206 réponses à ce sujet

[Memnon]

While I dislike defending the ending I actually believe, but can't prove, that a lot of people wanted to understand the Reaper's motivations better.  I'm not saying how it was presented was good but I believe that the devs thought it was something they HAD to address.

 

I am in the camp that didn't have to know the Reaper's motivations - the fact that they were alien and unknowing (per conversations with Sovereign and Vigil) made them mysterious, dangerous, and terrifying. Learning that they were created by a bunch of idiot organics who tried to solve an "AI rebelling against organic" problem by creating an AI ... well, I'll take unknowing, personally. This was like Lucas introducing midiclorians ... I would rather not know and use my own imagination

[God]

Oh I get it.  And I agree with everything else you said. My problem is that the writers screwed up by allowing peace with synthetics, only to have the Reaper mastermind explain that those synthetics are my true enemy.

 

I don't think the Catalyst was saying that those synthetics were your true enemy. He was saying that, eventually, you will come into conflict with synthetics in the future. And when you do, they might have reached a point of technological advancement that is leaps and bounds ahead of you. And you, and all other organics may be wiped out by them. And that basically prevents biodiversity.

 

On another level, look at your friends now. They may be friends, but can you honestly say that one of them (or you) won't do something that makes you become bitter enemies? 

 

Does you making an ally of convenience with the Batarians make you happy best buds forevermore? 

 

It's a long-term issue, a long-term solution for a long-term problem. But the Catalyst is able to see in such long-term scales, due to its nature. It has perspective we lack. It's 100% correct in saying that the Geth (or any other synthetic race) will one day be your enemy, your destroyer. Stretch time out long enough and anything is possible.

 

As the old saying goes, give a monkey a typewriter and infinite time, and eventually, it will start writing Shakespeare or Hemingway or Orwell.

 

Now I'm not saying that the Reapers aren't your immediate concern. I support destroying them, since I don't trust the long-term implications of Control, even under a Shepard such as mine, as it precludes the emergence of cultural change, renovation, innovation, and evolution or synthesis, largely because I'm wary of the notion of using a Reaper variant of the concept and what that might mean. For all I know, the synthesis we see might be the result of mass reaperization and indoctrination of the galaxy, forever under the auspices of the Catalyst and Reapers.

 

However, I am saying that a lot of people believe that the Reapers being a concern precludes the possibility of anything or anyone else being a concern. It's not practical thinking.

 

It's motivation for a power fantasy. Which I'm fine with, just not when it's put in such simplistic, and dare I say, immature and childish terms.

 

Some people want the Reapers to be defeated by the power of hero, everybody lives (except the Reapers and any bad guys), and Shepard goes on to have lots of babies with his/her LI and becomes space galactic emperor supreme lord high magnificent the elder.

 

I derisively scoff at those people.

[Memnon]

 

Some people want the Reapers to be defeated by the power of hero, everybody lives (except the Reapers and any bad guys), and Shepard goes on to have lots of babies with his/her LI and becomes space galactic emperor supreme lord high magnificent the elder.

 

I derisively scoff at those people.

 

This sounds rather harsh - the hero sacrificing himself to save the world is just as much a cliche as anything else. And they actually established some groundwork to defeat the Reapers in ME1: the plotline about dark matter for one. Also, Vigil explicitly says that the Reapers are "trapped in darkspace" and while they are in darkspace they are vulnerable.

[Iakus]

Uhm, seems to me he doesn't care about Reapers at all.

 

Mechs shoot Wilson when you escape together

 

 

He cares about the safety of the civilians.  Keeping them on warships that will be targeted by Reapers is probably a Bad Idea.

 

But the implication is Wilson got his leg wound either from Cerberus crew trying to stop him, or a self-inflicted wound to make himself look innocent.   Not that it came from a mech.

 

 

 

Yep.  The reaper war was Shepard's team of synthetics and organics working together to prevent annihilation from a synthetic, organic, and cybernetic enemy.  When I reach starkid, I'm supposed to pretend that synthetics are my greatest enemy.  IMO, the enemy is a solitary synthetic who lives on the Citadel.  

 

Darth Krayt speaks the truth 

 

I think a lot of people still don't quite get the dilemma presented by the ending. 

 

People seem to think 'beat the Reapers and peace everlasting!' 

 

Not happening. Synthetics will very likely be a significant threat in the future. The Catalyst is very long-ranged in its planning and resorting. 

