485 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Nah, it just shows your intention to hate the ending regardless of what actually happens.

Or maybe it shows I put more thought into these endings than the writers did. 

Or I'm not part of the "dark=deep" crowd.

Or the first two games set me up for someting their new "vision" refused to allow them to deliver.

Modifié par iakus, 22 août 2013 - 03:35 .

[shepskisaac]

dorktainian wrote...
 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?

1. That's one. Or you know it may have been quite close at that moment in battle actually. Not exactly a big issue
2. That's original ending, not a new question added by EC
3. He will be an AI with memories, experiences and morals of the organic Shepard. Of course it's not 100% same Shepard, it's even said so and obvious that it won't be, but the organic Shep personality dtermines how the SHep-AI will be. Hence why you have different control endings depending on Paragon/Renegade score. Where's the question here?
4. It's a random Reaper sounds. Seriously
5. It's a random Alliance body in generic Alliance armor like tons of others all over the levels in the game

That's pretty much exactly what I expected. You came up with 1/2 actual new concerns regarding the EC and the rest is either compeltly minor/insignificant stuff or something that's just conspiracy-theory material (like "Serve us" thig lol)

Here's the questions EC answered that we did NOT know before EC:
- is Normandy stranded on the jungle planet? Are Tali and Garrus going to starve to death?
- are the Relays destroyed? are all communications cut off? is everyone stuck in the systems they were at the time of explosion? Will Turians and Quarians die without dextro food? Will Krogan on Earth go nuts and overtake Earth? Is the Galaxy going back some Dark Age?
- who/what is the Catalyst, where it came from, why, what for, what the hell is this Starchild nonsense?
- whatever happened with the squadmates after Harby fires his beam, how did they get to the Normandy at all?
- what happenes with Miranda/Jack/Grunt etc fighting on Earth
- what happens next with pretty much everyone in the galaxy, all civilizations and races, are there any rebuilt efforts?
- what happened with Shepard in Control? Did he/she survive in ANY form? What did he do with the Reapers in Control?
- what happens after Synthesis?
- how exactly your EMS assets influence how well the Crucible performs? (low/mid/high Destroy, mid/high Control outcomes etc)

And many more. These are fundamental questions regarding the lore and outcome of the choices and course of events. Of course EC didn't answer every single question and some are still left, but it is simply factually incorrect to say that there's now more questions & speculations post-EC than pre-EC.

[Iakus]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

iakus wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Nah, it just shows your intention to hate the ending regardless of what actually happens.

Or maybe it shows I put more thought into these endings than the writers did. 

Or I'm not part of the "dark=deep" crowd.

Or the first two games set me up for someting their new "vision" refused to allow them to deliver.

You didn't really address that in your previous post. You basically said "I don't care what Bioware says what happened in their universe, I am going to assume that every ending had a bad outcome."

Because every ending is a bad outcome.  The endings are just plain bad.

I actually looked at these endings with a critical eye.  I noticed how they are all subversions of galactic free will.  How these 'victories" essentially come by becoming what we fought.  That's not victory, that's the abyss gazing back at you.

[shepskisaac]

The way I see it is that some people pick the bleakest possible outcome (which is purely hypothetical) on purpouse in a bizarre calculation to make it look like to Bioware that there needs to be a new happy ending released. Kind of a "if Bioware thinks that we still think the entire galaxy's going to hell they will release new happier ending" thing

Modifié par IsaacShep, 22 août 2013 - 04:00 .

[jtav]

Control (either P or R) is pretty happy as long as Wrex is alive and the genophage is cured. Synthesis is problematic but no more so than Rannoch and people fall over themselves to praise it and the actual outcome is good. Destroy feels like the end of every alien movie ever. Refuse? Well, no sympathy there, even if I like it as an ending.

No, you can't whack the Reapers real good while sacrificing nothing of value. As it should be.

