265 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

It can't be just anyone with incentive. Any rube who lives in a shack on some remote colony who knows about the rebellions can push this plan; the difference is that whoever is providing this alternative needs to have more than just an idea to offer. Like, what will you give me in exchange for betraying the krogan and risking the turian alliance? The Dalatrass can offer the salarian fleet and engineers for the Crucible. It seems to me that no one else can really meet this requirement.

 

Shepard is right about one thing: whatever the krogan can do in the future, the reapers can do an order of magnitude worse. Curing the genophage is a considerable risk for the future, but sabotaging it is a considerable risk for the present.

[SporkFu]

I know that feeling OP.  I too love ME3, endings and all, but people like us weren't allowed to have an opinion back when the game was released.  You hit the nail on the head when you wrote:
 
 
Back then, anyone who said they liked the endings, and could explain why they thought that way, were talked down to as if they were idiots.

I hear that. I'm not gonna judge and I'd never try to tell anyone how they should feel... I was pretty much just lurking back then, but I saw a lot of negativity.

EDIT: Dunno what happened to the quote before, heh.

[ImaginaryMatter]

It can't be just anyone with incentive. Any rube who lives in a shack on some remote colony who knows about the rebellions can push this plan; the difference is that whoever is providing this alternative needs to have more than just an idea to offer. Like, what will you give me in exchange for betraying the krogan and risking the turian alliance? The Dalatrass can offer the salarian fleet and engineers for the Crucible. It seems to me that no one else can really meet this requirement.

 

Shepard is right about one thing: whatever the krogan can do in the future, the reapers can do an order of magnitude worse. Curing the genophage is a considerable risk for the future, but sabotaging it is a considerable risk for the present.

 

I think tricking the Krogan's is enough of a reason, you get there help without the potential drawback later. Sure, the Dalatrass has a better reason but I think the former at the very least warrants discussion. Like there isn't a whole lot of risk talking about it secretly using omni-tools or something.

[DarthLaxian]

No one's wrong for how they feel about the game, you're over-thinking it.

 

Indeed - like/dislike is all subjective

 

I mean, while I myself am quite disgusted (I do dislike almost anything - except the gameplay - about this game (from over all story, to the character-remakes (Ashley-Plastic-Surgery anyone?) and the endings of course, too), I myself can understand why some people might like it (hell, I might to, if they didn't set the bar so high with a lot of their previous games (DA:O, KOTOR, ME1 and 2 etc.)...It probably is a case of "I expected more from you guys (at Bioware)" because they have done so well in the past (with one other exception: DA2)

 

greetings LAX

[Dabrikishaw]

Ah, if only you were here during the old days... the dark old days...

 

I recall being accused of rape because I chose Synthesis. 

It's always a battleground when you're on the wrong side of the fandom opinion.

[KaiserShep]

I think tricking the Krogan's is enough of a reason, you get there help without the potential drawback later.

 

But there's a flip side to that coin: tricking them endangers the alliance, which Shepard is seeking to get aid for the Crucible as well as the turians' fleet, which is far more substantial than that of the salarians.

 

The problem with the Tuchanka choice in the game is that the plot is fixed so that the krogan and turians are an asset no matter what you do, and the number is simply reduced if you trick the krogan with Wrex as leader. Within the framework of the universe, having the Urdnot clan leader find out about the sabotage should lead to the entire dissolution of the treaty, losing the entirety of the krogan and turian forces, and the entire plan to gather allies against the reapers falls apart, because the failure to get either group on board would leave the salarians and asari to hunker down and try to hold out on their own in their respective systems. The only ones you'd have left to choose from would be the quarians and geth.

[Barquiel]

I thought the first two thirds of the game and Leviathan/Omega/Citadel are great. Things like the dynamic Normandy, with the crew moving around and having conversations with each other, squadbanter during missions and the side quests are really well done.

