514 réponses à ce sujet

[Maxster_]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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?

This one especially funny, because they actually turning beam on and off in cutscenes.

[Dr_Extrem]

Maxster_ wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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?

This one especially funny, because they actually turning beam on and off in cutscenes.

maybe the starchild like to play with the light switch.

[Seival]

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.

+1

[TheRealJayDee]

Seival

This thread slowly but surely is reaching critical mass...!

[dorktainian]

Seival wrote...

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.

+1

 - Billions.  

[Fixers0]

Define "Fake critism".

Strabrat doesn't come out of nowhere. 

False and no points is it's apperance foreshadowed or implied that such an entity existed.

Catalyst isn't a DEM

It is, it presents three options to stop the Reapers,none of them based upon lore or logic, simple. 

Crucible isn't a DEM.

It's the most stupidist thing ever, but it's more akin to a Macguffin where nobody knows it's purpose or method of functioning and aren't interest in it either, that and that it is filled with plot holes.

The Ending is consistant with ealier themes.

False, Magical entities with god like powers  were at no point part of the Mass Effect series prior to the endings.

The Catalyst has convincing motives.

No it doesn't, as even the basic amount of common sense can tear it apart.

The Endings contain no plotholes and are lore consistant.

Read This to be proven wrong.

[Applepie_Svk]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Seival

This thread slowly but surely is reaching critical mass...!

[The Spamming Troll]

oh god!

mybutthurts.

[Andres Hendrix]

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....

Well, you see, trying to divert attention from your own fallacies by saying "hey, they do it too" is fatuous. Your arguments are dripping with fallacy, ones that you should have the courage and integrity to look into and save your arguments from (so as to improve). Alas, when the title of your thread is puerile, and you screech and mewl at those who would even point you in a decent direction, towards good arguments from the other side, I
doubt you will ever understand the importance of proper argumentative form, free speech, and the maintenance of respect, not exactly for other people’s opinions, but for the right those people have to their opinion.  There are many good arguments that not only critique the ending's narrative, but there have been many discussions that discus the ethics of the endings as well. Therefore, you seem to make an atomistic fallacy by assuming that "a few critiques are bad” therefore you must “assume all the other critiques are bad as well.” You do not (and cannot) have a full knowledge of all the critiques pertaining to the ME3 endings, therefore you cannot just blatantly call them all stupid and “fake” (there is such thing as a bad critique, calling it fake seems akin to idiolect). I think you have a lot of growing up to do when it comes to your arguments, my only advice to you is to learn proper argumentative form and falsifiability, moreover it may be in your best interest to stop using ad hominem and strawman arguments, they sure as hell do not make your position look any better.

Modifié par Andres Hendrix, 25 novembre 2012 - 10:04 .

[txgoldrush]

Maxster_ wrote...

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.

 Wrong on so many counts....

Implication is foreshadowing...this is how ME3 foreshadows, by asking questions that are answered in the ending. It does this for multiple plot threads.

As fo the Crucible, you obviously missed the fact that the Protheans knew what it did...how? Because they know that the Citadel is the final component (but obviously lore wise the Citadel fell first in their time and it wasn't completed). Use your head here..its only unknown to the CURRENT cycle.

Stopping reapers is not a theme, a theme is the message of the story, which the series has MULTIPLE ones. And yes, strength through diversity is part of the ending...how? Because if you don't get enough support, you devestate the galaxy. Hell, you wouldn't even get there without support of the galactic community. But once again, there are OTHER themes in ply atthe endng as well.

"And this means, that reapers are the problem they pretend they trying to fix."

And that is the point and the irony...its intentionally done and written that way. The other irony is the Leviathans are also their own problem...they create an AI to solve other problems because of AI's, and in turn the AI ttacks them. Life is like this. But in many stories.....guess what, a Well Intentioned Extremist antagonist can be a contradiction of himself. Its not new and its not bad writing.

News Flash: Cerberus was always the bad guys. They were in ME1 and the novel series. Guess what? The original writer also made them evil...read Retribution. TIM is clearly cruel, and so is Kai Leng. They hide behind grey morality.

"whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved
with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event,
character, ability, or object."

and yet ME3 doesn't fit.....the opening to ME2 does, the finale to ME1 does, but not ME3...why?

Because the Crucible is not a new object, it was the heart of the story and so was the Catalyst. It was developed, fleshed out upon, and the plot reolves around it. A Deus Ex Machina is out of the blue and quick, usually at the moment it occurs, not way before. Nevermind the Crucible has backstory which mean its woven in the lore of the series.

The Catalyst isn't either as I explained earlier in this thread. You really do not know what a Deus x Machina is.

If you think the Catalyst's problem is non existant, than you haven't played Overlord did you? What do you do in Overlord? I know, how about stopping a rogue AI from spreading and devestating the galaxy...that seems to be the answer. The series GAVE you an example.

Nevermind the problem of synthetic-organic conflict was the LEVIATHANS problem, not the Catalyst. The Catalyst was only created to facilitate the Leviathans request, in an unintended way.

Once again, you are ignoring FACTS that go against you.

[txgoldrush]

Andres Hendrix wrote...

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....

Well, you see, trying to divert attention from your own fallacies by saying "hey, they do it too" is fatuous. Your arguments are dripping with fallacy, ones that you should have the courage and integrity to look into and save your arguments from (so as to improve). Alas, when the title of your thread is puerile, and you screech and mewl at those who would even point you in a decent direction, towards good arguments from the other side, I
doubt you will ever understand the importance of proper argumentative form, free speech, and the maintenance of respect, not exactly for other people’s opinions, but for the right those people have to their opinion.  There are many good arguments that not only critique the ending's narrative, but there have been many discussions that discus the ethics of the endings as well. Therefore, you seem to make an atomistic fallacy by assuming that "a few critiques are bad” therefore you must “assume all the other critiques are bad as well.” You do not (and cannot) have a full knowledge of all the critiques pertaining to the ME3 endings, therefore you cannot just blatantly call them all stupid and “fake” (there is such thing as a bad critique, calling it fake seems akin to idiolect). I think you have a lot of growing up to do when it comes to your arguments, my only advice to you is to learn proper argumentative form and falsifiability, moreover it may be in your best interest to stop using ad hominem and strawman arguments, they sure as hell do not make your position look any better.

Quit trying to sound pretentious.

The only logic is facts, you are either right or wrong. If you use argue incorrect positions or use incorrect facts, you are wrong, plain and simple.

[JPR1964]

well, well...

If you like your end game shoddy, incomprehensible, mystic and so on, kudo to you...

I liked mine in ME1, have some closure with the one in ME2, and got a pile of craphorse in ME3 as an end...

I had to wait the EC to give my full parangon Sheppard hollier than the saint and adept of the self sacrifice an end seemingly palatable : the refusal... The rest, is, imo, a pile of nonsenses, that doesn't respect anything established in the prior games and a true insult to the rpg player like me...

I was expecting a self sacrifice, but I had hopped to choose it myself, not to be forced by some space magic homicidal maniac AI that humanly is not understandable...

This game is all you want, but certainly no more a RPG : I bet the next serie will be more close than ever to a COD in space...

Your explanations are really poor and you lack evidently some experiences in the previous game...

As usual, this is only my opinion,

JPR out!

Modifié par JPR1964, 25 novembre 2012 - 10:30 .

[archangel1996]

txgoldrush wrote...
Once again, you are ignoring FACTS that go against you.

I like this part so much Let's talk about ignoring facts

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 - 10:37 .

[txgoldrush]

Fixers0 wrote...

Define "Fake critism".

Strabrat doesn't come out of nowhere. 

False and no points is it's apperance foreshadowed or implied that such an entity existed.

Catalyst isn't a DEM

It is, it presents three options to stop the Reapers,none of them based upon lore or logic, simple. 

Crucible isn't a DEM.

It's the most stupidist thing ever, but it's more akin to a Macguffin where nobody knows it's purpose or method of functioning and aren't interest in it either, that and that it is filled with plot holes.

The Ending is consistant with ealier themes.

False, Magical entities with god like powers  were at no point part of the Mass Effect series prior to the endings.

The Catalyst has convincing motives.

No it doesn't, as even the basic amount of common sense can tear it apart.

