514 réponses à ce sujet

[Zardoc]

txgoldrush wrote...

Wow, this is amazing the level of ignorance here....

Oh, the delicious irony...

[drayfish]

'Stupid', 'fake' criticisms...

txgoldrush wrote...

Nevermind all the FALSE criticism of the ending....

txgoldrush wrote...

...but nope, this dense fake criticism continues.

txgoldrush wrote...

Nope, you were not paying attention.

txgoldrush wrote...

Did you miss that?

txgoldrush wrote...

...deal with it.

txgoldrush wrote...

Everything else is fake criticisms, or basically the fact that A) You don't like it or You don't get it.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its flawed.

...This is really it, isn't it?  This is the level of discourse now. 

'If you don't disagree with me, and my personal analysis of the ending, you are stupid, and are a childish crybaby!  If you don't believe that the game is a shining example of ingenious storytelling, then you are a fool, you weren't paying attention, or you are lying!'

(* sigh *)

So please, take this advice with all of the sincerity that it is meant...

Grow up, txgoldrush.

This kind of rant is infantile.  You do no favours to your side of the argument by using such reductive, childish generalisations and name-calling.

You loved the ending - great for you.  You have no right (and seemingly no persuasive argument beyond insult) to berate others for not sharing your utterly subjective viewpoint.  Some people love it - and they have that right.  Some people hate it - and they equally have that right.  You, however, have no right to attack them for not embracing your headcanon.

And because the irony of everything you just vomited onto this forum seems to have escaped you:

Just because you like it doesn't mean it isn't flawed.

And before you pout and squeal, 'But the anti-enders are a bunch of meanies too', again:

Grow.  Up.

If you genuinely think that your points are valid, you can make them in a reasoned argument, rather than shout them down with such spiteful, insulting trash.  Otherwise you have just reduced the discussion to squabbling, sniping, childishness - which, hypocritically, you arrogantly declared you were tired of seeing.

[LinksOcarina]

To be fair why should he, when countless others have done the same, for both sides of this stupid argument?

[LinksOcarina]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

And then, as per usual, they plug their ears and yell the same rhetoric for pages and pages.

And people wonder why I hate fanboyism so much...

No they don't, they know exactly why you hate every passion you can't be an 'intellectual leader' of.

Oh damn, you figured out my goal all along.

Good job, sir. Good job. 

[JasonDaPsycho]

Before we go any further, let's not label ideas incompatible to each of ours stupid or fake. Whether the ending worked for a person is entirely his / her opinion. Similarly, I can't call you out for being ignorant (which you're not) because you liked the ending. It's your opinion and I'll respect that.

txgoldrush wrote...

....seriously....fans still do not get the final ending. Nevermind all the FALSE criticism of the ending....like...

Da Spaceboy comes out of nowhere.....

No he doesn't, you basically ignored the foreshadowing earlier in the story, like on Thessia, where Vendetta states that their maybe a master, with Shepard even asking "Who is the master?" Or the Reaper on Rannoch foreshadowing the motives of the Reapers before he dies. Or the fact that the plot was about FINDING THE CATALYST...but nope, this dense fake criticism continues.

Let's say the existence of Spaceboy was foreshadowed, this does not make, in my opinion at least, the AI any less poorly written. The character is introduced in the very last minute. Its traits or personality, if you will, were not shown to the players prior to the Crucible scene. With a complete lack of character development on that end, Starchild ends up feeling like a last-minute throw-in by the writing staff.

Its a Deus Ex Machina.....

Nope, its not. In fact, its a subversion of the trope. The fact is that Shepard is the contrived solution to THE CATALYST'S PROBLEM. Yeah, its backwards, a classic use of the trope turned on its head, where the supposed God From the Machine needs the protagonist to help him. Nevermind the fact that Shepard acted on the Catalyst before you meet him, by connecting the Crucible to the Citadel, and by him saying "you have altered the variables".

The Crucible isn;t either, its implimented in the logic of the story, and introduced logically by the logical character. Nevermind, going back to ME1, how the Protheans data and actions helped the current cycle. The Crucible follows that same path.

