are you sure it wasn't said during ME1 that they were a former Alliance Black OP? Could've sworn that was ME1...
Then again, I could be wrong. Cerberus wasn't exactly my biggest interest in the series.
Yeah during ME1 it was said that they were an Alliance branch gone rogue.
Is there anything actually left of this horse? Seriously, I think the bones have actually been beaten into dust at this point.
inb4 200 replies Kappa
Any good ending mods besides MEHEM?
Guest_AugmentedAssassin_*
To be fair why synthetics and organics fight was explained by the catalyst. He said something along the lines of " Organics wish to improve their lives through the use of technology....but the technology will at some point surpass it's creator". I'm sure you can find the exact lines on YT or something. Once the synthetics have surpassed the abilities of their creators, they probably won't wanna serve the creators anymore. Thus the conflict.
Also I don't think the synthetic vs organic idea was something that was pulled out of thin air for ME3. It was set up throughout the series and in ME2. Think about the quarians and the geth, and how the council enforces strict regulations on AI research. EDI and Legion also further tied the concept to the fabric of the series. In ME2 as well as ME3 EDI attempted to understand and apply behaviors associated with organics, and legion is taking his first step towards breaking away from the collective and becoming an individual in ME2.
It's still a wacky explanation by telling you that this is the way things are. The Geth only acted in self-defense after the Quarians attacked them first. And sure the Organics vs Synthetics is a key element of Mass Effect. I have already said that before multiple times. But it's NOT the main conflict of mass effect.
Who said it was? And what is the main conflict?
Guest_AugmentedAssassin_*
Stopping the harvest of the reapers and securing the galaxy.
Uh huh. And knowing/understanding the motivations and purpose of your enemy (the Reapers) helps accomplish that.
Guest_AugmentedAssassin_*
Yes, That's the Paragon way, To try and understand the reapers both to stop them and to understand their purpose to advance society and answer your unanswered questions. The Renegade way is just figuring out a way to stop the reapers because you see it as a threat, Not as an anomaly. I'm personally a Paragade.
Regardless of what end of the Paragon/Renegade spectrum you are, understanding your enemy aids in stopping them. Forget the Reapers. In any conflict, knowing what makes your foe tick contributes in your effort to defeat them.
Guest_AugmentedAssassin_*
Regardless of what end of the Paragon/Renegade spectrum you are, understanding your enemy aids in stopping them. Forget the Reapers. In any conflict, knowing what makes your foe tick contributes in your effort to defeat them.
Yes. 100% Agreed.
You say that now, but if you are still here three years later, even if it is just to whine about the ending, you will most likely own 4 once it comes out.
I'm sorry, but this was extremely rude. Don't presume you know what I'm all about. Because you don't. And yeah, there is no way I am buying Mass Effect 4. Ever.
Any good ending mods besides MEHEM?
Well, there's MEEM, the Mass Effect Ending Mod, Mr Fob's original ending concept. IT changes the Catalyst to a Prothean VI and changes the conversation with it to alter the Reapers' motivation. Borrows a bit from the Dark Energy concept. Doesn't change the endings, but does change the context behind them.
There's also That's More Like It though I think that only really works with Kaidan romances.
I think I mentioned this before, but there's also JohnP's Alternate MEHEM which keeps the Catalyst and the conversation with it (with a few minor changes) but allows for Shepard and the geth's survival if you pick Destroy.
Finally there's the Citadel Epilogue Mod Works best with one of the MEHEMs, but can stand on its own. Alters the Citadel DLC to work as a, well, epilogue to the game. Dialogue is edited so it can be imagined to take place after the events of the game.
People who did not value the lives of the geth or EDI as highly as any other don't think that synthetic life can be sentient or self conscious. I respect the opinion of these people though I completely disagree with it. And trust me when I tell you that their opinion will be challenged in the coming decades.... and not only in entertainment related media.
I didn't choose destroy because I don't value synthetic life, I chose it because my options were:
Those were my options, I had to make a judgement call, and it looks to me like Destroy is the least evil choice. Still a terrible choice, but one that I think EDI would probably have agreed with.
Hold the line.
And for the love of GOD, the endings WERE bad because Shepard died in all four endings! That is a valid criticism! I am tired of repeating myself! Don't make me break out the copy and paste thing again!
No. No Shepard didn't. Anyone who thinks that the breath scene is Shepard dying doesn't know how "stuff" works...
I've read all the "arguments" for why the endings were bad, but it all seems to distill down to "they didn't end it the way I wanted". That's subjective.
TL;DR: Don't bother. I won't be swayed. I love the endings and that's that.
I've read all the "arguments" for why the endings were bad, but it all seems to distill down to "they didn't end it the way I wanted". That's subjective.
TL;DR: Don't bother. I won't be swayed. I love the endings and that's that.
Right, because people will dislike endings that end the way they do want 
Right, because people will dislike endings that end the way they do want
Yep! LOL They sure would.
No. No Shepard didn't. Anyone who thinks that the breath scene is Shepard dying doesn't know how "stuff" works...
I've read all the "arguments" for why the endings were bad, but it all seems to distill down to "they didn't end it the way I wanted". That's subjective.
TUN: Vanilla Ending
TUN Pre EC Review (of just the announcement)
TUN: Extended Ending
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NNUImNL9Ok
Smud: Original Ending:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiN8gL40d84&list=PLEE7764FAB908A8FB
Smud: Extended Analysis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nVf_yDYftY&list=PLiWzMOLohpMmyaUhp8hva3Vxa8Y9jsLRD
The original Ending, VIA the TUN reviews, abandoned:
Genre
Character Focus
Central Conflict
The abandonment of these three items in the vanilla ending via writer fiat resulted in the loss of
Narrative Coherence == this is where a LOT of players questions and issues are coming from...
