485 réponses à ce sujet

[dorktainian]

IsaacShep wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

That said, Bioware did have the opportunity to undo the mad work of Mac and Casey with the EC but only succeeded in making things worse.

EC made the ending worse ... ? 

 

yes it did.  More questions.  More speculations.  

Bioware said the relays wern't destroyed.
(err... nope the relays are still destroyed)   

and who can possible forget the garbage to end all garbage when they introduced us to DNA - which was NOT DNA at all - not resembling anything even close to the structure of a DNA strand.  Oh and green scaffolding around the DNA (which is not DNA).......yeh seems legit.   Not forgetting Green glowy patterns over the skin - hey even over the armour because .... hey ART!!    reapers still alive.  But now we're friends...  Buddies.

Yep we're now friends with huge killing machines...seems legit. 

Control has Shepard becoming a reaper and basically spouting all their perogatives now being his perogatives. Yep i'd really trust that machine who used to be human but is now a machine with the same processes as starjar.  Way to go team milky way.  We created the new face of Starjar.

If you like the EC fair do's but I for one think it wasn't needed because it left so many unanswered questions for the next game to build upon...          




and i hated the original ending... but the EC just doesnt fix it imo.  but hey whatever.      

**edit** top with another ending post.  

Modifié par dorktainian, 22 août 2013 - 01:02 .

[Br3admax]

Okay, tell me what it would add. People who picked Destroy already knew the consequences. What would adding more dead robots do? They already do not see them as people so adding dead robots would do nothing. Tell me what it would add.

[Iakus]

Br3ad wrote...

Okay, tell me what it would add. People who picked Destroy already knew the consequences. What would adding more dead robots do? They already do not see them as people so adding dead robots would do nothing. Tell me what it would add.

How about...not adding dead robots?

The relay network is down, numerous worlds, including the homeworlds of most of the known races were thoroughly trashed.  And the galaxy is on its own cleaning things up.   This is a project that could take years, decades, centuries to get things up and running again.  
They have to figure out how to repair the relays on their own.
They have to clear away 2-kilometer long Reaper corpses on their own
They have to rebuild their cities on their own
They have to rebuild their governments and economies on their own
They have to find a way to live together in peace on their own.

Do dead robots really add anything to this?

Modifié par iakus, 22 août 2013 - 01:11 .

[dorktainian]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Okay, tell me what it would add. People who picked Destroy already knew the consequences. What would adding more dead robots do? They already do not see them as people so adding dead robots would do nothing. Tell me what it would add.

Hopefully it would give pause to those who would describe the genocide of a race of sentient machines as 'adding a few dead robots'. What a stupid question.

 well you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.  

So you would rather the reapers win?  

Control.  mmm Reaper win.  They're still around.     
Synthesis.  mmm Reaper Win.  Now they're  our friends.

Would you sacrifice humanity for your VI Toaster?

[dorktainian]

iakus wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Okay, tell me what it would add. People who picked Destroy already knew the consequences. What would adding more dead robots do? They already do not see them as people so adding dead robots would do nothing. Tell me what it would add.

How about...not adding dead robots?

The relay network is down, numerous worlds, including the homeworlds of most of the known races were thoroughly trashed.  And the galaxy is on its own cleaning things up.   This is a project that could take years, decades, centuries to get things up and running again.  


They have to clear away 2-kilometer long Reaper corpses on their own

which are still around...indoctrinating (yes they are - see ME2) so whoever is still around would be easy targets without the relays to escape.       

Maybe there is no answer?  Maybe thats the point?

Modifié par dorktainian, 22 août 2013 - 01:18 .

[Br3admax]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Okay, tell me what it would add. People who picked Destroy already knew the consequences. What would adding more dead robots do? They already do not see them as people so adding dead robots would do nothing. Tell me what it would add.

Hopefully it would give pause to those who would describe the genocide of a race of sentient machines as 'adding a few dead robots'. What a stupid question.

But do you really believe that they would care? They knew the consequences before they made the decision. They didn't care before and see a punch of dead robots that they don't care about won't change their minds. 

[Iakus]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

iakus wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

To be fair, the idea that every decision made in the series would shape the ending was extremely unrealistic in the first place. The end of the series was going to be restricted one way or another. Otherwise, they would've had to write 30 different endings and most likely cut a lot of content to make room for said endings.

