514 réponses à ce sujet

[archangel1996]

People doesn't like EC beacuse it's good, people likes it because it gives them an ending that is a little bit better
To me, they can explain s**t but it still remains s**t

Modifié par archangel1996, 24 novembre 2012 - 11:56 .

[EnvyTB075]

ITT: You just like, don't get it mayn.


In the same way that Athiests learn about the Bible to discredit those who use it as word of law to marginalise certain sectors of society, people who analyse the crap out of the plot of the Mass Effect 3 DO actually get it. Your blind refusal to acknowledge their legitimate points on the basis that you can't handle any sort of criticism is the problem, and its hilarious.

Continue, court jester, continue!

Modifié par EnvyTB075, 24 novembre 2012 - 12:02 .

[Dr_Extrem]

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.

what a nice person you are ...

the catalyst was foreshadowed as a part of the crucible. vendetta mentions on thessia, that he knows what the catalyst is. later he clarifies, that the citadel is the catalyst - but only on cronos station.


vendetta:

the vi makes guesses - it guesses, that the reapers are servants of the cycle and not its masters - he states, that it is not known who the master behind the cycle is. at the end of the thessia conversation, he offers his help to communicate with the catalyst - at this point, we still do not know what the catalyst is.

now we know, that the catalyst is "something" and that there seems to be a master behind the reapers. the catalyst and the "master" are two different things at this point.

on cronos station, vendetta reveals that the citadel is the catalyst - the big space station. still no clue that leads to the ancient master-ai.


leviathan:

the leviathans only mention, that the reapers were created by an ancient ai. they do not hint any connection to the citadel or the catalyst. they only make vague statements on the reapers origin. 


you can only see the loose ends connecting, during the conversation with the catalyst itself, at the very end of the game.


during the game, the catalyst and the ai are two completely different things, independent from each other. you only know that they are the same, if you are metagaming. in retrospec, it is clear - but not if you play the game for the first time.


the starchild is the very definition of a deus ex machina. it even "elevates" you to its realm of existance - like an old greek god who takes you to the olymp. it would be funny if it was not such a bad plot-tool.

[Ameno Xiel]

Aw man...why is this still discussed?
I hate the ending too and raged for a few weeks but come on...can't we agree to differ?
People that like the ending be content with it, people who don't like it put effort and support in fanworks like mods to create a new one.
Be done with it and just hope(and this goes for everyone) that Bioware never does such a thing again that splits a whole community....I'm sick of it!

[nstar]

Massa FX wrote...

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!

This is what I agree with.

I can see where the OP is coming from. I think they're absolutely correct in how they state that for the Catalyst, the ideal solution was synthesis. Synthesis had been part of the Reaper's MO since day one - husks, Saren, the Collectors (synthesised Protheans) and a few other occurrances. They lacked the ability to conduct synthesis on a galaxy-wide scale, hence favoured harvesting organic life instead as their secondary solution. 

But, I don't care for the ending. Starkid is operating based on his programming; programming which is shown to have taken a Swiss cheese approach to security as shown by the fact that the Leviathans never thought that "preserve life no matter what" could possibly lead to the threat they unleashed. I don't believe that the Catalyst is presenting all the choices - only those choices that fit in with his ideology that he has arrived at through his own calculations based on information that we are not entirely privy to. 

I also believe the Catalyst is lying. He touts synthesis as his perfect solution and talks it up, ignoring that virtually every example of synthesis has been shown to be bad. He talks up synthesis but doesn't relate it to his own ideology of establishing order amongst chaos. 

And anything that has been created can be destroyed. We can create the most complex machines and eradicate them instantly. The Leviathans created the AI that created the Reapers, yet seemed incapable of destroying it. They must, however, know how that AI was created and as such how to undo that creation but this information is never properly revealed. We know that they did it, we know why they did it (no matter how ridiculous their reason for doing it) but we aren't told how they did it - and if we were told how they did it, we could undo it. No one, not Shepard, not Liara and not even the Leviathans seem to understand this. 

But overall, as much as the ending may provide discussion material, I didn't like it. The thematic concept of ME1 and 2 was one of overcoming all odds in achieving victory. I can understand the argument that this is a war, people die, sacrifices will be made etc. (heck, playing CoH last night with a friend I sacrificed 5 tanks trying to punch a hole in an enemy base to stop their production of Panzers) but it is also an RPG (regardless of how many RPG elements people feel the game did away with by ME3) and one in which my character was her own person - the choices presented at the end are all a direct sacrifice of who that person was, and I didn't care for that.

