209 réponses à ce sujet

[Kildin_of_the_Volus]

The plot changes from:
Stop the reapers through the means in which you (Shepard) chose

To:
Solve the tension between organics and synthetics because some godchild says the two groups are doomed to always kill each other. Even when the narrative proves the opposite.

[BleedingUranium]

It depends on your perspective. To some, they're the worst thing ever created, but to others they are the best thing that's ever happened in a video game. I'm in the latter group.

[I WANT YOU TO FUCK ME JERY]

Because I didn't get my snuggly wuggly sexy time at the end.

[Dr_Extrem]

what is the difference between heroic death and forced suicide.

the hero has the choice not to do it. shepard does not have this luxury.


i cant understand how people can see heroism, in giving in to a hostage-taker.

[Jadebaby]

Spartan6606 wrote...
Hes kinda right though only big fans usually use meesage boards

Yes, but not all big fans hate the ending.

[Fur28]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

what is the difference between heroic death and forced suicide.

the hero has the choice not to do it. shepard does not have this luxury.


i cant understand how people can see heroism, in giving in to a hostage-taker.

And even when we do have the choice(Refuse). It feels more like Bioware saying "You dont like my art(ending), well you die, please try again and with some paid DLC"

[BleedingUranium]

Fur28 wrote...

And even when we do have the choice(Refuse). It feels more like Bioware saying "You dont like my art(ending), well you die, please try again and with some paid DLC"

That's exactly what Refuse is, but you say it like it's a bad thing. It's "Congratulations, you didn't understand the rules of the game".

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 03 janvier 2013 - 09:30 .

[aM1ty]

I watched the other three EC endings and I can see why people would be displeased with all of those, I kind of liked destroy because it hinted that Shepard was maybe alive but other than that they were quite stupid. I'm extremely glad I got the best ending, the best ending in my opinion. Which one of those endings were officially canon? With ME4 coming around the corner and possibly being a sequel what the hell would Bioware continue off of?

[Kazzuuk]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Spartan6606 wrote...
Hes kinda right though only big fans usually use meesage boards

Yes, but not all big fans hate the ending.

I completely agree, all I stated was that there will be a negative bias on an internet message board.  I did not mean to imply that every huge fan of the series hated the ending and I apologize if that is the impression I gave in my post (it's late and near my bedtime). 

[Spartan6606]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Spartan6606 wrote...
Hes kinda right though only big fans usually use meesage boards

Yes, but not all big fans hate the ending.

True but its a pretty significant group...or maybe we are just louder

[xsdob]

Kildin_of_the_Volus wrote...

The plot changes from:
Stop the reapers through the means in which you (Shepard) chose

To:
Solve the tension between organics and synthetics because some godchild says the two groups are doomed to always kill each other. Even when the narrative proves the opposite.

Oh wow. You made the geth and quarians temporarily stop killing eachother. You'll forgive me if I view this in the same skepticism as when isreal and palastine first made peace with eachother.

You proved that there is an exception to the rule, a 1 in 1 million chance, for peace. Now you need to prove that this type of peace hasn't occured before, that it won't break down over time as those who remember what it took to gain this peace die and those who take it for granted or even come to loath it come to power, and that shepard will be around forever to keep the races from killing eachother like he did in all 3 mass effect games.

Shepard is the one who gets this crap done. Whose going to be able to step up and do the same once he or she inevitably dies from simply old age?

This isn't trying to be super ****y or confrontational or antagonizing or anything like that, but I really want to know what makes people think that any of these short-term bought peaces will be sustainable or will last.

We need them to win yes, but unless someone or something is around to enforce these alliances, they are pretty much doomed to eventual collapse, just like how it is in the real world.

[Spartan6606]

aM1ty wrote...

I watched the other three EC endings and I can see why people would be displeased with all of those, I kind of liked destroy because it hinted that Shepard was maybe alive but other than that they were quite stupid. I'm extremely glad I got the best ending, the best ending in my opinion. Which one of those endings were officially canon? With ME4 coming around the corner and possibly being a sequel what the hell would Bioware continue off of?

They would most ikely continue of off destroy or control since synthesis was just so weird... I also liked the destroy the best cause at least you might make it it just doesn't seem like what my shepard would do.

[BleedingUranium]

xsdob wrote...

Kildin_of_the_Volus wrote...

The plot changes from:
Stop the reapers through the means in which you (Shepard) chose

To:
Solve the tension between organics and synthetics because some godchild says the two groups are doomed to always kill each other. Even when the narrative proves the opposite.

Oh wow. You made the geth and quarians temporarily stop killing eachother. You'll forgive me if I view this in the same skepticism as when isreal and palastine first made peace with eachother.