[Iakus]

The Mad Hanar wrote...
The main issue with that is your critical view on the endings is your personal opinion on what happened. You are blantantly choosing to ignore the writer's intent. It would be like saying the ending of Harry Potter is bad because the wizards now have the power to wipe out muggles because Voldemort isn't around to kill them any more. Pure speculation.

And I say the writers chose to ignore my intent.  They rammed thier own vision through regardless of what choices I made, what my Shepard believed what preparations my Shepard made.  No matter how much of a difference Hepard made, it didn't make any difference.  They allowed for no deviation from their "dark is deep vision"

That Destroy kills all synthetics is not my "personal opinion"  EC cleared that up all too well.  Nor is it my opinion that the Reapers conquer the galaxy in Control, or that Synthesis happens to everyone regardless of their thoughts on the matter or even their capability to understand what is happening to them.

You could say that my opinion of whether this is a good or bad thing is my opinion.  But frankly, I have a hard time even comprehending how people could think any of these outcomes are "good"  Honestly, even if Shepard could survive these endings, I can't imagine any of mine wanting to.  They'd probably all eat a bullet within a week of rescue.

What makes these endings bad is the inability to influence or mitigate these options.  SHepard can't warn the geth.  Nor is their death anything but a "shoot the hostage" situation.  If Destroy required EDI and the geth to do something suicidally heroic (like Mordin at the Shroud) that would be a touching sacrifice.  But what we have is nothing more than a "sic the dog on the bear" situation.  Or worse, shoot through the dog to kill the bear.

Control is a complete misnomer of a name, as Shepard is not Controling the Reapers.  The Reapers still control themselves, just under new management.  Organics have signed over thier right to self-determination in the name of some nebulous promise of peace.

Synthesis is a complete lack of faith in life in general.  It's the belief that we are incapable of growing and changing, to stretch beyod our current limits.  Organics used to fight each other because they looked different, worshipped different gods, followed different philosophies.  But in the end organics grew and adapted.  Not perfectly, but it is an ongoing process. Suddenly organic-synthetic cooperation is a brick wall, an impossible goal.  Because Reason.

And to anyone who thinks I am unwilling to pay a heavy price to defeat the Reapers:  I daresay the prices I'm willing to pay are on the whole steeper than what most of you are willing to pay.  But those prices would allow Shepard to win more cleanly.

[Ieldra]

iakus wrote...
And to anyone who thinks I am unwilling to pay a heavy price to defeat the Reapers:  I daresay the prices I'm willing to pay are on the whole steeper than what most of you are willing to pay.  But those prices would allow Shepard to win more cleanly.

Perhaps that's because those prices wouldn't be paid by you? There are essentially only three kinds of prices paid by you: in the lives of those you love, in your honor, and in your life or physical wellbeing. Everything else is so remote from you that its meaning as a sacrifice is questionable.

I don't understand what you have against Destroy. I don't like this option, but the Reapers are gone and civilization goes on without the constraints placed upon it, and the lives of the synthetics are a reasonable sacrifice for a victory of such a scope. 

[wright1978]

iakus wrote...

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 ending 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.

Indeed, i may find destroy the least atrocious thematically but crawling on my hands and knees to my enemy and begging him to let me kill him as long as i accept his nonsense price is hardly rewarding or good storytelling.

Oh and don't get me started on high ems ending. Clarification and closure through the EC, guess not for that ending.

Modifié par wright1978, 22 août 2013 - 05:32 .

[jtav]

Control isn't an atrocity (or if it is, Paragons have already done it on Legion's LM). It's not a negotiated surrender, Shepard directs the Reapers as s/he sees fit. As for Destroy, even civilian casualties are permitted as long as they aren't deliberately targeted and proportionate to the objective. Synthesis is dodgy, but you don't have to pick it.

[Iakus]

[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...