Here's something for you to consider: the protagonist is not the Catalyst, but Shepard. Throughout the three games, the problem, as presented, is "the Reapers are going to destroy every living being in the universe" rather than "AI's and organics killing eachother". Throughout the three games, players are looking for a resolution to the first problem, while the Catalyst is executing its solution to the latter. Given that the solution(s) to Shepard's problem is not presented to the player until the very last minute, it's hard for me to contend the solution(s) did not come out of nowhere.

In short, I think your explanation would totally work if we're playing the game as a Reaper / the Catalyst.

I don't have too much beef with the crucible, so I can't say for those who do.

But it clashes with the series themes...

Nope, you were not paying attention. The final EC ending impliments all the major themes. Ending things on your terms is NOT one of them. In fact, you rarely do this throughout the series in a major way. there was always sacrifice, or more to the story, or a hollow victory. For Destroy, whine all you want about having to sacrifice synthetics but plainly, it fits the theme of the series. Remember Garrus talking about the "ruthless calculus of war"...well there you go. Control....Shepard was never  truly against controlling the Reapers, he was against TIM's methods and barbarism, while viewing him correctly as indoctrinated. Hell, Shepard can even ask Hackett "What if TIM is right?". There is no full betrayal here and no betrayal of themes. Synthesis goes back to ME1 with Saren's views. Did you miss that?

Nevermind the ending deals with main themes of the series like using others as tools without regards to the consquences, sacrifice, and even overcoming all odds....What ar ethe odds of Shepard even talking with the Catalyst and giving it a new solution.

I believe for a majority of ME players, one fo the key themes of the series is defying all odds. In ME1, Shepard goes up against a Reaper and comes out victorious; in ME2, Shepard goes up against the Collectors and comes out with the Collectors pretty much gone. Throughout the first two games, it is implied by a great number of parties that victory is not attainable.

Let's skip ahead to the ending of ME3. You're going to destroy the Reapers only because the Catalyst allows you to do so (and essentially instructs you on what to do next). Is this truly defying all odds if a victory requires explicit approval from the antagonist?

The motive of the Catalyst is stupid....

Or not. He explains that there is no other option, through his EXPERIENCE in dealing with the conflict. Nevermind the cycle, is NOT his ideal solution. And fans simply ignore Mass Effect 2 Overlord....don't. it fits right in with the Catalyst's problem.

This is why character development is extremely important. To many of us, the Starchild's strictly numbers approach is difficult to comprehend. Had there been more of the Starchild prior to the ending, his motives would (probably) have been much more understandable. Basically, regardless of how ridiculous, illogical a character is, he/she/it can still be a great, relatable character if good developments are demonstrated throughout the story.

This is what separates the AI's in the Metal Gear series and the Catalyst in the Mass Effect series.

But it clashes with the series lore and has plot holes....

Originally, yes, but now it doesn't. The Catalyst simply has the highest lore authority here, you are simply too biased or ignorant to recognize this. ME3 even shows that Prothean VI's can be wrong, like Vendetta was about the Catalyst. Nevermind Vigil was wrong about Reapers wiping all traces of their existance. Derelict Reaper anyone, Leviathan of Dis? Prothean VI's and even Reapers have limited knowledge...the Catalyst and Leviathan has far more knowledge and far more authority on the lore...deal with it. Its not contradiction, its overrule.

If you cannot get that the Catalyst created the conditions so that a Shepard could rise and "solve" his problem, you didn't get the ending...the final canonical ending.

I don't really have an opinion on this issue.

So what was the REAL problems with the ending?

Lack of closure, lack of clarity, underdeveloped Catalyst dialogue and an underdeveloped Catalyst, and lack of ending variations and consquences....all fixed with the extended cut. Everything else is fake criticisms, or basically the fact that A) You don't like it or You don't get it.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its flawed.

Again, those are your opinions. I still feel the story lacks closure. Nobody knows what happens with Shepard's crew. Perhaps the ending is written to be vague. I guess I do not agree with this approach. Ending variations are still lacking to me, and consequences throughout the games are not explicitly felt (the Rachni, anyone?).

