431 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Reth Shepherd wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

MB957 wrote...

I wasnt aware that giving in to the enemy was considered sacrifice these days.

maybe I am just an old fart, but I most certainly dont see how helping the reapers accomplish their goals is a sacrifice.

at that point...the only thing sacrificed is shepards common sense.

but..I could understand if some people wanted that kind of sacrifice...cool..give it to them...

and...make an option for us old timers to win with honor and dignity, and smash the enemy proper!

win win!!

what game were you playing, exactly? Because in ME3 your enemy gives into you at the end. Your enemy admits that it is wrong and that you can do better.

Do you remember the end of Mass Effect 1? Where Saren really and truly believes that he is saving the lives of the entire collective galaxy by going along with something he describes pretty much exactly the way Synthesis is described? And Shepard calls him out for being indoctrinated and following Sovereign's will? And you don't find it odd and Shepard meekly goes along with Glowboy and picks one of the three options offered? ALL of which Shepard has at one time or another decried?

1. As of ec Shepard dose not go meekly.
2. Only synthesis is like what Saren was taking about.

All you did what brought up the obvious cons with synthesis. I don't see how control and destroy is going with what the catalyst wants.

[dreman9999]

drayfish wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Yes...That is exactly the point. Any one that says no just wants a rainbows happy ending.

This is a ludicrously unhelpful and unjustified oversimplification.  If you have to proffer such a cartoonish vision of opinions contrary to your own it does not suggest much for your own analysis.

Personally, I was revolted by the ending on an emotional, intellectual and ideological basis, but I am genuinely glad to hear that you enjoyed it OP.

But that's basilcy it. Most people just want Shepard to live and kill the reapers with no comprimises. You can't denie that people who hate the ending just want this.

Again, this is insultingly reductive and reveals how little attention you clearly pay to much of the criticism leveled at the ending by those who dislike it.  I'm sure there are people who just want a happy-happy joy-joy ending; just as I am sure that there are people who embrace the current ending because in their eyes it is a nihilistic, racist hate screed - but neither reading is fair to the broad range of interpretations that are out there.  To pretend that they are is childish.

To use only myself as an example, I don't want a magical, happy 'everybody lives' ending.  I'm fully aware that this is a tale of war and I was absolutely expecting that Shepard at the very least would not be getting out alive.  So that was never my problem with the ending; your (frankly, petty) categorisation of a rainbows and unicorns epilogue in no way applies to my reading.  My issue is with the far more horrifying statement the game makes in advocating the use of war crimes, and celebrating racial and intellectual intollerance. 

But again, I don't make the intentionally misleading mistake of declaring that anyone who doesn't share my opinion must therefore only like hatred and evil and ignorance.  That would make me a fool with nothing helpful to add to a discussion.

If you want to prove me wrong...Tell me what you want the endin gto be like. Just saying yoiu don't want a Shepard lives ending does not counter my arguement.

[Ticonderoga117]

DirtyMouthSally wrote...

1. Sacrifice doesn't bother me. 
2. Shepard's death doesn't bother me. 
3. Not having a happy ending doesn't bother me.
4. I couldn't care less if I'm reunited with a love interest.  That doesn't bother me.


1. Earth being too short and hardly any scenes or interaction with the allies that I brought there, does. 
2. Saren 2.0 with TIM, does.
3. The introduction of the Catalyst in the final minutes, providing choices and consequences that contradict what the game has sold me on throughout the series, does.
4. The overall execution of the ending, something of which I am too lazy to describe now, does bother me.

So your YouTube friend misses the mark with me completely.

I'd like to add to this list:
Character assassination of The Reapers.
Sudden shift in the narrative in the last 5 minutes.
Everyone being reduced to a moron so that the ending can occur.

Considering that 90% of the series is not focused on sacrifice, the OP and random youtuber have missed the point by a mile.

Overcoming the odds is the "big picture" either by ruthlessness or working together.

[dreman9999]

DirtyMouthSally wrote...

