514 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

txgoldrush wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So OP, what's your opinion about the ending? What's usually your final choice?

Original ending.....lacking and far too underdeveloped, so much so that the ending didn't establish any connection to the series's themes.

Final ending, meaning both EC and Leviathan....pretty great.

Destroy is my fave and synthesis my least.

. We agree on something^_^

[txgoldrush]

Steelcan wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
All of their deeds can be explained by the ends justifying the means. In ME1 we didn't have the whole picture, we knew what they were doing, but we never learned why. And the why is EXTREMELY important.

and yet even in ME3, they believe the ends justify the means...The fact is that there is no change really to Cerebrus except their role in the story from side quest fodder, to co protagonist, to antagonist.
And in the novels, they are the villians as well.

. So?  What's your point?  They consistently believe that the ends justify the means?  And they are right.

No, they are wrong....

Thats the point....their "sacrifices" destroy humanity's chance of survival, not help it.

. TIM was right about Control.  Cerberus was right to believe that the Alliance and Council would not respond to the Reaper threat.  If the Alliance and Council had been as helpful in ME2 as Cerberus then the war could have played out very differently.  What they did would have saved humanity.  But for some reason the Alliiance decided not to use Cerberus's data.

Yes, the TIM is right about Control, but his methods were wrong.

The very last scene shows the contrast between TIM and Shep......the sacrifices Shep and his comrades make got them this far while TIM's sacrifices almost undo humanity. In fact, Shepard says "you sacrificed too much" in the final confrontation with him.

The message is that while even though you may be right, your methods can be wrong. This goes for the Catalyst as well.

[Steelcan]

txgoldrush wrote...

Yes, the TIM is right about Control, but his methods were wrong.

The very last scene shows the contrast between TIM and Shep......the sacrifices Shep and his comrades make got them this far while TIM's sacrifices almost undo humanity. In fact, Shepard says "you sacrificed too much" in the final confrontation with him.

The message is that while even though you may be right, your methods can be wrong. This goes for the Catalyst as well.

. Those ridiculous charm options<_<  I prefer the intimidate ones with the last dialogue option being the paragon(not charm) one.  Works best for me.

[txgoldrush]

Steelcan wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Yes, the TIM is right about Control, but his methods were wrong.

The very last scene shows the contrast between TIM and Shep......the sacrifices Shep and his comrades make got them this far while TIM's sacrifices almost undo humanity. In fact, Shepard says "you sacrificed too much" in the final confrontation with him.

The message is that while even though you may be right, your methods can be wrong. This goes for the Catalyst as well.

. Those ridiculous charm options<_<  I prefer the intimidate ones with the last dialogue option being the paragon(not charm) one.  Works best for me.

I think both say the same thing and strike the same contrast.

[txgoldrush]

Steelcan wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So OP, what's your opinion about the ending? What's usually your final choice?

Original ending.....lacking and far too underdeveloped, so much so that the ending didn't establish any connection to the series's themes.

Final ending, meaning both EC and Leviathan....pretty great.

Destroy is my fave and synthesis my least.

. We agree on something^_^

Although synthesis does have the Joker and EDI embrace and the best memorial scene.

Do wish those scenes were available for Control enders.

[Steelcan]

txgoldrush wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
Yes, the TIM is right about Control, but his methods were wrong.

The very last scene shows the contrast between TIM and Shep......the sacrifices Shep and his comrades make got them this far while TIM's sacrifices almost undo humanity. In fact, Shepard says "you sacrificed too much" in the final confrontation with him.
The message is that while even though you may be right, your methods can be wrong. This goes for the Catalyst as well.

. Those ridiculous charm options<_<  I prefer the intimidate ones with the last dialogue option being the paragon(not charm) one.  Works best for me.

I think both say the same thing and strike the same contrast.

. The regular non charm/intimadate option?  I know the charm and intimidate options have different outcomes.

[Andres Hendrix]

txgoldrush wrote...

Andres Hendrix wrote...

Well, I am not sure why this thread has not been locked. If there are any real philosophers or scientists here who have, or are learning about research methods, and or critical thinking, for a lol, I say "non-falsifiability fallacy;" the OP needs to read some Karl Popper. XD

and what would these philopshers think about people ignoring facts that disprove ones argument? This is what anti enders do.

No, no, no; you have already provided a surplus of strawman (Aunt Sally) arguments, what philosophers would say about what you called (Anti-Enders) is irrelevant to what I said about your argument. What is implied, is the  that you fail to maintain falsifiability in your argument. It is as though you sacrificed falsifiability so as to sound ****y. Falsifiability is the most important aspect when creating a hypothesis, or argument. Seriously
learn what it is, it will do you some good. Lawrence Kraus talks about the concept of falsifiability in his book "A Universe from Nothing." Or you could go straight to the writings of Karl Popper; though, Logical Positivism
did end up falling on its own sword (i.e. falsifiability), but falsifiability still remains as the one good thing that the LPs did for intellectualism.

