514 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

111987 wrote...

I think a lot of people's problem is that such a major plot point was foreshadowed so late in the game.

Well, that and it's stupid and contrived beyond belief, since the Catalyst's goal will/can never be achieved and he's pretty much replacing the threat he's supposed to stop by making it so that synthetic races are killing organics to "help" him.

[Reorte]

OP, you actually believe that nonsense you've written? Wow. It's always a sign of someone who really hasn't been paying the slightest bit of attention when they think that it doesn't clash with the themes of the previous games (and most of ME3 for that matter) which was always a good old-fashioned hero achieves the impossible.

I suggest that you actually try engaging your brain instead of liking something just because it tries to look all clever and meaningful but isn't in the slightest. If I was that easily fooled I'd be very, very worried. By the way a man from Nigeria I know needs lots of money moving and could do with your help...

[txgoldrush]

Yesmar wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

And yet Shepard didn't know what the Conduit was, just like the Crucible. But he or she did not want Saren to have it. And yes the Crucible is logical as it interacts with the Citadel, using Reaper tech against them. It fits with the lore of the series. The idea of a past civ helping the current one is the same as it is in ME1.

And wrong....the Catalyst defines what the Crucible is, a power source, and what it does. You were not paying attention. Its all in the narrative. What he didn't know is that the organics were still trying to build it.

Its not objectively bad, you just don;t get it. You ignore clear facts, plain and simple.

So because Shepard didn't know what it was, that makes it the same as the crucible.
Yeah sure.
The way the Crucible interacts with the Citadel doesn't make any sense, no one could possibly get the data/technology required to do it, especially organics that were being harvested during their cycles.
I don't recall anyone even saying the Crucible is reaper tech so it is odd you call it Reaper tech.

Point is it is not the same and it doesn't fit the lore.
Especially with the random crap about it you're making up to try and justify it.


"Wrong? The catalyst defines the crucible?"
I wasn't even talking about what it does so I couldn't possibly be wrong on something I was not even discussing.
He didn't explain why it does what it does and how it came to be.

I get it, it stinks and so does your bad defense of it.

The Crucible isn't Reaper tech, but the Citadel is. And races such as the Protheans did realize the Citadels purpose and they knew what the final component was. They knew it interacted with the Citadel, its that the current cycle did not. Its not like past cycles were in the dark. You are not thinking here. The data was passed down from cycle to cycle.

[Archonsg]

ME3's ending could be okay, or even passable *if* ME3 was an adventure game without player input from the start as to *how* Shepard would act. That is not true for the ME series.

In fact, as long as I am willing to overlook the fact that Shepard commits a forced suicide of choice, my *Renegade* Shepard would see no problems choosing Control or Destroy in principal.

Synthesis is still abhorrent.

However, I can't condone suicide as a means to an end and I am surprised that Bioware wants this as the underlying message in their blockbuster AAA game.

Also, my Paragon Shepards are left in the cold. There are simply no choice, other than Refusal. And that as we all know is as much a middle finger as it is an extended "critical failure" ending.

So, while you might be happy with what you have, I and many others are not, considering we still have an incomplete game, especially for an RPG.

[txgoldrush]

Reorte wrote...

OP, you actually believe that nonsense you've written? Wow. It's always a sign of someone who really hasn't been paying the slightest bit of attention when they think that it doesn't clash with the themes of the previous games (and most of ME3 for that matter) which was always a good old-fashioned hero achieves the impossible.

I suggest that you actually try engaging your brain instead of liking something just because it tries to look all clever and meaningful but isn't in the slightest. If I was that easily fooled I'd be very, very worried. By the way a man from Nigeria I know needs lots of money moving and could do with your help...

No, its that you don't get it.....its not hard.

Everything is IN THE NARRATIVE, you just choose to ignore it.

Once again, Shepard caused a god machine to RETHINK what he was doing. Shepard DID do the impossible.

Shepard goes from hero of humanity, to hero of the cycle, to billion year anomaly.

[Yesmar]

txgoldrush wrote...

Yesmar wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

And yet Shepard didn't know what the Conduit was, just like the Crucible. But he or she did not want Saren to have it. And yes the Crucible is logical as it interacts with the Citadel, using Reaper tech against them. It fits with the lore of the series. The idea of a past civ helping the current one is the same as it is in ME1.

And wrong....the Catalyst defines what the Crucible is, a power source, and what it does. You were not paying attention. Its all in the narrative. What he didn't know is that the organics were still trying to build it.