1. Sacrifice doesn't bother me. 
2. Shepard's death doesn't bother me. 
3. Not having a happy ending doesn't bother me.
4. I couldn't care less if I'm reunited with a love interest.  That doesn't bother me.


1. Earth being too short and hardly any scenes or interaction with the allies that I brought there, does. 
2. Saren 2.0 with TIM, does.
3. The introduction of the Catalyst in the final minutes, providing choices and consequences that contradict what the game has sold me on throughout the series, does.
4. The overall execution of the ending, something of which I am too lazy to describe now, does bother me.

So your YouTube friend misses the mark with me completely.

1.I'll give you that.
2. He's been dealing wih reaper tech form ME1.....It's explacted.
3. You have 4 different result ofthe galexy for Destroy...3 with control, 1 with synthesis and 1 with refuse....All based on ems...Please say how choice does nto matter. Added, the catalyst has no control over what destory and control does.
4. Not the slideshow complaint agein...Get over it.

[Ratimir]

dreman9999 wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

No

dreman9999 wrote...

Yes...That is exactly the point. Any one that says no just wants a rainbows happy ending.

No

So Shepard did not sacrific his/her life or the geth in the ending?

Sacrifice is spelt with an E. Please take five seconds to check for obvious typos before posting.

We were asked if we agreed with the statement quoted in the original post. I do not.

Specifically:

"The point of the ending is not to make you feel like you won everything, but to make you understand the meaning of sacrifice."
- Shepard is given no choice for survival. If the sacrifice is forced on us, then it is meaningless.

"Yeah, decisions in ME1 or ME2 may not seem like a huge impact in the end, but ME3 makes you remember everything that you did, your experience, your struggles, your victories."
- Decisions in ME1, or ME2, or the vast majority of ME3 seem to have no impact in the end. It makes me remember everything I did only to wonder why it was thrown out the window.

"In the end, you save the galaxy and let all beings be as they have always been."
- In the end you commit your choice of three war crimes and irrevocably change entire species.

"You pick how you want to live and be remembered by."
- You pick how you want to die and nobody will ever know.

Please, enlighten me: how does disagreeing with this in any way imply that I "just wants a rainbows happy ending"?

[dreman9999]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

DirtyMouthSally wrote...

1. Sacrifice doesn't bother me. 
2. Shepard's death doesn't bother me. 
3. Not having a happy ending doesn't bother me.
4. I couldn't care less if I'm reunited with a love interest.  That doesn't bother me.


1. Earth being too short and hardly any scenes or interaction with the allies that I brought there, does. 
2. Saren 2.0 with TIM, does.
3. The introduction of the Catalyst in the final minutes, providing choices and consequences that contradict what the game has sold me on throughout the series, does.
4. The overall execution of the ending, something of which I am too lazy to describe now, does bother me.

So your YouTube friend misses the mark with me completely.

I'd like to add to this list:
Character assassination of The Reapers.
Sudden shift in the narrative in the last 5 minutes.
Everyone being reduced to a moron so that the ending can occur.

Considering that 90% of the series is not focused on sacrifice, the OP and random youtuber have missed the point by a mile.

Overcoming the odds is the "big picture" either by ruthlessness or working together.

How can something that was never give a spacific motivation have a character assaination?

What so bad about them and the catalyst being machines doing what they are programed to do.

[Mcfly616]

Reth Shepherd wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

MB957 wrote...

I wasnt aware that giving in to the enemy was considered sacrifice these days.

maybe I am just an old fart, but I most certainly dont see how helping the reapers accomplish their goals is a sacrifice.

at that point...the only thing sacrificed is shepards common sense.

but..I could understand if some people wanted that kind of sacrifice...cool..give it to them...

and...make an option for us old timers to win with honor and dignity, and smash the enemy proper!

win win!!

what game were you playing, exactly? Because in ME3 your enemy gives into you at the end. Your enemy admits that it is wrong and that you can do better.

