514 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

txgoldrush wrote...

No, you are simply ignorant who IGNORE the things the story is telling you. literally, you people ignore clear apsects of the games story to fit your argument...its amazing.

And once again, the ending FITS the series themes, you just don't get it or made one up in your head that really isn't present.

Fact: Ending things on your terms is NOT one of the main themes, in fact its the opposite...the INABILITY to do so is a major theme.

No.

Throughout the trilogy one of the major theme was finding your own path, and shaping your own destiny.  Another has been the strength of peaceful coexistence either as an independent entity or though mutual cooperation.

The endings do none of this.  You aren't finding your own destiny, you're using the Crucible as a shortcut.  You aren't creating coexistence, you're imposing it by either wiping out one side completely, forcing it with a "big stick" or forcibly merging all sides "for their own good"  It's a betrayal of everything the games stood for.  Everything Shepard fought for was a lie;

[Favourite store on the CitadeI]

Yesmar wrote...

I thought we knew the motives of the Reapers in Mass effect 2.
Thessia was near the end of the game about ~3 missions before meeting the catalyst.
Yeah great vague foreshadowing.


The catalyst doesn't actually need Shepard to help him, he is content without his help.
Introduced Logically? It makes no sense all of it, we were merely fed "These people made it" without any explanation as to how the **** they even knew to incorporate it into the Citadel let alone the technology behind it.
It makes no sense.
Turtles made it and they're keeping it in place.


Overload has very little to do with the Catalysts motives.
The Synthetics that killed Organics had different motives than the synthetics after the Leviathans time.
The catalyst was built under a false pretense about Synthetics.
Leviathans don't even know why Synthetics killed Organics, they have very little knowledge.
Shepard could beat them in a debate.
The Catalyst can't even explain the Crucible, yeah lots of knowledge there.


Lack of closure of Shepard and his friends and people he helped.
Lack of closure for the galaxy, lack of closure for the Reapers.

Lack of choices having an impact on how things play out.
We only got 1 ending in with the game, only difference was the color.
EC didn't give enough closure to anything it just merely showed pictures of random s**t.
I mean are this pictures suppose make me feel satisfied after a 100 hours career across the 3 games? Well they didn't because they were poorly done.
Overall this game is just awful.

Yeah the biggest issue for me was the lack of closure and the introduction to the cayalyst. Surprise visit from the Illusive Man? I can deal with that. The unnecessary death of Anderson just for emotion? Yeah, I can deal with that too - well, just about. But the lack of closure with characters who I've spent the last 5 years for getting to know and the sudden introduction to a mediocre ending? (hey I thought we were gonna get something fantastic) Nope. I geared myself up for a fantastic end to an amazing trilogy. But alas, it's obvious that BW bit off more than they could chew. Too much was changed which needn't have been changed. This is evident in the fact that the missions weren't gratifying enough, in comparison to ME1 or even ME2.

The fact that we aren't even getting any post ending DLC to compensate for the original lack of closure is extremely annoying

[Nightwriter]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

Its sort of weird how pro and anti enders have diverged into sort of their own coalitions.

It's not weird at all... it's just the kind of 'polarization' Casey Hudson believes will make his Art 'not forgettable'. We are but the materials he fashions his monument to himself out of. 

I don't sense much arrogance from him.

It's hard to sense much of anything when all he says is a bunch of approved PR stuff he sounds like he's had to memorize, really.

PR looks hard. Sometimes I wish he would just snap and yell something genuine. "Look, I f*cking get it, okay?! You hated the ending! What the f*ck do you expect me to do about it now?! We've played our hand!! What do you want from me?! AAAGGHH!!!"

I'd be like, "OMG HE'S A HUMAN BEING AFTER ALL, MAYBE I SHOULD STOP BEING SUCH A JACKASS."

[Reorte]

Andromidius wrote...

And only gives this option if you have enough war assets.  And if you have very little it may only give you the option to destroy it.

Yeah, makes a tonne of sense there.  Its totally not suspitious or sinister, and we can totally trust the motives of a machine that's been apperently organising the butchering and defilement of trillions of lives for the last billion years.  He's totally legit and not psychotic at all.