Don't get me started on the Normandy in the beam dash scene. It is utterly illogical considering the circumstances. There are some good fluffs going on with FemShep saying good by to Garrus, but the circumstances (Reapers / Harbinger right behind you) make the very existence of this scene awkward.

My criticisms above are not by any means "fake". They're just my opinions. You don't have to agree with them. I just want you to understand my take on the writing. I feel the writing in ME3 is lazy and could have been way better. You could say I'm not a writer, which is true, and hence do not have any right to criticize Walter's or Hudson's writing. However, I would contend that I have purchased this product through legal means and have a right to express my displeasure with said product.

With that said, it's perfectly fine if you liked the ending, and I can respect that. But I would also like you to respect those of us who disliked the ending instead of saying that our interpretations are invalid. I genuninely want to like the ending, but that simply won't happen as is.

[Jadebaby]

Big fat yawn.

[Andres Hendrix]

OP, I suggest you look up the academic term "non-falsifiability," because you seem to be making such a fallacy.

[Dubozz]

Ultranovae wrote...
whinny kid crying
kid complaints.
kid throwing a tantrum.

I'm sure you mature enough. Now you may stop use your favourite "kid argument" everywhere. Constructive about ending? You must be new here. It's like 8 mounth already. There are plenty of constructive threads about ending here. More to it, there are two DLC tried to salvage the ending and still  the whole concept of it makes people sick. 

Modifié par Dubozz, 25 novembre 2012 - 12:30 .

[drayfish]

LinksOcarina wrote...

To be fair why should he, when countless others have done the same, for both sides of this stupid argument?

'To be fair...'

drayfish wrote...

And before you pout and squeal, 'But the anti-enders are a bunch of meanies too', again:

Grow. Up.

If you genuinely think that your points are valid, you can make them in a reasoned argument, rather than shout them down with such spiteful, insulting trash. Otherwise you have just reduced the discussion to squabbling, sniping, childishness - which, hypocritically, you arrogantly declared you were tired of seeing.

I see your point - everyone is sniping and bickering on all side of such a meaningless dispute - but damn if everyone can't just settle down and have a discussion rather than immediately leaping to the 'You are stupid scum' insults.

Modifié par drayfish, 25 novembre 2012 - 12:19 .

[WhiteKnyght]

Andromidius wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

But Vendetta told you he was there. Its all in the narrative..

No, he didn't.  He said there might be a force driving the Reapers.  Pure speculation, not to mention Vendetta is shady when it comes to the information he discusses (for various reasons).

The literal ending is a Dues Ex Machina.  LITERALLY SO, there's a ghost boy in the machine that magically ends the story!

So yeah, stop this nonsense.

No, the Crucible, the thing you struggle to build and deliver ends the story. The whole ending could have happened without the Catalyst, they just chose the Reaper's master as the one who should do it(for a race of synthetics who repeatedly criticize organics, to show that we've been able to force them to reconsider their side would be a reward for any sane person)

Also. . .

Vendetta: History is cyclical. The same peaks of evolution, the same valleys of dissolution. All of these are repeated in different forms. The pattern is too similar to be coincidence.

Liara: We assumed the Reapers were responsible for the pattern.

Vendetta: We believe the Reapers are only servants of the pattern. They are not its master.

Shepard: So who is the master?

Vendetta: Unknown. It's presence is inferred rather than observed.

Inferred definition: Deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.

The simple truth is that it should have been obvious that a race full of synthetics who are "each a nation unto themselves" would act with such unison can only be possible with a driving force behind them. A master and they it's servants. That's common sense.

[deatharmonic]

All this thread needs is blueprotoss to show up, then **** really gets funny

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I don't feel like typing. So I'll point you to this:



He sums it up quite well in about 37 minutes if you are into the verbose, but I can sum it up in two words: They suck.

[Kais Endac]

 @JasonDaPsycho Well said you put down my feelings on this topic much more eloquently than I did. 

Modifié par Kais Endac, 25 novembre 2012 - 12:44 .