 

It has perspective that is almost imperceptible to any other being, and it knows the fundamental sociological patterns that create the downfall of races. 

 

Synthetics may be your friends for the time being, but what about 10, 25, 100, 1000, 10000 years from now?

 

The Reapers and the Catalysts problem takes on a new perspective, and you see that the long-term issue is that fundamentally, the Catalyst is absolutely correct. And without the Reapers, you really might not be able to stop the synthetics this time. It's really not a question of if, but when. Eventually, you will come into conflict with synthetics over something. Maybe you caused it, maybe they caused it, but the problem is that what if you start a conflict with the synthetics when they're more advanced than you? When they keep building and moving? You could very well start a war that exterminates all non-synthetic life in the galaxy. It's a singularity event with negative repercussions for you.

 

There are two solutions to this:

 

1) Synthesize. It doesn't have to be the synthesis the Reapers and the Catalyst can utilize, but it's the same basic premise. I'd say it'd be ideal, sans the Reaper association with it. So after I destroy, I'm immediately going to start working on a means to enact synthesis.

 

2) Don't create advanced of sophisticated artificial intelligence: this is a bit more practical, and does take a bit of a logical stab out of the Catalyst. The issue here is this; Why do you need to create synthetic or artificial intelligence in the first place? You can have hyper-advanced computers that aren't self-aware. You don't inherently need synthetics for anything. That's the issue. What if we don't build more synthetic intelligences? I can't see an actual true need for them in the series. It's one point where I start to question the Catalyst a bit. It's very certain that synthetics will be created. At least thus far in Mass Effect, I question the need for AI, when they've only been a part of life for a certain amount of time, with only a few isolated events that show that their creation is inevitable.

 

Those are the two branches that are viable. Either enact a singularity event by permanently merging organic and synthetic, or refrain from moving past the technological stage of having sufficiently advanced, sapient artificial intelligence (which doesn't preclude the advancement of other technologies, just the advancement of synthetic life).

I have no illusions of peace everlasting in any of the outcomes.  Save perhaps Synthesis but that's a lotus-eater Getting Smileys Painted on Your Soul type of peace.

 

However, I have seen no evidence that synthetic vs organic conflict is significantly different from organic vs organic conflict.  Who's to say there won't be a war against the krogan in a century?  Or the asari in a millenia?  Or in ten thousand years, the batarians will be a galactic threat?  Or even the humans?

[Obadiah]

I wonder what that looks like, thousands of Reapers drifting dormant in darkspace, visible only by the light of stars.

[God]

Because synthetics have a capabiltity of advancement that is unhindered by biological functions or emotions, the ability to compute, think, weigh options, and determine reactions on levels that are utterly ascendant over anything any organic could ever do. It's irrelevant if there will ever be a war with anyone else: synthetics are entirely different from anyone else. All our strengths (magnified exponentially as time goes on, continually) and none of our weaknesses. To say otherwise is ignorant and delusional.

[Iakus]

 They are still bound by the laws of the universe:  the laws of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics.  They are not magical (unless the Plot Hammer deems it be so)  They are machines, they can be broken.  They need fuel to run, they need materials to reproduce.  They need tools to repair themselves.  

[God]

Of course (sans the 'they can be broken' sentiment). But the thing is, WE also have every one of those weaknesses, and more. We need to sleep. We need to breathe. We need breaks. We're prone to psychological problems. We have emotional limitations (some of us more than others). We have a myriad of problems and limitations that synthetics don't have. And every problem they have, we also have, and we're significantly more affected by them. And yes, while machines can be broken, so can we. And we're much more fragile than they are. So yes, we have a very, very significant disadvantage against them, and little, if any, real advantages. They are greater than we. And the Catalyst knows it. It's why it's right.

[Valmar]

Yep.  The reaper war was Shepard's team of synthetics and organics working together to prevent annihilation from a synthetic, organic, and cybernetic enemy.  When I reach starkid, I'm supposed to pretend that synthetics are my greatest enemy.  IMO, the enemy is a solitary synthetic who lives on the Citadel.  

 

 

Where was Shepard's synthetic during ME1? Oh, right, an enemy that went rogue and killed a bunch of guys.

 

You seem to be missing my point. I never argued there was no cooperation in the trilogy. It's a theme. That doesn't magically mean that conflict isn't also present in each and every title. Synthetic cooperation is something only in ME2 and ME3. Synthetic conflict is something present in all three. Both are themes with conflict being the more present.