Sure...if you can headcanon enough I am sure that you can fill in ANY detail that is outstanding. But using headcanon to fix these issues is largely...subjective. And when a writer has to have the reader or audience fix major issues in the story with their own imagination...it is purely bad writing. Good writer should be free from contrivance.
Now, the commen thing I have seen many do is simply take every criticism, every complaint, every stated plothole, every contradiction and sum it up to 'nitpicking'. As if that devalues the arguements themselves. This is, in effect, a rhetorical device called 'Poisoning the Well' used to devalue and weaken the opposing arguements and can be a form of an ad homminem.
http://en.wikipedia....soning_the_well
And it isn't JUST the ending....the ENTIRE GAME had massive problems
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGFJ43jv4eg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M-jtGoYX_Q
And finally, just for good measure, another view of the 'Art' arguement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBETU-uOGh8
No. No Shepard didn't. Anyone who thinks that the breath scene is Shepard dying doesn't know how "stuff" works...
I've read all the "arguments" for why the endings were bad, but it all seems to distill down to "they didn't end it the way I wanted". That's subjective.
TL;DR: Don't bother. I won't be swayed. I love the endings and that's that.
Let's put it this way; inductively, you're right. Technically speaking, a lot of people didn't like the ending because it wasn't the way they wanted it.
But that in itself is a subjective statement. WHY did people not find the ending to their liking? THAT'S The kicker statement.
Some people, like iakus, don't like the ending for reasons such as it not being 'morally happy' or 'ethically acceptable' since the ending scenario introduced an a new perspective that was much more alien and divorced from the rest of the franchise and addressed tangential themes that were divorced from the more conventional good/bad themes and presentation prevalent in the writing by BW (I suspect they want to change this, but too many people are too hung up on the idea of being a paladin/paragon and getting their power fantasy). They're more concerned with the outcomes and actions taken in the ending rather than the actual perspective and rationale presented by the Catalyst.
Those people, I feel, should not really be catered too.
On the other hand, there is the issue of presentation and technical narrative. The ending to ME3 was very weak in that aspect. It was hamfisted writing that presented a limited ideology within the argument presented by the Catalyst. Narratively, it doesn't make sense. Which is a flaw. There is a lack of reflection and insight, compounded by a hamfisted and biased presentation of the beliefs that the writers themselves are beholden too, and they have essentially committing their final perspective on the issues presented by the ending as the paradigm argument. They offer no ability to have a reflection on the arguments presentation, logic, or reasoning, and (despite later statements) leave little room for interpretation on what they consider, nay, force to be the ultimate solution to the problem. It's biased writing. It's lazy writing, made evident by the lazy presed now ntation. As well, there was a lack of development time, and a lack of characterization of the final options.
I agree with part of your statement. But it's a bit willfully ignorant to say that you're unable to be convinced that there were any flaws in the writing of the ending, and the blatant generalization that everyone who sees a flaw is a complainer who 'didn't have the story end the way they wanted it too'.
Guest_AugmentedAssassin_*
I really want to address multiple points about ME3 mentioned on this thread, But i can't as It'd include me giving spoilers about the preliminarily conception of my project. However, Once my project is completed, I will do a video explaining ME3's pros and cons and the vision of my project very thoroughly.
I said, " I won't be swayed. I love the endings and that's that."
It's still a wacky explanation by telling you that this is the way things are. The Geth only acted in self-defense after the Quarians attacked them first. And sure the Organics vs Synthetics is a key element of Mass Effect. I have already said that before multiple times. But it's NOT the main conflict of mass effect.
Yeah the main confilct throughout mass effect is the struggle against the reapers.... But you have no idea why they do it until the ending/leviathan. I'm not sure what you're arguing for here... would you prefer it if the reapers where a super advanced intergalactic civilization that harvested organic life for resources? I mean that's a possible narrative but if you're discussing the energy that a civilization like that would need you're talking about directly harnessing the energy of a star or that of a black hole, not that of any organic being; so really that narrative would make no sense at all.
I said, " I won't be swayed. I love the endings and that's that."
And I said that that rationale is an appeal to willful ignorance. Liking or loving the endings with broad knowledge of what they are is one thing.
But refusing to acknowledge an argument or evidence or rationale or perspective that offers a different view without taking in and absorbing what is being said is rather unwise and dogmatic towards your perspective/bias.
And I said that that rationale is an appeal to willful ignorance. Liking or loving the endings with broad knowledge of what they are is one thing.
But refusing to acknowledge an argument or evidence or rationale or perspective that offers a different view without taking in and absorbing what is being said is rather unwise and dogmatic towards your perspective/bias.
All I see is, "blah, blah, blah, I'm right and you're not".
Guest_AugmentedAssassin_*
Yeah the main confilct throughout mass effect is the struggle against the reapers.... But you have no idea why they do it until the ending/leviathan. I'm not sure what you're arguing for here... would you prefer it if the reapers where a super advanced intergalactic civilization that harvested organic life for resources? I mean that's a possible narrative but if you're discussing the energy that a civilization like that would need you're talking about directly harnessing the energy of a star or that of a black hole, not that of any organic being; so really that narrative would make no sense at all.
I'm just saying that they should have stuck up with their original plans. It'd have been much better than the current ending even if it wasn't perfect. I'm simply asking BioWare to explain the reapers' purpose thoroughly, And not to give some wacky explanations. As for my own suggestions, I can't really speak of that right now.
Guest_AugmentedAssassin_*
All I see is, "blah, blah, blah, I'm right and you're not".
That's actually how everyone is seeing you on this thread.
Retour en haut