1483 réponses à ce sujet

[von uber]

You'd need sources if you wanted to make a claim like that.

The existence of the EC shows that people found then to be rubbish.
Look at the many 'things wrong with mass effect' articles. Look at some of the reviews.
And so on.

[KaiserShep]

Of course there will be conflict again!  There is always conflict.  But that doesn't make the Catalyst's ultimate conclusion valid!  But we're supposed to accept everything Glowboy says at face value "Because Catalyst"  He has zero information to back up his claims.  The evidence i've seen makes the krogan a greater threat to galactic life than any synethetic.

 

Ultimately, the most important example of how synthetics can ultimately screw the galaxy over would be the reapers themselves, and the only thing that really kept them from totally burning every planet, and going from system to system to make sure that every inch of a planet's biosphere, right down to the primordial soup of any newborn world leaves behind lifeless lumps of rock is the directive of their creators. That said, I can also consider them to the biggest fluke in galactic history, and that in all likelihood, something even half as bad as the reapers may never happen again.

[The Bad One]

Personally I dismiss the reaper because at that point, my patience would be nil with those things, and would prefer they simply die than prattle on about their extinction cycles.

 

As for disproving the Catalyst's assertion that the "peace won't last", the answer is simply that you can't. Aside from being a prediction, which can't be disproved anyway, it's so vague in its conditions that it lacks any kind of real meaning.

 

"The peace won't last."

 

"OK, and? When should I expect this new war to break out? Will it happen before or after the krogan get ticked off at everyone again?"

 

"I dunno...whenever I guess."

 

What difference does such an assertion make to me when I never expect there to be everlasting peace to begin with? At the point of the conversation with the Catalyst, this is what I can only consider to be a phantasm of a problem. It might happen several years after the war, or a hundred, or a thousand, or several thousand. By then the galaxy could be such a wildly different place that such conflicts are no longer important. It's not like the Catalyst can ever really know at that point, because it's held the galaxy under tight controls for eons, disrupting the progression of the entire galaxy. So really, for myself, it's not so much about belief or disbelief in what the Catalyst says, but rather weighing in on whether or not it's worth taking the chance that what it says is ultimately horsesh*t.

 

Thinking about it, this is something I do actually like about the ending.

 

Well I disagree that it lacks any real meaning, the meaning is given by a being that has eons of experience, but that's about it really. We don't really conflict anywhere else here.

 

The existence of the EC shows that people found then to be rubbish.
Look at the many 'things wrong with mass effect' articles. Look at some of the reviews.
And so on.

 

"People found them to be rubbish" and "you are probably in the minority of actually finding them any good" are two very different things. The former is true of course, as it is with (everything everywhere), but you'll need a source for the latter.

[Iakus]

Ultimately, the most important example of how synthetics can ultimately screw the galaxy over would be the reapers themselves, and the only thing that really kept them from totally burning every planet, and going from system to system to make sure that every inch of a planet's biosphere, right down to the primordial soup of any newborn world leaves behind lifeless lumps of rock is the directive of their creators. That said, I can also consider them to the biggest fluke in galactic history, and that in all likelihood, something even half as bad as the reapers may never happen again.

 

And the krogan were doing that as much or more than the Reapers.  The Krogan Rebellions saw them dropping asteroids onto garden worlds.

[KaiserShep]

The reapers did far worse in a short period of time than the krogan. For all the extreme methods they employ, the krogan are still limited by the need for sustenance, resources and livable territory to occupy, whereas the reapers can and did burn everything in sight because they don't need any of it when it's over. On the other hand, this does mean that organics, as numerous as they are, can be a more frequent threat to each other than synthetics in history. So it's not so much that I think the krogan can do worse than something like the reapers, but rather that conflict with them is far more likely. I think that they'd give the geth a run for their money though. Each individual is like a silverback gorilla mixed with a dinosaur and a shotgun, and can regenerate and breed like vermin.

[Iakus]

The reapers did far worse in a short period of time than the krogan. For all the extreme methods they employ, the krogan are still limited by the need for sustenance, resources and livable territory to occupy, whereas the reapers can and did burn everything in sight because they don't need any of it when it's over. On the other hand, this does mean that organics, as numerous as they are, can be a more frequent threat to each other than synthetics in history. So it's not so much that I think the krogan can do worse than synthetics, but rather that conflict with them is far more likely.

 

Krogan can live on worlds too toxic and wrecked for others to survive on.  They don't seem to feel particularly constrained when it comes to preserving worlds.

 

Reapers, however, seem to at least attempt to preserve the planets themselves.  Allowing for new life to evolve on them.  After listening to Javik, I am inclined to believe that much of the planetary destruction in the last cycle was the Protheans using (literal) scorched-earth tactics.

