM is kind of the same but he takes more convincing.  He does have this realization too but he may force you to kill him.  It isn't about freedom-it's about people being themselves.  Under control, they are not."

No it is an issue of freedon vs control. TIM did not choose to put a control chip in Shep because he felt he can control Shepard in another way...Which he did. He still minipulated Shepard by making him think he had a choice. The reality if Shepard tryied to run with  SHACKED edi on board....He  would order the edi to take control of the ship.The repaers them selve are part of that being that they want to control ever organic and advance orgainc with their tech, mass relay trap,and turningthem to reapers. The fact that Saren and benezia fought off indoctriantion means the them is still there...The fact Tim Later fights it off means the theme is still there. The fact that the reaper are trying to turn organic s into reaper slave and husk slaves menas it still there. The fact that the catalyst is a shackled Ai means it's still there. The fact that synthesis is an option, and youhavethe freedom to decline it menas the theme is still there.

[dreman9999]

Podge 90 wrote...

So Vega telling you he wants to be an N7 equals character development? Sheesh, no wonder people are happy with the ending to Mass Effect being in the form of a slideshow.

That is character development...How is it not? That's connect with his whole issue he had with fell prime. That is character development.

[dreman9999]

Comsky159 wrote...

Don't agree sorry. ME3 needs to add something to the mythos, or people would lose interest in it as a stand alone game.

Ending the genophage and ending the quarian /geth war is not adding to the mythos?

[Iakus]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I agree with this.  I will say it again that I came to like Vega, but his story also needs retconning-because it kind of contradicts the reason why TIM was using Shepard in the first place-the Alliance wasn't taking the Collector threat all that seriously.  But James makes it appear that they were.  And Shepard just doesn't question this, ever.

It was like you were assembling this team, only to have them end up as phone a friend goodbyes at the end.  The Kasumi mission in ME3 was laughable.  And I really do like Miranda, but it was like she kept popping up to tell Shepard, she didn't need Shep's help.  Um ok.  And you have about 5 minutes with Jack and all of them, if that.  It seems like you have more dialogue with Kelly than most of them.  Though there are good moments.

But I find it particularly sad that they kept uh teasing people as they did.  You have an LI in ME1, that doesn't carry over to ME2 (or sort of does with Liara).  To feed your fish, you have to cheat on your LI.  Then an LI that you may get in ME2, is not there for much of ME3.  Wow, but as Bioware's marketing guy said, it's all out war.  Who cares or would remember what happened 8 years ago.  It's like you won't care if you romanced someone, because it's war.

One small correction: Post Horizon, the Alliance did start taking the Collector threat seriously.  If you talk to Anderson afterwards and mention seeing teh VS he says that Ash/Kaidan confirmed Shepard's claims of teh Collectors, but couldn't prove a Reaper connection.  Also, if you do Arrival prior to the Suicide Mission, Hackett tells Shepard that the Alliance has been quietly evacuating smaller colonies and reinforcing the larger ones.

James' story makes sense in this context, since his disasterous mission occurred just before Shepard's suicide mission, which rendered the intel James gained useless.

Oh, and Kelly will still feed your fish on the friendship path too.  You can still take her to dinner as a collegue.  you just...play chess instead of take a shower

[Podge 90]

dreman9999 wrote...

Podge 90 wrote...

So Vega telling you he wants to be an N7 equals character development? Sheesh, no wonder people are happy with the ending to Mass Effect being in the form of a slideshow.

That is character development...How is it not? That's connect with his whole issue he had with fell prime. That is character development.

....and no wonder you are happy with Mass Effect ending with a slideshow.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Not really. Seeing the character develop develops your relationship with that character...But it does not develop the plot outside of wanting that character to live or not.

A squad mate they don't have dramatic influences on to the plot. If Garrus dies, there is nothing lost out side of a great character. The same can be said for all your squad. Only Tali has influence on the story on hand but that's only on rennoch....After that she has no influence on the plot.