Modifié par Andres Hendrix, 25 novembre 2012 - 06:42 .

[txgoldrush]

Steelcan wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
Yes, the TIM is right about Control, but his methods were wrong.

The very last scene shows the contrast between TIM and Shep......the sacrifices Shep and his comrades make got them this far while TIM's sacrifices almost undo humanity. In fact, Shepard says "you sacrificed too much" in the final confrontation with him.
The message is that while even though you may be right, your methods can be wrong. This goes for the Catalyst as well.

. Those ridiculous charm options<_<  I prefer the intimidate ones with the last dialogue option being the paragon(not charm) one.  Works best for me.

I think both say the same thing and strike the same contrast.

. The regular non charm/intimadate option?  I know the charm and intimidate options have different outcomes.

yes, while they have different outcomes, Shepard says the same things on line with the themes, its just said differently.

[txgoldrush]

Andres Hendrix wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Andres Hendrix wrote...

Well, I am not sure why this thread has not been locked. If there are any real philosophers or scientists here who have, or are learning about research methods, and or critical thinking, for a lol, I say "non-falsifiability fallacy;" the OP needs to read some Karl Popper. XD

and what would these philopshers think about people ignoring facts that disprove ones argument? This is what anti enders do.

No, no, no; you have already provided a surplus of strawman (Aunt Sally) arguments, what philosophers would say about what you called (Anti-Enders) is irrelevant to what I said about your argument. What is implied, is the  that you fail to maintain falsifiability in your argument. It is as though you sacrificed falsifiability so as to sound ****y. Falsifiability is the most important aspect when creating a hypothesis, or argument. Seriously
learn what it is, it will do you some good. Lawrence Kraus talks about the concept of falsifiability in his book "A Universe from Nothing." Or you could go straight to the writings of Karl Popper; though, Logical Positivism
did end up falling on its own sword (i.e. falsifiability), but falsifiability still remains as the one good thing that the LPs did for intellectualism.

the "strawman" is the typical anti ender and their beliefs and fake criticisms....

[Grubas]

So why is Shepard the chosen one? What makes him special? Couldnt Vega or Anderson get the job done?

[archangel1996]

So, i was gone for the night......did someone answer my questions or did they just say"you are ignorant"?

[ld1449]

archangel1996 wrote...

So, i was gone for the night......did someone answer my questions or did they just say"you are ignorant"?

Considering that its Goldrush, you could have said the sky is blue and gotten that answer. So yeah that most likely happened.

[archangel1996]

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

................

Modifié par archangel1996, 25 novembre 2012 - 11:48 .

[Tempest_]

txgoldrush wrote...
.
They were mustache twirling evil in ME1 when they murder colonists, experimented on an alliance unit, and murdered an Admiral heinously. There were also the villains in the novels

And even in ME3 TIM's character is consistant...he still belives in doing the "greater good". The fact is that they just changed roles.

I think we're going around in circles at this point, so we'll probably just have to agree to disagree. But don't get me wrong, you've made some solid points in this thread. I just can't agree with you here.

There is a difference in Mass Effect 3 in my opinion. The actions of cerberus become evil to the point where they are unjustifiable as opposed to the "greyness" which bioware clearly tried to establish in the narrative of the second game. After all, why would a paragon Shepard work for/with an outright "evil" organisation? Because they were his only option? Is that justification for working with the devil?

We've already uncovered possible justification for those experiments. Those actions are deplorable but posess purposes which makes them "grey" in nature. That purpose being understanding Reaper forces and furthering humanity's interests.

Reasonable goals. Everything they did came with a purpose/reason. There are are some out there who believe the ends justify the means. I'm not one of them and I don't personally advocate what cerberus do, but hey some might and appear to. You may perceive them as evil, others don't.

As for the novels, of which I suppose we can only really count Ascension considering the other two take place after the events of Mass Effect 2, again deplorable actions with reasonable goals in this instance Human/biotic advancement. They are portrayed as the antagonists in the novel. That doesn't necessarily make them villains in the eyes of some.

Modifié par Quote the Raven, 25 novembre 2012 - 01:30 .

[Kais Endac]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So because someone has problems with the ending their criticism is automatically labeled "false" perhaps the person actaully does have genuine problems with the ending I don't see why they should bend over backwards to conform to your idea. 

