@Alamar
1. Fair enough point, it is about the original ending. That doesn't make it any less flawed. EC is canonical - we're not meant to play the 'original' anymore. The proof of this is that the Wii U version was released with EC pre-installed.
2. The remarks though, in this case, are actually pretty significant. If your argument against something is based on a crucial misconception then the argument is invalid. This is bad because X, Y, Z doesn't mean anything if X, Y, Z is actually A, B, C (or in this case, R, G, 
. Does it seem like I'm beating on him for this? I don't know. It's not my intention, though I may come across as harsh. If anything I'd like to help him realize his mistake in thinking. I would had truly appreciated someone clarifying the misconceptions I had about the ending - maybe then I wouldn't had hated it so much for two years.
3. Civilizations in the sense of their buildings, art, ect ect, sure, they're gone. Though I'd argue that is not the specific use of the term in the arguments here and what is being meant by the term is the people, in general. The reapers say themselves that they harvest advanced civilizations. Clearly they're not scooping up all their monuments, libraries and musical instruments to preserve. They're speaking in a more general sense of the term. They harvest the people. You can get technical about it but the term in this usage was never meant to be so literal, imo.
4. We differ much, then. I believe it is an injustice to your own intelligence to blatantly ignore evidence that is right infront of you just because you disagree with it on a personal level. I don't like the explanation they give for synthesis but I'm not going to pretend/lie and say they didn't give an explanation at all. A horrible explanation is still an explanation. I will complain about how horrible their explanation is, that they don't explain enough or that it doesn't make sense. I won't say they don't give us an explanation, however. Because that's factually not true.
I'm certainly not going to insist the ending didn't happen and everyone who chooses it is indoctrinated and made a mistake, that my preferred headcanon fanfiction takes precedence over the real ending.
5. Yes, I did point that out. Infact I said that very thing in the last page.
Shepard doesn't have to take it at face value, my Shepard doesn't. That doesn't mean we, the player, should put our fingers in our ears and closes our eyes going la-la-la to pretend the ending isn't real and that its all a dream.
Originally I'd argue for IT's credibility because it gives you nothing to really say 'its a dream' about. The original ending was so short and bland with no difference whatsoever that asking you to pretend it didnt' happen is like saying pretend you didn't just blink. With EC though we can observe that the endings are, infact, true. Don't tell me Shepard is just indoctrinated after I saw, with my own eyes, virtual God Shepard ruling over the reapers and rebuilding for us.
IT is fine and if someone wants to handcanon it, power to them. I've no issue with that. It is only when people come on her acting like their fanfiction fantasy is REAL and TRUE and INTENDED ending that I get, frankly, annoyed by it.
6. Ah,yes, overestimating the devs. The founding principle of IT. Lol. Look, it could be the kid. I can't say absolutely that it isn't. I can, however, point to all the evidence saying it isn't.
Bioware has a history of reusing art assets or using assets inappropriately. In the first game there is a merc leader you fight that says he instigated the attack of Elysium. The character model is a human but in the lore it's clearly meant to be a turian.
In the breathing scene the art assets used for the rubble look like they're from London but in the actual lore, confirmed by Bioware, it's the Citadel.
Shepard has seen weird **** like this before in the Geth consensus and during the Leviathan DLC and in both cases he makes mention of it, yet he doesn't squeak a word about the kid. If it was REALLY the same kid haunting his dreams you'd think he would take notice.
The kid's image and voice are purposely altered drastically. They made effort to change the model. If it was meant to be the kid, and indeed is just all in Shepard's head, then why wouldn't it look like the kid - plain and simple? Leviathan's indoctrination looked like a real person, there was no crazy light effects. It's clearly a hologram - which makes no sense if its all in Shepard's mind. If it wanted to take the form of the kid it would be the kid.
The Mass Effect art book has a section dedicated to the kid on earth yet it makes no mention of the catalyst.
We all heard how the ending was rushed - this ties in well with them reusing an art asset in the ending (twice, counting the rubble).
You tell me, honestly, what one you feel makes the most sense here. That its the kid from Shepard's dreams and for some reason Shepard makes no mention of it.
Or that the catalyst isn't mean to literally be the same kid from earth and its just a generic child model they reused as a bases to create the Catalyst model.