There's restricted, which is to be expected. then there's strangled, which is what we got.


I think it's right on the money that certain individuals fell so in love with their own word babies that they abandoned every other concept or possibility in favor of that particular narrow range of outcomes.

Narrow range of outcomes that are ironically more broad than the first two endings combined.

Really?

Show me the ending where Shepard doesn't commit an atrocity on the galaxy, be it

Slaughtering his/her own ally 
Negotiating a surrender to the Reapers
Violating the genetic code of every living being in the galaxy

Then I suppose there's refuse, where Shepard stands there and does nothing.  Does inaction count as an atrocity?

So yeah, broad outcomes, we get to choose between drek, garbage, and filth.

And of course, in every single outcome, Shepard also dies.  But oh, wait!  There's one extremely high EMS endding in Destroy where Bioware graciously gives teh audience permission to headcanon that Shepard gets rescued.  Isn't that magnanimous of them?

This is sarcasm, btw.

[dorktainian]

Fandango9641 wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Okay, tell me what it would add. People who picked Destroy already knew the consequences. What would adding more dead robots do? They already do not see them as people so adding dead robots would do nothing. Tell me what it would add.

Hopefully it would give pause to those who would describe the genocide of a race of sentient machines as 'adding a few dead robots'. What a stupid question.

 well you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.  

So you would rather the reapers win?  

Control.  mmm Reaper win.  They're still around.     
Synthesis.  mmm Reaper Win.  Now they're  our friends.

Would you sacrifice humanity for your VI Toaster?

That I don't see the Geth as 'VI Toasters' is kind of my point dorktainian, Indeed, that the game would say well done to those who would dismiss the Geth so is kind of disgusting to me. Genuinely.

haha thats nothing.  But hey if your offended I truly am sorry.  However it's kill or be killed. No room for sentiment in a fight with billion year old killing robots.  I can understand your position but look at the alternative.

[Br3admax]

And our point is that everyone doesn't hold the geth to the same standards as you. You may consider them alive, and some may not. Showing a eight second slide of dead platforms, which were already seen during Rannoch and did not sway, will not make someone see them as you do.

[Iakus]

dorktainian wrote...
haha thats nothing.  But hey if your offended I truly am sorry.  However it's kill or be killed. No room for sentiment in a fight with billion year old killing robots.  I can understand your position but look at the alternative.

Let's see

Funny, there was plenty of room for sentiment before this point.  What changed?

Oh, yeah, NOTHING!

Anyway, what are the alternatives?  Surrender to the Reapers so they don't kill everyone or force everyone to undergo a genreral rewrite of their genetic code.  Not much of a choice.  Made worse when you actually see the geth as a sentient people in their own right.

Or you could always take a principled stand and watch the game laugh at you

[Iakus]

Fandango9641 wrote...

That some are too pig-headed to care is besides the point - it's clear that the EC needed to do a better job of giving weight to the full consequences of each solution. Indeed - in the case of Destroy - to avoid doing so is to celebrate the virtue of committing genocide.

The "virtues" the endings (and EC) celebrate are one and all "implications unpleasant" to me.

Modifié par iakus, 22 août 2013 - 01:34 .

[dorktainian]

iakus wrote...

dorktainian wrote...
haha thats nothing.  But hey if your offended I truly am sorry.  However it's kill or be killed. No room for sentiment in a fight with billion year old killing robots.  I can understand your position but look at the alternative.

Let's see

Funny, there was plenty of room for sentiment before this point.  What changed?

Oh, yeah, NOTHING!

Anyway, what are the alternatives?  Surrender to the Reapers so they don't kill everyone or force everyone to undergo a genreral rewrite of their genetic code.  Not much of a choice.  Made worse when you actually see the geth as a sentient people in their own right.

Or you could always take a principled stand and watch the game laugh at you

 No.  I would do what I always do and choose to destroy the reapers.  everything else... EVERYTHING  is secondary to accomplishing that goal.  We fail and the next cycle will have to do exactly the same.          

And that is why I'm a firm believer in the theory that shall not be named because it is a way out.



"Basically if the literal endings are true (regardless of breaking themes and lore) it means Shepard and all of Shepard's friends and allies are just stubborn idiots. They should have listened to the antagonists (Saren, TIM, Reapers) the whole time. Instead they're just soldiers only able to look at the world down the barrel of a gun. That would not only make no sense at all from a writing perspective, but it would be totally, totally lame.