[KaiserShep]

The protheans would definitely be a worse race than the krogan. They even had the power to destroy an entire star system. Had the krogan rebellions occurred during their reign, they would probably have reduced Aralakh to cosmic dust.

[Tython]

I snipped your post mainly due to the sheer volume despite the fact you only make about 3 points. Repeating 3, faulty, points over and over just wastes time and space.

First off you called the Catalyst a DEM, which shows what little understanding you have of an actual DEM. The Catalyst would have to be both unexpected and solve the unsolvable problem.

He is and does neither.

The Catalyst was mentioned right near the start of the game, and is the driving force behind five priority missions. He'd also need to solve the situation, which is activating the Crucible, something which Shepard does. The Catalyst mearly states the choices the Crucible brings.

And here's the important part: Even if you want to argue that the Catalyst did solve the problem, it's irrelevant, as 50% of a DEM is not a DEM. Something that is the driving force behind so many priority missions, that is mentioned right near the start of the game as being something we needed for the Crucible, is not unexpected. Not knowing what the Catalyst is and the Catalyst being unexpected are two very different things.

You dismiss the Rannoch Reaper because lolwhynot, and seem to think that showing the peace between the Quarians and the Geth would disprove the Catalyst's assertion that the "peace wont last". Ok, how?

Your final section can be summed up as "That's what sequels are for".

 

He doesn't actually say what you said, but I'll actually let that one pass, it was irrelevant to the argument anyway.

 

And not that it actually changes anything. You say that people had "different feelings about them", but that's not what I asked. Thinking something is an "insult", that's it's a "middle finger to the fans" is different from an actual insult and middle finger to the fans. These are pretty clear cut things, I couldn't say that in my opinion this grey white background on the forum is a middle finger to the fans, because it's ludicrous. An actual insult, and an insult in your opinion, are two different things.

If you can't explain how it's a "middle finger to the fans" then be prepared to be called out on how completely and utterly absurd that is. How thinking like that, with a victim mentality that turns free dlc into a personal attack against you, is completely and utterly ridiculous. A sense of perspective is in major need there.

 

I thought I mentioned it wasn't the exact article but a similar one. it would take me too long to go find it but the point is, when I read it, I immediately thought it was exactly how I felt. Go back and reread or listen to the catalysts dialogue especially in the 4th "choice". It's the writers talking down and invoking their superiority. There's no mention of the Geth/Quarian peace or anything that would refute the Catalysts' claims because Hudson and Walters didn't want to hear it. They were insulted they had to go back and rework things as it was. Anyway, it was an actual insult to me and a lot of other people at the time. It still is. If you want further proof, there's plenty of archived forums and articles with posts that support what I'm saying. The fact that you're refuting that claim and calling it "ludicrous" is surprising.

 

Anyway, I don't feel any explanation I give will satisfy you. You have a strong opinion on the subject and that's fine but as others mentioned, insulting people doesn't help you make your point. At a minimum, it devalues it and at worse, it gets you reported and called out. But I don't mind being called out on my point. Tempered by fire makes something stronger and people should be prepared for it so no worries there.

 

I'm more interested in the future of the series anyway so I'll post on that later.

[von uber]

"People found them to be rubbish" and "you are probably in the minority of actually finding them any good" are two very different things. The former is true of course, as it is with (everything everywhere), but you'll need a source for the latter.

 

Not really. As I said, they were major points of criticism in reviews, and the majority of articles references this; as well as the majority of posts here (the forum for the game) being negative. That's a fairly large sample size from a variety of different sources.

You found them ok? Well that's good for you; others didn't; and obviously it was a large enough sample for them to release (at their own cost) an extended cut.

[KaiserShep]

I would imagine that the abruptness of the original endings alone would have angered quite a lot of people. I suspect that even if the ending was fixed, and Shepard simply destroyed the reapers without destroying the geth and saved the galaxy, but we only saw the reapers fall over and die and suddenly credits, people would still be angry that it just ends with no outlook on the galaxy we're leaving behind.

[Tython]

For the next game, I was wondering what people thought concerning the direction of the series. I'd hope they'd use the Destroy ending, not necessarily because Shepard survives but because the galaxy is in the worst state possible. In Synthesis and Control, the Reapers are there fixing the Citadel and Relays and remain as defenders. Their immense knowledge from hundreds of cycles/races makes them quite powerful. For a long time, the galaxy was surrounded by Reapers in dark space probably keeping out any non Milky Way enemies. In Destroy, the Reapers are gone. It will take longer the repair the Citadel and Relays and their knowledge is gone. The galaxy is also open to potential attack without having them as powerful defenders. The loss of the Geth is minor but the Quarians recovery is slowed down if you made peace. Edi I felt could've been back up or remade.