Its not objectively bad, you just don;t get it. You ignore clear facts, plain and simple.

So because Shepard didn't know what it was, that makes it the same as the crucible.
Yeah sure.
The way the Crucible interacts with the Citadel doesn't make any sense, no one could possibly get the data/technology required to do it, especially organics that were being harvested during their cycles.
I don't recall anyone even saying the Crucible is reaper tech so it is odd you call it Reaper tech.

Point is it is not the same and it doesn't fit the lore.
Especially with the random crap about it you're making up to try and justify it.


"Wrong? The catalyst defines the crucible?"
I wasn't even talking about what it does so I couldn't possibly be wrong on something I was not even discussing.
He didn't explain why it does what it does and how it came to be.

I get it, it stinks and so does your bad defense of it.

The Crucible isn't Reaper tech, but the Citadel is. And races such as the Protheans did realize the Citadels purpose and they knew what the final component was. They knew it interacted with the Citadel, its that the current cycle did not. Its not like past cycles were in the dark. You are not thinking here. The data was passed down from cycle to cycle.

To be honest it is probably actually Leviathan tech, altered slightly by the Reapers like everything else they use.
Following that the data was passed down from age to age, who actually came up with the concept and how did they get the knowledge to make the Crucible the way it is today without testing it once?

[txgoldrush]

Archonsg wrote...

ME3's ending could be okay, or even passable *if* ME3 was an adventure game without player input from the start as to *how* Shepard would act. That is not true for the ME series.

In fact, as long as I am willing to overlook the fact that Shepard commits a forced suicide of choice, my *Renegade* Shepard would see no problems choosing Control or Destroy in principal.

Synthesis is still abhorrent.

However, I can't condone suicide as a means to an end and I am surprised that Bioware wants this as the underlying message in their blockbuster AAA game.

Also, my Paragon Shepards are left in the cold. There are simply no choice, other than Refusal. And that as we all know is as much a middle finger as it is an extended "critical failure" ending.

So, while you might be happy with what you have, I and many others are not, considering we still have an incomplete game, especially for an RPG.

or maybe that the final choice is very morally grey and that you aren't recognizing this.

And its not forced suicide, its sacrifice.

[archangel1996]

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?

[cyrslash1974]

Better solution we have : peace between Quarians and Geths (which already started in ME2), a love story between a AI and a man. War can be avoided between synthetics and organics. Peace in Rannoch is for nothing...

The logic of the catalyst is wrong now, the solutions proposed are stupids and are always the same whatever you do within the 3 games (so RPG or not ?). Stupid, bad, sad...

The trilogy is awesome, the game is great, the ending is a mess.

[AshenShug4r]

This thread is an abomination.

[txgoldrush]

cyrslash1974 wrote...

Better solution we have : peace between Quarians and Geths (which already started in ME2), a love story between a AI and a man. War can be avoided between synthetics and organics. Peace in Rannoch is for nothing...

The logic of the catalyst is wrong now, the solutions proposed are stupids and are always the same whatever you do within the 3 games (so RPG or not ?). Stupid, bad, sad...

The trilogy is awesome, the game is great, the ending is a mess.

But here is the point.....Shepard, the anomaly, that the Catalyst sees as his final solution, facilitated this peace. Nevermind that Shepard also clearly has an influence on EDI and Jokers relationship.

Its Shepard, he or she is the exception to the rule.

And really, the antagonist logic is not always right or sound in many stories.

Nevermind that there are three destroy endings, by EMS, six control endings, by alignment and genophage result (hell this dictates how Shepard approaches being a Reaper God), three synthesis endings, by Rannoch result....along with choices made throughout the trilogy.

[txgoldrush]

AshenShug4r wrote...

This thread is an abomination.

The dumb fanbase is an even bigger abomination.

All it can handle is the same Biowarian formula of the same plots, the same character archtypes, and the same black and white morality.

[txgoldrush]

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?

Not everything has to be explained.....

[JC_aka_fps_john]

+1

I love how worked up the whiners get about this. Yes, there are legitimate reasons to dislike the ending (plotholes, lackluster Priority:Earth, interchangable colour cutscenes) but it's remarkable how many people dislike it simply because they wanted a 'happy ending'

I was surprised to see no mention of space magic, OP. Or, as it's more often known, science fiction.

[txgoldrush]

JC_aka_fps_john wrote...