I also want someone to ask why the apparent moral of the story was something like this:
“The villains were right all along; the hero and associates were just too stubborn to realize it. Also, free will sucks, and gets everyone killed. Better to force something on everything in the galaxy."  

BansheeOwnage.

Modifié par dorktainian, 22 août 2013 - 01:38 .

[Br3admax]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Okay, tell me what it would add. People who picked Destroy already knew the consequences. What would adding more dead robots do? They already do not see them as people so adding dead robots would do nothing. Tell me what it would add.

Hopefully it would give pause to those who would describe the genocide of a race of sentient machines as 'adding a few dead robots'. What a stupid question.

But do you really believe that they would care? They knew the consequences before they made the decision. They didn't care before and see a punch of dead robots that they don't care about won't change their minds. 

That some are too pig-headed to care is besides the point - it's clear that the EC needed to do a better job of giving weight to the full consequences of each solution. Indeed - in the case of Destroy - to avoid doing so is to celebrate the virtue of committing genocide.

A valid point, I will admit this. Of course with Hackett giving the speech to be, in a word, inspirational, I doubt that it would have ever happened. *sigh* 

[Iakus]

dorktainian wrote...
 No.  I would do what I always do and choose to destroy the reapers.  everything else... EVERYTHING  is secondary to accomplishing that goal.  We fail and the next cycle will have to do exactly the same.          

And that is why I'm a firm believer in the theory that shall not be named because it is a way out.

And I think that there are certain lines which, if crossed, no longer makes victory meaningful.  Or games fun.  Especially games which claim "these are your Shepards" and "Your decisions drive the story"  WHen you're told at the end that the real message was "You exist because we allow it, and will end because we demand it" makes me feel I've been manipulated for five years.  Conned.  Deceived.   Tricked.  And Bioware is utterly unashamed of that.

Sadly, I think that theory is an illusion.  A pretty illusion, but still...

"Basically if the literal endings are true (regardless of breaking themes and lore) it means Shepard and all of Shepard's friends and allies are just stubborn idiots. They should have listened to the antagonists (Saren, TIM, Reapers) the whole time. Instead they're just soldiers only able to look at the world down the barrel of a gun. That would not only make no sense at all from a writing perspective, but it would be totally, totally lame.

If the endings are literally reue, then, well, see above.  For five years.

I also want someone to ask why the apparent moral of the story was something like this:
“The villains were right all along; the hero and associates were just too stubborn to realize it. Also, free will sucks, and gets everyone killed. Better to force something on everything in the galaxy."  

BansheeOwnage.

I suspect it has something to do with not having an outliine combined with writer turnover and one or more really big egos.

[shepskisaac]

dorktainian wrote...

yes it did.  More questions.  More speculations. 

Lemme qute Samantha: "No. No. No. No. No. No. ... No!"

Now, explain how there's MORE questions/speculations after EC than after the original ending. Think about it and explain. 'Cause that's what you just said.

Fandango9641 wrote...

I can understand where you're coming from Issac - I guess I should have qualified my statement by saying that the EC made things worse for me. If it's not already obvious to all, you can place me firmly in the camp of those people who didn't want the original endings expanded upon, but replaced altogether. That Bioware refused to do so and instead chose to celebrate the consequences of - what I perceive to be - three very sketchy 'solutions', made the ending worse, not better. I just cant get past the fact that ME3 would reward the racist, the megalomaniac and wannabe despot but give the finger to those of us who would instead choose to fight for basic, fundamental freedoms. From the point of view of someone who loathed Mac and Casey's original vision for the conclusion of Shep's story, the EC comes across as borderline - and I don't use the word lightly - spiteful. As such, I don't like it al all.

Totally get your point. But you pretty much say it yourself, it's not really an evaluation of the quality of EC and how it fixes what was already there but well, an emotional reception of not getting completly new ending. I get it, but it's different than saying that EC made what was already there even worse.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 22 août 2013 - 02:55 .

[dorktainian]

IsaacShep wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

yes it did.  More questions.  More speculations. 

Lemme qute Samantha: "No. No. No. No. No. No. ... No!"

Now, explain how there's MORE questions/speculations after EC than after the original ending. Think about it and explain. 'Cause that's what you just said.

  just a few.