Also, ems does not make the game whishy washy. In war, value are placed on things to how they relate to the war. The thing you miss was the general question ME as a series asked....what are you willing to do to stop an unstopable force. You have more then one why to do that. YOu missing that fact there is more then one way to get to your goal.

The characters are central to the plot-it is a character driven story.  They are the reason Shepard has the character s/he does.  It's the reason Shepard is fighting.  It was the main and most important part of ME up until ME3. 

The death of a squadmate definitely does have a dramatic influence on the plot.  The problem is because they are central to why Shepard is doing what s/he is doing (these are what matters to the hero), ME3 rendering them meaningless tends to ruin the story.  They set the story up so that you care about these people.  Stories do that-you have conflict, you also have a protagonist and you set up the story to explain why the hero is doing what s/he is doing.  Is it for money, for fame, for love, or what.  For Shepard there were many reasons (not Earth), but central to all of that was Shepard's friends-the most important reasons.  Any soldier will tell you why they do what they do-love of country, family, and so on, but in the heat of war, they do it for the person standing next to them as well.

EMS does make the story wishy washy-not setting anything as canon is the biggest problem with EMS.  You essentially can get the same EMS no matter what decision you make, more than enough for all the choices.  EMS is used to give you all the choices, no matter what you do as long as you get enough of it.  You can do what technically might be a bad thing and get just about the same EMS or even a small bit more than if you do what might be a good thing, but it all evens out.  That makes it wishy washy.  Save the collector base/destroy it.  Cure the genophage or don't.  Side with the quarians or geth.  Whatever you do it's all the same.

I have no problem and certainly do understand there is more than one way to achieve a goal, but at the end there is only one goal and the game doesn't allow you to know that you have done that unambiguously.  You have no idea if you will or if you have achieved that and have done so acceptably and for a greater good.  You may even damn people to a far worse fate than death.  The goal is the goal.  And it wasn't about stopping them-it was about destroying them.  It wasn't about helping the kid or the Leviathans do what they wanted to do, it was about doing what you needed to do, so that you clearly rid the galaxy of the reapers.  And so that you could do so and remember who you were and what you were fighting for.

I'm really going to stop discussing this with you dreman-because it's going to get into shackled AI and needing balance and a lot of black holes of discussion and you believe what you believe, but I tend to think a lot of it makes no sense.  Sorry, but true.

3d, you basicly saying you want the plot ot only go one way in a game that is stated you have multiple ways to do it. That does not make it whishy washy...That mean theyyou way is not the only way to do things.

And you issue is that you don't want to conflict with your moral to get to the goal. Yes, the goal is the goal....But that was always the case with the series...You don't think ,as the story goes on, getting to that goal would get harder?
And the goal is about stopping them. It was never stated that you had to destroy them. Say that you not happy till you do, with out comprimises, means you only want to see the story resoleved in only one way.

[3DandBeyond]

Xilizhra wrote...

ME2 badly screwed with the chances of the squadmates in that game because all of them could die. I really, really wish this hadn't been the case; it would have led to far more possibilities for all of them.

I have no problem and certainly do understand there is more than one way to achieve a goal, but at the end there is only one goal and the game doesn't allow you to know that you have done that unambiguously. You have no idea if you will or if you have achieved that and have done so acceptably and for a greater good. You may even damn people to a far worse fate than death. The goal is the goal. And it wasn't about stopping them-it was about destroying them. It wasn't about helping the kid or the Leviathans do what they wanted to do, it was about doing what you needed to do, so that you clearly rid the galaxy of the reapers. And so that you could do so and remember who you were and what you were fighting for.

That's what the slides are for. They show what's canon. After that, well, that's pretty much your own choice to decide how things would go. Why jump to pessimistic interpretations?
In any case, for me, this was always about stopping them. I just thought destruction was the only valid route until the end, and changed my mind based on new information. Nothing wrong with that.

The slide show is a joke-laughable.  People claim that anyone that wanted a Shepard lives ending wanted bunnies and rainbows or Disney, but that's exactly what the ridiculous slide shows are.  And that junk about being able to repair things easily.  Yeah, this from a galaxy that had no clue about how all this stuff worked and told people to leave the keepers and relays alone.

