209 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr_Extrem]

Spartan6606 wrote...

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

every game owner has the right to come here, to state its personal opinion. people who dont come here, to participate, have decided to remain silent. they gave up their right complain later.

its like on election day. everybody is grouching about the government - but only a portion goes to the elections. every politician avoids the term "silent majority" for a reason - it backfires every time.

irl, a portion of the people go to elections. they determine the course of their country for the next period of time. the ones who did not vote, have to accept the outcome - they could have made a difference but choosed not to do.


bsn is not a hidden place and the ending controversity is not a secret.

[xsdob]

I agree about synthesis. I feel that synthetics gaining understanding of us, and organics coming up with ways to make ourselves better using technology, will happen. I mean, humans already modify themselves unnaturally in the ME universe, we maie gm babies for christ sakes.

But making the process happen so suddenly is a bad idea. Its like giving a barabrian our level of tech. They arent ready or.prepared for.it.

[BleedingUranium]

Spartan6606 wrote...

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.

Indeed. It would be like saying that a few hundred years ago in the US, when blacks were still slaves, that they could never be equals and treat each other the same, so we should just fuse all whites and blacks.

It's not solving the problem, it's avoiding it. Solving it would be whites and blacks embracing their differences, or learning that their differences don't matter. That's why Synthesis is bad. That, and because the Reaper overlord wants you to pick it, that should set off a few alarm bells

[Rodia Driftwood]

BleedingUranium wrote...

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.

You implying I'm mad is what's curious. You serving me a nonsensical point like that is plain stupid.

[Dr_Extrem]

xsdob wrote...

I agree about synthesis. I feel that synthetics gaining understanding of us, and organics coming up with ways to make ourselves better using technology, will happen. I mean, humans already modify themselves unnaturally in the ME universe, we maie gm babies for christ sakes.

But making the process happen so suddenly is a bad idea. Its like giving a barabrian our level of tech. They arent ready or.prepared for.it.

the game teached us: uplifting primitives = bad idea.

the protheans did it, destroyed the identity of the uplifted and made them "prothenas" - this backfired later.
krogan were used as tools of war, then ditched when it backfired
the racchni were used by the protheans as weapons as well
the salarians had plans to uplift the yagh ... next rebellion inc.


before shepard chooses to jump off the cliff, he/she knows that uplifting backfired every time. why should he think, that it will work 'cause "it" says so?

shepard acts against his/her better knowledge. shepard can not know that it kind off works.

[BleedingUranium]

Rodia Driftwood wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

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.

You implying I'm mad is what's curious. You serving me a nonsensical point like that is plain stupid.

Mad, frustrated, disappointed, I wasn't picky with the word. Reposting from another thread: You're only doing half the work. You should be seeing this as him telling you it's not the end yet. Just like his Walters's Rachni being important at the end comment, and Gamble's you'll get all the answers interview Casey's ABC ending comment. Hint. Hint.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 03 janvier 2013 - 10:58 .

[Kildin_of_the_Volus]

[quote]xsdob wrote...

[quote]BleedingUranium wrote...

[quote]xsdob wrote...

[quote]Kildin_of_the_Volus wrote...

snip[/quote]

snip[/quote]

snip[/quote]

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.

[/quote]
[/quote]

Wish you had started out with this well thoughout post, instead of the original kneejerk reaction.  Ironic, considering...

To the "morning war" point.  Not a justification, just facts.  Quarians  struck first with the intent of stopping the geth from reaching awareness.  The Geth made the choice to let the remaining Quarians go and not commit genocide.  Neither side disputes this in the narrative.

After this point it is unknown when the geth came under soveirgn's influence.  The narrative would have us believe the geth we fight in ME1 is a splinter group (the heritics).  
 
To me, godchild forces a perspective that does not raise naturally from the narrative, but instead reeks of the writer trying to get his point across.  It also makes zero attempt at convincing me that the "conflict" needs fixing to begin with.  Conflict is a natural part of life both in real life and in ME narrative.  Organics fighting with organics.  Organics fighting with synthetics.  Sythetics fighting with synthetics.  It's all present.  


Edit:  Quotes were off

Modifié par Kildin_of_the_Volus, 03 janvier 2013 - 10:47 .

[BleedingUranium]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

xsdob wrote...