You proved that there is an exception to the rule, a 1 in 1 million chance, for peace. Now you need to prove that this type of peace hasn't occured before, that it won't break down over time as those who remember what it took to gain this peace die and those who take it for granted or even come to loath it come to power, and that shepard will be around forever to keep the races from killing eachother like he did in all 3 mass effect games.

Shepard is the one who gets this crap done. Whose going to be able to step up and do the same once he or she inevitably dies from simply old age?

This isn't trying to be super ****y or confrontational or antagonizing or anything like that, but I really want to know what makes people think that any of these short-term bought peaces will be sustainable or will last.

We need them to win yes, but unless someone or something is around to enforce these alliances, they are pretty much doomed to eventual collapse, just like how it is in the real world.

That's not how this works. You need to prove that the kid's so called problem actually exists, not the other way around. And there's no evidence to support that he's right, at all.

[Rodia Driftwood]

You only find the ending satisfying because you got an ending with "slightly" more closure than the one we got, and also, because you haven't seen the utter lack of difference between the three choices. They're all the same but with different colors.

The devs said the game wouldn't end with a "typical A/B/C" ending, and that's EXACTLY what we got.

Someone already mentioned the stupid deus-ex real antagonist that was introduced in the last 10 minutes of the game. This is what is known in writing as "bull****". It was poor and rushed writing that shows the level of quality you get from a AAA game being published by the worst company in America.

Oh, yeah what about the war assets that serve no purpose whatsoever? The endings are the same, the Earth mission is unchanged, and you never get to see Elcor tanks in action..

To be perfectly honest, at the beginning, I didn't hate the ending, because I was so dumbfounded by the Startroll ruining my game that I didn't even bother looking at the other endings, until they released the EC, which is when I picked refuse, and boy, I tell ya. That was like a slap across the face.

[ElSuperGecko]

Absolutely nothing, so long as you make the right choice.

[BleedingUranium]

Rodia Driftwood wrote...

The devs said the game wouldn't end with a "typical A/B/C" ending, and that's EXACTLY what we got.

And so you get mad without stopping to ask why. Curious behavior indeed.

[Kildin_of_the_Volus]

xsdob wrote...

Kildin_of_the_Volus wrote...
The plot changes from:

Stop the reapers through the means in which you
(Shepard) chose

To:

Solve the tension between organics and synthetics because some godchild says the two groups are doomed to always kill each other.  Even when the narrative proves the opposite.

Oh wow. You made the geth and quarians temporarily stop killing eachother. You'll forgive me if I view this in the same skepticism as when isreal and palastine first made peace with eachother.

You proved that there is an exception to the rule, a 1 in 1 million chance, for peace. Now you need to prove that this type of peace hasn't occured before, that it won't break down over time as those who remember what it took to gain this peace die and those who take it for granted or even come to loath it come to power, and that shepard will be around forever to keep the races from killing eachother like he did in all 3 mass effect games.

Shepard is the one who gets this crap done. Whose going to be able to step up and do the same once he or she inevitably dies from simply old age?

This isn't trying to be super ****y or confrontational or antagonizing or anything like that, but I really want to know what makes people think that any of these short-term bought peaces will be sustainable or will last.

We need them to win yes, but unless someone or something is around to enforce these alliances, they are pretty much doomed to eventual collapse, just like how it is in the real world.

Burden of proof has not been met that the supposed problem even exists.  In fact, there’s a lot of contradictory evidence present in all playthroughs to godchild’s assertion.  You’re hostility doesn’t change this either.

On your irrelevant example from real life.  So, we should simply wipe out both Israelites and Palestinians? How pleasant.  

And btw, you didn't address my main point, which was the sudden shift in the overall conflict.

Modifié par Kildin_of_the_Volus, 03 janvier 2013 - 10:00 .

[Neizd]

Simply explaining - People expected something more like Suicide Mission v.2 where you make big decisions, you choices through entire series give you variables how to fight, that you could kick Harbringer in the balls and depending on EVERYTHING from the trillogy you would get your own unique endind, not ABC that everyon gets. it is after all 100+ hours of gameplay...

What we get is this: You land, shoot some enemies, then shoot more enemies, shout STEEEEVEEE, then shoot more, then speakt to every character...their holo, instead of just having them where you are. then you shoot from a turret (what was the point?!) Then you give one speach, and then go shoot more enemies, then you defend rockets and oh look more enemies are comming. Then you run to big glowind philar and look harbringer is here to shoot at people but completly ignores the Normandy...

Priority earth: It does not offer you much. There should be more decisions, like sending squadmates here and there, there should have been some missions AND your ME2 squadmates...you should see them fight, there should be great music not some sad piano theme. In ME1 and ME2 you could be a hero. ME3 does not give you this feeling, you just choose one of three magic buttons the catalyst shows you or refuse (and loose the game by it). There was actually no point in gathering the fleets during the game if all you do in the end is press magic button of ending instead of actuall fighting and strategic decision making.