 

You also don't really have to pretend anything. You can look at all the evidence the game paved for you. Javik would probably have a few words about this. Leviathan especially. The pattern exists in Mass Effect. Nothing we've seen has contradicted it - though nothing we could reasonably see ever could. This is more of a deep-time issue than anything else. Immortal beings observing the galaxy for billions of years have determined that the pattern exists. It's insanity to think we're special and different. Synthetics will turn on us eventually. The peace will not be eternal.

[God]

This sounds rather harsh - the hero sacrificing himself to save the world is just as much a cliche as anything else. And they actually established some groundwork to defeat the Reapers in ME1: the plotline about dark matter for one. Also, Vigil explicitly says that the Reapers are "trapped in darkspace" and while they are in darkspace they are vulnerable.

 

The hero doesn't need to sacrifice himself. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that many people want to have an ending that is so-called 'morally upbeat', with no dark or significant undertones to victory, or not having to do anything that really, truly costs you, not just physically, but emotionally, morally, or psychologically. 

 

The people who are indignant that the ending isn't sunshine and bunnies. The people who want the childish black and white morality tale that has the good guys being good and winning while being good, and the bad guys being bad and dying while being evil. BW decided to inject realism into their story with the tone of the ending, and those people can't take how their asinine views stack up to reality.

 

That's what I mean when I scoff at those people. Yeah, it's harsh, but then again, your opinion would be harsh too if people kept complaining about it for (running on) 3 years now.

 

As for Dark Energy, that was more in ME2, and it was very underdeveloped and never fully thought out or explained. It's pointless to really say that it was really what you'd call 'established groundwork' to beating the Reapers.

 

And yes, the Reapers are in Dark Space. And vulnerable. Did I mention they were in Dark Space? Yeah... That's pretty much impossible for non-Reapers to reach. Especially at how far the Reapers are from the Milky way. With no Mass Relays to get there (or can control to get there), and no feasible way to get there, the Reapers might as well proverbially be sleeping on the moon while we look up in futility. Vigil mentions the ingenious of the Reapers plan to hide in Dark Space.

[Memnon]

I think the fact that people are complaining about the endings for this length of time speaks to the passion that they had for the franchise. That passion is not easy to earn, either, and it should be what game companies hope to foster with respect to their IP. I had been a Bioware fanboy since Baldur's Gate, I pretty much preordered the collector's edition of every game they announced the instant they announced it. Bioware actually made a patch for Tales of the Sword Coast off of one of my save games - again, I am one person, but I think I can assume there are plenty like me. I loved Mass Effect, was a huge Bioware fanboy, and was even able to fogive their misstep of DA2. But the ME3 ending was just too much - it wasn't a case of the ending being too "bleak" it was simply that it was absolutley terrible and irredeemable in my view. My points about darkspace and dark matter are simply throw-away examples of what the writers (who are more talented at this than I am) could have done to paint a better story, a better ending. You can lose fans and customers with things like this - I almost didn't buy Dragon Age Inquisition ...

[Ithurael]

The hero doesn't need to sacrifice himself.

 

Tell that to your son God. Apparently he didn't get the message lol

[God]

I think the fact that people are complaining about the endings for this length of time speaks to the passion that they had for the franchise. That passion is not easy to earn, either, and it should be what game companies hope to foster with respect to their IP. I had been a Bioware fanboy since Baldur's Gate, I pretty much preordered the collector's edition of every game they announced the instant they announced it. Bioware actually made a patch for Tales of the Sword Coast off of one of my save games - again, I am one person, but I think I can assume there are plenty like me. I loved Mass Effect, was a huge Bioware fanboy, and was even able to fogive their misstep of DA2. But the ME3 ending was just too much - it wasn't a case of the ending being to "bleak" it was simply that it was absolutley terrible and irredeemable in my view. My points about darkspace and dark matter are simply throw-away examples of what the writers (who are more talented at this than I am) could have done to paint a better story, a better ending.

 

If I may ask, what were the issues with ME3's ending? I used to feel the same, but time and reflection have significantly changed my perspective of the ending.

 

While I still technically remain in the anti-ender camp, in many ways, I'm a pro-ender.

[God]

Tell that to your son God. Apparently he didn't get the message lol

 

He didn't sacrifice himself. You humans nailed him to a cross.