I agree about synthesis. I feel that synthetics gaining understanding of us, and organics coming up with ways to make ourselves better using technology, will happen. I mean, humans already modify themselves unnaturally in the ME universe, we maie gm babies for christ sakes.

But making the process happen so suddenly is a bad idea. Its like giving a barabrian our level of tech. They arent ready or.prepared for.it.

the game teached us: uplifting primitives = bad idea.

the protheans did it, destroyed the identity of the uplifted and made them "prothenas" - this backfired later.
krogan were used as tools of war, then ditched when it backfired
the racchni were used by the protheans as weapons as well
the salarians had plans to uplift the yagh ... next rebellion inc.


before shepard chooses to jump off the cliff, he/she knows that uplifting backfired every time. why should he think, that it will work 'cause "it" says so?

shepard acts against his/her better knowledge. shepard can not know that it kind off works.

Attempts to control people/things also always backfire.

[Ultranovae]

Kazzuuk wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Also, please keep in mind this is the internet. The opinions on a game's own message board will be varied, but slanted towards the most biased and fanatical of that game's fanbase.

So much ignorance in this post.

You actually proved my point, thank you

jade8aby88
   Burn!

[SpamBot2000]

Because the ending is a suicide surrender to further the Reaper agenda. You can argue for the destroy ending not being that, but it's still a suicide option proffered by the Reaper King. And you kill the Geth and EDI at his recommendation too.

The Reaper King is nuttier than a Snickers bar. And you just take his solution and embrace it. Congrats.

[Dr_Extrem]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

xsdob wrote...

I agree about synthesis. I feel that synthetics gaining understanding of us, and organics coming up with ways to make ourselves better using technology, will happen. I mean, humans already modify themselves unnaturally in the ME universe, we maie gm babies for christ sakes.

But making the process happen so suddenly is a bad idea. Its like giving a barabrian our level of tech. They arent ready or.prepared for.it.

the game teached us: uplifting primitives = bad idea.

the protheans did it, destroyed the identity of the uplifted and made them "prothenas" - this backfired later.
krogan were used as tools of war, then ditched when it backfired
the racchni were used by the protheans as weapons as well
the salarians had plans to uplift the yagh ... next rebellion inc.


before shepard chooses to jump off the cliff, he/she knows that uplifting backfired every time. why should he think, that it will work 'cause "it" says so?

shepard acts against his/her better knowledge. shepard can not know that it kind off works.

Attempts to control people/things also always backfire.

absolutely .. his post was about synthesis - so i sticked to the theme.


both control and synthesis sheps act out of character and against their better knowledge. it was the writers job, to make those choices make sense and give them an sufficiant buildup.

[jstme]

xsdob wrote...

I agree about synthesis. I feel that synthetics gaining understanding of us, and organics coming up with ways to make ourselves better using technology, will happen. I mean, humans already modify themselves unnaturally in the ME universe, we maie gm babies for christ sakes.

But making the process happen so suddenly is a bad idea. Its like giving a barabrian our level of tech. They arent ready or.prepared for.it.

You do not understand what Catalyst literally says and what literally happens.
Catalyst prevents creation of synthetics by higher organics because it thinks synthetics will destroy ALL organic life. ALL. As in - ALL.However Ranoch after being under Geth control for so long is full of organic life. 

And in synthesis green magic happens to ALL organic life. Again, as in - ALL.Though I can promiss you that trees have 0 interest (and spend 0 effort) to make themself better using technology.
Synthesis and Catalyst as directly presented in game have no connection to singularity,unless one heavily headcanons.  
Actually, synthesis is the only case where removal of ALL organic life by rebelling Catalyst is possible.

[BleedingUranium]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Because the ending is a suicide surrender to further the Reaper agenda. You can argue for the destroy ending not being that, but it's still a suicide option proffered by the Reaper King. And you kill the Geth and EDI at his recommendation too.

The Reaper King is nuttier than a Snickers bar. And you just take his solution and embrace it. Congrats.

You're going with the Deception Theory SpamBot, but unfortunately it has more holes in it then, well, pretty much anything.

Destroy is not as you say because the kid didn't put it there. It's what Shepard wants to do upon entering the room, and therefore must exist. The kid can't hide it or make it go away, he can only acknowledge it and try to steer Shepard away from it.

[BleedingUranium]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

xsdob wrote...