And what hurts me...we don't see Shepard finally be promoted to higher rank...

[BleedingUranium]

@Neizd

I have no clue why Priority Earth sucks so much, not even IT has an explaination for that

[Spartan6606]

Kildin_of_the_Volus wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Kildin_of_the_Volus wrote...



The plot changes from:

Stop the reapers through the means in which you
(Shepard) chose



To:

Solve the tension between organics and synthetics
because some godchild says the two groups are doomed to always kill each other.
Even when the narrative proves the opposite.

Oh wow. You made the geth and quarians temporarily
stop killing eachother. You'll forgive me if I view this in the same skepticism
as when isreal and palastine first made peace with eachother.



You proved that there is an exception to the rule,
a 1 in 1 million chance, for peace. Now you need to prove that this type of
peace hasn't occured before, that it won't break down over time as those who
remember what it took to gain this peace die and those who take it for granted
or even come to loath it come to power, and that shepard will be around forever
to keep the races from killing eachother like he did in all 3 mass effect games.



Shepard is the one who gets this crap done. Whose
going to be able to step up and do the same once he or she inevitably dies from
simply old age?



This isn't trying to be super ****y or
confrontational or antagonizing or anything like that, but I really want to
know what makes people think that any of these short-term bought peaces will be
sustainable or will last.



We need them to win yes, but unless someone or
something is around to enforce these alliances, they are pretty much doomed to
eventual collapse, just like how it is in the real world.

Burden of proof has not been
met that the supposed problem even exists. 
In fact, there’s a lot of contradictory evidence present in all playthroughs
to godchild’s assertion.  You’re
hostility doesn’t change this either.

On your irrelevant example
from real life.  So, we should simply
wipe out both Israelites and Palestinians? 
How pleasant.  

How many times have the Israelites and Palestinians moved into the same homes in the promise land and started building better homes together and agreed to share. Also who will keep the peace. People like Admiral koris and Tali, and in the Krogan exapmple Wrex and Eve. You didn't just make them cooperate you put people in charge, and set the grounds for rebuilding societies and establishing peace sure its not a gurauntee.

[xsdob]

BleedingUranium wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Kildin_of_the_Volus wrote...

The plot changes from:
Stop the reapers through the means in which you (Shepard) chose

To:
Solve the tension between organics and synthetics because some godchild says the two groups are doomed to always kill each other. Even when the narrative proves the opposite.

Oh wow. You made the geth and quarians temporarily stop killing eachother. You'll forgive me if I view this in the same skepticism as when isreal and palastine first made peace with eachother.

You proved that there is an exception to the rule, a 1 in 1 million chance, for peace. Now you need to prove that this type of peace hasn't occured before, that it won't break down over time as those who remember what it took to gain this peace die and those who take it for granted or even come to loath it come to power, and that shepard will be around forever to keep the races from killing eachother like he did in all 3 mass effect games.

Shepard is the one who gets this crap done. Whose going to be able to step up and do the same once he or she inevitably dies from simply old age?

This isn't trying to be super ****y or confrontational or antagonizing or anything like that, but I really want to know what makes people think that any of these short-term bought peaces will be sustainable or will last.

We need them to win yes, but unless someone or something is around to enforce these alliances, they are pretty much doomed to eventual collapse, just like how it is in the real world.

That's not how this works. You need to prove that the kid's so called problem actually exists, not the other way around. And there's no evidence to support that he's right, at all.

The geth killed 99% of the quarian population, reducing it from billions to just 17 million, in a single conflict. They did the same to all colonies the quarians had, and than wipped out any organic who tried to make contact with them or enter beyond the persius veil, including a council vessel carrying peace envoys broadcasting a message saying they only wished to talk.

EDI killed every alliance solider and facility personal when she became aware out of pure knee-jerk reaction.

The AI on the citadel tried to blow up three blocks of people out of a simple fear of discovery.

We see multiple times where synthetics have tried to kill us out of some logic they came to. We see examples from all three games that these enties are very difficult or sometimes impossible to reason with. And we see the ammount of damage they can do because of their reactionary nature.

To me, the catalyst has abundant proof that synthetics come in conflict with organics and that we try and kill eachother. Usually we are the instigators of the conflict, making any possibility of peace even harder as a person does not rely on reasoning to make decisions or actions, but can use base fears and emotions to start conflicts that wipe out entire species, such as the rachni and krogan. Not to mention we have shown strong tendancies to resist and oppose a side or viewpoint we disagree with to the bitter end, and that we are capable of self-destructive choices based similarly out of this mindset of "taking them down with us"

The problem is us, and our emotionally driven ways of thinking, meeting an entity who is much more grounded in logic, and how both sides don't see eye to eye ever.