Again, I can't say factually which way is what. It's up to you to decide which one fits better. For me, its just a reused art asset. Thats why they changed it so much with so many effects and altered its voice with two other overlays. It's simple and doesn't add any plot holes or require you to make assumptions to explain this or that. The idea that its the kid is actually an assumption since it never gives anything to suggest that it is. This is something the player assumes because we can tell its model is an altered version of the kid's model. Though using this same logic I guess I could say all enemies are the same just because they all look like and say the same things over and over.
In response to your summery, I'll admit that my arguments weren't the most constructive. Not because I cannot be more elaborate but merely because I'm tired of the conversation. This is a deadhorse that has been festering and decaying on the front lawn of Mass Effect for over two years now. I just don't have the energy. It isn't like it would change anything anyway. You can point to the devs directly saying no no no and the IT believer will still go yes yes yes. Besides, Ithurael already did a fantastic job of pointing out things I otherwise would had, the poor bastard. LOL.
I think you can rule out a few of those. They did say that the ending you get is
on the disk, they wouldn't ship a game only to have the actual resolution to the Reaper plot via DLC or some future game.
Which, btw, does include the EC dlc since the Wii U version comes with it on the disc.
The whole thing with the Catalyst threatening to destroy EDI and the Geth if you don't pick his "preferred options" is nothing more than psychological manipulation, which, according to the codex, is a symptom of Reaper indoctrination.
It doesn't threaten to destroy them, it explains that they will be lost too. It doesn't even single out the geth or EDI or anything, it just broadly says "all synthetics". Why if I killed the geth? That means I lose EDI. Funny that it thinks the death of one individual is going to be enough to guilt me out ending the reaper threat. Funny that, if Im being indoctrinated, it doesn't know enough to specifically mention names.
It's all about Reaper self-preservation. Reapers have the gun to their heads, so they pretty much say or do anything to stop you from shooting that tube and wiping out the Reapers.
Looking at a lot of the responses over the years watching this controversy, a lot of people did not pick the destroy option simply because EDI & Geth would die. Or that it would destroy the mass relays, stranding people, etc. So they went with the other options. They were indoctrinated by the Reapers.
The reaper self-preservation argument makes about as much sense as the original ending. It's all about protecting itself so it lifts Shepard up to the decision chamber, explains how to kill them, and lets him make the choice to do so. All that elaborate scheming to trick Shepard when they could had just left him passed out down there bleeding out on the floor. Problem solved.
Also at least you acknowledge that Destroy is a real ending. The rest are just indoctrination. Yeah, thats reasonable. Those other guys were indoctrinated, fools. Their ending isn't real. Course, neither is ours. It's all a dream, man, and we'll never know what happened. Whoa.
Looking at a lot of the responses over the years watching this controversy, a lot of people pick destroy because they wanted to destroy the reapers and were upset that choice shoehorned in the destruction of all synthetics on a device that is built specifically to target reapers and potentially even partly built by the Geth themselves. In my experience those that specifically avoided the destroy ending just to spare EDI and the Geth are few and far between.
From an RPG point of view, the player controls Shepard.
When people talk about Shepard chose to do X. Well, only because the player told him to. Shepard controls Reapers? Only because someone had Shepard walk up to that power conduit and pushed the E key to interact with it. Or have Shepard walk over to the destroy side and shoot the tube, because I told him to using my keyboard and mouse.
Reapers aren't interested in indoctrinating Shepard per say. They are interested in indoctrinating *us* the players that control Shepard. How cool is that?
I'm not stoned enough for this. Call back later.
Not to mention, Joker, a guy with brittle bones being alive, let alone the first guy out the door. Doesn't even have a scratch on him. Ashley had more scratches on her when she got attacked by Eva Core.
Yeah, from a literal point, that whole scene doesn't really fit.
The same guy who stood at the hatch of the Normandy firing an Avenger rifle at collectors in the end of ME2? We could, and many people have, go through the entire series with a fine-toothed comb and nitpick every little thing if we wanted to. No need to act like ME3's ending is so special. This series is not built upon absolute logic and reason. Yet people act so surprised about it specifically at the ending of the third game. As if everything up until that point was just so flawless and wonderful.
Retour en haut