 

Post Rannoch is were I started feeling things were a bit off. Thessia, Sanctuary, Cronos station and Earth have some nice moments (especially the goodbye scenes in London and the final conversation with Anderson), but the missions were are all rather mediocre and linear, imo. And the ending is, well, not that good (except the epilogue).

[ImaginaryMatter]

But there's a flip side to that coin: tricking them endangers the alliance, which Shepard is seeking to get aid for the Crucible as well as the turians' fleet, which is far more substantial than that of the salarians.

 

The problem with the Tuchanka choice in the game is that the plot is fixed so that the krogan and turians are an asset no matter what you do, and the number is simply reduced if you trick the krogan with Wrex as leader. Within the framework of the universe, having the Urdnot clan leader find out about the sabotage should lead to the entire dissolution of the treaty, losing the entirety of the krogan and turian forces, and the entire plan to gather allies against the reapers falls apart, because the failure to get either group on board would leave the salarians and asari to hunker down and try to hold out on their own in their respective systems. The only ones you'd have left to choose from would be the quarians and geth.

 

One of the points I'm talking about though is simply discussing it (although I do think the sabotage option should have been available from the onset). If we're talking about framework you could just have them simply discuss the plan in secret and never have the Krogan find out about it (in this universe I assume there are communication channels people believe are secure, one of our allies is the infiltration specialized Salarians); even later you do actually get an option to sabotage the cure which doesn't break the alliance (at least until later in some cases). The ultimate point of all of this would be so that the Krogan's past wouldn't get so whitewashed -- they are a dangerous and nonpredictable species -- there was very good reason for why the genophage was launched and good reason to keep it that way and why the Turians shouldn't completely curtail it, sabotaging the genophage cure and tricking the Krogan seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to at least bring up (and as we find out later it can actually be done in secret).

 

Why I brought this up in the first place because there is a noticeable trend in this game. With the Krogan, the history of their violent past is diminished and the only person in the game who speaks up in defense of the genophage is a deliberately-written, unlikable character -- I know with Wreav it's much better but I also think the decision shouldn't be so influenced on who's in charge, especially since they aren't actually kings of the Krogan. I do think there is an actual reason to bring up their past and have the story offer a more balanced approach on the whole thing. Sabotaging the cure, or discussing it, provides such a context (heck, you can probably fit it in elsewhere). Ultimately this didn't ruin the arc for me, although it certainly diminished it a bit (I found the bit in the CItadel DLC to be much worse).

[CosmicGnosis]

Perhaps I should I explain exactly what inspired this thread. Archengeia resorted to arguments that... well, disappointed me. He completely dismissed the symbolism of the Catalyst as a gardener and all of its implications, as well as some of the moral ambiguity of the ending choices. But the final straw, oddly enough, was his criticism that the music that plays during the Catalyst conversation is "pretentious". This, combined with everything else, really rubbed me the wrong way. I kind of lost some respect for him, which I didn't expect. He just outright dismissed way too many things. I expected better from him. I'll just have to accept that he, and many others, will likely ignore Mass Effect from now on. 

 

I hate that this fanbase has fractured. I hate that the entire future of the franchise is questioned. I hate that BioWare didn't communicate more openly with the fans. 

 

I want people to like Mass Effect again, but I can't make them. Unless there is some way to Synthesize everyone and create eternal peace with rainbows and unicorns...

[CronoDragoon]

I want people to like Mass Effect again, but I can't make them. Unless there is some way to Synthesize everyone and create eternal peace with rainbows and unicorns...

 

All that is required is that Mass Effect 4 is good. Gamers are notoriously fickle and will jump back on the bandwagon.

[CosmicGnosis]

All that is required is that Mass Effect 4 is good. Gamers are notoriously fickle and will jump back on the bandwagon.

BioWare has to revisit this ending in some way. If the next ME game is a sequel, then the ending needs to be addressed. Ignoring it would be an insult to all the fan speculation. I think BioWare should take this opportunity to, once again, clarify their intentions with the ending, and perhaps even retcon certain things. 

[AlanC9]

BioWare has to revisit this ending in some way. If the next ME game is a sequel, then the ending needs to be addressed. Ignoring it would be an insult to all the fan speculation. I think BioWare should take this opportunity to, once again, clarify their intentions with the ending, and perhaps even retcon certain things. 

 

What's the actual logic there? The ending needs to be taken seriously, so Bio can do that by retconning parts of the ending out of existence?

 

I can see supporting retcons because you absolutely hate the ending, but I don't get your position.

[CosmicGnosis]

What's the actual logic there? The ending needs to be taken seriously, so Bio can do that by retconning parts of the ending out of existence?

 

I can see supporting retcons because you absolutely hate the ending, but I don't get your position.

They can retcon things like all life being affected by Synthesis, including plants. They just have to be smart about what they choose to "retcon", and how they do it.

[KaiserShep]

But the plants need to stay synthesized, otherwise they may turn on us. It has been foretold in the M. Night Shyamalanicon.

[CronoDragoon]

BioWare has to revisit this ending in some way. If the next ME game is a sequel, then the ending needs to be addressed. Ignoring it would be an insult to all the fan speculation. I think BioWare should take this opportunity to, once again, clarify their intentions with the ending, and perhaps even retcon certain things. 

 

If the ending is a sequel, then their original intent is already sort of a moot point. Casey Hudson said that they definitely wouldn't do a Mass Effect after 3 when 3 was released.

 

I have no doubt they will retcon certain things. Synthesis hasn't happened or is different than as presented in ME3: the krogan wasn't glowing green in that teaser.

 

My guess? It's a few hundred years in the future. The relays are back, the geth are gone (unexplained, so that they could have simply left to do their own thing, not necessarily destroyed), the Reapers are gone (and you don't mention Shepard and the Reapers except in the vaguest terms, ie "Shepard ended the Reaper threat") the quarians are there, the genophage is cured.

 

In other words, Destroy in all but name. Synthesis was never going to work as a mid-point in an ongoing story, so if its a sequel that fate is sealed. Control will have to compromise that the Reapers left after helping rebuild, at some point.

 

So the Destroyers will be happy, and really they are the ones BioWare needs to appease anyway. Such a setup combined with Mass Effect 4 being a good game and gamers will be flocking back, if indeed they ever left to begin with.

[ImaginaryMatter]

But the plants need to stay synthesized, otherwise they may turn on us. It has been foretold in the M. Night Shyamalanicon.

 

Only if your harshin' the environment and not mellow.

[ImaginaryMatter]

If the ending is a sequel, then their original intent is already sort of a moot point. Casey Hudson said that they definitely wouldn't do a Mass Effect after 3 when 3 was released.

 

I have no doubt they will retcon certain things. Synthesis hasn't happened or is different than as presented in ME3: the krogan wasn't glowing green in that teaser.

 

My guess? It's a few hundred years in the future. The relays are back, the geth are gone (unexplained, so that they could have simply left to do their own thing, not necessarily destroyed), the Reapers are gone (and you don't mention Shepard and the Reapers except in the vaguest terms, ie "Shepard ended the Reaper threat") the quarians are there, the genophage is cured.

 

In other words, Destroy in all but name. Synthesis was never going to work as a mid-point in an ongoing story, so if its a sequel that fate is sealed. Control will have to compromise that the Reapers left after helping rebuild, at some point.

 

So the Destroyers will be happy, and really they are the ones BioWare needs to appease anyway. Such a setup combined with Mass Effect 4 being a good game and gamers will be flocking back, if indeed they ever left to begin with.

 

I think with Synthesis you can say something like, "The galaxy eventually reached that point of evolution on their own." if they wanted to.

[AlanC9]

My guess? It's a few hundred years in the future. The relays are back, the geth are gone (unexplained, so that they could have simply left to do their own thing, not necessarily destroyed), the Reapers are gone (and you don't mention Shepard and the Reapers except in the vaguest terms, ie "Shepard ended the Reaper threat") the quarians are there, the genophage is cured.
 
In other words, Destroy in all but name. Synthesis was never going to work as a mid-point in an ongoing story, so if its a sequel that fate is sealed. Control will have to compromise that the Reapers left after helping rebuild, at some point.
 
So the Destroyers will be happy, and really they are the ones BioWare needs to appease anyway. Such a setup combined with Mass Effect 4 being a good game and gamers will be flocking back, if indeed they ever left to begin with.

I think this is fairly probable. Though if it's going to be Destroy in all but name, I'd prefer they give it the name too.

[Liec]

 

 

So what brought this on, you ask? Well, one of my favorite Youtubers, whom I respect a lot, recently replayed ME3. He has been very vocal about his disdain for the ending, and this replay allowed him to reconsider a few things. But it was inevitable; after the ending, which he clearly hated, he couldn't have been more eager to uninstall the game. It's just all very sad. It's sad that BioWare decided to take the game down a certain path that they weren't prepared for and botched this franchise for so many people. It's sad for those people who can no longer enjoy Mass Effect, and it's sad for people like me who still love it, but must continue to navigate the labyrinth of despair and anger that surrounds the franchise. 

 

I'm tired of defending ME3. I'm tired of explaining why I like it. I'm tired of feeling like I'm not supposed to like it. I'm tired of the arguments where the two opposing sides use "irrefutable logic" to vanquish each other. And I truly resent the implication that I'm kind of a bad person because I can understand the Catalyst's perspective. 

 

I truly hope that I won't have to defend the next Mass Effect game. 

 

I watched most of Arch's stream and it was very clear from the beginning that he wasn't gonna change his mind about anything (remember the reason for playing on super easy? "This game doesn't deseeeeerve me trying".) The story went in a different direction than he was expecting and the game will never compare to the What-Should-Have-Been version of ME3 he's got installed in his headcanon.

 

If understanding the Catalyst's side makes you a bad person then that makes two of us, heh. When he started with the whole "we make ourselves stronger by beating the fire" I was like noo the point, you're missing it! and then I died.

 

Still love his channel though. And as far as liking unpopular things we could do worse. It's not like we're Uwe Boll fans.

[Farangbaa]

I think with Synthesis you can say something like, "The galaxy eventually reached that point of evolution on their own." if they wanted to.

It is inevitable

[Farangbaa]

The story went in a different direction than he was expecting and the game will never compare to the What-Should-Have-Been version of ME3 he's got installed in his headcanon.

This is true for so many people.

Then they dress up their feelings in fancy terminology on how ME3 is demonstratably, arbitrarily bad. It's kinda funny.

[AlexPorto111]

Oh man, I completely get it. I actually was one of the few people defending ME3 on 2012. It was hard. Glad to know that I'm not the only one that is a fan since the beginning and thinks 3 is the best one.

[Reorte]

This is true for so many people.

Then they dress up their feelings in fancy terminology on how ME3 is demonstratably, arbitrarily bad. It's kinda funny.

And that sort of reply is precisely why the ME3 defenders get so much flack. Those who don't like it argue their points, those who do mostly just sneer at those who don't.

There is plenty in ME3 that is demonstratably bad. It's been discussed often enough that I'm not going to repeat it. There's plenty all through Mass Effect that's demonstratably just as bad from a logical or cohesive point of view too of course that people get less bothered about.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

This is true for so many people.

Then they dress up their feelings in fancy terminology on how ME3 is demonstratably, arbitrarily bad. It's kinda funny.

 

Well, dismissing most people who dislike ME3 with dismissive language is in itself rather arbitrary. You have to tell them why and how they're wrong first.

[AlanC9]

There is plenty in ME3 that is demonstratably bad. It's been discussed often enough that I'm not going to repeat it. There's plenty all through Mass Effect that's demonstratably just as bad from a logical or cohesive point of view too of course that people get less bothered about.

 

Right. If someone wants to apply standards to all the games, that's one thing. If these supposedly objective standards only get applied to one game, though....