Do you remember the end of Mass Effect 1? Where Saren really and truly believes that he is saving the lives of the entire collective galaxy by going along with something he describes pretty much exactly the way Synthesis is described? And Shepard calls him out for being indoctrinated and following Sovereign's will? And you don't find it odd and Shepard meekly goes along with Glowboy and picks one of the three options offered? ALL of which Shepard has at one time or another decried?

no. I am not surprised that the ending demonstrated that everything wasnt always as it seemed. The "Glowboy" explains that quite well. I just accept the fact that it isn't lying. Whereas many wish to believe it is. And I didn't choose Synthesis.....but it certainly is ideal to the current situation. All the endings are. Mass Effect has its roots in the Science Fiction genre, and its finale represents that to the fullest. Some wish it was part of the "Michael Bay" 'splosion-fest Action sub-genre. Oh well....

[Ticonderoga117]

dreman9999 wrote...
How can something that was never give a spacific motivation have a character assaination?

What so bad about them and the catalyst being machines doing what they are programed to do.

They had motivation beyond "Beep Boop, doing what a stupid AI tells me to."

They aren't simple machines! They are organic and synthetic intelligence. Having them go from deep space horrors to mindless killing machines is horrible.

[dreman9999]

Ratimir wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

No

dreman9999 wrote...

Yes...That is exactly the point. Any one that says no just wants a rainbows happy ending.

No

So Shepard did not sacrific his/her life or the geth in the ending?

Sacrifice is spelt with an E. Please take five seconds to check for obvious typos before posting.

We were asked if we agreed with the statement quoted in the original post. I do not.

Specifically:

"The point of the ending is not to make you feel like you won everything, but to make you understand the meaning of sacrifice."
- Shepard is given no choice for survival. If the sacrifice is forced on us, then it is meaningless.

"Yeah, decisions in ME1 or ME2 may not seem like a huge impact in the end, but ME3 makes you remember everything that you did, your experience, your struggles, your victories."
- Decisions in ME1, or ME2, or the vast majority of ME3 seem to have no impact in the end. It makes me remember everything I did only to wonder why it was thrown out the window.

"In the end, you save the galaxy and let all beings be as they have always been."
- In the end you commit your choice of three war crimes and irrevocably change entire species.

"You pick how you want to live and be remembered by."
- You pick how you want to die and nobody will ever know.

Please, enlighten me: how does disagreeing with this in any way imply that I "just wants a rainbows happy ending"?

Let's look up the meaning of Sacrifice.

http://www.thefreedi...y.com/sacrifice
1.a. The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person.
b. A victim offered in this way.
2.a. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.Something so forfeited.
3.a. Relinquishment of something at less than its presumed value. 
b.Something so relinquished.
c. A loss so sustained.


Choice is not required.

Also, your Shepard has a choice....He can refuse or let someone else get Sacrificed or come with him.

The sacrific is not less if you have no choice. The fact that you have not choice but to do itor else everyone dies make the choice of how to do it difficult.
It does not make it meaning less...It just make it so you don't like doing it...That's what makes it a hard choice.

[dreman9999]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
How can something that was never give a spacific motivation have a character assaination?

What so bad about them and the catalyst being machines doing what they are programed to do.

They had motivation beyond "Beep Boop, doing what a stupid AI tells me to."

They aren't simple machines! They are organic and synthetic intelligence. Having them go from deep space horrors to mindless killing machines is horrible.

The catalyst is doing waht it's programed to do and the reapers are doing what it's programed to do...This is not new to scifi. The true is machines just do what they are programed to do. The reapers maybe your antagonist but they have no personal interest in harming any one.And even ifthey have organic part...that still means they are synthetics. Machine made partly with organic parts.

As Saren said in ME1...."The reaper think like machines."

Modifié par dreman9999, 12 octobre 2012 - 02:58 .

[drayfish]

dreman9999 wrote...

If you want to prove me wrong...Tell me what you want the endin gto be like. Just saying yoiu don't want a Shepard lives ending does not counter my arguement.