1.  ok heres one beauty.  How was the normandy able to pull itself away from the battle, and pick shepard up in 5 seconds?  5 Seconds..  And dont say mass effect corridor because that is utter nonsense.  (it was actually pulling in to pick up shepard in under 5 seconds. 5 seconds.  

2.  how would throwing yourself into a beam of light / energy / whatever lead to the genetic re-writing of all organics to include glowy green synthetics (even over their armor)?  Scattering your atoms is not the way to genetically re-write anything.  Especially in the void that is space.

3.  How would Shepard be Shepard anymore after his organic reasoning is replaced by synthetic logic?   

4.  ''Serve us'' ?     

5.  Why is Coates dead on the citadel having his helmet removed by the keeper when you fly out onto the citadel?

[Iakus]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

iakus wrote...



Really?

Show me the ending where Shepard doesn't commit an atrocity on the galaxy, be it

Slaughtering his/her own ally 
Negotiating a surrender to the Reapers
Violating the genetic code of every living being in the galaxy

Then I suppose there's refuse, where Shepard stands there and does nothing.  Does inaction count as an atrocity?

So yeah, broad outcomes, we get to choose between drek, garbage, and filth.

And of course, in every single outcome, Shepard also dies.  But oh, wait!  There's one extremely high EMS endding in Destroy where Bioware graciously gives teh audience permission to headcanon that Shepard gets rescued.  Isn't that magnanimous of them?

This is sarcasm, btw.

Cute.

ME1 has one ending. In ME2 there are three outcomes: Whole squad lives, some squad lives, no squad lives. In Mass Effect 3 there are six outcomes: The reapers get destroyed with serious damage to everything else, The reapers get destroyed along with just synthetics and Shepard, The reapers get destroyed and Shepard survives, The reapers become controlled by Shepard (which can also have different ramifications), Organic and Synthetic life are combined into one, or Shepard chooses none of these and the plans for the Crucible are passed down to the next cycle.

Also, just because you call something an atrocity doesn't make it so. None of the ill effects that are endings are speculated to have on this board really happen, at least as far as actual in-game evidence is concerned.

I'll take one satisfactory ending over six terrible endings any day of the week, and consider myself to have more choices the matter as well.  Bad choices are hardly chocies at all, especially in the environment of entertainment

And if I call something an atrocity, I consider it an atrocity.  Deal with it.  You say none of the ill effects really happen?  Well, I think the the benefits don't really happen either.  It's all built on a lie.  Destroy society is built on a synthetic holocaust.  Control is a galactic police state.  Synthesis is Stepford on a grand scale.

They're all atrocities.  Just because EC puts smiley face stickers all over them doesn't make them less so.  It just shows how desperate Bioware was to make us love the endings without actually changing anything.

[Iakus]

dorktainian wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

yes it did.  More questions.  More speculations. 

Lemme qute Samantha: "No. No. No. No. No. No. ... No!"

Now, explain how there's MORE questions/speculations after EC than after the original ending. Think about it and explain. 'Cause that's what you just said.

  just a few.

1.  ok heres one beauty.  How was the normandy able to pull itself away from the battle, and pick shepard up in 5 seconds?  5 Seconds..  And dont say mass effect corridor because that is utter nonsense.  (it was actually pulling in to pick up shepard in under 5 seconds. 5 seconds.  

2.  how would throwing yourself into a beam of light / energy / whatever lead to the genetic re-writing of all organics to include glowy green synthetics (even over their armor)?  Scattering your atoms is not the way to genetically re-write anything.  Especially in the void that is space.

3.  How would Shepard be Shepard anymore after his organic reasoning is replaced by synthetic logic?   

4.  ''Serve us'' ?     

5.  Why is Coates dead on the citadel having his helmet removed by the keeper when you fly out onto the citadel?

6) If Shepard is vulnerable to Destroy because he is "partly synthetic" and "the Crucible does not discriminate" then why aren't all ctyborgs, post humans (or the alien equivalents), and biotics targetted as well?

7) Why is the Control uploading process invariably fatal?

8) If the Synthesis process can't be "forced" Why does everyone, including anti-synthetic individuals like Javik end up with glowing eyes

9) For that matter, why do nonsentient creatures like trees and other plants get the Synthesis treatment?

10) Why does the Catalyst insist on continuing the Reaping process during the conversation, despite knowing that this is no longer a viable solution?