 

Judas Iscariot did betray him on my orders. To teach a lesson of morality.

 

LOL burn in hell Judas!

[Memnon]

If I may ask, what were the issues with ME3's ending? I used to feel the same, but time and reflection have significantly changed my perspective of the ending.

 

While I still technically remain in the anti-ender camp, in many ways, I'm a pro-ender.

 

Again, I will preface this with that this is my opinion. First, you are introduced to what seems to be the primary villain in ME2, Harbinger. Throughout ME2 and most of ME3, they were setting you up (or so I thought) for a final showdown with the Reaper leader. Harbinger blasts you in the face with a beam and then flies off – the entire sequence after this feels rushed and sloppy, and I don’t know how it made it past any kind of QA testing.

 

The star child being revealed, a brand new character in the final minutes of the game, was jarring. I hated it, I hated him. I spent all of ME3 gathering forces, mercenaries, fleets, agents, scientists and researchers, and all that happens at the end is we get a monologue in which all you can do is sit back and listen. Your Shepard basically just accepts everything the Catalyst says outright. This, the ending and the culmination of all the hours you spend in ME1 and ME2, after uniting the races of the galaxy and gathering War Assets, and all you are given is choose Red, choose Blue, choose Green. The symbolism was heavy-handed and unnecessary (shoot the controls for destroy, grab the controls for control). Shepard spent the entirety of ME1 and ME2 uniting diverse species, reconciling synthetics and organics (Quarians and Geth), and doing everything to stop the Reapers, and now we get some kind of pseudo space philosophy about how the cycles are inevitable and arguably the *best* choice is forcing a hybrid robotic/organic synthesis on every being in the galaxy against their will. That is basically saying that Saren was right.

 

I personally hated the “motivations” of the Reapers. I was fine with them being alien and unknowing, as Vigil says in ME1. As I mentioned in a different thread, that was like Lucas explaining the Force with midiclorians. I thought it was idiotic that an organic race that observed synthetics rebelling against organics thought it reasonable to build a synthetic to solve the problem. If anything, that pretty much invalidates any of their ideas or solutions out of hand. Overall, it felt to me like Bioware painted themselves into the proverbial corner with the way they had built up the Reapers, and the writers they had were not up to the task of creating a clever/interesting/engaging way to resolve the series. Yes, I would have preferred a way to defeat the Reapers – I don’t know how, at what cost, all I know is that I was extremely unsatisfied and unhappy with ME3, and resolved never to buy anything Mass Effect related since … though I sure as heck love DA:I

[Iakus]

Of course (sans the 'they can be broken' sentiment). But the thing is, WE also have every one of those weaknesses, and more. We need to sleep. We need to breathe. We need breaks. We're prone to psychological problems. We have emotional limitations (some of us more than others). We have a myriad of problems and limitations that synthetics don't have. And every problem they have, we also have, and we're significantly more affected by them. And yes, while machines can be broken, so can we. And we're much more fragile than they are. So yes, we have a very, very significant disadvantage against them, and little, if any, real advantages. They are greater than we. And the Catalyst knows it. It's why it's right.

By that logic the Council races should have lost the Krogan Rebellions.  The krogan had far fewer weaknesses than even the turians.

[Iakus]

The hero doesn't need to sacrifice himself. I'm not saying that at all. 

Mac Walters, apparantly is saything that, it seems

 

 

 

I'm saying that many people want to have an ending that is so-called 'morally upbeat', with no dark or significant undertones to victory, or not having to do anything that really, truly costs you, not just physically, but emotionally, morally, or psychologically.

Untrue to the point of trolling.

 

 And "morally upbeat" endings are not mutually exclusive to having a cost. Both of those are moving targets anyway.

 

 

 

The people who are indignant that the ending isn't sunshine and bunnies. The people who want the childish black and white morality tale that has the good guys being good and winning while being good, and the bad guys being bad and dying while being evil. BW decided to inject realism into their story with the tone of the ending, and those people can't take how their asinine views stack up to reality.
 

Again, blatantly untrue.

 

Although, yes, Bioware chose an odd moment to toss in arbitrary consequences to add "realism" to what has up til now been space fantasy.  But I guess changing tone to suit your preferences is okay.