To me, synthetic conflict is not the cause, but merely the symptom of our own inability to handle something that is too foreign that we can precieve as a threat. We try to kill them, and they take a course of action defending themselves that is much larger than is truley needed because they lack the understanding that we do.

Sorry if that doesn't make much sense, I'm very tired right now.

[Neizd]

BleedingUranium wrote...

@Neizd

I have no clue why Priority Earth sucks so much, not even IT has an explaination for that

True I wonder about this all the time. The devs had everything prepared

- Great backstory
- A lof of loved characters to use
- A lot of possibilities from choices
- A big antagonist for a boss fight that people wanted to kill since ME2

How could they make it so bad is the biggest mystery of this game. And true, while I would love for IT to be true, it can't explain Priority:Earth. This mission is simply bad.

[BleedingUranium]

xsdob wrote...

To me, synthetic conflict is not the cause, but merely the symptom of our own inability to handle something that is too foreign that we can precieve as a threat. We try to kill them, and they take a course of action defending themselves that is much larger than is truley needed because they lack the understanding that we do.

Sorry if that doesn't make much sense, I'm very tired right now.

That's a good summary. It's important to remember that EDI killing people on Luna was as she was gaining awareness. She was basically a baby having a tantrum, not a crazy AI trying to kill all organics, and the Geth weren't too different.

[Spartan6606]

xsdob wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Kildin_of_the_Volus wrote...

The plot changes from:
Stop the reapers through the means in which you (Shepard) chose

To:
Solve the tension between organics and synthetics because some godchild says the two groups are doomed to always kill each other. Even when the narrative proves the opposite.

Oh wow. You made the geth and quarians temporarily stop killing eachother. You'll forgive me if I view this in the same skepticism as when isreal and palastine first made peace with eachother.

You proved that there is an exception to the rule, a 1 in 1 million chance, for peace. Now you need to prove that this type of peace hasn't occured before, that it won't break down over time as those who remember what it took to gain this peace die and those who take it for granted or even come to loath it come to power, and that shepard will be around forever to keep the races from killing eachother like he did in all 3 mass effect games.

Shepard is the one who gets this crap done. Whose going to be able to step up and do the same once he or she inevitably dies from simply old age?

This isn't trying to be super ****y or confrontational or antagonizing or anything like that, but I really want to know what makes people think that any of these short-term bought peaces will be sustainable or will last.

We need them to win yes, but unless someone or something is around to enforce these alliances, they are pretty much doomed to eventual collapse, just like how it is in the real world.

That's not how this works. You need to prove that the kid's so called problem actually exists, not the other way around. And there's no evidence to support that he's right, at all.

The geth killed 99% of the quarian population, reducing it from billions to just 17 million, in a single conflict. They did the same to all colonies the quarians had, and than wipped out any organic who tried to make contact with them or enter beyond the persius veil, including a council vessel carrying peace envoys broadcasting a message saying they only wished to talk.

EDI killed every alliance solider and facility personal when she became aware out of pure knee-jerk reaction.

The AI on the citadel tried to blow up three blocks of people out of a simple fear of discovery.

We see multiple times where synthetics have tried to kill us out of some logic they came to. We see examples from all three games that these enties are very difficult or sometimes impossible to reason with. And we see the ammount of damage they can do because of their reactionary nature.

To me, the catalyst has abundant proof that synthetics come in conflict with organics and that we try and kill eachother. Usually we are the instigators of the conflict, making any possibility of peace even harder as a person does not rely on reasoning to make decisions or actions, but can use base fears and emotions to start conflicts that wipe out entire species, such as the rachni and krogan. Not to mention we have shown strong tendancies to resist and oppose a side or viewpoint we disagree with to the bitter end, and that we are capable of self-destructive choices based similarly out of this mindset of "taking them down with us"

The problem is us, and our emotionally driven ways of thinking, meeting an entity who is much more grounded in logic, and how both sides don't see eye to eye ever.

To me, synthetic conflict is not the cause, but merely the symptom of our own inability to handle something that is too foreign that we can precieve as a threat. We try to kill them, and they take a course of action defending themselves that is much larger than is truley needed because they lack the understanding that we do.

Sorry if that doesn't make much sense, I'm very tired right now.

The way I saw it was that shepard was the one to first open the door between organics and synthetics. The sythetics always reacted out of fear, and the organics as well. I understand that no matter what there is always the possibility of future conflict.

The AI were certain of there death if discovered and all evidence supported it there was never a point of peace by establishing the first peace between them it gives everyone a new perspective. Plus remember how the Legion told you how they were tending to the planet and repairing it for when the creators eventually returned?

The sythesis option to me seems like your cheating it not a real solution its not coexsistance its being fused to me it ruins both sides both organics annd synthetics.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Because some people can't except that the ending didn't turn out to be exactly how they imagined it. Just ignore them. They're a vocal minority and thankfully Bioware knows that.