I literally have no interest in 'proving you wrong'; and I really do not want to derail a thread that was meant to be a positive expression of support for the ending.

If you are genuinely asking, however, and not merely trying to engage in cheap semantic arm-wrestling:

You can read my reasons for hating the original ending here: http://social.biowar...886/13#11470730

and the EC here:
http://social.biowar...36/blog/218742/

And if you want to read the only possible alternate ending I have bothered to offer read here:
http://social.biowar...36/blog/218556/

Otherwise, just cherish your reading of the ending without trying to pointlessly miss-categorise others.  People like it for many reasons; people hate it for many reasons.  It is extremely unhelpful to assume that everyone is the same.

Modifié par drayfish, 12 octobre 2012 - 02:58 .

[sharkboy421]

dreman9999 wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

I'd like to add to this list:
Character assassination of The Reapers.
Sudden shift in the narrative in the last 5 minutes.
Everyone being reduced to a moron so that the ending can occur.

Considering that 90% of the series is not focused on sacrifice, the OP and random youtuber have missed the point by a mile.

Overcoming the odds is the "big picture" either by ruthlessness or working together.

How can something that was never give a spacific motivation have a character assaination?

What so bad about them and the catalyst being machines doing what they are programed to do.

I do not mean to step on Ticonderoga117's toes or explain what his thoughts about the subject were but the topic is something I have a large issue with and want to offer my own thoughts on it.

Dreman, I will grant you that the reapers never really had a specific motivation.  However, the presentation of the reapers in the final 10 minutes of the game is vastly different from their presentation during the rest of the game.  The reapers in ME1 and 2, and most of 3, were presented as these weird, machine creatures from dark space.  They were something so very different from anything else and very difficult to understand.  The reapers seemed to draw a lot of inspiration from Cthuhlu and the other Old Gods from Lovecraft.  ME2 even makes a direct reference during the derelict reaper mission; "Even a dead god can dream" is a nod to Lovecraft's Call of Cthuhlu.  They were utterly alien monsters that were immensely powerful and for some reason wanted to harvest us.  I thought it was wonderful and awesome.

The end of ME3 suddenly, and without warning, ditches this presentation of the reapers.  Instead of these eldritch abominations that the reapers were, they are now shown as merely tools for the catalyst.  Highly effective tools yes, but still tools.  Its made even worse because of what the catalyst's mission is and how he is trying to accomplish it.

So yes, we never had a motivation for the reapers.  But they were presented as a certin type of character which was then dramatically changed in the final 10 minutes of the game.  That was their character assassination.  And I personally hated it.

[AlanC9]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

They had motivation beyond "Beep Boop, doing what a stupid AI tells me to."

Well, except that they didn't actually have motivation.

[MB957]

Mcfly616 wrote...

MB957 wrote...

I wasnt aware that giving in to the enemy was considered sacrifice these days.

maybe I am just an old fart, but I most certainly dont see how helping the reapers accomplish their goals is a sacrifice.

at that point...the only thing sacrificed is shepards common sense.

but..I could understand if some people wanted that kind of sacrifice...cool..give it to them...

and...make an option for us old timers to win with honor and dignity, and smash the enemy proper!

win win!!

what game were you playing, exactly? Because in ME3 your enemy gives into you at the end. Your enemy admits that it is wrong and that you can do better.

I disagree.  at the end..the enemy is trying to trick shepard.  and pushing a button in hopes it will do what the enemy says it will do is not sacrifice to me.

[Ticonderoga117]

sharkboy421 wrote...
I do not mean to step on Ticonderoga117's toes or explain what his thoughts about the subject were but the topic is something I have a large issue with and want to offer my own thoughts on it.