If Shepard has to die, so be it. The death of Shepard was not an ideal outcome but it would have been one I could have tolerated as it has happened in other games where the player's character dies for a greater good. In this case though, there isn't that much good. Destroy is likely the least dire of outcomes but it still eradicates a sentient race (assuming the Catalyst is telling the truth). Control is becoming a dictator and as benevolent/paragon as Shepard may or may not have been, a dictator rarely considers what they do to be bad. Synthesis is just horrific - after fighting for people's rights to determine their own path (also in conflict with control), to force them to accept wholesale change when virtually every example of that change has shown to be a horrible thing is barbaric and might even just lead to mass indoctrination. And of course, refusal - we know what happens there.

There is no win, for me. Just a bunch of options with some nasties attached and a choice. ME1 and ME2 allowed a victory, but ME3 does not. That is why I was disappointed with the ending. From a game that promised alternate endings based on decisions, and dare I say foreshadowed that throughout the series, to learn there is absolutely nothing that I can do to alter that outcome was disappointing. 

Furthermore, and I admit this is more a personal preference than anything else, I do tire of endings that purposely choose to leave things open ended. It isn't clever and it is as much a cliche as anything else. To me, it smacks of desperation - of a creator being unable to resolve their own creations and so throwing something there so that the consumers can fill in their own blanks. Shepard's breath - dead or not? I want to know and I want to know from the people who created the game because I invested my time and money into it. I shouldn't have to "headcannon" anything because that, to me, is not a fulfilling outcome but then, in fairness, I didn't find ME3 to have a fulfilling outcome so perhaps that was the point. There was no uplift of joy, no sense of accomplishment, no thrill as with ME1 and 2... just a lot of "huh" and numbness to the ending.

[Dr_Extrem]

Ameno Xiel wrote...

Aw man...why is this still discussed?
I hate the ending too and raged for a few weeks but come on...can't we agree to differ?
People that like the ending be content with it, people who don't like it put effort and support in fanworks like mods to create a new one.
Be done with it and just hope(and this goes for everyone) that Bioware never does such a thing again that splits a whole community....I'm sick of it!

totally agreed !

it would be nice, if they would fill some of the holes too. if they do not, well .. there are at least some nice mods out there.


but bioware has to earn my trust again.

i only brought me3, because it is the last part of the series - i knew of the endigs before and i thought "i cant be that ugly. the people are exaggerating" - i was wrong.

[Someone With Mass]

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.....

Yes, it does. You can't tell me that Shepard did a Felix Baumgartner and survived without any safety equipment whatsoever.

There's suspension of disbelief and then there's the stuff they're just pulling out of their asses.

[LieutenantSarcasm]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Yes, it does. You can't tell me that Shepard did a Felix Baumgartner and survived without any safety equipment whatsoever.

There's suspension of disbelief and then there's the stuff they're just pulling out of their asses.

I was more baffled at him surviving the explosion than re-entry. Any explosion large enough to tear apart the citadel (Which can survive nuclear weaponry) would be vastly more energetic than any re-entry.

[Someone With Mass]

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.

If you're seriously trying to tell us that these endings and the "yo dawg" logic of the antagonists are a good way for BioWare to turn to, then your credibility goes out the window.

Also, the fan base doesn't seem to be able to handle pretentiousness more than anything.

Which is exactly what these endings are. They're trying to be on par with other stories that have achieved great praise and a place as prime examples of immersible and consistent writing without putting any effort into it and then pretends that they are in a really sad and prideful way.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 24 novembre 2012 - 12:37 .

[legion999]

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.

Loghain, Revan, Saren and The Warden. They aren't “black and white".

Who do we have in ME3 though? TIM, the Catalyst and Kai Leng. Yeah, eally ‘grey' characters.

Modifié par legion999, 24 novembre 2012 - 12:40 .

[Someone With Mass]

LieutenantSarcasm wrote...

I was more baffled at him surviving the explosion than re-entry. Any explosion large enough to tear apart the citadel (Which can survive nuclear weaponry) would be vastly more energetic than any re-entry.

That too.

It would have been rather easy for Shepard to find an escape vehicle if the master control console had been in the same place as it was in ME1.