[God]

Again, I will preface this with that this is my opinion. First, you are introduced to what seems to be the primary villain in ME2, Harbinger. Throughout ME2 and most of ME3, they were setting you up (or so I thought) for a final showdown with the Reaper leader. Harbinger blasts you in the face with a beam and then flies off – the entire sequence after this feels rushed and sloppy, and I don’t know how it made it past any kind of QA testing.

 

 

I gotta ask, how exactly do you think a final showdown with a Reaper would turn out? Because I gotta say, it turned out exactly as I expected it to. It's a bloody Reaper. The biggest of them all. There's absolutely - nothing - that you could possibly do as one person on the ground (even as Shepard) to fight it. It was unimaginative and pretty badly scripted from a technical and gameplay perspective, but narratively, the confrontation ended exactly as it should have ended. 

The star child being revealed, a brand new character in the final minutes of the game, was jarring. I hated it, I hated him. I spent all of ME3 gathering forces, mercenaries, fleets, agents, scientists and researchers, and all that happens at the end is we get a monologue in which all you can do is sit back and listen. Your Shepard basically just accepts everything the Catalyst says outright. This, the ending and the culmination of all the hours you spend in ME1 and ME2, after uniting the races of the galaxy and gathering War Assets, and all you are given is choose Red, choose Blue, choose Green. The symbolism was heavy-handed and unnecessary (shoot the controls for destroy, grab the controls for control). Shepard spent the entirety of ME1 and ME2 uniting diverse species, reconciling synthetics and organics (Quarians and Geth), and doing everything to stop the Reapers, and now we get some kind of pseudo space philosophy about how the cycles are inevitable and arguably the *best* choice is forcing a hybrid robotic/organic synthesis on every being in the galaxy against their will. That is basically saying that Saren was right.

 

 

I didn't mind the jarring nature of the Catalyst. It changes the spin and the perspective of the story. In fact, I'd say you're finally getting the Reaper perspective on everything. And it's very intriguing, if not prudent at the moment to worry about it. I agree with the issue that Shepard can't present any kind of argument or statement of logic to the Catalyst. That's part of the ending where I feel that the creators consciously decided to limit player interaction so they could run an author tract. That said, with what we got, I wouldn't have changed much. Shepard might do a short conversation with the Catalyst, acknowledging that there was no time to truly look at or debate each others perspective, since there's no ending that has both survive. I have no time to really choose, because the Reapers are tearing through the fleets to get to the Crucible. 

 

On that issue, what did you really expect all those assets to do? You gathered them to do one of three things: Build the Crucible, protect the Crucible while it travels to the Citadel, and protect you while you get to the Citadel. There's really nothing that any of those choices can amount to against the Reapers. They're more self-contained. The ending isn't, and shouldn't be dictated by you talking to an Asari widow or solving a hostage crisis peacefully. The reason is that all of those are irrelevant next to the Reapers (from an issue point). The Reapers are literally too powerful for any of those to matter on a physical scale. But that doesn't mean they don't matter at all. They matter in as far as how you view the story, the universe you put together, and the outcomes and aftermath of the ending of ME3. 

 

Plus, look at it like this: no those mercenary assets aren't going to kill the Reapers, but they will buy you time to get to the Crucible or protect the Crucible, and those scientists ensured that the Crucible was built and functioning properly.

 

On the topic of philosophy, I'd say that Saren really had nothing to do with the endings. His views are divorced from the context of the conundrum the Catalyst is presenting to you. And it is a very valid issue. Read my posts here, I've addressed how they really are an issue already.

 

I personally hated the “motivations” of the Reapers. I was fine with them being alien and unknowing, as Vigil says in ME1. As I mentioned in a different thread, that was like Lucas explaining the Force with midiclorians. I thought it was idiotic that an organic race that observed synthetics rebelling against organics thought it reasonable to build a synthetic to solve the problem. If anything, that pretty much invalidates any of their ideas or solutions out of hand. Overall, it felt to me like Bioware painted themselves into the proverbial corner with the way they had built up the Reapers, and the writers they had were not up to the task of creating a clever/interesting/engaging way to resolve the series. Yes, I would have preferred a way to defeat the Reapers – I don’t know how, at what cost, all I know is that I was extremely unsatisfied and unhappy with ME3, and resolved never to buy anything Mass Effect related since … though I sure as heck love DA:I

 

 

I personally have come to dislike an idea that the Reapers are 'unknowable'. As a man of science and knowledge, that's categorically against my very worldview. There's always a reason, and, as John Lennon put it, it's easy to understand any concept if you try. 

