889 réponses à ce sujet

[BD Manchild]

3DandBeyond wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


The first mission in ME1 had have vissions of synthitcs killing off organics. The organcs vs synthetics consept is not new to ME.

that had more to do with the reapers. in ME2 we learned that the geth were just pawns of the reapers. it didn't have much to do with all synthetics will destroy organics. if that was a issue , solved that one over rannoch

which as said brings up the question why we couldn't use taht as a argument. when the reaper destroyer got to

This exactly.

Every single time in the game where there was some conflict between synthetics and organics, it was solved by the participants.  Or, it was prompted, promoted, and maintained by reapers.  To now suggest it's relevant when anyone with 2 brain cells to put together would beg to differ, is laughable.  It means Shepard should be allowed to question this as logic.  In order to stop synthetics from killing organics, it isn't only that the kid sends reapers to do that, but that the reapers and the kid use other synthetics to do that.  The logical response to this would be to tell the kid to stop doing that.

Yeah, it's funny how the kid spews out this self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it? Nearly every example that is mentioned in the series of conflict between organics and synthetics is revealed to be engineered in some way by the Reapers.

[AlanC9]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Details are kinda a big thing here. The Normandy couldn't have reached the relay before the beam, so it's still in the Sol system so this calls into doubt the planet landing.

My take on the image was that the wave catches up to them while they're in relay transit. IIRC the wave doesn't occupy all that much area behind them. In which case they probably came out at the other end of their trip in the usual fashion, with the relay breaking down a few seconds later.

[Seival]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

I like classic sci-fi books, and I hated the ending just after the first playthrough too. But then I changed my mind. Why? Two main reasons. First, some people helped me.

Nobody could help me to appreciate plot holes such as the Crucible.

Crucible is not a plot hole. Mass Effect story couldn't do well without such device.

Modifié par Seival, 04 novembre 2012 - 08:29 .

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


1. That was the leviathens.
2-4.Means toan end to it goal.


I agree that they are all immoral act but that does not say the intent of the reapers. Nothing say they areevil . Just that they are doing immoral acts for some reason.

Say a person is evil is immorl meas I cansay Shepard is evil becasue he destroyed a colony in arriaval.

Actually, you are using one of the other works created by the person that helped give us these endings-apparently someone who wanted this to become a truly futile game with only immoral choices. 

The only thing the Arrival has going for it is that Shepard can at least attempt to warn the Batarians-in the endings, Shepard tries to contact exactly NO ONE.  And in the Arrival, the artifact is clearly dangerous and you either finish the DLC or you get Mission Failure and can't play the rest of ME2 or go on to play ME3.  Alternately, and what I've chosen to do, you can avoid playing the Arrival altogether because it is one of the worst DLCs that the series has.  It was meant to prepare you for the relay destruction and apparently one person's vision of the galaxy being destroyed no matter what you did.  The problem is it is the first case of Shepard being shown as not being in character, because the writer would not let Shepard be so.  And then, they double down on all of this by showing Hackett turning moron and not providing Shepard with cover for these events.  So, did Hackett announce to the galaxy that Shepard purposely sent the asteroid into the relay?  All Hackett had to do was say Shepard tried to stop it but couldn't-provide cover for someone he sent in - especially when Hackett got the info on the reapers from the data Shepard obtained.  That whole thing was idiotic.  It was set up to be an impossible thing-Shepard is knocked out for 2 days and so has no time to spare, can't warn anyone, can't do anything, and the only way out of that DLC is to kill 300K Batarians.  Boneheaded move.  Worst DLC in my opinion and I hated it the first time I played it.

Missing the point here. That still does mean the action is moral. I'm not saying SHepard didnot have a reason nor that he should not of done it. I'm saying it's still immoral.

[dreman9999]

BD Manchild wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


The first mission in ME1 had have vissions of synthitcs killing off organics. The organcs vs synthetics consept is not new to ME.

that had more to do with the reapers. in ME2 we learned that the geth were just pawns of the reapers. it didn't have much to do with all synthetics will destroy organics. if that was a issue , solved that one over rannoch

which as said brings up the question why we couldn't use taht as a argument. when the reaper destroyer got to

This exactly.