[quote]iakus wrote...
And to anyone who thinks I am unwilling to pay a heavy price to defeat the Reapers:  I daresay the prices I'm willing to pay are on the whole steeper than what most of you are willing to pay.  But those prices would allow Shepard to win more cleanly.[/quote]
Perhaps that's because those prices wouldn't be paid by you? There are essentially only three kinds of prices paid by you: in the lives of those you love, in your honor, and in your life or physical wellbeing. Everything else is so remote from you that its meaning as a sacrifice is questionable.[/quote]

Which of the three would "I would rather have the entire relay network be rendered permanently inoperable than sacrifice EDI and the geth" fall under?

[quote[
I don't understand what you have against Destroy. I don't like this option, but the Reapers are gone and civilization goes on without the constraints placed upon it, and the lives of the synthetics are a reasonable sacrifice for a victory of such a scope. 
[/quote]

Because rather than give EDI and the geth a heroic sendoff like Mordin in the Shroud tower, I'm essentially shooting them in the back, like Shepard betraying Mordin.  It's not a "reasonable" sacrifice.  I've noted in another post what Destroy already requires in sacrifice (essentially, the galaxy and the relay network ust be rebuild without help from teh Reapers).  Adding EDI and the geth is nothing more than an arbitrary tragedy.

[Iakus]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

They never wrote this story for you, and you were never involved in the writing process. Therefore, their intent for the story is more relevant to the story than yours. Not to say that your ideas wouldn't make the game better (we'll never know), but there it is. Whether people wanted the change in synthesis is irrelevant. According to the authors, it has no ill effect. Being scared of change doesn't mean the change is bad. Would you rather all of them just die, as you were alluding to towards the end of your post? How is sending countless people to their death when there is an alternative staring you in the face any less evil than the alternitive? Because it's the evil you know? I'd also like you to point me to where the authors state that the Reapers conquered the galaxy in control.

1) Then they should lay off the "These are your Shepards" "Your choices guide the story" and other such...lket's call them "exagerations" in their marketing when our choices clearly amount to nothing

2) Whether people want the change is Synthesis is completely relevant.  The Catalyst outright states that it cannot be "forced", among other such nonsense as it being the final stage of evolution, "organic energy", and such.  If the procvess is forced, the Catalyst either lied or was mistaken, which throws everything about Synthesis into question.

3) Clearly, letting everyone die became a viable option with EC.  That shows just how badly Bioware screwed up the endings that such a "Frak you!" ending is seen by some as a preferable alternative.

4) The Shepalyst's final monologue makes it quite clear that it is in charge now and will "guide" the other races.  Just how gilded a cage the races are locked into depends on the nature of the SHepalyst, but they are clearly no longer in charge of their own destiny.

And I have never seen any developer or writer that worked on Mass Effect refer to their work as deep. They might've said that they are not changing the ending because it would hamper the artisitc integrity of the game, but that is simply referring to the fact that an author has the right to follow their own vision for their own story. The moment you start letting your fans start writing your stories for you is the moment when you stop letting your true intentions be known.

So I guess all that "These are your Shepards" comments was just talk, huh?  This really was just a Gears of War clone?

[Iakus]

jtav wrote...

Control isn't an atrocity (or if it is, Paragons have already done it on Legion's LM). It's not a negotiated surrender, Shepard directs the Reapers as s/he sees fit. As for Destroy, even civilian casualties are permitted as long as they aren't deliberately targeted and proportionate to the objective. Synthesis is dodgy, but you don't have to pick it.

Shepard's not directing anything.  Shepard is dead.  The Reapers are directed by a new Catalyst designed from Shepard's memories.  It's still a Reaper, and it's still in charge of the Reaper fleet.

And I explained why I hate Destroy already.

[Iakus]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

iakus wrote...



Because rather than give EDI and the geth a heroic sendoff like Mordin in the Shroud tower, I'm essentially shooting them in the back, like Shepard betraying Mordin.  It's not a "reasonable" sacrifice.  I've noted in another post what Destroy already requires in sacrifice (essentially, the galaxy and the relay network ust be rebuild without help from teh Reapers).  Adding EDI and the geth is nothing more than an arbitrary tragedy.