Seriously, listen to yourself.  Please, for your sake.

Although largely disagreeing with just about everything txgoldrush says the Catalyst gives the impression of being honest in its own way, just completely misinformed and delusional (which is entirely possible for a logical being when its logic is built on very shaky foundations). I feel that it believes what it says, it's just what it says sounds very far-fetched and it provides no corroborating evidence to back it up.

[ghost9191]

txgoldrush wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

believe the simple . and reason they fixed it . is because for a end to a trilogy and shepards story . the ending lacked closure . it was abrupt.

that is the simple and probably main reason. EC kinda fixed that but the ending is still flawed. logic is off . the catalyst does contradict itself and some of the lore . it seemed ( which it was ) that it was written by a completely different group . without outside input

those are simple though, ending is still flawed , and probably not the best way to end a trilogy . just seems like a cop out


but hey just because you like the ending. doesn't mean everyone will . and they have opinions too . respect it , or don't idc

The fact is that the Catalyst is MADE to be contradictory....it is its own problem its trying to fix. Both the Catalyst and the Leviathans are unaware that they are both the problems they are trying to fix.

yeah i know. i was talking about pre EC . most of the problems i mentioned were the simple ones that ppl brought up that made EC happen

the ending is still kinda flawed for some reasons . but some ( as you can see from the which is paragon\\renegade threads ) just want a clear "good" ending . none really make shepard seem like a hero to most i guess

that is just what i gathered from most though .  i personally am unsure why i dislike the ending. wish i liked it lol but can't . suppose i should put thought into why one day

[BD Manchild]

Holy Christ, I have never seen a collection of strawman arguments, headcanon and just plain loves-the-smell-of-his-own-farts claptrap all gathered in one place as the original post. Your entire post, which can be summed up to read "You just don't get" is insulting and wrong, and I'm not even going to waste my time trying to provide counter-arguments; evidently a lot of other people have tried just to be met with the same old "You're just an anti-ender and therefore a moron" response.

Modifié par BD Manchild, 24 novembre 2012 - 08:53 .

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

Its sort of weird how pro and anti enders have diverged into sort of their own coalitions.

It's not weird at all... it's just the kind of 'polarization' Casey Hudson believes will make his Art 'not forgettable'. We are but the materials he fashions his monument to himself out of. 

I don't sense much arrogance from him.

It's hard to sense much of anything when all he says is a bunch of approved PR stuff he sounds like he's had to memorize, really.

PR looks hard. Sometimes I wish he would just snap and yell something genuine. "Look, I f*cking get it, okay?! You hated the ending! What the f*ck do you expect me to do about it now?! We've played our hand!! What do you want from me?! AAAGGHH!!!"

I'd be like, "OMG HE'S A HUMAN BEING AFTER ALL, MAYBE I SHOULD STOP BEING SUCH A JACKASS."

That would be right before the tranq dart hits him in the neck and he gets hauled away by guys in suits and dark glasses.

[N7 Shadow 90]

Great post OP!

[Steelcan]

OP, I don't know what your problem is, but every single thing you mention in the OP is a valid criticism of the endings.

[111987]

Andromidius wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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

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

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

So yeah, stop this nonsense.

It's called foreshadowing...

[Mcfly616]

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.

I like this human....have to respect someone with a quad


Also, nice post.

[Steelcan]

And the argument that people complain about the ending because they are too stupid to understand it is both insulting and wrong.

[TheRealJayDee]

Steelcan wrote...

And the argument that people complain about the ending because they are too stupid to understand it is both insulting and wrong.

Yet it seems to be one of the few arguments there are, as it is repeated in many such discussions.

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 24 novembre 2012 - 08:55 .

[Steelcan]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

And the argument that people complain about the ending because they are too stupid to understand it is both insulting and wrong.

Yet it seems to be one of the few arguments there is, as it is repeated in many such discussions.

Because pro Enders know they have to fall back on it, they don't have enough arguments to avoid falling back on this.

[Applepie_Svk]

Reorte wrote...