The Endings contain no plotholes and are lore consistant.

Read This to be proven wrong.

Guess what? Its implied on Thessia that there may be a master.

Wrong, its not...why? Because it doesn't solve the problem. Nevermind the the entire story established that the Crucible solves the problem with the Catalyst. Nevermind once again, my claim that its a subversion of a classic Greek use of the DEM because the roles of Shepard and the Catalyst are backwards.

Wrong again, many moments are spent on wondering what the crucible does and the consquences and effects of the Crucible. They also try to deduce what it is an dhow it works, you were not paying attention, therefore you falsely criticize it once again.

And the Reapers weren't powrful entities? The Catalyst is just the master of them.

And yet, even then, they are not the Catalyst's motives, there the Leviathans..they built him for a purpose.

[txgoldrush]

JPR1964 wrote...

well, well...

If you like your end game shoddy, incomprehensible, mystic and so on, kudo to you...

I liked mine in ME1, have some closure with the one in ME2, and got a pile of craphorse in ME3 as an end...

I had to wait the EC to give my full parangon Sheppard hollier than the saint and adept of the self sacrifice an end seemingly palatable : the refusal... The rest, is, imo, a pile of nonsenses, that doesn't respect anything established in the prior games and a true insult to the rpg player like me...

I was expecting a self sacrifice, but I had hopped to choose it myself, not to be forced by some space magic homicidal maniac AI that humanly is not understandable...

This game is all you want, but certainly no more a RPG : I bet the next serie will be more close than ever to a COD in space...

Your explanations are really poor and you lack evidently some experiences in the previous game...

As usual, this is only my opinion,

JPR out!

and yours isn't.

They aren't my explaations, they just all in the narrative you seem to ignore, like most of BSN.

[JPR1964]

Wrong, this is YOUR EXPLANATION of the narrative, not mine...

JPR out!

[Twinzam.V]

txgoldrush wrote...

Guess what? Its implied on Thessia that there may be a master.

Due to the way txgoldrush acts, he seems to have a master telling him what to write.
There! I also implied that you have a master. Is it true?

Modifié par Twinzam.V, 25 novembre 2012 - 10:45 .

[txgoldrush]

JPR1964 wrote...

Wrong, this is YOUR EXPLANATION of the narrative, not mine...

JPR out!

No, its in the game. Not everything is open for your interpetation.

[Dr_Extrem]

txgoldrush wrote...
Wrong on so many counts....

Implication is foreshadowing...this is how ME3 foreshadows, by asking questions that are answered in the ending. It does this for multiple plot threads.

As fo the Crucible, you obviously missed the fact that the Protheans knew what it did...how? Because they know that the Citadel is the final component (but obviously lore wise the Citadel fell first in their time and it wasn't completed). Use your head here..its only unknown to the CURRENT cycle.

Stopping reapers is not a theme, a theme is the message of the story, which the series has MULTIPLE ones. And yes, strength through diversity is part of the ending...how? Because if you don't get enough support, you devestate the galaxy. Hell, you wouldn't even get there without support of the galactic community. But once again, there are OTHER themes in ply atthe endng as well.

"And this means, that reapers are the problem they pretend they trying to fix."

And that is the point and the irony...its intentionally done and written that way. The other irony is the Leviathans are also their own problem...they create an AI to solve other problems because of AI's, and in turn the AI ttacks them. Life is like this. But in many stories.....guess what, a Well Intentioned Extremist antagonist can be a contradiction of himself. Its not new and its not bad writing.

News Flash: Cerberus was always the bad guys. They were in ME1 and the novel series. Guess what? The original writer also made them evil...read Retribution. TIM is clearly cruel, and so is Kai Leng. They hide behind grey morality.

"whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved
with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event,
character, ability, or object."

and yet ME3 doesn't fit.....the opening to ME2 does, the finale to ME1 does, but not ME3...why?

Because the Crucible is not a new object, it was the heart of the story and so was the Catalyst. It was developed, fleshed out upon, and the plot reolves around it. A Deus Ex Machina is out of the blue and quick, usually at the moment it occurs, not way before. Nevermind the Crucible has backstory which mean its woven in the lore of the series.