Every single time in the game where there was some conflict between synthetics and organics, it was solved by the participants.  Or, it was prompted, promoted, and maintained by reapers.  To now suggest it's relevant when anyone with 2 brain cells to put together would beg to differ, is laughable.  It means Shepard should be allowed to question this as logic.  In order to stop synthetics from killing organics, it isn't only that the kid sends reapers to do that, but that the reapers and the kid use other synthetics to do that.  The logical response to this would be to tell the kid to stop doing that.

Yeah, it's funny how the kid spews out this self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it? Nearly every example that is mentioned in the series of conflict between organics and synthetics is revealed to be engineered in some way by the Reapers.

You do know the problem happen before it was made, right?

[ghost9191]

dreman9999 wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


The first mission in ME1 had have vissions of synthitcs killing off organics. The organcs vs synthetics consept is not new to ME.

that had more to do with the reapers. in ME2 we learned that the geth were just pawns of the reapers. it didn't have much to do with all synthetics will destroy organics. if that was a issue , solved that one over rannoch

which as said brings up the question why we couldn't use taht as a argument. when the reaper destroyer got to

1.My point refers to the reapers.

2.We knew the eth servedthe reapers from ME1. Not 2.

3. The reapers are part of the organic vs synthetic problem.


And Finally the reapers are just machines doing what they are programed to do. If we brought up rennoch, the havest would still happen any way.

yeah i know. hard to argue with a AI that thinks it is doing the right thing. but would have been nice to say it. at least that way it would have mattered in some way. as it stands . synthesis is the only ending the geth and quarians live in peace. in control they live apart

the reapers caused the synthetic organic conflicts. yeah the geth rebeled. but the quraians tried to kill them . self defense. they didn't attack until the reapers had them do so .

and my shep was able to resolve the conflict . just kinda showed that with a little understanding the reapers probably aren't needed. it just proved organics and synthetics can work together. but the catalyst says otherwise. that is my point

last part was just a joke about rannoch was a joke  

[Argolas]

dreman9999 wrote...

BD Manchild wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


The first mission in ME1 had have vissions of synthitcs killing off organics. The organcs vs synthetics consept is not new to ME.

that had more to do with the reapers. in ME2 we learned that the geth were just pawns of the reapers. it didn't have much to do with all synthetics will destroy organics. if that was a issue , solved that one over rannoch

which as said brings up the question why we couldn't use taht as a argument. when the reaper destroyer got to

This exactly.

Every single time in the game where there was some conflict between synthetics and organics, it was solved by the participants.  Or, it was prompted, promoted, and maintained by reapers.  To now suggest it's relevant when anyone with 2 brain cells to put together would beg to differ, is laughable.  It means Shepard should be allowed to question this as logic.  In order to stop synthetics from killing organics, it isn't only that the kid sends reapers to do that, but that the reapers and the kid use other synthetics to do that.  The logical response to this would be to tell the kid to stop doing that.

Yeah, it's funny how the kid spews out this self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it? Nearly every example that is mentioned in the series of conflict between organics and synthetics is revealed to be engineered in some way by the Reapers.

You do know the problem happen before it was made, right?

It occured once, before the cycle. ONCE. And Synthetics did not wipe out organic life, they merely killed their creators, probably because they were opressed. There is no evidence that the Leviathans or any other race were in danger before reaper kid freaked out and killed more life than any of us can imagine.

In this cycle, every organic-synthetic conflict was set up by reapers. The Geth are the only relevant synthetic race in this cycle and they would NEVER have gone to war if the 'peace-seeking' reaper interference. And if there was war, Synthetics would have lost. Without reaper upgrades, they can't stand against the Quarians alone, a united galaxy would pulverize them.

[Seival]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

I like classic sci-fi books, and I hated the ending just after the first playthrough too. But then I changed my mind. Why? Two main reasons. First, some people helped me.

Nobody could help me to appreciate plot holes such as the Crucible.

Crucible is not a plot hole. Mass Effect story couldn't do well without such device.