[Dr_Extrem]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

But Vendetta told you he was there. Its all in the narrative..

No, he didn't.  He said there might be a force driving the Reapers.  Pure speculation, not to mention Vendetta is shady when it comes to the information he discusses (for various reasons).

The literal ending is a Dues Ex Machina.  LITERALLY SO, there's a ghost boy in the machine that magically ends the story!

So yeah, stop this nonsense.

No, the Crucible, the thing you struggle to build and deliver ends the story. The whole ending could have happened without the Catalyst, they just chose the Reaper's master as the one who should do it(for a race of synthetics who repeatedly criticize organics, to show that we've been able to force them to reconsider their side would be a reward for any sane person)

Also. . .

Vendetta: History is cyclical. The same peaks of evolution, the same valleys of dissolution. All of these are repeated in different forms. The pattern is too similar to be coincidence.

Liara: We assumed the Reapers were responsible for the pattern.

Vendetta: We believe the Reapers are only servants of the pattern. They are not its master.

Shepard: So who is the master?

Vendetta: Unknown. It's presence is inferred rather than observed.

Inferred definition: Deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.

The simple truth is that it should have been obvious that a race full of synthetics who are "each a nation unto themselves" would act with such unison can only be possible with a driving force behind them. A master and they it's servants. That's common sense.

still this is very slim. the master was once mentioned on thessia and even there, it was implied, that it is something different, than the catalyst.

this is even hardened by vendettas statements on cronos station. vendetta states, that the citadel is the catalyst. that makes sense - the heart of the relay network is the only thing, that could affect all reapers within the galaxy.

there is no evidence or indication, to bolster the conclusion, that this master exists or that it even is the catalyst. just because it is logical, it is not necessarily the truth. you only find out what the truth is, at the moment you actually meet the ai.

[ld1449]

I'm a bit late to the party. So sorry for the late warning but Goldrush is right up there with Dreman and Protoss. Save that he tends to stomp his feet and pout more when you disagree.

[txgoldrush]

JasonDaPsycho wrote...

Before we go any further, let's not label ideas incompatible to each of ours stupid or fake. Whether the ending worked for a person is entirely his / her opinion. Similarly, I can't call you out for being ignorant (which you're not) because you liked the ending. It's your opinion and I'll respect that.

txgoldrush wrote...

....seriously....fans still do not get the final ending. Nevermind all the FALSE criticism of the ending....like...

Da Spaceboy comes out of nowhere.....

No he doesn't, you basically ignored the foreshadowing earlier in the story, like on Thessia, where Vendetta states that their maybe a master, with Shepard even asking "Who is the master?" Or the Reaper on Rannoch foreshadowing the motives of the Reapers before he dies. Or the fact that the plot was about FINDING THE CATALYST...but nope, this dense fake criticism continues.

1. Let's say the existence of Spaceboy was foreshadowed, this does not make, in my opinion at least, the AI any less poorly written. The character is introduced in the very last minute. Its traits or personality, if you will, were not shown to the players prior to the Crucible scene. With a complete lack of character development on that end, Starchild ends up feeling like a last-minute throw-in by the writing staff.

Its a Deus Ex Machina.....

Nope, its not. In fact, its a subversion of the trope. The fact is that Shepard is the contrived solution to THE CATALYST'S PROBLEM. Yeah, its backwards, a classic use of the trope turned on its head, where the supposed God From the Machine needs the protagonist to help him. Nevermind the fact that Shepard acted on the Catalyst before you meet him, by connecting the Crucible to the Citadel, and by him saying "you have altered the variables".

The Crucible isn;t either, its implimented in the logic of the story, and introduced logically by the logical character. Nevermind, going back to ME1, how the Protheans data and actions helped the current cycle. The Crucible follows that same path.

2. Here's something for you to consider: the protagonist is not the Catalyst, but Shepard. Throughout the three games, the problem, as presented, is "the Reapers are going to destroy every living being in the universe" rather than "AI's and organics killing eachother". Throughout the three games, players are looking for a resolution to the first problem, while the Catalyst is executing its solution to the latter. Given that the solution(s) to Shepard's problem is not presented to the player until the very last minute, it's hard for me to contend the solution(s) did not come out of nowhere.