And please stop calling people ignorant (both sides) because they  they have different opinions of your own. I mean everyone has their own opinions and it's their right to express it. I don't particually support the endings but that does NOT make me ingnorant and neither do I think those who support the ending are ignorant. YOUR STANCE ON THE ENDING IS OPINION NOT A FACT. (both pro and anti) 

And while I don't think I will ever be a supporter of the ending. I think that points brought up are well reasoned and explained by supporters. 

At the rate things are going this thread will be closed and that would be a shame because people are bringing up some good perpectives. I was perhaps too heavy with this post and I'm sorry if I insulted anyone but I felt the need to post this. I have always thought that someones perspective on something should be respected (within reason racism and other subjects should not be tolerated) and someone should not be called ingorant because of it. Neither should their points be called "false" because of it.

 
 

Modifié par Kais Endac, 25 novembre 2012 - 02:28 .

[azerSheppard]

txgoldrush wrote...

*snip*

Can i.. can i make love to you?

[GreyLycanTrope]

txgoldrush wrote...

Andres Hendrix wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Andres Hendrix wrote...

Well, I am not sure why this thread has not been locked. If there are any real philosophers or scientists here who have, or are learning about research methods, and or critical thinking, for a lol, I say "non-falsifiability fallacy;" the OP needs to read some Karl Popper. XD

and what would these philopshers think about people ignoring facts that disprove ones argument? This is what anti enders do.

No, no, no; you have already provided a surplus of strawman (Aunt Sally) arguments, what philosophers would say about what you called (Anti-Enders) is irrelevant to what I said about your argument. What is implied, is the  that you fail to maintain falsifiability in your argument. It is as though you sacrificed falsifiability so as to sound ****y. Falsifiability is the most important aspect when creating a hypothesis, or argument. Seriously
learn what it is, it will do you some good. Lawrence Kraus talks about the concept of falsifiability in his book "A Universe from Nothing." Or you could go straight to the writings of Karl Popper; though, Logical Positivism
did end up falling on its own sword (i.e. falsifiability), but falsifiability still remains as the one good thing that the LPs did for intellectualism.

the "strawman" is the typical anti ender and their beliefs and fake criticisms....

You got me Andres, i'm here for the lols, such as the above "rebuttal"

[Someone With Mass]

Just because the game is foreshadowing something stupid doesn't change the fact that it's still stupid.

[Tronar]

lynch108 wrote...

The ending wasn't epic. That's my complaint. Ends an amazing trilogy with a whimper.

This!

Plus the missing battle scenes with your collected War Assets dishing out some damage to the reapers (like a scene with a Rachni Flotilla overwhelming some Reapers, a ground scene showing some Elcor fighting the enemy, the Geth and the Quarian Flotilla joining the fight etc. etc.)

To me it looked like they were trying to find a cheap and fast way out.

The dialogue probably went something like this:
"Hey, I have a brilliant idea helping us out with our limited development time. Let's do only one ending and paint it in three different colors. That saves us a lot of time and resources and still leaves the impression to the players that their choices make a difference". :happy:

Or not... as the resulting ****storm from 90% of the (unsatisfied) fanbase then clearly showed.

But luckily there is something called artistic integrity that saved Bioware in the end.

Or not...

[Maxster_]

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.

And this is, of course, wrong.
Not only it comes from nowhere, it also nullifies it's prequels.
First, it was implied not foreshadowed.
Second, there was no Catalyst in ME1 and ME2, that concept never existed at that time.

Why it nullified prequels? Sure, Catalyst just sat on Citadel, watching Sovereign and Harbringer fails just for lulz.
Because of that nonsense, what shred we had of overarching series plot after reapers arrival were completely destroyed.

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.

First. Crucible is nonsense and can not exists.
Yeah, someone designed unknown device with unknown function, which should interface with another unknown device, with uknown interface, unknown function, unknown location, unconfirmed existence and even need of it.

And then, it was conveniently found, by each cycle, right after reapers invasion(because otherwise Catalyst, and Citadel being relay, and master control for relay network -  would be discovered before the invasion). And such coincidences were for 20000 times.
Suuure, so plausible.

There is no logic in Crucible, it can not be designed, and can not exist.
Second.
http://en.wikipedia....Deus_ex_machina

A deus ex machina  is a plot device
whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved
with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event,
character, ability, or object. It can be roughly translated as "God made
it happen," with no further explanation, and, depending on usage, is
primarily used to move the story forward when the writer has "painted
himself into a corner" and sees no other way out.

Fits perfectly.

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.

No, there was a theme shift from "stopping reapers" to "synthetic will destroy all organics"(which is nonsense).
There was clear shift from "strength in diversity" to "peace is only possible throughout homogenization"(Synthesis).
Also, retarded beam run have nothing to do with "sacrifice". It is "stupidity". And there is a lot of such crap in ME3.
So, ME3 is about "defeat because of stupidity"?