It very much is a plot hole, it is possible that if they used their imaginations they could write a way to end the game without adding in something that doesn't fit, has no believable backstory.
Add something that works within the confinements of the Mass effect universe.

There is always another way.

Crucible fits the story just perfectly. And I'm glad BioWare writers' imagination created this device for my favorite game.

[Twinzam.V]

Seival wrote...

Crucible fits the story just perfectly. And I'm glad BioWare writers' imagination created this device for my favorite game.

...... Ok .... Now i'm confused. How can you love something that basically is press a button to win. 
That is considered genius sci-fi writing?

Modifié par Twinzam.V, 04 novembre 2012 - 08:48 .

[dreman9999]

ghost9191 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


The first mission in ME1 had have vissions of synthitcs killing off organics. The organcs vs synthetics consept is not new to ME.

that had more to do with the reapers. in ME2 we learned that the geth were just pawns of the reapers. it didn't have much to do with all synthetics will destroy organics. if that was a issue , solved that one over rannoch

which as said brings up the question why we couldn't use taht as a argument. when the reaper destroyer got to

1.My point refers to the reapers.

2.We knew the eth servedthe reapers from ME1. Not 2.

3. The reapers are part of the organic vs synthetic problem.


And Finally the reapers are just machines doing what they are programed to do. If we brought up rennoch, the havest would still happen any way.

yeah i know. hard to argue with a AI that thinks it is doing the right thing. but would have been nice to say it. at least that way it would have mattered in some way. as it stands . synthesis is the only ending the geth and quarians live in peace. in control they live apart

the reapers caused the synthetic organic conflicts. yeah the geth rebeled. but the quraians tried to kill them . self defense. they didn't attack until the reapers had them do so .

and my shep was able to resolve the conflict . just kinda showed that with a little understanding the reapers probably aren't needed. it just proved organics and synthetics can work together. but the catalyst says otherwise. that is my point

last part was just a joke about rannoch was a joke  

1. It doesn't think it's doing the rightthing. It just doing it programming.
2.In the synthesis ending why doyou think there is a sudden change?
3.The reaper are part of the conflict. Not the cause. The catalyst was made because the leviathens thralls were having problems with synthetics. The reapers in advertaly made things worse like the Quarians in ME3 made the quaran/geth conflict worse.

4.Your  Shepard resolved the issue for now. But that is no a constant. Just because you dodge a bullet now mean you will never behit by a bullet. Also the geth case is with unshackled AI's. It's not the same case with Shackled AI's.

[DrGunjah]

Seival wrote...
Crucible fits the story just perfectly. And I'm glad BioWare writers' imagination created this device for my favorite game.

Dude, you are indoctrinated.

[dreman9999]

Argolas wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

BD Manchild wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


The first mission in ME1 had have vissions of synthitcs killing off organics. The organcs vs synthetics consept is not new to ME.

that had more to do with the reapers. in ME2 we learned that the geth were just pawns of the reapers. it didn't have much to do with all synthetics will destroy organics. if that was a issue , solved that one over rannoch

which as said brings up the question why we couldn't use taht as a argument. when the reaper destroyer got to

This exactly.

Every single time in the game where there was some conflict between synthetics and organics, it was solved by the participants.  Or, it was prompted, promoted, and maintained by reapers.  To now suggest it's relevant when anyone with 2 brain cells to put together would beg to differ, is laughable.  It means Shepard should be allowed to question this as logic.  In order to stop synthetics from killing organics, it isn't only that the kid sends reapers to do that, but that the reapers and the kid use other synthetics to do that.  The logical response to this would be to tell the kid to stop doing that.

Yeah, it's funny how the kid spews out this self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it? Nearly every example that is mentioned in the series of conflict between organics and synthetics is revealed to be engineered in some way by the Reapers.

You do know the problem happen before it was made, right?

It occured once, before the cycle. ONCE. And Synthetics did not wipe out organic life, they merely killed their creators, probably because they were opressed. There is no evidence that the Leviathans or any other race were in danger before reaper kid freaked out and killed more life than any of us can imagine.