I'm not jumping to pessimistic conclusions, but logical ones.  Tell me how it's oh so uplifting to do exactly what has been rejected by rational people in the game all along?  No rational person including Shepard thought control was a good idea or synthesis.  Legion even stated that what would happen to the geth is something they didn't want.  Control takes away self-determination just as surely as synthesis by unearned advancement (and magic) does.  Destroy kills the heart if you cared about EDI and the geth.  These are futile, depressing endings-depressing choices that are not primarily meant to meet the story's goal.  And they are not the result of your or Shepard's efforts in the game.  They are EMS structures.

The slides were added to help retcon the idea of a galactic wasteland that was the intent of the original endings.  And all the flowery dialogue is meant to do that as well.  The most uplifting thing within all of that is Shepard's refusal speech, but that's followed by suicide by reaper.

I know you want to get to know the reapers, but I do not think this is a believable aspect of these endings-no one that had witnessed the horrors they perpetrated would conceivably want them alive unless it was to control them themselves for their own selfish reasons.  You don't see that and I can't help you to understand this.  I would also ask you if you think you have the right to do anything you want with another person's body?  I'd also ask you if you have the right to shoot an innocent child to keep someone from shooting yours?  And if a serial killer ate your family, would you want him fixing your car? 

[dreman9999]

Podge 90 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Podge 90 wrote...

So Vega telling you he wants to be an N7 equals character development? Sheesh, no wonder people are happy with the ending to Mass Effect being in the form of a slideshow.

That is character development...How is it not? That's connect with his whole issue he had with fell prime. That is character development.

....and no wonder you are happy with Mass Effect ending with a slideshow.

You have yet to tell me how James did not have character develoment...And you have no point bringing up the slide show at the end.

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

I agree with this.  I will say it again that I came to like Vega, but his story also needs retconning-because it kind of contradicts the reason why TIM was using Shepard in the first place-the Alliance wasn't taking the Collector threat all that seriously.  But James makes it appear that they were.  And Shepard just doesn't question this, ever.

It was like you were assembling this team, only to have them end up as phone a friend goodbyes at the end.  The Kasumi mission in ME3 was laughable.  And I really do like Miranda, but it was like she kept popping up to tell Shepard, she didn't need Shep's help.  Um ok.  And you have about 5 minutes with Jack and all of them, if that.  It seems like you have more dialogue with Kelly than most of them.  Though there are good moments.

But I find it particularly sad that they kept uh teasing people as they did.  You have an LI in ME1, that doesn't carry over to ME2 (or sort of does with Liara).  To feed your fish, you have to cheat on your LI.  Then an LI that you may get in ME2, is not there for much of ME3.  Wow, but as Bioware's marketing guy said, it's all out war.  Who cares or would remember what happened 8 years ago.  It's like you won't care if you romanced someone, because it's war.

One small correction: Post Horizon, the Alliance did start taking the Collector threat seriously.  If you talk to Anderson afterwards and mention seeing teh VS he says that Ash/Kaidan confirmed Shepard's claims of teh Collectors, but couldn't prove a Reaper connection.  Also, if you do Arrival prior to the Suicide Mission, Hackett tells Shepard that the Alliance has been quietly evacuating smaller colonies and reinforcing the larger ones.

James' story makes sense in this context, since his disasterous mission occurred just before Shepard's suicide mission, which rendered the intel James gained useless.

Oh, and Kelly will still feed your fish on the friendship path too.  You can still take her to dinner as a collegue.  you just...play chess instead of take a shower

tHANK YOU...Proof James has development.

[Podge 90]

You believe Vega saying he's been approached for N7 is on the same level as the journey you go through with Garrus. That's fine. Your mind-numbingly low expectations of this series have been met.

I can't imagine being so easily pleased, personally.

[Iakus]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The slide show is a joke-laughable.  People claim that anyone that wanted a Shepard lives ending wanted bunnies and rainbows or Disney, but that's exactly what the ridiculous slide shows are.  And that junk about being able to repair things easily.  Yeah, this from a galaxy that had no clue about how all this stuff worked and told people to leave the keepers and relays alone.