+1

I love how worked up the whiners get about this. Yes, there are legitimate reasons to dislike the ending (plotholes, lackluster Priority:Earth, interchangable colour cutscenes) but it's remarkable how many people dislike it simply because they wanted a 'happy ending'

I was surprised to see no mention of space magic, OP. Or, as it's more often known, science fiction.

and the legitimate complaints have been addressed for the most part.

The fact is that gamers simply hate subversive endings.

Oh yeah forgot about space magic.....which is also really stupid criticism.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 24 novembre 2012 - 11:20 .

[LieutenantSarcasm]

txgoldrush wrote...

or maybe that the final choice is very morally grey and that you aren't recognizing this.

And its not forced suicide, its sacrifice.

Unfortunately, while grey choices have always been in the game, there has also always been white and black choices you can earn. You can't in the end. That right there is the single greatest flaw of the ending : It has more railroading than amtrak. Forgive the plot issues, forgive how sudden of a swerve it is. No, mentioning the main antagonist in one line maybe 30 minutes before you meet him in a game as long as this is not true foreshadowing. If you want to learn forshadowing, watch fight club or play Spec Ops: the line. The biggest issue is that the true black and white options are missing. (Refusal isn't even a proper black option as it always fails, renegade options aren't auto-fail options.) If you try to claim that this breaks from the formula, the formula is why people liked and bought the game. 

[Applepie_Svk]

txgoldrush wrote...

AshenShug4r wrote...

This thread is an abomination.

The dumb fanbase is an even bigger abomination.

All it can handle is the same Biowarian formula of the same plots, the same character archtypes, and the same black and white morality.

Thanks to dumb fanbase you have extended cut...

[archangel1996]

txgoldrush wrote...

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?

Not everything has to be explained.....

Thanks for the answer

[Cashmoney007]

Another one of these huh? lol

Pro-enders: How dare you not understand what the ending is! It is real simple to figure out!

Anti-enders: So your saying we can't have a different opinion than yours? How dare us not like the star child?

These topics are quite funny. Keep them coming!

[Massa FX]

I think depressing endings are overrated.

I wanted the chance to work for that good ending and it wasn't possible. Nothing I do changes those choices and outcomes. This is what is painful. I think potholes and auto dialog and other complaints are harped on by players that ultimately wanted a more rewarding outcome... headcannon is NOT how this trilogy should end.

er... plotholes not potholes!

Modifié par Massa FX, 24 novembre 2012 - 11:33 .

[Massa FX]

txgoldrush wrote...

AshenShug4r wrote...

This thread is an abomination.

The dumb fanbase is an even bigger abomination.

All it can handle is the same Biowarian formula of the same plots, the same character archtypes, and the same black and white morality.

play more Bioware games. in DA:O my warden sacrificed herself to save everyone. But then my next character didnt have too and the next had an even different ending. thats what makes Bioware better. choices leading to unique endings based on your decisions. in me2 players can do loyalty missions or not... who dies or lives is an outcome that can change... not static. yes... i expected that same dynamic conclusion for the trilogy ending.

Modifié par Massa FX, 24 novembre 2012 - 11:48 .

[admcmei]

Hi, just wanted to be the rational guy who dislikes the ending generally but thinks EC and Leviathan do a good enough job of giving it some of the depth it lacked. Leviathan especially, gives the kind of big foreshadowing and contextualization it needed. So yeah, in the end I think it really just needed an explanation a little bit of preparation before. Now I'm kinda ok with it. The only complaint I have is that refuse should have been fleshed out a bit more.
But by now I'm fed up of both pro and anti-enders.

[LieutenantSarcasm]

admcmei wrote...

Hi, just wanted to be the rational guy who dislikes the ending generally but thinks EC and Leviathan do a good enough job of giving it some of the depth it lacked. Leviathan especially, gives the kind of big foreshadowing and contextualization it needed. So yeah, in the end I think it really just needed an explanation a little bit of preparation before. Now I'm kinda ok with it. The only complaint I have is that refuse should have been fleshed out a bit more.
But by now I'm fed up of both pro and anti-enders.

They went a long way, and did clean it up quite a bit. It's still has core flaws, and leviathan cannot really be counted. It's not only DLC, but paid DLC at that. You cannot sell an integral part of the story as seperate content. I mean, you can, but no-one is going to take you seriously when to talk about complete stories anymore.

[jstme]

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.