 

The 4th ending could end up being a Synthesis/Control ending if whoever in the next cycle meets up with the Catalyst chooses that option or it could be a later Destroy. Anyway, Bioware could end up doing a trilogy based on each different ending (blue, red, green) and even the 4th if they choose. I just feel the Destroy ending has more potential. It would also be a positive thing to take orders from Admiral Shepard similar to Admiral Hunter in Robotech.

[The Bad One]

I thought I mentioned it wasn't the exact article but a similar one. it would take me too long to go find it but the point is, when I read it, I immediately thought it was exactly how I felt. Go back and reread or listen to the catalysts dialogue especially in the 4th "choice". It's the writers talking down and invoking their superiority. There's no mention of the Geth/Quarian peace or anything that would refute the Catalysts' claims because Hudson and Walters didn't want to hear it. They were insulted they had to go back and rework things as it was. Anyway, it was an actual insult to me and a lot of other people at the time. It still is. If you want further proof, there's plenty of archived forums and articles with posts that support what I'm saying. The fact that you're refuting that claim and calling it "ludicrous" is surprising.

 

Nice try but that still doesn't back up your claim. There were many posts just asking for a refuse ending that leads to failure, and Bioware included it.

They included what fans asked for (which was an extension of the game over screen that was already there if you took too long to choose) but this time with the ability to choose it through dialogue. Meanwhile you say that including what fans asked for is "insulting" and a "middle finger to the fans"? That's nuts. And look at those claims you made, "Hudson and Walters didn't want to hear it"? Source? "Refute the Catalyst's claims"? Refute that the peace wont last you mean? How?

Show this. Your opinion that it's an "insult" and a "middle finger to the fans" and it actually being those things are very different. If you want to say things like that, show it, claiming that others thought that way doesn't help your point in any way whatsoever, that's just countered by saying others didn't. But an actual middle finger to the fans would be easy to show.
 

Anyway, I don't feel any explanation I give will satisfy you. You have a strong opinion on the subject and that's fine but as others mentioned, insulting people doesn't help you make your point. At a minimum, it devalues it and at worse, it gets you reported and called out. But I don't mind being called out on my point. Tempered by fire makes something stronger and people should be prepared for it so no worries there.

 

Nice try but no one else had said that to me. If you say I'm insulting people, source it.

 

Not really. As I said, they were major points of criticism in reviews, and the majority of articles references this; as well as the majority of posts here (the forum for the game) being negative. That's a fairly large sample size from a variety of different sources.

You found them ok? Well that's good for you; others didn't; and obviously it was a large enough sample for them to release (at their own cost) an extended cut.

 

Again, different from "you are probably in the minority of actually finding them any good". Bioware found the people who modded the gay relationship with Kaidan in ME1 to be a large enough sample for them to include (at their own cost) dialogue between MaleShep and Kaidan that can only be seen if you do that. They also included (at their own cost) dialogue and scene changes for Engineers, despite the fact only 2% of players were Engineers.

Does that mean the people who didn't do that, or weren't Engineers, were in the minority? No.

Source your claim.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

The ending introduced a new, god like character at the end of the story that was intended to resolve the plot without any alluding to. Yes, the part known as the catalyst was talked about, then acknowledged as the citadel, but never as an AI. Its still a DEM, if poorly executed. If the conclusion is left to sequels, then its a bad conclusion.

[von uber]

Again, different from "you are probably in the minority of actually finding them any good". Bioware found the people who modded the gay relationship with Kaidan in ME1 to be a large enough sample for them to include (at their own cost) dialogue between MaleShep and Kaidan that can only be seen if you do that. They also included (at their own cost) dialogue and scene changes for Engineers, despite the fact only 2% of players were Engineers.

Does that mean the people who didn't do that, or weren't Engineers, were in the minority? No.

Source your claim.

 

I've told you the sources, if you want to drag up spurious counter arguments regarding gay relationships then that's up to you

 

You don't work in accounting, do you?

[Iakus]

I would imagine that the abruptness of the original endings alone would have angered quite a lot of people. I suspect that even if the ending was fixed, and Shepard simply destroyed the reapers without destroying the geth and saved the galaxy, but we only saw the reapers fall over and die and suddenly credits, people would still be angry that it just ends with no outlook on the galaxy we're leaving behind.

 

Might have been called a weak ending, much like DA2.  But I doubt it would have gotten nearly the amount of backlash the actual ME3 endings did.

[Iakus]

 

You don't work in accounting, do you?

 

He's not David.  He's the guy who's attracted to robots

[KaiserShep]

Might have been called a weak ending, much like DA2.  But I doubt it would have gotten nearly the amount of backlash the actual ME3 endings did.

 

Oh I don't expect that the fan outrage would be nearly as vocal, but I do think the abruptness was a big part of the problem, because without more detail into the choice we were actually making, all people can remember is the color of the explosion. If the extended cut was the original ending, I doubt that people would have been making that same complaint.