 

I would have preferred them to have a blue/orange system of logic that is alien, and, while explainable, doesn't make sense to us. For example, the Reapers would kill us because everybody knows it rains on Tuesdays. That's why the Reapers kill us. Actually, better, a stock assimilation/extermination plot, where the Reapers view themselves as the divine marriage of technology and biology and the pinnacle of evolution that must permeate the universe to make it better and purge it of all non-Reaper organisms, while still having the 'mercy' to enforce their assimilation onto other races to become like them. Think a combination of the Daleks and Cybermen from Doctor Who, and a bit of the Flood from Halo.

 

But this ending is a bit more... ambiguous. I'm fine with it when I take the time to look and reflect on it. As I said, read my views; I already addressed the issue on the thread here.

[God]

By that logic the Council races should have lost the Krogan Rebellions.  The krogan had far fewer weaknesses than even the turians.

 

That's a non-sequiter of logic then on your part, as well as a failure to understand the underlying difference in context of the Krogan Rebellion and a hypothetical organic/synthetic war.

 

The Krogan could be beat because they had other weaknesses, such as lower tech levels and a lack of mental acuity combined with bloodthirstiness that curbs rationality and logic that couldn't face up to the Turians cold and practical strategic and tactical decisions.

 

They may have had fewer biological weaknesses, but their strengths in other fields was outmatched by the Turians and other races.

 

Suffice to say, you're missing the point. The Krogan have a few advantages over others, while having significant weaknesses to others. 

 

Synthetics, on the other hand, are (given enough time) superior in absolutely every category to organics (except squishiness and killability).

[God]

Mac Walters, apparantly is saything that, it seems

 

 

Maybe he did say that, but he certainly didn't act on it. You can still shoot the pipe and survive if you choose.

Untrue to the point of trolling.

 

 And "morally upbeat" endings are not mutually exclusive to having a cost. Both of those are moving targets anyway.

 

 

I disagree entirely with your assessment. First, the Reapers aren't an enemy in which you can win without some type of costly sacrifice in lives and morals.

 

And, no they aren't mutually exclusive (for me anyway). I found the ending to be morally upbeat, while still acknowledging the cost that I paid. You meanwhile, are unwilling to pay the price of victory, of survival. You don't get to have a morally upbeat ending. Sucks for you.

 

Again, blatantly untrue.

 

Although, yes, Bioware chose an odd moment to toss in arbitrary consequences to add "realism" to what has up til now been space fantasy.  But I guess changing tone to suit your preferences is okay.

 

 

It's absolutely true. You fit that description perfectly. In fact, I had you in mind when I made it.

 

It's always been a pretty realistic idea of space fantasy. You don't get the excuse of believing that it's star wars in the future. It's not. 

 

The difference being, I never asked nor bothered to have BW worry about my preferences. I inform them, but I don't get upset when they aren't met. 

 

As well, I suppose my preferences match those of many of the writers, especially for the ending. 

 

All the better for me.

[Memnon]

I don't know what I expected as far as a final confrontation, that was why I was so excited to buy ME3 (CE!), and one of the reasons I was so let down at the end. When I bought ME3, I was pretty sure of two things - first, that the Reapers were going to be defeated and I could not wait to see how that happened; two, that Shepard would live, because (cynically) I figured that it would be tough to sell DLC to customers after you knocked off the protagonist (see Fallout 3)

 

Regarding War Assets, at a minimum, I figured there would be something akin to DA:O, in which you could call in reinforcements in the final battle - maybe it was a showdown with Harbinger, and by killing him you send the Reapers - now leaderless - off to pursue their own agendas. Reapers are each, "an independent nation" according to Sovereign. "We have no beginning, we have no end; we are infinite." Both of those statements are explicitly contradicted by the Catalyst who claims he both built them and controls them. Maybe you could lead a boarding action against Harbinger himself, somehow manage to take control, perhaps you manage to take over a chunk of the Reaper fleet and turn them against each other. I thought I was going to get something like the ME2 suicide mission at a grander scale - I don't know, all I know is that what I got was unsatisfactory. It felt lazy and sloppy, and it insulted my intelligence. I’m an electrical engineer, and I can appreciate clever scientific explanations and motivations - but I don’t feel that is what I got with ME3. It felt to me like a 3 year old trying to explain the events leading up to and causing the fall of the Roman Empire ... and then petulantly defending his assertion that the Romans were conquered because they had subpar diapers

[Vazgen]

He cares about the safety of the civilians.  Keeping them on warships that will be targeted by Reapers is probably a Bad Idea.