I'm not jumping to pessimistic conclusions, but logical ones.  Tell me how it's oh so uplifting to do exactly what has been rejected by rational people in the game all along?  No rational person including Shepard thought control was a good idea or synthesis.  Legion even stated that what would happen to the geth is something they didn't want.  Control takes away self-determination just as surely as synthesis by unearned advancement (and magic) does.  Destroy kills the heart if you cared about EDI and the geth.  These are futile, depressing endings-depressing choices that are not primarily meant to meet the story's goal.  And they are not the result of your or Shepard's efforts in the game.  They are EMS structures.

The slides were added to help retcon the idea of a galactic wasteland that was the intent of the original endings.  And all the flowery dialogue is meant to do that as well.  The most uplifting thing within all of that is Shepard's refusal speech, but that's followed by suicide by reaper.

I know you want to get to know the reapers, but I do not think this is a believable aspect of these endings-no one that had witnessed the horrors they perpetrated would conceivably want them alive unless it was to control them themselves for their own selfish reasons.  You don't see that and I can't help you to understand this.  I would also ask you if you think you have the right to do anything you want with another person's body?  I'd also ask you if you have the right to shoot an innocent child to keep someone from shooting yours?  And if a serial killer ate your family, would you want him fixing your car? 

I'd give up the speeches, the slide shows, everything new about the ending (save the Normandy taking off again) for a scene of Shepard standing up again after the Crucible fired.

[Xilizhra]

The slide show is a joke-laughable. People claim that anyone that wanted a Shepard lives ending wanted bunnies and rainbows or Disney, but that's exactly what the ridiculous slide shows are. And that junk about being able to repair things easily. Yeah, this from a galaxy that had no clue about how all this stuff worked and told people to leave the keepers and relays alone.

I have nothing whatsoever against bunnies and rainbows, so it works out for me. Though having the Reapers makes it a lot easier.

I'm not jumping to pessimistic conclusions, but logical ones. Tell me how it's oh so uplifting to do exactly what has been rejected by rational people in the game all along? No rational person including Shepard thought control was a good idea or synthesis. Legion even stated that what would happen to the geth is something they didn't want. Control takes away self-determination just as surely as synthesis by unearned advancement (and magic) does. Destroy kills the heart if you cared about EDI and the geth. These are futile, depressing endings-depressing choices that are not primarily meant to meet the story's goal. And they are not the result of your or Shepard's efforts in the game. They are EMS structures.

It's uplifting to find a way to do something that we didn't think anyone else could do, to preserve as much as possible and to use that to restore what was lost. I understand why you don't see it that way; please understand why I see it the way I do. Just because people told me it was impossible doesn't mean that it was.

I know you want to get to know the reapers, but I do not think this is a believable aspect of these endings-no one that had witnessed the horrors they perpetrated would conceivably want them alive unless it was to control them themselves for their own selfish reasons. You don't see that and I can't help you to understand this. I would also ask you if you think you have the right to do anything you want with another person's body? I'd also ask you if you have the right to shoot an innocent child to keep someone from shooting yours? And if a serial killer ate your family, would you want him fixing your car?

If the serial killer was under mind control from myself or someone I trusted, sure. Especially if the only reason he was a serial killer to begin with was because he had a control chip in his head planted by an AI. And I believe people would adapt in time.

I'd give up the speeches, the slide shows, everything new about the
ending (save the Normandy taking off again) for a scene of Shepard
standing up again after the Crucible fired.

I refuse to support Destroy-exclusive content for the sake of marginalizing the other endings further.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 11 octobre 2012 - 03:54 .

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

ME2 badly screwed with the chances of the squadmates in that game because all of them could die. I really, really wish this hadn't been the case; it would have led to far more possibilities for all of them.