 

As for DA2, it does benefit somewhat from being the lead-in to a much larger story.

[The Bad One]

The ending introduced a new, god like character at the end of the story that was intended to resolve the plot without any alluding to. Yes, the part known as the catalyst was talked about, then acknowledged as the citadel, but never as an AI. Its still a DEM, if poorly executed. If the conclusion is left to sequels, then its a bad conclusion.

 

Wrong. 50% of a DEM is not a DEM. The mere fact that you acknoledged the Catalyst was known before the ending is completely counter to your claim. You basically went "Yeah he's not a DEM but he is a DEM". You're contradicting yourself.

The conclusion wasn't left to the sequels, Shepard's story has ended, so it concluded. You're asking for the series to conclude, not Shepard's story, but the series hasn't concluded.

 

I've told you the sources, if you want to drag up spurious counter arguments regarding gay relationships then that's up to you

 

You don't work in accounting, do you?

 

None of those sources (which you haven't actually presented) back up your claim that those that disagree are probably in the minority, you do know that right?

Source your claim.

[The Bad One]

He's not David.  He's the guy who's attracted to robots

 

Or a Futurama fan. One of those.

[von uber]

None of those sources (which you haven't actually presented) back up your claim that those that disagree are probably in the minority. You do know that right?

Source your claim.

 

Mainly because I can't be arsed spending the time on google to prove the point. It's not worth it just to win an argument I am not particularly interested in. Knock yourself out if you want to; try the BSN polls for a start.

[The Bad One]

Mainly because I can't be arsed spending the time on google to prove the point. It's not worth it just to win an argument I am not particularly interested in. Knock yourself out if you want to; try the BSN polls for a start.

 

That or you can't.

 

But I'd be lying if I said I was surprised.

[von uber]

That or you can't.

 

But I'd be lying if I said I was surprised.

 

Oh well. What can you do eh.

[The Bad One]

Oh well. What can you do eh.

 

Source it? That seems like a pretty obvious solution.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

     

 

There's your ending choices in 20 kg sacks. For the color blind, that's control on the left, synthesis in the middle, and destroy on the right. Size doesn't matter here, it's just that I couldn't find equal size sacks of s***.

 

See we yelled and screamed about the original ending about how it didn't make any sense. That was the problem. We didn't tell them the truth that it was just plain terrible and didn't belong with the rest of the story. So what the geniuses at Bioware did with the Extended Cut was explain to us just how bad the original ending was just in case we didn't get it. 

 

See they're still virtually identical except for the color of the explosions on your screen. You die, the relays explode, and the Normandy crashes. They inserted a pickup scene so that you could be certain that your entire team deserted you on the beam run just so that you, the player, could be satisfied that Javik or whoever was with you made it to the Normandy for the scene on that planet where the ship crashed. Bye bye Shepard. Oh, and good luck running this alone. Ha ha ha. They all have virtually identical slides with corresponding hues to the explosions, and none show what happens to your squadmates after the war. Your love interest some how psychically knows you survived the destroy ending if you had enough EMS, so you have a glimmer of hope. Either that or they just cannot let go. And there's this endless stream of Krogan, but the baby Krogan is now being held like a child, whereas they're always referred to as producing a clutch of 1000 eggs in the codex. Look up clutch of eggs online. Did they become mammals all of a sudden? Wow. More plot holes. They knew people would just lap it up if they showed fancy slides, slapped some good music over them, and brought back the voice actors.

 

But they let you challenge the Starchild! And you felt good about that even though it made absolutely no difference. And you got to refuse the Starchild and watch the galaxy burn because Bioware writers said "you're an idiot." How many of you on subsequent plays actually bother to challenge the Starchild? I don't. Is fire at war when it burns? Who cares? If my house is on fire I call the fire department to put out the damned fire.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Wrong. 50% of a DEM is not a DEM. The mere fact that you acknoledged the Catalyst was known before the ending is completely counter to your claim. You basically went "Yeah he's not a DEM but he is a DEM". You're contradicting yourself.

 

Perhaps, but everyone believed the Catalyst was an object. Only at the end is the Catalyst revealed to be an actual AI and new character. And it sure is unexpected; nothing about the Reapers attitudes or actions suggests anything about the Catalyst (in fact they rather contradict it in retrospect), except for that one theory from Vendetta which was vague enough to describe almost anything and a 15 dollar DLC.

 

My main point being I don't think rigid definition of what a DeM is or isn't (is it DeM's evil step-brother? Is it some hybrid of them?), isn't going to help here -- if there even is one; hell, even the DeMs of ancient Greece don't seem to hold up to some definitions. What we do know is that it is an out of left field ass pull, introduced at the end involving a new character and... twiiiiists. The Catalyst is however constantly referred to as a DeM by people with paychecks or a large traffic content for their articles about ME3.