The Catalyst isn't either as I explained earlier in this thread. You really do not know what a Deus x Machina is.

If you think the Catalyst's problem is non existant, than you haven't played Overlord did you? What do you do in Overlord? I know, how about stopping a rogue AI from spreading and devestating the galaxy...that seems to be the answer. The series GAVE you an example.

Nevermind the problem of synthetic-organic conflict was the LEVIATHANS problem, not the Catalyst. The Catalyst was only created to facilitate the Leviathans request, in an unintended way.

Once again, you are ignoring FACTS that go against you.

so ... what exactly is the question, that leads to a guess, that the starchild is the catalyst?


the catalyst plot makes so many sidesteps, that there is not much left.

on thessia, the crude concept of a master entity was mentioned - but not in context with the catalyst. hell .. in retrospec, not even vendetta thinks of the possibility, that the ai is the catalyst - vendetta thinks, that the citadel is the catalyst.
that (the citadel being the catalyst) is revealed on cronos station.

the catalyst and the mastermind are two completely different plots at this point of the game.

so .. since mars, we are looking for a clue, what the catalyst is. we find our first breadcrum on thessia and get the answer on cronos - right before the final mission. in retrospec, that info is not even right.

the whole concept of the catalyst is wrecked, the moment you meet the starchild. untill shepard meets it, he/she is convinced, that the citadel is the catalyst.


so the vague "question" that "foreshadows" the existance of a mastermind, is answered by the citadel being the catalyst and not the mentioned mastermind.

the question is not there anymore - it is answered. well .. the answer was a lie but that comes out an the very end. another sidestep of the plot, that comes out of nowhere.

even if you have leviathan installed, there is no clue, that the mastermind is the catalyst. well maybe the leviathans forgot that little, totally unimportant fact over the millenia or they are just trolling shepard.
levi1 to levi2:
- "hey have you told the ape, that the ai we build is the catalyst?"
- "no ... i wish i could see its face when it finds out."
- "lol ... yeah .. good one!"

so .. the leviathans created the ai - little reminder ... sophisticated ai's can not be moved from server to server, they are depending on quantum blue boxes to function (this is mass effect lore) ... so .. they created the ai ... where? ... it is installed on the citadel ... so it is presumed, that the citadel was there before the ai - and they forgot this little detail too?

the problem is, that the reapers are build the citadel (mass effect lore) ... so either the leviathans are telling us bs or they just broke the lore of the game.


there simply is no real foreshadowing - just two different story arcs (and one is shady), that are combined at the very end - and yes ... this comes out of nowhere.

[archangel1996]

txgoldrush wrote...

JPR1964 wrote...

Wrong, this is YOUR EXPLANATION of the narrative, not mine...

JPR out!

No, its in the game. Not everything is open for your interpetation.

Someone is arguing that black is white

Modifié par archangel1996, 25 novembre 2012 - 10:55 .

[Neizd]

Twinzam.V wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Guess what? Its implied on Thessia that there may be a master.

Due to the way txgoldrush acts, he seems to have a master telling him what to write.
There! I also implied that you have a master. Is it true?

+1 xD

But seriously. If the master was foreshadowed then why did this so called master troll Sovereign and didn't open the citadel arms for him? XD Truth is ME3 is full of plotholes.

Modifié par Neizd, 25 novembre 2012 - 10:56 .

[Andres Hendrix]

txgoldrush wrote...

Andres Hendrix wrote...

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....

Well, you see, trying to divert attention from your own fallacies by saying "hey, they do it too" is fatuous. Your arguments are dripping with fallacy, ones that you should have the courage and integrity to look into and save your arguments from (so as to improve). Alas, when the title of your thread is puerile, and you screech and mewl at those who would even point you in a decent direction, towards good arguments from the other side, I
doubt you will ever understand the importance of proper argumentative form, free speech, and the maintenance of respect, not exactly for other people’s opinions, but for the right those people have to their opinion.  There are many good arguments that not only critique the ending's narrative, but there have been many discussions that discus the ethics of the endings as well. Therefore, you seem to make an atomistic fallacy by assuming that "a few critiques are bad” therefore you must “assume all the other critiques are bad as well.” You do not (and cannot) have a full knowledge of all the critiques pertaining to the ME3 endings, therefore you cannot just blatantly call them all stupid and “fake” (there is such thing as a bad critique, calling it fake seems akin to idiolect). I think you have a lot of growing up to do when it comes to your arguments, my only advice to you is to learn proper argumentative form and falsifiability, moreover it may be in your best interest to stop using ad hominem and strawman arguments, they sure as hell do not make your position look any better.