I have no problem and certainly do understand there is more than one way to achieve a goal, but at the end there is only one goal and the game doesn't allow you to know that you have done that unambiguously. You have no idea if you will or if you have achieved that and have done so acceptably and for a greater good. You may even damn people to a far worse fate than death. The goal is the goal. And it wasn't about stopping them-it was about destroying them. It wasn't about helping the kid or the Leviathans do what they wanted to do, it was about doing what you needed to do, so that you clearly rid the galaxy of the reapers. And so that you could do so and remember who you were and what you were fighting for.

That's what the slides are for. They show what's canon. After that, well, that's pretty much your own choice to decide how things would go. Why jump to pessimistic interpretations?
In any case, for me, this was always about stopping them. I just thought destruction was the only valid route until the end, and changed my mind based on new information. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm not jumping to pessimistic conclusions, but logical ones.  Tell me how it's oh so uplifting to do exactly what has been rejected by rational people in the game all along?  No rational person including Shepard thought control was a good idea or synthesis.  Legion even stated that what would happen to the geth is something they didn't want.  Control takes away self-determination just as surely as synthesis by unearned advancement (and magic) does.  Destroy kills the heart if you cared about EDI and the geth.  These are futile, depressing endings-depressing choices that are not primarily meant to meet the story's goal.  And they are not the result of your or Shepard's efforts in the game.  They are EMS structures.



I know you want to get to know the reapers, but I do not think this is a believable aspect of these endings-no one that had witnessed the horrors they perpetrated would conceivably want them alive unless it was to control them themselves for their own selfish reasons.  You don't see that and I can't help you to understand this.  I would also ask you if you think you have the right to do anything you want with another person's body?  I'd also ask you if you have the right to shoot an innocent child to keep someone from shooting yours?  And if a serial killer ate your family, would you want him fixing your car? 

1.The uplifting partofcontrol is that everyone you care for lives and all the races live....Added pick control is not Selfish...Shepard is giving up everything they have...That means being with there friends family and li....So EDI and the Geht can live...That's called a sacrifice. And it mattered not if many characters else felt control was wrong...They didnot have the full info. The fact it's possible and has a good result itenough to make it a valide choice.
Destroy is an issue of cassulties. If you don't want that to happen....Don't pick it.

2. Agein, this is an issue that you only want it to end your way with out comprimises. That is not what bw wanted it to do. You just want it to end one way...Yours.

[dreman9999]

Podge 90 wrote...

You believe Vega saying he's been approached for N7 is on the same level as the journey you go through with Garrus. That's fine. Your mind-numbingly low expectations of this series have been met.

I can't imagine being so easily pleased, personally.

As I said before, just because the character is astablish doesnot mean they have to be on the ship. James has growth as a character. It may not be as much as Garrus and Tali, but that does not mean he can't be part of the squad. You keep missing that. Also, it 's not like he is taking Garrus's and Tali's spot ether.

Modifié par dreman9999, 11 octobre 2012 - 04:01 .

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'd give up the speeches, the slide shows, everything new about the
ending (save the Normandy taking off again) for a scene of Shepard
standing up again after the Crucible fired.

I refuse to support Destroy-exclusive content for the sake of marginalizing the other endings further.

Not I never said what color beam the Crucible fires.  I believe Shepard should have been able to survive any high EMS ending.  If it sounds like I support Destroy survival exclusively, it's only because atm it's the only one that even dangles that hope before us.

[Podge 90]

dreman9999 wrote...

Podge 90 wrote...

You believe Vega saying he's been approached for N7 is on the same level as the journey you go through with Garrus. That's fine. Your mind-numbingly low expectations of this series have been met.

I can't imagine being so easily pleased, personally.

As I said before, just because the character is astablish doesnot mean they have to be on the ship. James has growth as a character. It may not be as much as Garrus and Tali, but that does not mean he can't be part of the squad. You keep missing that. Also, it 's not like he is taking Garrus's and Tali's spot ether.

But the thing is you are happy to drop those previous characters in favour of a character that doesn't receive a fraction of the development.  Like I said, you are frighteningly easily pleased.  It's a shame that the Mass Effect series lowered it's own bar so much to cater for you.