 

But the implication is Wilson got his leg wound either from Cerberus crew trying to stop him, or a self-inflicted wound to make himself look innocent.   Not that it came from a mech.

From the conversation flow it shows that he does care about safety of the civilians but not about the Reapers. He uses Reapers as an excuse to justify taking back the homeworld to Shepard. And arming civilian liveships in ME3 for that is not only his idea, Admiralty Board would make that decision. The only reason the quarians attacked is because they got the upper hand. Not because there was a threat of Reapers arriving. Because getting engaged in war prior to the arrival of the Reapers is a pretty stupid idea. War leaves both sides weakened.

 

The implication is something subjective. When you play it for the first time you don't know that Wilson is a traitor. He tells you that the mechs shot him and you accept that. Whether it is implied or not that his wound was self-inflicted (which I doubt, because he lies a few steps away from a medi-gel station) is a pure speculation that we should agree to disagree on. 

[Iakus]

Maybe he did say that, but he certainly didn't act on it. You can still shoot the pipe and survive if you choose.

 

No, you can shoot the tube and it's implied Shepard survived.  Not the same thing.  Good headcanon on your part though.

 

Mac Walters is the one who compared ME3 to Breaking Bad, after all.

 

 

 

I disagree entirely with your assessment. First, the Reapers aren't an enemy in which you can win without some type of costly sacrifice in lives and morals.

And, no they aren't mutually exclusive (for me anyway). I found the ending to be morally upbeat, while still acknowledging the cost that I paid. You meanwhile, are unwilling to pay the price of victory, of survival. You don't get to have a morally upbeat ending. Sucks for you.

 First is just your opinion.  Bioware has made games where dragons, demigods, ghosts, demons, and other outright immortal beings are beatable.  Why are the Reapers somehow special?

 

Second, I have already said that if beating the Reapers meant bringing down the entire freaking relay network instead of wiping out all AI, I'd do it in a heartbeat.  Even knowing it would probably lead to a higher body count long term?  Why?  Because that's a sacrifice that makes sense.  I'd find that an upbeat ending with a costly sacrifice.  

 

So yeah, sucks for me, Shepard gets to be a genocidal monster instead.

 

 

 

It's absolutely true. You fit that description perfectly. In fact, I had you in mind when I made it.
It's always been a pretty realistic idea of space fantasy. You don't get the excuse of believing that it's star wars in the future. It's not.
The difference being, I never asked nor bothered to have BW worry about my preferences. I inform them, but I don't get upset when they aren't met.
As well, I suppose my preferences match those of many of the writers, especially for the ending.
All the better for me.

 

Well, you heard it here folks, blue space babes, magic rocks, and resurrection technology overseen by genetically engineered hotties in tight-fitting spandex is "a pretty realistic idea of space fantasy" 

 

As for the rest, how did you get through the first two games, with all it's sunshine and bunnies endings (by your estimate, at least)?  I'd have expected you to walk away in disgust at the "pandering" 

[God]

No, you can shoot the tube and it's implied Shepard survived.  Not the same thing.  Good headcanon on your part though.

 

Mac Walters is the one who compared ME3 to Breaking Bad, after all.

 

 

The intent of the scene is pretty much bone dead clear to everyone. The only one who wouldn't get the scene would be the ignoramus who doesn't want to get it. Otherwise, why would they put the scene in if they didn't intend for Shepard to live? So no, it's not headcanon. They could write it in pen, sharpie, smoke-signal, skywriting, or morse code, and you'd still refuse to believe it. 

 

The problem is entirely with you. You don't want to get it. 

 

As well, BW said the scene is open to interpretation. If you don't want Shepard to live, that's your problem. BW supports me when I say that he lived. Sorry. 

 

And while SuperMac may have made a comparison to Breaking Bad, I fail to see how its relevant. I don't see anything in the game that ties into Breaking Bad at all. The ending? The game came out a year and a half before the BB series finale. So, I don't frankly think it makes sense to quote Walters here when you're providing no context as to the meaning. Which you can't do.