Dreman, I will grant you that the reapers never really had a specific motivation.  However, the presentation of the reapers in the final 10 minutes of the game is vastly different from their presentation during the rest of the game.  The reapers in ME1 and 2, and most of 3, were presented as these weird, machine creatures from dark space.  They were something so very different from anything else and very difficult to understand.  The reapers seemed to draw a lot of inspiration from Cthuhlu and the other Old Gods from Lovecraft.  ME2 even makes a direct reference during the derelict reaper mission; "Even a dead god can dream" is a nod to Lovecraft's Call of Cthuhlu.  They were utterly alien monsters that were immensely powerful and for some reason wanted to harvest us.  I thought it was wonderful and awesome.

The end of ME3 suddenly, and without warning, ditches this presentation of the reapers.  Instead of these eldritch abominations that the reapers were, they are now shown as merely tools for the catalyst.  Highly effective tools yes, but still tools.  Its made even worse because of what the catalyst's mission is and how he is trying to accomplish it.

So yes, we never had a motivation for the reapers.  But they were presented as a certin type of character which was then dramatically changed in the final 10 minutes of the game.  That was their character assassination.  And I personally hated it.

Here here!

[Ticonderoga117]

AlanC9 wrote...
Well, except that they didn't actually have motivation.

They had one, it was just "beyond our comprehension".
Which gets nuked when the Catalyst flat out says they're tools with as much free will and determination as fire.

Such BS.

[AlanC9]

sharkboy421 wrote...

Dreman, I will grant you that the reapers never really had a specific motivation.  However, the presentation of the reapers in the final 10 minutes of the game is vastly different from their presentation during the rest of the game.  The reapers in ME1 and 2, and most of 3, were presented as these weird, machine creatures from dark space.  They were something so very different from anything else and very difficult to understand.  The reapers seemed to draw a lot of inspiration from Cthuhlu and the other Old Gods from Lovecraft.  ME2 even makes a direct reference during the derelict reaper mission; "Even a dead god can dream" is a nod to Lovecraft's Call of Cthuhlu.  They were utterly alien monsters that were immensely powerful and for some reason wanted to harvest us.  I thought it was wonderful and awesome.

I guess that's the difference. I always figured Bio would explain, would have to explain, what the deal was with these guys. In fantasy you can get away with mysterious bad guys with incomprehensible motivations. In sci-fi, not so much.

[sharkboy421]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Well, except that they didn't actually have motivation.

They had one, it was just "beyond our comprehension".
Which gets nuked when the Catalyst flat out says they're tools with as much free will and determination as fire.

Such BS.

I miss Sovereign.  He is one of my all time favorite villains.  I liked the mystery about him and the reapers.  Just like the Joker in The Dark Knight.  We never learned why, he just was.  "Because some men just want to watch the world burn."  That was how I saw the reapers.

[dreman9999]

sharkboy421 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

I'd like to add to this list:
Character assassination of The Reapers.
Sudden shift in the narrative in the last 5 minutes.
Everyone being reduced to a moron so that the ending can occur.

Considering that 90% of the series is not focused on sacrifice, the OP and random youtuber have missed the point by a mile.

Overcoming the odds is the "big picture" either by ruthlessness or working together.

How can something that was never give a spacific motivation have a character assaination?

What so bad about them and the catalyst being machines doing what they are programed to do.

I do not mean to step on Ticonderoga117's toes or explain what his thoughts about the subject were but the topic is something I have a large issue with and want to offer my own thoughts on it.

Dreman, I will grant you that the reapers never really had a specific motivation.  However, the presentation of the reapers in the final 10 minutes of the game is vastly different from their presentation during the rest of the game.  The reapers in ME1 and 2, and most of 3, were presented as these weird, machine creatures from dark space.  They were something so very different from anything else and very difficult to understand.  The reapers seemed to draw a lot of inspiration from Cthuhlu and the other Old Gods from Lovecraft.  ME2 even makes a direct reference during the derelict reaper mission; "Even a dead god can dream" is a nod to Lovecraft's Call of Cthuhlu.  They were utterly alien monsters that were immensely powerful and for some reason wanted to harvest us.  I thought it was wonderful and awesome.