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.

He is stupid and crazy.
He is killing to prevent killing.
"Without us synthetics will destroy all organics" - is appeal to probabilty, and obviously false. It never happened. All organics were never destroyed.
Anyone who uses such reasoning is crazy(or lying).

Some EAWare defenders translate this as
"Without us synthetics will destroy those organics who created said synthetics".
And this means, that reapers are the problem they pretend they trying to fix.

So, we had synthetics killing organics who creates them.
Applying reapers "solution":
Now we have reapers killing organics who creates synthetics.
Organics are still destroyed, but who cares...

Reapers actually more effective at killing organics, than any of those synthetics. Because reapers killing all organics, including those who never created any synthetics.
And for "preserving" "argument" - reapers also killing those, who they can't "preserve", like protheans.

So yes, he is crazy, he made a retarded "solution" to a non-existant "problem".

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.

ME3 is lore-butchering, plothole-ridden nonsensical mess.

Crucible, Cerberus becoming Sith Empire, reapers sitting in darkspace for thousands of years of Sovereign machinations just for lulz, when they could just fly into a galaxy for 0.5-3 years, losing nothing in the process (this destroys overarching series plot).
And many many more, like Harbringer suddenly forgetting about his main gun.
Also added with EC - evactuation scene, teleporting Normandy.

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.

Catalyst is crazy, he is "solving" non-existant "problem", killing to prevent killing.

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.

Problems with ME3 - main plot makes no sense, themes suddenly shifted, lore-butchering, plotholes, overarching series plot is destroyed, ME3 writing is garbage z-movie level storytelling, and many others.
Extended Crap solved none of those real problems.
It just added more plotholes.

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

Pathetic.

[Maxster_]

txgoldrush wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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.....

trick question:

if the reaper iff hides the normandy from the reapers, why the f**k do i have to flee from them, if i scan once too often on the galaxy map?

that does not make any sense.

Because the signal you are giving off is blowing your cover.

EDI tells how the IFF works, its in the narrative.

Yeah, sure.
1st - garbage "reaper-chase minigame" is lore-butchering nonsense. Intersystem travel is on FTL, and ships in FTL transit can no be detected.

2nd
IFF doesn't hide from reapers. It doesn't hid from collectors, which were created(transformed) by reapers.
And even if it could(and it doesn't) - that would mean that Hackett, Shepard and Anderson just utterly retarded - instead of Priority:Earth's ground assault, they could just use Normandy, to deliver Shepard, squad and support troops right before the beam.

3rd
Harbringer is retarded. Instead of firing his main gun, and obliterating entire retarded offensive, - he deliberately lowered power of his guns to shoot individual soldiers.

[dorktainian]

OP.....watch this and other documentaries - all of which make more sense than the ending - even EC.



 www.youtube.com/watch

[Dr_Extrem]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Just because the game is foreshadowing something stupid doesn't change the fact that it's still stupid.

there is not even foreshadowing. vendetta (on thessia) only mentions, that a higher power behind the reapers is a possibility. it has no solid evidence.

on cronos station, vendetta reveals, that the citadel is the catalyst and not the ominous "master", he mentions as a possiblity on thessia.

the fact that the ai is the catalyst and that the citadel is its "home" hits you out of nowhere.

[dorktainian]

how did vigil - a prothean VI look completely different to Vendetta?

Was Vendetta a trap... Maybe even the same entity as starbrat?

[Dr_Extrem]

Maxster_ wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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.....

trick question:

if the reaper iff hides the normandy from the reapers, why the f**k do i have to flee from them, if i scan once too often on the galaxy map?

that does not make any sense.

Because the signal you are giving off is blowing your cover.

EDI tells how the IFF works, its in the narrative.

Yeah, sure.
1st - garbage "reaper-chase minigame" is lore-butchering nonsense. Intersystem travel is on FTL, and ships in FTL transit can no be detected.

2nd
IFF doesn't hide from reapers. It doesn't hid from collectors, which were created(transformed) by reapers.
And even if it could(and it doesn't) - that would mean that Hackett, Shepard and Anderson just utterly retarded - instead of Priority:Earth's ground assault, they could just use Normandy, to deliver Shepard, squad and support troops right before the beam.

3rd
Harbringer is retarded. Instead of firing his main gun, and obliterating entire retarded offensive, - he deliberately lowered power of his guns to shoot individual soldiers.

the reapers are really retarded in london - why not just shut down the beam and fry everything that moves? or destroy the "conduit", before the bacteria can use it. the reapers should not have any problem, with rebuilding it - they have all the time they need - nobody rushes them. or is the starchild threatening the reapers with a strickt timetable?