I agree about synthesis. I feel that synthetics gaining understanding of us, and organics coming up with ways to make ourselves better using technology, will happen. I mean, humans already modify themselves unnaturally in the ME universe, we maie gm babies for christ sakes.

But making the process happen so suddenly is a bad idea. Its like giving a barabrian our level of tech. They arent ready or.prepared for.it.

the game teached us: uplifting primitives = bad idea.

the protheans did it, destroyed the identity of the uplifted and made them "prothenas" - this backfired later.
krogan were used as tools of war, then ditched when it backfired
the racchni were used by the protheans as weapons as well
the salarians had plans to uplift the yagh ... next rebellion inc.


before shepard chooses to jump off the cliff, he/she knows that uplifting backfired every time. why should he think, that it will work 'cause "it" says so?

shepard acts against his/her better knowledge. shepard can not know that it kind off works.

Attempts to control people/things also always backfire.

absolutely .. his post was about synthesis - so i sticked to the theme.


both control and synthesis sheps act out of character and against their better knowledge. it was the writers job, to make those choices make sense and give them an sufficiant buildup.

Or they did their job by showing you they're bad ideas.

[Evo_9]

OP i suggest you watch this for starters. This was before EC but still relevant. Also lookup "deus ex machina" 

Modifié par Evo_9, 03 janvier 2013 - 11:07 .

[Jadebaby]

Evo_9 wrote...

OP i suggest you watch this for starters. This was before EC but still relevant. Also lookup "deus ex machina" 

Link was broken (much like the endings)

Also, here's something for Post-EC.

Extended Cut analysis

[Dr_Extrem]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

xsdob wrote...

I agree about synthesis. I feel that synthetics gaining understanding of us, and organics coming up with ways to make ourselves better using technology, will happen. I mean, humans already modify themselves unnaturally in the ME universe, we maie gm babies for christ sakes.

But making the process happen so suddenly is a bad idea. Its like giving a barabrian our level of tech. They arent ready or.prepared for.it.

the game teached us: uplifting primitives = bad idea.

the protheans did it, destroyed the identity of the uplifted and made them "prothenas" - this backfired later.
krogan were used as tools of war, then ditched when it backfired
the racchni were used by the protheans as weapons as well
the salarians had plans to uplift the yagh ... next rebellion inc.


before shepard chooses to jump off the cliff, he/she knows that uplifting backfired every time. why should he think, that it will work 'cause "it" says so?

shepard acts against his/her better knowledge. shepard can not know that it kind off works.

Attempts to control people/things also always backfire.

absolutely .. his post was about synthesis - so i sticked to the theme.


both control and synthesis sheps act out of character and against their better knowledge. it was the writers job, to make those choices make sense and give them an sufficiant buildup.

Or they did their job by showing you they're bad ideas.

possible .. but i am from the "literal" camp .. IT is not my thing.

[daecath]

First, the complete lack of closure and satisfaction. The reapers are a massive threat, having done this over and over for billions and billions of years... and you beat them by essentially pushing a button. The finale is handed to you on a silver platter. Massive build up to nothing.

Second, and along with the first, is the "deus ex machina" ending. It's a cheap cop-out, which doesn't fit in the universe. You have a magic beam that solves all you problems for you, in a way that makes no sense. Especially the synthesis ending. Destroy and control could make sense with some explanation, but synthesis is complete nonsense.

Third, Shepard, who due to an abundance of autodialog in the game already doesn't feel like your Shepard, completely goes off the deep end in the ending. Basically, the starchild's dialog boils down to this: "Hello, I'm the leader of your enemy. We lie all the time, trying to manipulate you through indoctrination. You have absolutely no reason to trust me. Would you please kill yourself? I promise that something magical will happen to end the war if you do." And Shepard says ok. What happened to the epic speeches? What happened to fighting to the end? What happened to winning on your own terms, without sacrificing your core nature (like what Shepard says at the end of ME2 if you destroy the base)? Even if the ending options made sense in the universe, you're basically forced to choose between genocide, slavery, or synthesis (which is impossible to make fit in this universe).

Fourth, it isn't what we were promised. It's that simple - ignoring all the plot holes, all the story nonsense, all the problems with it, it comes down to the pure fact that they failed to deliver what they promised, and in fact delivered EXACTLY what they said they would not do. "No A, B, C endings". Remember that? They still haven't addressed that BTW.