Sure, always at some cost but that's simply down to it being war. You're still ultimately standing triumphant against all the odds and, quite honestly, with very, very little cost. Are you seriously trying to suggest that it's either "Victory through sacrifice" or "everyone escapes without a scratch"? Is every single war story where someone, anyone, dies running with a sacrifice theme? Hey, that was the theme for Star Wars I suppose. Some X-Wing pilots died in the attack on the Death Star.

This has changed with last ME, you could saw people jumping on the bomb, people using lift on damamged structure, people throwing themselves into mutated rachni, people dying due to Kai´Lame, people dying in frontal assault to conduit being smashed by Harbinger etc etc... I think that pilots Kamikadze would appreciate this simulator of - DIE NO MATTER FOR WHAT CAUSE... but here is thought, each of these people were sure about the outcome and cause itself, but Shepard have to flip the coin and start hoping that little ****** saying truth otherwise he died for nothing and he left galaxy on mercy of genocidal maniac.

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 24 novembre 2012 - 08:59 .

[Reorte]

DirtyMouthSally wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

And the argument that people complain about the ending because they are too stupid to understand it is both insulting and wrong.

If you feel that you have to defend your personal taste, then it's a self-esteem issue. 

If someone said "Yep, it's full of all the flaws you mention but for some strange reason I like it anyway" then it would be simply a matter of personal taste. What we're dealing with here are people who are in denial about the flaws.

[Someone With Mass]

txgoldrush wrote...
And once again, the ending FITS the series themes, you just don't get it or made one up in your head that really isn't present.

Yeah, no.

The theme with the endings throughout the trilogy, if anything, is that there's always another way out and that Shepard achieves his/her victory by his/her own hands.

In ME3, Shepard only "wins" because the Catalyst lets him/her do it. It's nothing Shepard accomplished. Shepard is merely a tool for the Catalyst.

Not to mention that Shepard just accepts the Catalyst's word about tossing away his/her life to save the galaxy without any assurance whatsoever that it'd work or any kind of realistic doubts besides a few questions that the Catalyst can with ease lie about.

Or being able to call BS on the Catalyst's hilariously broken logic, for that matter, since you don't need to have a PhD in biology to know that there's no such thing as a final form of evolution.

The Crucible's ability to radically change its primary function because some holographic twit tells it to is also rather unbelievable.

By the way, what happened to that little theme of Shepard having his/her team by their side at the final battle? Oh, right. That got abandoned because of art or some pretentious crap like that.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 24 novembre 2012 - 09:01 .

[dorktainian]

jeez. nice post OP. I don't agree with it but you have the right to say it.

it singlehandedly blows away any reason for having mass effect one at all (Sovereign.....remember him?).

To argue that starbrat was foreshadowed is utter poppycock. since no one has ever mentioned him at all....as far as you know harbinger is the boss dude.

there are many theories doin the rounds on the forums at the moment as to actually what did happen.... maybe they should be all binned because you hit the nail right on the head.... yes hail savior you have made us see the light....

Oh and on a storytelling stucture front OP it is flawed. Read some storywriting basics and then sell me mass effect 3. It's impossible. Its all in the wrong place. The structure could be bettered by a 5 year old.

Lazy Writing coupled with intense pressure for a release = bad game.

[111987]

Someone With Mass wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
And once again, the ending FITS the series themes, you just don't get it or made one up in your head that really isn't present.

Yeah, no.

The theme with the endings throughout the trilogy, if anything, is that there's always another way out and that Shepard achieves his/her victory by his/her own hands.

In ME3, Shepard only "wins" because the Catalyst lets him/her do it. It's nothing Shepard accomplished.

Not to mention that Shepard just accepts the Catalyst's word about tossing away his/her life to save the galaxy without any assurance whatsoever that it'd work or any kind of realistic doubts besides a few questions that the Catalyst can with ease lie about.

Or being able to call BS on the Catalyst's hilariously broken logic, for that matter, since you don't need to have a PhD in biology to know that there's no such thing as a final form of evolution.

The Crucible's ability to radically change its primary function because some holographic twit tells it to is also rather unbelievable.