A beam that is meant to kill synthetics killing synthetics is not arbitrary.

And what is a synthetic?  What makes it different from a VI?  How is a billion year old Reaper cybernetic hive mind the same as a three year old human technology standalone quantum blue box like EDI like a four century old quarian tech networked consensus like the geth?

Why does it strike them all down, but leave a biotic with cybernetics running through his nervous system alone?  How about quarian cyborgs?  salarians who replace parts of their brains with VI interfaces?  How about some guy with a pacemaker?  "Even you are partly synthetic"

Yes, it's completely arbitrary.

[Br3admax]

Who said that VI's aren't affected? Kagi's VI was affected. And you obviously don't know anything about biotics, because they don't have any cybernetics. They have one implant on their brain stem. I'm sure that anyone who has cybernetics in their brain, are finished.

[wright1978]

iakus wrote...

Which of the three would "I would rather have the entire relay network be rendered permanently inoperable than sacrifice EDI and the geth" fall under?

Yikes that's certaInly not a destroy trade i'd be willing to make. However given Bioware's comicly awful delivery mechanism stunk like a heap of rotten eggs they might as well had a magic hat people picked concepts out of.

Modifié par wright1978, 22 août 2013 - 05:59 .

[Andrew Lucas]

I think that the endings of Me3 is a ending for EA because if Shepard survives all endings what dlcs they are going to do?Shepard going to the supermarket? My shepardis going to retire after the war,If Bioware haved more time Me3 Si was going to be more complete and they could focus more in multiplayer.

[Iakus]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

1.) Yes, it cleary was marketing, and if you couldn't figure out that "your Shepard" referred to the fact that you can make your Shepard look the way you wanted it to, and whether you can choose to be Paragon, Renegade or Neutral by the end of the original Mass Effect, then I don't know what to tell you. And if them not catering to every fans personal demands makes them a Gears of War clone, then I guess that's what Mass Effect is to you.

Yes, because creating an ending that doesn't force Shepard to commit a horrific act upon the galaxy in order to "save" it is catering to every fan's personal demands, amirite?

2.) Clearly the Catalyst was mistaken if Synthesis was an option the whole time.  When it came to that choice, the writers had the Catlyst talk himself into a circle. Not so much for the other endings, however.

So we agree Synthesis is absolute nonsense then?

3.) People requested an ending that allowed Shepard to not choose one of the Catalyst's options, even if that meant everyone dying. As a result, Bioware put such a choice in. I hardly see how that is a "frak you" ending. I also see how an ending can fail if people choose a choice that was presented in it.

I'm pretty sure the emphasis was on "an ending that allowed Shepard not to choose" and not on "everyone dying".  So yeah, allowing that ending was a pretty blatant "Frak You" to everyone who disliked the ending options. 

4.) Shepard never said he's going to control/dominate the galaxy, he said that he would protect it if it needed protecting. Also, we've seen just how adept the species are at controlling their own future. Sterilization plagues, Species getting exiled from their planet and the galatic government, Three species monopolizing all of the political power of the galaxy with the only way of gaining power is through their approval.

So, the flip side of free will is the freedom to be ****es to each other.  It's part of growing up.

And yes, the Reapers stick around and dominate the galaxy.  It's in the speeches.  It's in the slides.  The galaxy traded its freedom for a bit of temporary security.

Modifié par iakus, 22 août 2013 - 06:09 .

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

3.) People requested an ending that allowed Shepard to not choose one of the Catalyst's options, even if that meant everyone dying. As a result, Bioware put such a choice in. I hardly see how that is a "frak you" ending. I also see how an ending can fail if people choose a choice that was presented in it.

I'm pretty sure the emphasis was on "an ending that allowed Shepard not to choose" and not on "everyone dying".  So yeah, allowing that ending was a pretty blatant "Frak You" to everyone who disliked the ending options. 

So you were probably visiting only "happy refuse" threads.

Demands for "I would rather die in fight then accept Catalyst's options" were common here before EC.