The end of ME3 suddenly, and without warning, ditches this presentation of the reapers.  Instead of these eldritch abominations that the reapers were, they are now shown as merely tools for the catalyst.  Highly effective tools yes, but still tools.  Its made even worse because of what the catalyst's mission is and how he is trying to accomplish it.

So yes, we never had a motivation for the reapers.  But they were presented as a certin type of character which was then dramatically changed in the final 10 minutes of the game.  That was their character assassination.  And I personally hated it.

The thing is that all that was done in ME1 and 2 to make them mystrious. To use a blank slate to fill us it. Eventully thry had to fill it in. The mystery had to end.
And to how the catalyst choose to do his mission is done for the point of arguement of end vs means and how moralless a machine can beand how differnt things can be seen....A thing Legions loyalty mission pointed out.
It just show show alien a machine can think.

No matter what the reaper motivation is, it would be an end to the mystery of the reaper bw used to develop the plot. No matter what BW did...It would be a sudden end to the reaper mystery.

[dreman9999]

AlanC9 wrote...

sharkboy421 wrote...

Dreman, I will grant you that the reapers never really had a specific motivation.  However, the presentation of the reapers in the final 10 minutes of the game is vastly different from their presentation during the rest of the game.  The reapers in ME1 and 2, and most of 3, were presented as these weird, machine creatures from dark space.  They were something so very different from anything else and very difficult to understand.  The reapers seemed to draw a lot of inspiration from Cthuhlu and the other Old Gods from Lovecraft.  ME2 even makes a direct reference during the derelict reaper mission; "Even a dead god can dream" is a nod to Lovecraft's Call of Cthuhlu.  They were utterly alien monsters that were immensely powerful and for some reason wanted to harvest us.  I thought it was wonderful and awesome.

I guess that's the difference. I always figured Bio would explain, would have to explain, what the deal was with these guys. In fantasy you can get away with mysterious bad guys with incomprehensible motivations. In sci-fi, not so much.

But they have a motavation. The catalyst and the reaper are just machines programed to do what they are told.

[sharkboy421]

AlanC9 wrote...

sharkboy421 wrote...

Dreman, I will grant you that the reapers never really had a specific motivation.  However, the presentation of the reapers in the final 10 minutes of the game is vastly different from their presentation during the rest of the game.  The reapers in ME1 and 2, and most of 3, were presented as these weird, machine creatures from dark space.  They were something so very different from anything else and very difficult to understand.  The reapers seemed to draw a lot of inspiration from Cthuhlu and the other Old Gods from Lovecraft.  ME2 even makes a direct reference during the derelict reaper mission; "Even a dead god can dream" is a nod to Lovecraft's Call of Cthuhlu.  They were utterly alien monsters that were immensely powerful and for some reason wanted to harvest us.  I thought it was wonderful and awesome.

I guess that's the difference. I always figured Bio would explain, would have to explain, what the deal was with these guys. In fantasy you can get away with mysterious bad guys with incomprehensible motivations. In sci-fi, not so much.

Well sure.  I personally was hoping they wouldn't but I wasn't 100% against an explanation.  It just should have been better than what they gave us.

And I think they could have gotten away with not explaining.  The reapers a machine race that have some type of hybrid organic/synthetic mind and are at the very least a billion years old.  The perspective they have on the universe and life could very well be something "beyond our comprehension." 

[Ticonderoga117]

sharkboy421 wrote...

I miss Sovereign.  He is one of my all time favorite villains.  I liked the mystery about him and the reapers.  Just like the Joker in The Dark Knight.  We never learned why, he just was.  "Because some men just want to watch the world burn."  That was how I saw the reapers.

Same. I still get chills with the line "You exist because we allow it, you will end because we demand it."

Such a good line.

[dreman9999]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Well, except that they didn't actually have motivation.

They had one, it was just "beyond our comprehension".

That means they never stated what it was. That means the player never knew. You can change a motivation of something you don't know what the motivation is.