By the way, what happened to that little theme of Shepard having his/her team by their side at the final battle? Oh, right. That got abandoned because of art or some pretentious crap like that.

Really? Shepard accomplished nothing in Mass Effect 3?

If it wasn't for him, the Crucible never could have been built in the first place. if it wasn't for him, they never could have amassed a fleet large enough to even reach Earth, If it wasn't for everything he had accomplished before, he couldn't have reached the Catalyst and 'altered the variables.'

Final evolution of life might not be an invalid statement if the technology perfects organics and is incapable of evolution itself. Machinery does not evolve. It all depends on the specifics of Synthesis.

The Crucible's primary function is unknown; all we know before the Catalyst is that it can release enough energy to destroy the Reapers. That's literally it.

Having squadmates at your side is not a theme. In any case, you did have them at the final battle. Shepard is the one who makes the decisions anyways, so having squadmates there really wouldn't have improved anything.

[FIN-Olmi]

 What was wrong in catalyst?
It being modeled and sound like a little kid.
Come on. I defeated Sovereign. I defeated Collectors. I defeated the Shadow broker. I defeated two reaper destroyers with and without a help from Kalros.
I don't want some whiny, Darwin Award 2186 winning kid telling me what to do and give me the endings (death)


I don't want to take orders from, and get bested by this:

[Steelcan]

Reorte wrote...

DirtyMouthSally wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

And the argument that people complain about the ending because they are too stupid to understand it is both insulting and wrong.

If you feel that you have to defend your personal taste, then it's a self-esteem issue. 

If someone said "Yep, it's full of all the flaws you mention but for some strange reason I like it anyway" then it would be simply a matter of personal taste. What we're dealing with here are people who are in denial about the flaws.

I feel the same way about ME3 in general, I will criticize it and slam certain parts of, but I keep playing it.

[Nightwriter]

iakus wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

Its sort of weird how pro and anti enders have diverged into sort of their own coalitions.

It's not weird at all... it's just the kind of 'polarization' Casey Hudson believes will make his Art 'not forgettable'. We are but the materials he fashions his monument to himself out of. 

I don't sense much arrogance from him.

It's hard to sense much of anything when all he says is a bunch of approved PR stuff he sounds like he's had to memorize, really.

PR looks hard. Sometimes I wish he would just snap and yell something genuine. "Look, I f*cking get it, okay?! You hated the ending! What the f*ck do you expect me to do about it now?! We've played our hand!! What do you want from me?! AAAGGHH!!!"

I'd be like, "OMG HE'S A HUMAN BEING AFTER ALL, MAYBE I SHOULD STOP BEING SUCH A JACKASS."

That would be right before the tranq dart hits him in the neck and he gets hauled away by guys in suits and dark glasses.

I know, right? Poor guy. Sometimes I wish someone would just record him discreetly, the way they stealth recorded Obama talking informally about how Kanye West was a jackass for the Taylor Swift incident. Then I would know Casey's true thoughts! Oh the knowledge. The sweet, genuine, human knowledge.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 24 novembre 2012 - 09:32 .

[jstme]

txgoldrush wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

believe the simple . and reason they fixed it . is because for a end to a trilogy and shepards story . the ending lacked closure . it was abrupt.

that is the simple and probably main reason. EC kinda fixed that but the ending is still flawed. logic is off . the catalyst does contradict itself and some of the lore . it seemed ( which it was ) that it was written by a completely different group . without outside input

those are simple though, ending is still flawed , and probably not the best way to end a trilogy . just seems like a cop out


but hey just because you like the ending. doesn't mean everyone will . and they have opinions too . respect it , or don't idc

The fact is that the Catalyst is MADE to be contradictory....it is its own problem its trying to fix. Both the Catalyst and the Leviathans are unaware that they are both the problems they are trying to fix.

If Catalyst was written to be "ironically" broken ,it is even worse writing then i thought. You are FORCED to pick a way of action presented to you by broken AI whose previous solution applied without any second thought for so long is ironically pointless since it is self-contradictory. 
You sure you protect the endings? Ideas about Catalyst cycles designed to create messaia Shepard and intentionally ironically contradictory logic make the mess actually look worse - which is hard.