In short, I think your explanation would totally work if we're playing the game as a Reaper / the Catalyst.

I don't have too much beef with the crucible, so I can't say for those who do.

But it clashes with the series themes...

Nope, you were not paying attention. The final EC ending impliments all the major themes. Ending things on your terms is NOT one of them. In fact, you rarely do this throughout the series in a major way. there was always sacrifice, or more to the story, or a hollow victory. For Destroy, whine all you want about having to sacrifice synthetics but plainly, it fits the theme of the series. Remember Garrus talking about the "ruthless calculus of war"...well there you go. Control....Shepard was never  truly against controlling the Reapers, he was against TIM's methods and barbarism, while viewing him correctly as indoctrinated. Hell, Shepard can even ask Hackett "What if TIM is right?". There is no full betrayal here and no betrayal of themes. Synthesis goes back to ME1 with Saren's views. Did you miss that?

Nevermind the ending deals with main themes of the series like using others as tools without regards to the consquences, sacrifice, and even overcoming all odds....What ar ethe odds of Shepard even talking with the Catalyst and giving it a new solution.

I believe for a majority of ME players, one fo the key themes of the series is defying all odds. In ME1, Shepard goes up against a Reaper and comes out victorious; in ME2, Shepard goes up against the Collectors and comes out with the Collectors pretty much gone. Throughout the first two games, it is implied by a great number of parties that victory is not attainable.

Let's skip ahead to the ending of ME3. You're going to destroy the Reapers only because the Catalyst allows you to do so (and essentially instructs you on what to do next). Is this truly defying all odds if a victory requires explicit approval from the antagonist?

The motive of the Catalyst is stupid....

Or not. He explains that there is no other option, through his EXPERIENCE in dealing with the conflict. Nevermind the cycle, is NOT his ideal solution. And fans simply ignore Mass Effect 2 Overlord....don't. it fits right in with the Catalyst's problem.

3. This is why character development is extremely important. To many of us, the Starchild's strictly numbers approach is difficult to comprehend. Had there been more of the Starchild prior to the ending, his motives would (probably) have been much more understandable. Basically, regardless of how ridiculous, illogical a character is, he/she/it can still be a great, relatable character if good developments are demonstrated throughout the story.

This is what separates the AI's in the Metal Gear series and the Catalyst in the Mass Effect series.

But it clashes with the series lore and has plot holes....

Originally, yes, but now it doesn't. The Catalyst simply has the highest lore authority here, you are simply too biased or ignorant to recognize this. ME3 even shows that Prothean VI's can be wrong, like Vendetta was about the Catalyst. Nevermind Vigil was wrong about Reapers wiping all traces of their existance. Derelict Reaper anyone, Leviathan of Dis? Prothean VI's and even Reapers have limited knowledge...the Catalyst and Leviathan has far more knowledge and far more authority on the lore...deal with it. Its not contradiction, its overrule.

If you cannot get that the Catalyst created the conditions so that a Shepard could rise and "solve" his problem, you didn't get the ending...the final canonical ending.

I don't really have an opinion on this issue.

So what was the REAL problems with the ending?

Lack of closure, lack of clarity, underdeveloped Catalyst dialogue and an underdeveloped Catalyst, and lack of ending variations and consquences....all fixed with the extended cut. Everything else is fake criticisms, or basically the fact that A) You don't like it or You don't get it.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its flawed.

4. Again, those are your opinions. I still feel the story lacks closure. Nobody knows what happens with Shepard's crew. Perhaps the ending is written to be vague. I guess I do not agree with this approach. Ending variations are still lacking to me, and consequences throughout the games are not explicitly felt (the Rachni, anyone?).

Don't get me started on the Normandy in the beam dash scene. It is utterly illogical considering the circumstances. There are some good fluffs going on with FemShep saying good by to Garrus, but the circumstances (Reapers / Harbinger right behind you) make the very existence of this scene awkward.