 

First is just your opinion.  Bioware has made games where dragons, demigods, ghosts, demons, and other outright immortal beings are beatable.  Why are the Reapers somehow special?

 

Second, I have already said that if beating the Reapers meant bringing down the entire freaking relay network instead of wiping out all AI, I'd do it in a heartbeat.  Even knowing it would probably lead to a higher body count long term?  Why?  Because that's a sacrifice that makes sense.  I'd find that an upbeat ending with a costly sacrifice.  

 

So yeah, sucks for me, Shepard gets to be a genocidal monster instead.

 

 

 

Not just my opinion at all. Everybody basically says the Reapers are unbeatable by conventional means. Making an appeal to the history of BW games has no bearing on the Reapers or Mass Effect. It's a futuristic sci-fi setting with a basis in reality, not some fantasy world with magic and gods. That alone makes the essence of the Reapers incomparable to the other BW villains. 

 

And a destroy beam that zaps technology and disrupts higher functions of machine intelligence makes sense. Yours is rather arbitrary, and it didn't happen regardless. And I'd say you have some screwed up morals and priorities if you find that better than sacrificing a willing ally to save everyone else and bring about a future devoid of the suffering that the Reapers or your scenario bring. Seriously, that's screwed up there, saying that you'd rather see that happen. So much for you holding the moral high-ground. You're more a killer than I'll ever be.

 

 

Well, you heard it here folks, blue space babes, magic rocks, and resurrection technology overseen by genetically engineered hotties in tight-fitting spandex is "a pretty realistic idea of space fantasy"  

 

 

As for the rest, how did you get through the first two games, with all it's sunshine and bunnies endings (by your estimate, at least)?  I'd have expected you to walk away in disgust at the "pandering"  

 

 

 

 

 

 Going by your arbitrary and changing definition of 'space-fantasy' it's hard to imagine any series that you wouldn't distort to fit your vision of genre. Same when you distort my words. Pretty realistic means that it isn't some simplistic, childish black and white world of good and evil where the righteous paragons always succeed in the end and the evil bad guys or pain and misery always fail. It's an ambiguous setting with no objective system or overarching theme of morality. It's like the real world. As grey as it gets, no matter how much of a good guy rule-abiding hero you are.

 

Quite easily. As a practical person willing to get the job done no matter whatever I have to do, I was able to reconcile my philosophy with the advantages presented in those games. I was also able to do it with the third game. You weren't.

 

How's it feel actually having to walk away in disgust because you saw how far and how useful your rules and heroism truly are? Pretty disgusted I'd imagine right?

[Memnon]

...

 

Not just my opinion at all. Everybody basically says the Reapers are unbeatable by conventional means. Making an appeal to the history of BW games has no bearing on the Reapers or Mass Effect. It's a futuristic sci-fi setting with a basis in reality, not some fantasy world with magic and gods. That alone makes the essence of the Reapers incomparable to the other BW villains. 

 

And a destroy beam that zaps technology and disrupts higher functions of machine intelligence makes sense. Yours is rather arbitrary, and it didn't happen regardless. And I'd say you have some screwed up morals and priorities if you find that better than sacrificing a willing ally to save everyone else and bring about a future devoid of the suffering that the Reapers or your scenario bring. Seriously, that's screwed up there, saying that you'd rather see that happen. So much for you holding the moral high-ground. You're more a killer than I'll ever be.

 

 

Making an unbeatable enemy is the fault of the writers - that is why I said they painted themselves into a corner. It felt like I was suffering the consequences as a fan and customer for the poor choices of the writing and development team, and their inability to think of a way out of the proverbial box they forced themselves into. I feel they worked themselves into this corner, could not figure a way out (or didn't have enough time to implement it) and pulled out some pseudo-philosophical bunk, and heaped that on top of a poorly executed finale, and when challenged went all-in with the artistic integrity defense. The fact that they had to even release an "Extended Cut" and DLC to further explain the endings speaks for itself, really - did they have to write an additional ending for Baldur's Gate? Knights of the Old Republic? Dragon Age? ME1, ME2 ...

 

I also disagree with the "Destroy" beam making sense - though the Synthesis is even worse, in my opinion. I simply don't understand how the beam has the intelligence required to poll the sentience level of synthetics. How does it make that determination in an instant, of whether or not to kill, say a Geth vs. a microwave oven. More importantly, why? It seems arbitrary and forced in order to create the "sacrifice" element required in the ending