Oh, and if the Destroy ending wasn't activated by random explosions, since that symbolizes destruction. Yeah. Destroy the components the Crucible needs to maintain a connection with the Citadel, which apparently activates its firing mechanisms. Seems legit.

[Someone With Mass]

J. Reezy wrote...
TIM "grey"? Lol.

Yeah, he's about as grey as his suit.

[FlamingBoy]

OP, this is just junk and the argument is junk

[Twinzam.V]

legion999 wrote...

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.

Loghain, Revan, Saren and The Warden. They aren't ‘black and white'.

Who do we have in ME3 though? TIM, the Catalyst and Kai Leng. Really ‘grey' characters.

I thought Kai Leng was the comic relief. 

[LieutenantSarcasm]

Someone With Mass wrote...

That too.

It would have been rather easy for Shepard to find an escape vehicle if the master control console had been in the same place as it was in ME1.

Oh, and if the Destroy ending wasn't activated by random explosions, since that symbolizes destruction. Yeah. Destroy the components the Crucible needs to maintain a connection with the Citadel, which apparently activates its firing mechanisms. Seems legit.

Let's not forget the unparalled genius of walking towards the aformentioned explosions. Maybe EDI projected a hard light shield around him for the blast? (Your avatar made that comment too easy)

[Nightwriter]

Liamv2 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Liamv2 wrote...

I am a pro ender but i don't think those are the reasons just wait

These are the criticisms I most saw on all the message boards on the net.

Really? i normally hear about the illusive man coming from nowhere

I haven't heard that one. Mostly it's just the Catalyst. Of course, while the headline of the complaint is as OP states, the body of it is misrepresented.

For instance, OP says the critics are saying a "Reaper master" came out of nowhere. Not really true. We actually wanted to confront a Reaper master.

What we actually say is that a glowing hologram godchild from our PTSD dreams who is actually the Reaper commander on a noble mission to turn organic life into peach preserves and has btw been squatting on the Citadel since game one totally not evil though when fire burns is it at war pick red blue or green look at the stars my sweet! -- came out of nowhere.

And that is only one aspect of the whole "really didn't fit" complaint.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 24 novembre 2012 - 01:53 .

[Someone With Mass]

LieutenantSarcasm wrote...

Let's not forget the unparalled genius of walking towards the aformentioned explosions. Maybe EDI projected a hard light shield around him for the blast? (Your avatar made that comment too easy)

Nah. A wizard Mass effect fields did it. 

[archangel1996]

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

Modifié par archangel1996, 24 novembre 2012 - 12:54 .

[LieutenantSarcasm]

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

If it wasn't obvious already, harby and shep are total BFFs. And besides that, it would be purely ungentlemanly to take that shot, and they won't stand for that in london.

[Archonsg]

Potholes made by plotholes made driving Miss Narrative an impossible task.

[Mixon]

archangel1996 wrote...

People doesn't like EC beacuse it's good, people likes it because it gives them an ending that is a little bit better
To me, they can explain s**t but it still remains s**t

this^

[Ultranovae]

Here I'll bring my bowl of popcorn and get started:
So some of you wanted a happy ending right?
How do you get any happier than synthesis. It is literally an everybody lived happily ever after ending.
The whole galaxy becomes a utopia of understanding and unity and progress and your character, yes your character, the one you will never play with again, becomes a martyr, a symbol, a legend.


OP, I never thought of that reversal of the deus ex machina archetype where it is actually the protagonist who becomes the solution to the main conflict. It's brilliant in a literary sense.
I liked the endings but they aren't perfect. It felt like the conflict was never about synthetics and organics, and it was more about the multi-species conflict in the galaxy and our struggle against a force larger than life that has come for us.
Thinking about it a bit more carefully, the geth were a more prominent threat, and the whole organics v. Synthetics more emphasized in the 1st game rather than the second game.
Although since most of ME2 and ME3 were written during their respective development cycles, I guess that is not such an important detail.

[cyrslash1974]

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

Remember that Legion said in ME2 that Geths are in conflict or in war against the reapers. Shepard is not the sole anomaly, the logic of the catalyst is the anomaly. In a perfect world, EDI and the Geths have the tools to proove to the catalyst that he's mistaken. All existing synthetic life are the exception of the rule, so the logic of the catalyst is a stone-age one.

My Shepard could explain that to the catalyst. But he can't. Failure.

[cyrslash1974]

However I respect the point of view of the pro-enders.