In this cycle, every organic-synthetic conflict was set up by reapers. The Geth are the only relevant synthetic race in this cycle and they would NEVER have gone to war if the 'peace-seeking' reaper interference. And if there was war, Synthetics would have lost. Without reaper upgrades, they can't stand against the Quarians alone, a united galaxy would pulverize them.

Once? Have you talk with the leviathens?That was not once. Added the catalyst only beleives synthtics would kill off organics because it's programmed to.

Modifié par dreman9999, 04 novembre 2012 - 08:55 .

[Reorte]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

Crucible is not a plot hole. Mass Effect story couldn't do well without such device.

It very much is a plot hole, it is possible that if they used their imaginations they could write a way to end the game without adding in something that doesn't fit, has no believable backstory.
Add something that works within the confinements of the Mass effect universe.

There is always another way.

To be fair it's true that it isn't a plot hole. It's downright lazy writing with just about every other creative failure imaginable attached to it but it's not a plot hole.

[dreman9999]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

I like classic sci-fi books, and I hated the ending just after the first playthrough too. But then I changed my mind. Why? Two main reasons. First, some people helped me.

Nobody could help me to appreciate plot holes such as the Crucible.

Crucible is not a plot hole. Mass Effect story couldn't do well without such device.

It very much is a plot hole, it is possible that if they used their imaginations they could write a way to end the game without adding in something that doesn't fit, has no believable backstory.
Add something that works within the confinements of the Mass effect universe.

There is always another way.

It's not a plot hole and the nature of plots is that it can always be made to go another way.

[dreman9999]

Reorte wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

Crucible is not a plot hole. Mass Effect story couldn't do well without such device.

It very much is a plot hole, it is possible that if they used their imaginations they could write a way to end the game without adding in something that doesn't fit, has no believable backstory.
Add something that works within the confinements of the Mass effect universe.

There is always another way.

To be fair it's true that it isn't a plot hole. It's downright lazy writing with just about every other creative failure imaginable attached to it but it's not a plot hole.

I only agree that it could of been applied better.

[Argolas]

dreman9999 wrote...
Once? Have you talk with the leviathens?That was not once. Added the catalyst only beleives synthtics would kill off organicsbecause it's programmed to.

1) Depends and what you are talking about. Synthetic-organic war occured more than once, that's right. Although I am sure organic-organic war is MUCH more common.

2) Exactly, it believes what it was programmed to, and that's WRONG. The Leviathans were WRONG, reaper kid is WRONG, and the reaper's existance is WRONG. All that caused enough suffer and death over countless innocents and that's why it has to stop. And that's not done by appeacement or by switching out the one in charge.

[dreman9999]

Argolas wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Once? Have you talk with the leviathens?That was not once. Added the catalyst only beleives synthtics would kill off organicsbecause it's programmed to.

1) Depends and what you are talking about. Synthetic-organic war occured more than once, that's right. Although I am sure organic-organic war is MUCH more common.

2) Exactly, it believes what it was programmed to, and that's WRONG. The Leviathans were WRONG, reaper kid is WRONG, and the reaper's existance is WRONG. All that caused enough suffer and death over countless innocents and that's why it has to stop. And that's not done by appeacement or by switching out the one in charge.

1. Your point? The synthetic organic conflict still happened.
2. You do understand it has no will of it's own. It can go ageinst it's programming. Yes I agree it's flawed to say it will always happen but you can't blame it for thinking that. Any error in it's programmin is the fault of the programmer.

Yes we have to stop it. And yes, appeacement  or switching it out is a way of doing that. You many not agree with that but that does not means it should not be done.
You Also missed the fact you can destroy it.

Modifié par dreman9999, 04 novembre 2012 - 09:09 .

[ghost9191]

dreman9999 wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


The first mission in ME1 had have vissions of synthitcs killing off organics. The organcs vs synthetics consept is not new to ME.

that had more to do with the reapers. in ME2 we learned that the geth were just pawns of the reapers. it didn't have much to do with all synthetics will destroy organics. if that was a issue , solved that one over rannoch

which as said brings up the question why we couldn't use taht as a argument. when the reaper destroyer got to

1.My point refers to the reapers.

2.We knew the eth servedthe reapers from ME1. Not 2.