5. My criticisms above are not by any means "fake". They're just my opinions. You don't have to agree with them. I just want you to understand my take on the writing. I feel the writing in ME3 is lazy and could have been way better. You could say I'm not a writer, which is true, and hence do not have any right to criticize Walter's or Hudson's writing. However, I would contend that I have purchased this product through legal means and have a right to express my displeasure with said product.

With that said, it's perfectly fine if you liked the ending, and I can respect that. But I would also like you to respect those of us who disliked the ending instead of saying that our interpretations are invalid. I genuninely want to like the ending, but that simply won't happen as is.

1. And didn't I criticize the original ending for him being underdeveloped? And yet now he is developed, in two areas....Leviathan an dteh Extended Cut...thr problem is fixed. Nevermind that throughout th estory, much of it revolves around finding the Catalyst.

2. Correct, thank you for proving the ending is NOT a Deus Ex Machina...Why? Because the protagonist is the one that has the influence and enacts the solution. And wrong, all three choices were touched upon throught the game, even the series. Why does Anderson and TIM represent Destroy and Control? I wonder why.

3. And he was developed WHILE MAINTAINING THE TWIST. Can you get that the Catalyst being the true antagonist is a PLOT TWIST. This is what the EC fixed, they developed him. Its like you are blantantly ignoring the EC.

4. Please, not everything has to be explained...thats the point. Its left open for interpetation. This is new for Bioware because before, everything was explained. It doesn't have to be. There is closure, everyone who survived lived on as a crew.

5. When you ignore and disregard facts, they are fake criticisms. Thats what this board is doing.

[Reorte]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

No, the Crucible, the thing you struggle to build and deliver ends the story. The whole ending could have happened without the Catalyst, they just chose the Reaper's master as the one who should do it(for a race of synthetics who repeatedly criticize organics, to show that we've been able to force them to reconsider their side would be a reward for any sane person)

We're told throughout the game that they don't know what the Crucible actually does. Then just as things are building up to the last desparate stand hey presto, it can instantly end the Reaper threat (at least for now). We've not had to do anything clever against the Reapers, we've not had to find out about them and learn their strengths and weaknesses, we've not had to fathom out their motivations.

[txgoldrush]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

But Vendetta told you he was there. Its all in the narrative..

No, he didn't.  He said there might be a force driving the Reapers.  Pure speculation, not to mention Vendetta is shady when it comes to the information he discusses (for various reasons).

The literal ending is a Dues Ex Machina.  LITERALLY SO, there's a ghost boy in the machine that magically ends the story!

So yeah, stop this nonsense.

No, the Crucible, the thing you struggle to build and deliver ends the story. The whole ending could have happened without the Catalyst, they just chose the Reaper's master as the one who should do it(for a race of synthetics who repeatedly criticize organics, to show that we've been able to force them to reconsider their side would be a reward for any sane person)

Also. . .

Vendetta: History is cyclical. The same peaks of evolution, the same valleys of dissolution. All of these are repeated in different forms. The pattern is too similar to be coincidence.

Liara: We assumed the Reapers were responsible for the pattern.

Vendetta: We believe the Reapers are only servants of the pattern. They are not its master.

Shepard: So who is the master?

Vendetta: Unknown. It's presence is inferred rather than observed.

Inferred definition: Deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.

The simple truth is that it should have been obvious that a race full of synthetics who are "each a nation unto themselves" would act with such unison can only be possible with a driving force behind them. A master and they it's servants. That's common sense.

This.....unfortunately there is very little common sense here....

Nevermind the Rannoch Reaper also foreshadowed the Reapers final motives.

[txgoldrush]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

So, the OP's defense to a shoddy and broken narrative, is to go "No, you are all stupid, this is how it was and that's why it works"? OP please, have a brain before trying to defend this craptastic narrative.

I do, you don't...you want to ignore clear facts that make the narrative far more consistant.

[archangel1996]

archangel1996 wrote...