Quit trying to sound pretentious.

The only logic is facts, you are either right or wrong. If you use argue incorrect positions or use incorrect facts, you are wrong, plain and simple.

Mewling and hand waving will not whitewash yourfallacies. Do yourself a favor, learn your fallacies gain some integrity. I have highlighted the names of some common fallacies in your argument, learn what they are, find them and improve. Once you do, perhaps you will learn the importance of falsifiability.

I do not think you are in a position to be dictating what constitutes logic. If you want to learn logic, I suggest you
read “Deduction” by Daniel Bonevac, it is an introductory book to Symbolic Logic. I believe there is a second edition out; you can most likely buy it off of Amazon. Good luck with that.  

Modifié par Andres Hendrix, 25 novembre 2012 - 11:01 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

txgoldrush wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Define "Fake critism".

Strabrat doesn't come out of nowhere. 

False and no points is it's apperance foreshadowed or implied that such an entity existed.

Catalyst isn't a DEM

It is, it presents three options to stop the Reapers,none of them based upon lore or logic, simple. 

Crucible isn't a DEM.

It's the most stupidist thing ever, but it's more akin to a Macguffin where nobody knows it's purpose or method of functioning and aren't interest in it either, that and that it is filled with plot holes.

The Ending is consistant with ealier themes.

False, Magical entities with god like powers  were at no point part of the Mass Effect series prior to the endings.

The Catalyst has convincing motives.

No it doesn't, as even the basic amount of common sense can tear it apart.

The Endings contain no plotholes and are lore consistant.

Read This to be proven wrong.

Guess what? Its implied on Thessia that there may be a master.

Wrong, its not...why? Because it doesn't solve the problem. Nevermind the the entire story established that the Crucible solves the problem with the Catalyst. Nevermind once again, my claim that its a subversion of a classic Greek use of the DEM because the roles of Shepard and the Catalyst are backwards.

Wrong again, many moments are spent on wondering what the crucible does and the consquences and effects of the Crucible. They also try to deduce what it is an dhow it works, you were not paying attention, therefore you falsely criticize it once again.

And the Reapers weren't powrful entities? The Catalyst is just the master of them.

And yet, even then, they are not the Catalyst's motives, there the Leviathans..they built him for a purpose.

Way to read the linked page and adress it's points.

[Tomwew]

can someone post a list of every problem, plot hole, out of character action and theme ignoring/ changing in the last part of me3 to see if the op, who apparently understands the ending and i'm simply too dumb to get it, can answer them all?

i'll give my top 5 reasons i think the ending sucks harder than gay superman.
1. the catalyst says no organic has ever been to his digs on the bottom of the citadel. then how could anyone have designed the crucible to interface with it.

2. the catalyst admits it's solution doesn't work. why does it continue to reap?

3. why can't i argue against the (racist......robocist?) idea that syntetics will always rebel?

4. the catalyst tries to force the reapers into being 'good' guys by implying that he's not killing but 'ascending' people...... while taking the form of a young child he murdered as the boy attempted to flee. why can't i point this out.

5. the entire section with the catalyst feels hopeless and though there's no choice, as if i'm a player in the catalyst's game.
this feeling is strongest in th ec where, in one of the only dialogue choices where shep gets his backbone...er...back, he tells the catalyst he 'doesn't believe him' to which the catalyst replies, with the blunt abruptness of an annoyed parent talking to an overly inquisitive child, 'your belief is not required.'
no question there that line just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. i guess being space jesus in inconsequntial when talking to space god (deus) from the machine (ex machina)

these are only five, i could go on.....for a long time but i feel as though there are more qualified types out there to list what's wrong with this franken-ending.

like mr. btoungue
extended cut

Modifié par Tomwew, 25 novembre 2012 - 11:17 .