[BleedingUranium]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Or they did their job by showing you they're bad ideas.

possible .. but i am from the "literal" camp .. IT is not my thing.

IT isn't required for them to be bad ideas that help the Reapers.

[BleedingUranium]

daecath wrote...

First, the complete lack of closure and satisfaction. The reapers are a massive threat, having done this over and over for billions and billions of years... and you beat them by essentially pushing a button. The finale is handed to you on a silver platter. Massive build up to nothing.

Second, and along with the first, is the "deus ex machina" ending. It's a cheap cop-out, which doesn't fit in the universe. You have a magic beam that solves all you problems for you, in a way that makes no sense. Especially the synthesis ending. Destroy and control could make sense with some explanation, but synthesis is complete nonsense.

Third, Shepard, who due to an abundance of autodialog in the game already doesn't feel like your Shepard, completely goes off the deep end in the ending. Basically, the starchild's dialog boils down to this: "Hello, I'm the leader of your enemy. We lie all the time, trying to manipulate you through indoctrination. You have absolutely no reason to trust me. Would you please kill yourself? I promise that something magical will happen to end the war if you do." And Shepard says ok. What happened to the epic speeches? What happened to fighting to the end? What happened to winning on your own terms, without sacrificing your core nature (like what Shepard says at the end of ME2 if you destroy the base)? Even if the ending options made sense in the universe, you're basically forced to choose between genocide, slavery, or synthesis (which is impossible to make fit in this universe).

Fourth, it isn't what we were promised. It's that simple - ignoring all the plot holes, all the story nonsense, all the problems with it, it comes down to the pure fact that they failed to deliver what they promised, and in fact delivered EXACTLY what they said they would not do. "No A, B, C endings". Remember that? They still haven't addressed that BTW.

Why can so many people get this far, but refuse to believe IT could be true?

[Geomon19]

Here's an interesting experiment people can do in case they were wondering why a lot of people don't like the ending to this game. Take the ME3 game data, not the save data (you can keep that) and delete it. Now go put the game back in and do not download any of the patches or DLC and do a playthrough. You might just be amazed.

[Tomwew]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Evo_9 wrote...

OP i suggest you watch this for starters. This was before EC but still relevant. Also lookup "deus ex machina" 

Link was broken (much like the endings)

Also, here's something for Post-EC.

Extended Cut analysis

ah mr. btongue! this takes me back. for a more comprehensive (if at times nitpicky) analysis of the EC look up smudboy.

[Dr_Extrem]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Or they did their job by showing you they're bad ideas.

possible .. but i am from the "literal" camp .. IT is not my thing.

IT isn't required for them to be bad ideas that help the Reapers.

sorry.. but my spider senses were tickling.


my mind works different ... i would not put 2 choices into the end, who are based on "bad ideas" and allow the player to act completely ooc.
those option either need a good buildup or have not a place in a story as valid options - since they end the game with the according achievement, they are valid.

[RocketManSR2]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

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

Yes, but not all big fans hate the ending.

LOL Places like Amazon are full of legit, well-put reviews that show a lot of people hated the endings besides those here on BSN. Was there some troll review spamming? Yes, but not all of them.

- I'll be fair, Control and Synthesis do have a sense of closure, but Destroy was still left with that breath moment after the EC came out (is Shepard alive, dead, getting rescued, what?). BioWare's solution? Use your imagination to get the closure you desire. Wut? Why didn't they just have us imagine our own f***ing ending and save us all a lot of trouble? I would even accept a successful refuse where the Normandy gets destroyed and the fleet takes heavy losses. It would still be closure in my eyes.   

Modifié par RocketManSR2, 03 janvier 2013 - 11:40 .

[SpamBot2000]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Destroy is not as you say because the kid didn't put it there. It's what Shepard wants to do upon entering the room, and therefore must exist.

Uh... The Shepard's Mighty Will is your guarantee?

Besides, my characterization of the ending does not depend on assuming any deception on the part of the space ghost, though it is indeed a valid concern. He could be more truthful than 'Honest Mike' Gamble in a truthtelling contest in Truro, yet the problem would still be there.

But trying to describe the flaws of the endings is a losing game anyway. There's no way to adequately capture them in a mere written deposition. 'Confusion now hath made his masterpiece', like this one guy who wrote some plays put it.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 03 janvier 2013 - 11:33 .