And why, WHY, why in the blue hell why did not Harbinger kill Shepard? O_o Come on, seriously? The heart scans there are in COD and a Reaper, the boss of the Reapers, has lost his...its...whatever? And the Commander was very very near to the conduit too....maybe Harbinger was tired..... And why did not Harbinger shoot at Shepard while the normady was evacuating the squadmates? He didn't see the ship, i'm sure....
The ending just doesn't make any sense

Sorry for the english, i am Italian

Can someone answer me?

archangel1996 wrote...

Ok....let's go with an easy
question, that i find really important, how can Shepard survive in the
destroy ending? The citadel has been destroyed, right? http://www.thegcp.co...itblowingup.jpg Yes..... And the fall? And the space? And the expolotion?

To this too

Modifié par archangel1996, 25 novembre 2012 - 12:55 .

[KingZayd]

vendetta says that the master's intent is clear: galactic annihilation.

[txgoldrush]

To continue JaspnDaPyscho's post

"I believe for a majority of ME players, one fo the key themes of the series is defying all odds. In ME1, Shepard goes up against a Reaper and comes out victorious; in ME2, Shepard goes up against the Collectors and comes out with the Collectors pretty much gone. Throughout the first two games, it is implied by a great number of parties that victory is not attainable.

Let's skip ahead to the ending of ME3. You're going to destroy the Reapers only because the Catalyst allows you to do so (and essentially instructs you on what to do next). Is this truly defying all odds if a victory requires explicit approval from the antagonist?"

First off, the Catalyst does NOT want you to pick Destroy....notice how he warns Shepard that the chaos will come back. This is his least perfered choice, but he cannot stop him or her.

Here is where defying the odds comes in...Shepard "altered the variables"....he made the Catalyst rethink his cycle. What are the odds? They were so sure of their cycle, those Reapers were. Nevermind all the countless failures of past cycles, for this cycle to SUCEED. Thats defying the odds and its ignorance to claim otherwise.

[txgoldrush]

archangel1996 wrote...

archangel1996 wrote...

And why, WHY, why in the blue hell why did not Harbinger kill Shepard? O_o Come on, seriously? The heart scans there are in COD and a Reaper, the boss of the Reapers, has lost his...its...whatever? And the Commander was very very near to the conduit too....maybe Harbinger was tired..... And why did not Harbinger shoot at Shepard while the normady was evacuating the squadmates? He didn't see the ship, i'm sure....
The ending just doesn't make any sense

Sorry for the english, i am Italian

Can someone answer me?

archangel1996 wrote...

Ok....let's go with an easy
question, that i find really important, how can Shepard survive in the
destroy ending? The citadel has been destroyed, right? http://www.thegcp.co...itblowingup.jpg Yes..... And the fall? And the space? And the expolotion?

To this too

Because the Normandy was not approaching the beam. Harby was actually firing at the ground targets moving towards the Crucible.

Nevermind the Reaper IFF, which hides the Normandy fromt he Reapers. I wonder why you can get to and from Palaven and Thessia so easily.....

[archangel1996]

txgoldrush wrote...

archangel1996 wrote...

archangel1996 wrote...

And why, WHY, why in the blue hell why did not Harbinger kill Shepard? O_o Come on, seriously? The heart scans there are in COD and a Reaper, the boss of the Reapers, has lost his...its...whatever? And the Commander was very very near to the conduit too....maybe Harbinger was tired..... And why did not Harbinger shoot at Shepard while the normady was evacuating the squadmates? He didn't see the ship, i'm sure....
The ending just doesn't make any sense

Sorry for the english, i am Italian

Can someone answer me?

archangel1996 wrote...

Ok....let's go with an easy
question, that i find really important, how can Shepard survive in the
destroy ending? The citadel has been destroyed, right? http://www.thegcp.co...itblowingup.jpg Yes..... And the fall? And the space? And the expolotion?

To this too

Because the Normandy was not approaching the beam. Harby was actually firing at the ground targets moving towards the Crucible.

Nevermind the Reaper IFF, which hides the Normandy fromt he Reapers. I wonder why you can get to and from Palaven and Thessia so easily.....

Yeah, Reapers are blind......and they are stupid too, Shepard is there for five minutes and Harbinger just....looks at him?
Someone else?