3. The reapers are part of the organic vs synthetic problem.


And Finally the reapers are just machines doing what they are programed to do. If we brought up rennoch, the havest would still happen any way.

yeah i know. hard to argue with a AI that thinks it is doing the right thing. but would have been nice to say it. at least that way it would have mattered in some way. as it stands . synthesis is the only ending the geth and quarians live in peace. in control they live apart

the reapers caused the synthetic organic conflicts. yeah the geth rebeled. but the quraians tried to kill them . self defense. they didn't attack until the reapers had them do so .

and my shep was able to resolve the conflict . just kinda showed that with a little understanding the reapers probably aren't needed. it just proved organics and synthetics can work together. but the catalyst says otherwise. that is my point

last part was just a joke about rannoch was a joke  

1. It doesn't think it's doing the rightthing. It just doing it programming.
2.In the synthesis ending why doyou think there is a sudden change?
3.The reaper are part of the conflict. Not the cause. The catalyst was made because the leviathens thralls were having problems with synthetics. The reapers in advertaly made things worse like the Quarians in ME3 made the quaran/geth conflict worse.

4.Your  Shepard resolved the issue for now. But that is no a constant. Just because you dodge a bullet now mean you will never behit by a bullet. Also the geth case is with unshackled AI's. It's not the same case with Shackled AI's.

they caused the geth organic conflict. geth were keeping to themselves. and even then only a few joined the reapers. the geth rebeled out of self defense, simple.

synthesis is the only ending where the geth and qurians work together. control the geth and reapers work together. destroy it is just the qurians

the fact remains that it can be resolved . trying to do so without attacking first, may prevent a war.  the geth were shakled for the most part , and the quarians attacked when they showed signs of awareness. any other time was the reapers influence, lessonns learned.  if AI show up again. ppl can go about it a different way. if it doesn't work, well there is always the crucible

Modifié par ghost9191, 04 novembre 2012 - 09:15 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

I like classic sci-fi books, and I hated the ending just after the first playthrough too. But then I changed my mind. Why? Two main reasons. First, some people helped me.

Nobody could help me to appreciate plot holes such as the Crucible.

Crucible is not a plot hole. Mass Effect story couldn't do well without such device.

It very much is a plot hole, it is possible that if they used their imaginations they could write a way to end the game without adding in something that doesn't fit, has no believable backstory.
Add something that works within the confinements of the Mass effect universe.

There is always another way.

Actually, by definition. It is a Deus ex Machina. A plot hole is when an event occurs with no explanation or rationality to how or why. We have the answers to both those questions however, asinine they may be. A DEM is when a seemingly unsolvable problem is abruptly solved by a contrived plot device, ala the Crucible.

Sadly, the Crucible plot is utterly reliant on Reaper and galaxy stupidity to the highest degree. Frankly, this level of poor writing is astonishing.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 04 novembre 2012 - 09:31 .

[Maria Caliban]

Seival wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

A lion lying down with a lamb is logical.
Oh dear, it's a good thing time kills us.

I have a theory...

...Ask some person, who disliked ME3 ending, to read some good old sci-fi book and describe what did he understand afterwards, and that person will call the book "nonsence" or "nice adventure".

Deathworld is a 'nice adventure.' It's a product of the 1960s, has a bunch of clunky exposition, characters are rather 2 dimensional, everyone who is important is a white man, things happen because the plot requires them to, and the science makes little to no sense. (A planet where species can evolve in a matter of months.)

And yes, in the tradition of 1960s science fiction, the hero saves the day by making a big speech that everyone stops and listens to, and then they follow his orders and everything is fine.

It does, however, have an engaging down-on-his-luck scoundrel-with-a-heart-of-gold hero, interesting ideas, and it draws out its mystery at just the right pace.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 04 novembre 2012 - 09:39 .

[Applepie_Svk]

Seival wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Seival wrote...

I like classic sci-fi books, and I hated the ending just after the first playthrough too. But then I changed my mind. Why? Two main reasons. First, some people helped me.

Nobody could help me to appreciate plot holes such as the Crucible.

Crucible is not a plot hole. Mass Effect story couldn't do well without such device.

Actually Crucible makes things even worst...:happy: