989 réponses à ce sujet

[cap and gown]

Does he call it Legion, even if you simply never activated it?

 

Yes. (this is from my current playthrough where I never activated Legion.)

[ImaginaryMatter]

That´s probably the best reason I´ve ever heard to like the ending. I never saw it this way. I just saw plotholes, twists, 3 choices coming out of nowhere (to me) and their consequences in a slideshow. Confusion everywhere. But your reason is something I can understand.

It´s a pity it doesn´t work for me. Main reason is because my answer to it would be "no". Shep hasn´t a right to do this, neither has the catalyst to help advanced civilizations ascend so they could make way for new life. And also I´m not sure the ending was meant to be so... deep? Blue/green/red pictures and voice-over telling me that everything´s gonna be allright combined with plotholes etc. ... I don´t know. Perhaps there was a good intention, but a bad execution? At least I´ve got something new to think about.

 

I'm sure the writers wanted to end the game on a powerful note. However, this ending is so inorganic and filled with continuity errors and fauxlosophic ramblings that it falls off any point it could make. I guess I can sympathize with people gleaming some deeper meaning and closure out of a messy patchwork of incongruous events but I find it hard to see -- even if I squint my eyes and tilt my head. It's a big choice for the sake of making a big choice, made worse by the fact that it's at the end of the trilogy and following the design mess that is the last act of this game.

[Vazgen]

Yes. (this is from my current playthrough where I never activated Legion.)

Weird. Well, I guess I won't activate Javik for the third time

[cap and gown]

Weird. Well, I guess I won't activate Javik for the third time

 

Save Javik until after Thessia. RedCeasar just found out that Javik has yet a third dialogue variant if you get him after Thessia.

[Vazgen]

Save Javik until after Thessia. RedCeasar just found out that Javik has yet a third dialogue variant if you get him after Thessia.

Nah, he's too awesome

Liara: "This nightmare never ends!"

Shepard: "The hell it won't. We find this artifact, and we can all wake up"

Javik: "50000 years later"

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Spectres are weird. So what if Noveria refuses to provide a Spectre with full access? What are his/her legal rights? Can he/she start a war over it? Obviously not, it's a decision that Council makes. Basically Spectre can act with Council authority if there is not really much at stake. When something dangerous comes up, that can trigger a galactic war, for example, Council sits back and lets things play out. If a Spectre gets the job done without much complications - good, if not and they are forced between starting a war or to abandon their agent - Spectre has gone rogue. It all comes up to the subject a Spectre deals with. A good Spectre understands that and acts more discreet in complicated matters. Shepard is as discreet as a drunk krogan in ME1, that's why the Normandy is grounded. He/she is kinda similar to Harkin - first human Spectre, a lot of backroom deals to keep him/her on the force... Udina does smooth things up with the Council, you can talk to him after every mission to hear about that.

 

Spectres are really weird. They were never well thought out.

 

"The Council doesn't want to get involved in their day to day activities or mission choices." Then who does? Where's the oversight? Who pays them? Or do they have to live off bribes and dumpster diving? Apparently the latter since I didn't collect a paycheck in ME1. Cerberus at least paid per mission.

 

It would seem to me that there would be an administrative structure similar to the CIA, except rather than representing a single galactic empire, they represent The Council. Thus the Spectre would have a supervisor - one who would oversee their assignments, read their reports, handle their vacation time, make sure they get paid, and handle any first line disciplinary action. Excessive actions like blowing up a building would fall under excessive use of force and be subject to review by something similar to an Internal Affairs unit. Being "above the law" has its limits. When it interferes with corporate and government interests - you know, those who actually run the galaxy - it would seem to me at that time the Spectre is no longer "above the law" no matter how "noble" their motives.

[Obadiah]

@sH0tgUn jUliA
Maybe the Spectre infrastructure was implied? Did Shep get credits when completing missions in Mass Effect 1? Or was it all credits from favors done along the way, and loot sold. I forget.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

@sH0tgUn jUliA
Maybe the Spectre infrastructure was implied? Did Shep get credits when completing missions in Mass Effect 1? Or was it all credits from favors done along the way, and loot sold. I forget.

 

Looting bodies and favors in ME1 - kind of like dungeoning in space.

 

ME2 implied a structure via Cerberus Daily News if you saw it: articles about Supervisor Yalson Sao praising the work of Tela Vasir. But that's as far as it ever went.

[KaiserShep]

Spectres are really weird. They were never well thought out.

 

"The Council doesn't want to get involved in their day to day activities or mission choices." Then who does? Where's the oversight? Who pays them? Or do they have to live off bribes and dumpster diving? Apparently the latter since I didn't collect a paycheck in ME1. Cerberus at least paid per mission.

 

Imagine how many Spectres must simply rob people to get funding. They could simply shake down smugglers, take all of their stuff and then sell it.

 

I can see Nihilus going through the disposal units behind restaurants when he wants something to eat. Living on the edge trying to tell dextro from levo food.

[Bardox9]

My cannon didn't die. I got the "last gasp" at the end. If you do your job and properly marshal the galactic forces against the Reapers and make the "Shepard's choice" at the end, Shep lives.: If you fail as leader of the resistance and/or choose the "wrong" ending then your shep dies. Granted he/she dies for a good cause, but you have to fail in some way.

[von uber]

SPECTRE funding is achieved due to the amount of money generated from fines of people misusing the word cannon.

[Iakus]

Imagine how many Spectres must simply rob people to get funding. They could simply shake down smugglers, take all of their stuff and then sell it.

 

I can see Nihilus going through the disposal units behind restaurants when he wants something to eat. Living on the edge trying to tell dextro from levo food.

So Spectres do the Alpha Protocol "Yellow Brick Road" style of funding themselves? 

[Valmar]

So Spectres do the Alpha Protocol "Yellow Brick Road" style of funding themselves? 

 

They even have to pay for their own weapons. Tsk, tsk.

[Iakus]

They even have to pay for their own weapons. Tsk, tsk.

While Cerberus agents have to build their own weapons,  even scrounging for the schematics and mining their own ore

[Reorte]

That's how you know Cerberus is evil. "We stripmined your entire world to build one gun!"

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

But Cerberus strip mines worlds that others in the galaxy cannot because they are boss. Like 6 g worlds and gas giants where the pressure would crush normal mining operations.

 

Goddess, we told them. If they had given us a good ending we wouldn't be picking the story apart like this. But now that they gave us one of the most crappy endings in video gaming history, we will pick the story to pieces and find every single flaw. It's like picking at a scab: you know you shouldn't but you just can't stop.

 

It's really sad when a 5.0/10 rated bomb like Call of Juarez: The Cartel, which I got talked into playing because of the co-op campaign, has a better ending.

[KaiserShep]

Goddess, we told them. If they had given us a good ending we wouldn't be picking the story apart like this. But now that they gave us one of the most crappy endings in video gaming history, we will pick the story to pieces and find every single flaw. It's like picking at a scab: you know you shouldn't but you just can't stop.

 

I guess that's really what it comes down to for the ending. If it satisfied more people emotionally and at least a little intellectually at the same time, we would probably see less of Let-Me-Count-All-The-Reasons-ME-Sucks-Donkey-Balls. ME2 has terrible internal logic, but people still gobble that stuff up.

[inversevideo]

Weekes is wrong. His conclusion is weak, like the ending of ME3.'

 

I expected more. When it ended all I could think was...not like this.

 

A lot of emotional investment went into the game, yes, that is true. But it was a great game, up until the last 15 minutes.

 

To have it all come down to...

 

1. Do you agree with Saren? Synthesis, the strength of organics combined with machines, and none of the weakness..

 

2. Do you agree with the Illusive Man, that man should control the reapers and advance humanity.

 

3. Or do you complete the mission you undertook, as an Alliance Marine and Specter, and destroy the Reapers; end the cycle.

 

Uhm, what?  Do I need to be indoctrinated to choose 1 or 2?   If I agreed with Saren, then why did I stop him?  So why agree with him in the end?

If I agreed with T.I.M. then why did I stop him, rather than help him?  Why would I agree with him now, when it comes down to the final moment?

Seems to me I would need to be indoctrinated to choose either Saren's or T.I.M's path for the future.

 

High EMS destroy for me, thanks. Fulfills the objective I set out to achieve from the beginning.

 

The possibility of Shepard dying to fulfill her objective was always acceptable if not the desirable outcome.

But I also expected some logic to the end, and, let's be honest, this is escapism, an epic tale, so if Shep has to die, and to paraphrase a certain bounty hunter, I at least want to go out feeling like a 'big guddam hero'.

[Valmar]

To have it all come down to...

 

1. Do you agree with Saren? Synthesis, the strength of organics combined with machines, and none of the weakness..

 

2. Do you agree with the Illusive Man, that man should control the reapers and advance humanity.

 

3. Or do you complete the mission you undertook, as an Alliance Marine and Specter, and destroy the Reapers; end the cycle.

 

Uhm, what?  Do I need to be indoctrinated to choose 1 or 2?   If I agreed with Saren, then why did I stop him?  So why agree with him in the end?

If I agreed with T.I.M. then why did I stop him, rather than help him?  Why would I agree with him now, when it comes down to the final moment?

Seems to me I would need to be indoctrinated to choose either Saren's or T.I.M's path for the future.

 

 

1. The synthesis you achieve in the ending is different that what Saren achieved. Saren was controlled by his implants, indoctrinated. The ending doesn't come with such an issue, we still have free will. Just because Saren advocated it doesn't make it bad. Something doesn't become bad by default just because an antagonist likes it. I think the concept of joining man with machine is pretty amazing and would be a life-changer for a lot of people. We're not really in a position to judge it when the character we play as is just as 'advanced' as Saren was. People tend to forget this because Paragon is the most popular so its easy to forget that Shepard is full of cybernetics and isn't 'fully human'.

 

2. Shepard never gives any indication that he/she will use the reapers to advance just humanity. The Illusive Man was very focused solely on the advancement of humanity with little care for the alien races. Shepard would advance and protect all species without prejudiced.

 

3. This same logic could be applied to Mass Effect 2. You set out to destroy the collectors/heretics but at the last moment you're given another option that doesn't have you destroying them. To quote a certain quarian I enjoy punching for the luls "The mission parameters changed. You're military. You understand that." Imagine if in these scenarios you were forced to go with destroy because thats what you set out to do. If destroy is all you do anyway then good for you, you won't care. For those who like the other options however they'll be shafted because Shepard refuses to acknowledge the other options presented.

 

You certainly don't need to be indoctrinated to choose 1 or 2, nor is it ever implied that indoctrination was required. I've seen the endings and I saw no indoctrination. You're implying that it would take an indoctrinated person to see benefit in those two endings - something I disagree with.

 

You stopped Saren because he was a puppet of the reapers seeking to bring back their return it had nothing to do with his view of organic-machine synthesis. This isn't even something he starts talking about until the very end of the game. Before any of this came up we were still trying to stop him. The reasons he needed to be stopped did not change just because he had a different philosophy. Synthesis had nothing to do with it.

 

You actually don't have to disagree with TIM on the matter of control. You can tell to him to stop bitching around and take control of the reapers. He can't do it because he is, very obviously, indoctrinated. "Why waste your time with us if you can control the reapers? Then open the arms, let the crucible dock and use it to end this. Do it! You can't can you? They won't let you do it."

 

Shepard is against TIM not just because he wants to control but because he's indoctrinated and stopping them from destroying the reapers and is constantly making things more complicated.

 

You need to be indoctrinated to see the potential of having the reapers as pawns, forced to serve and protect the galaxy? You have to be indoctrinated to see the benefits in synthesis where all life is in harmony with one another? Shepard is partly synthetic, the only reason your character is alive to stop the reapers is because Shep was brought back with a bunch of synthetic crap. To undermine all that potential and wave it away as being only the desires of an indoctrinated tool does not do it justice, imo. You're what TIM accuses Anderson of being. An old soldier who only views the world from the barrel of a gun.

 

For the record, I choose Destroy. That doesn't mean I think everyone else is indoctrinated and 'wrong'. There are valid reasons for every choice.

[SilJeff]

Hitler wanted zero unemployment so that must mean I am a Nazi for wanting to get the unemployed working too

[fhs33721]

 

To have it all come down to...

 

1. Do you agree with Saren? Synthesis, the strength of organics combined with machines, and none of the weakness..

 

2. Do you agree with the Illusive Man, that man should control the reapers and advance humanity.

 

3. Or do you complete the mission you undertook, as an Alliance Marine and Specter, and destroy the Reapers; end the cycle.

 

Uhm, what?  Do I need to be indoctrinated to choose 1 or 2?   If I agreed with Saren, then why did I stop him?  So why agree with him in the end?

If I agreed with T.I.M. then why did I stop him, rather than help him?  Why would I agree with him now, when it comes down to the final moment?

Seems to me I would need to be indoctrinated to choose either Saren's or T.I.M's path for the future.

 

 

Where the hell do people continue to get the idea that Saren represents Synthesis? That one line during the final confrontation which seemed more like boasting about being superior to Shepard now than anything else? I think you can even avoid that line. Regardless you stop him, because he (or rather Sovereign since Saren himself is nothing more than a pawn) wants to allow the Reapers to curbstomp your cycle and kill everyone, which has nothing to do with Synthesis.

 

Furthermore you can agree with TIM on control. You still have to fight him because he is a indoctrinated jerk that consantly sabotages your war effort though.

 

Also: Just because someone is a villain and/or indoctrinated doesn't mean that everything they say is wrong by default.

TIM does have a point when he says that controlling the Reapers would gain humanity  more than destroying them. That statement is objectively true and the fact that he is a villain and indoctrinated changes nothing about it. If TIM or Saren said that 1+1 equals 2 they would still be objectively right no matter how indoctrinated they are.

 

You can reject ending choices because you find them to be morally apelling or because they might have unforseen consequences but to just reject them and say that they have no merit because a villain had similar goals is very shortsighted.

[Reorte]

TIM does have a point when he says that controlling the Reapers would gain humanity  more than destroying them. That statement is objectively true and the fact that he is a villain and indoctrinated changes nothing about it. If TIM or Saren said that 1+1 equals 2 they would still be objectively right no matter how indoctrinated they are.

Is it subjectively true when what you perceive as a gain is objective? Even if I accept that then so what? It's objectively true that I could be wealthier by stealing from someone than helping them.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Hitler was a vegetarian and was evil. Therefore all vegetarians are evil.

[SporkFu]

Hitler was a vegetarian and was evil. Therefore all vegetarians are evil.

...I knew it. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

Hitler was a vegetarian and was evil. Therefore all vegetarians are evil.

 

Well... ya, of course.

 

If someone doesn't eat bacon there's something wrong with them.