The real ending IS flawed.
Mentioning something is not foreshadowing if it does not prepare readers (or viewers or players) for the development itself.
Compare "foreshadowing" the Reaper king  vs foreshadowing Sovereign as a real master of Saren and Geth. Even though you are clearly among the elite that "get" the ending, i am 100% certain that in your first playthrough kid and its babbling were a complete surprise to you. Also, read the script drafts. Even Javik was considered to be a possible Catalyst half way in game development. Great basis for foreshadowing when part of the game is finished with totally different idea for the central figure in mind.

Deus Ex thing... I will leave to scholars. All i can say i would prefer conventional victory. And do not go "impossibru!" on me. They wrote the synthesis in. Nothing is impossible.

Clashing with previous theme, breaking the narrative cohesion and completely abandoning role playing - oh yes it does all that.
Find me a "No you can't" from some mega-villain after which Shepard does not answer with a bullet between the tubes but with "i don't know".
Find me one Shepard's speech or a dialogue in which control and synthesis are the way to stop the reapers.  
Find me part of ME in which fatalysm ,misery and depression are the desired emotions.
Find me a moment in which non-injured rest of the squad willingly abandons Shepard and flies away for no reason. Normandy medevac is simply hilariously stupid. In the game where companions were a major theme Shepard must walk alone for the sake of Art , Symbolism and bad feeling .


The motives of Catalyst are stupid:

Sure they are.
It saves organic life by killing off advanced organic life so it will not create synthetics that will kill all organic life.
Galaxy has hundreds of millions of stars. There are enormous number of galaxies. Universe is infinite. Even if Catalyst assumption is correct (which is not the case) its solution does nothing in the great scheme of things because somewhere in the universe synthetics already are killing all organic life and they will get to the reaped galaxy due to Synthetics being derpy stupid and herpy murderous. 
Speaking about stupid and murderous - synthetics will advance much more faster then organics so in a short time even most advanced organic life will be no more threat to them then sheep to us. There is nothing that will justify wasting enormous resources and traveling all over the galaxy to kill amoeba or Turians because both are no real threat.
Finally - you writing on the internet vs all organic life on Earth being killed by rampaging synthetics millions of years ago kind of proves in vivo that ideas behind Catalyst are moronic. And do not say that it is bad programming by Leviathans when it clearly is bad writing by Bioware.

Catalyst creating conditions for Shepard to appear and provide the solution to the problem is hilariously silly assumption considering that refuse consequences - look ,it was done even without Shepard. If this was indeed the intention - it is also bad writing. 
Only you can do it! But it can be done without you too. 
And it shows that Catalyst was written as some kind of a Deus. And it is a machine. What was you said about Deus ex machine?
In any case,writing an ending to a trilogy that will drive people away from being able to replay the trilogy is a flaw in itself. Besides Le Art thing video games are part of enterntainment industry and Mass Effect series were never a derpressing emo-like revelling in mysery fatalyst kind of art. Until the ending to ME3.

[Archonsg]

txgoldrush wrote...

Archonsg wrote...

ME3's ending could be okay, or even passable *if* ME3 was an adventure game without player input from the start as to *how* Shepard would act. That is not true for the ME series.

In fact, as long as I am willing to overlook the fact that Shepard commits a forced suicide of choice, my *Renegade* Shepard would see no problems choosing Control or Destroy in principal.

Synthesis is still abhorrent.

However, I can't condone suicide as a means to an end and I am surprised that Bioware wants this as the underlying message in their blockbuster AAA game.

Also, my Paragon Shepards are left in the cold. There are simply no choice, other than Refusal. And that as we all know is as much a middle finger as it is an extended "critical failure" ending.

So, while you might be happy with what you have, I and many others are not, considering we still have an incomplete game, especially for an RPG.

or maybe that the final choice is very morally grey and that you aren't recognizing this.

And its not forced suicide, its sacrifice.

I think you missed the part where I clearly said my Renegade Shepards would have no issues with the principles behind Control and Destroy endings.

I am aware just how morally grey the ending is.

However, as a victim of a suicide, and yes, I had (they have passed on) family who sacrificed for thier country, trust me, when someone tells you at a point of a gun to accept a method of death that forwards his or in this case its agenda, it is a forced suicide, not sacrifice.

For you see, neither Shepard nor the Player is given a choice, NOT being the key word here and nor on his or her own accord to be able to choose if Shepard is to die or live.
That is the very defination of "forced suicide".

But please, do not belittle those who do not see as you do.
It doesn't reflect well on you.

ps; edits because proof reading when posting from a phone is hard.

Modifié par Archonsg, 24 novembre 2012 - 12:15 .