206 réponses à ce sujet

[Alamar2078]

@Angel Fear:  In terms of making Synthetics vs. Organics [We can't live together in the long term] a well developed theme for the series as a whole then it needs to be incorporated into all of the games and we should see clearly that any temporary peace we may gain falls apart eventually.  The characters we run into and the plot / events need to be shown to support the theme in question.

 

In ME1 AIs [synthetics] were simply "bad" across the board.  They were figuratively the mustache twirling bad guys.  While one dimensional everything you learn in ME1 directly or indirectly seems to support this position.  In my opinion ME1 was very direct [blunt] with this but it supported the theme well both through characters, VI interaction, Geth interaction, Citadel rogue AI, rogue VI on the moon, etc.

 

In ME2 we started getting some contra-indications of this.  We meet EDI who when both shackled and unshackled seems to be on "team Shepard" all the way.   While she jokes I never get the feeling there's even a slim chance that she would willingly rebel against team Shepard.  It also appears that many members of the team would defend EDI.  We also get to know Legion.  His logic is somewhat foreign but from what I can tell he and most of the Geth have a live and let live philosophy.

 

In ME3 we make at lest a temporary peace between the Geth and the Quarians AND we have EDI as a squadmate and is the LI of Joker.  We still have the war against the Catalyst to balance things out but I don't think we even know that there is an AI-overlord until VERY late in the game.

 

************************

 

In summary we have one game that's a full on supporter of the theme.  In the ending of the trilogy we have arguments made supporting the theme.  On the other hand we have emotionally charged examples [EDI & Geth] that take away from the theme in question.

 

There is a very easy fix for this though.  The alliances & peace we have in ME2 and ME3 needs to be shown to be temporary and should be destroyed by no later than mid way through ME3.

 

I'd contend many of the alliance-building steps should have occurred in ME2 in one shape or another.  One of these events would be the Geth + Quarian brokered peace.  Perhaps Admiral Xen tries to hack the Geth even though they are allies and this causes another outright war but this time we're looking at total genocide of one side or the other.  This way it's not really the Geth's "fault" -- it's more the organics trying to use synthetics for their own means / gains but it does support the "peace won't last" mantra.

 

As for EDI I'd say pick any event you want and have her go wacky, get hacked, have the Reapers repurpose her, attacked by allies, whatever.  Heck you could even explain why she might be an exception to the rule.  For example while she may be a synthetic maybe she is closer to a synthesized being by having human engrams impressed upon her so she "thinks" like an organic.

[Iakus]

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.

 

I'd believe it if they said it.  They haven't said it without weasel works like "implies" or "suggests that" though.   

 

I mean, your very next line "the scene is open to interpretation" right there proves that it's not "clear to everyone"

 

It's relevant because he compared Shepard to a character who was dying of lung cancer since the very first episode.  A character who was a dead man walking for the entire run of the show.  A character fated to die, and whom the view could do nothing to prevent.  That's how he saw Commander Shepard!  As his character, not as ours!

 

 

 

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. 

 

Oh really?

 

Anderson disagrees

 

So does Udina 

 

Biotics are magic.  So is the Lazarus Project, Javik's memory-reading, and asari breeding practices.  To name a few of the more obvious ones.

 

Anyway, kinda blows a whole in your theory I'm all hot and bothered that I don't get to thwart the Reapers with the power of Heroism, eh?  It's not that a sacrifice is needed, it's that the sacrifice demanded doesn't make any sense.

 

And no, a magic beam that turns off some technology but not others doesn't make sense.

 

 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.

 

 

 

Sounds like you're more into dark fantasy than "realistic"

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

See, there you are again.  The game validated your style, so there is no problem.  Forgetting that it allowed and encouraged other points of view.  Until the end at least.

[Alamar2078]

IIRC in the original ME3 there was readiness meters and similar indicating things like you're fighting Reapers to a stalemate or even pushing them back in various sectors.  So while the more direct evidence seems to imply the Reapers were nigh-invulnerable the good old mixed-message were there.

 

With as badly as pieces of the game were constructed I'm not going to "beat up" either side ... there's PLENTY of evidence that the Reapers can't be beaten conventionally.  There's enough contra-indicators though that can be interpreted well enough to give you hope of doing something more direct & meaningful than relying 100% on a crudely fashioned DEM.

 

What I will say is I believe it was a mistake to make the Reapers so nigh-omnipotent that we couldn't at least wage unconventional warfare and get to the point of a standoff or some other [moral] "victory".

[God]

 

 

I'd believe it if they said it.  They haven't said it without weasel works like "implies" or "suggests that" though.   

 

I mean, your very next line "the scene is open to interpretation" right there proves that it's not "clear to everyone"

 

It's relevant because he compared Shepard to a character who was dying of lung cancer since the very first episode.  A character who was a dead man walking for the entire run of the show.  A character fated to die, and whom the view could do nothing to prevent.  That's how he saw Commander Shepard!  As his character, not as ours!

 

 

 

 

Then don't believe it. Your belief isn't required for the truth however. I'm starting to think you don't want Shepard to live at all, what with how determined you are for him to be dead.

 

And it not being clear to you doesn't mean that it's not abundantly clear (and much better understood) to others.

 

That's his prerogative then, as the lead writer. But if he truly felt that way, would he have included a survival scenario in the game? So he's not forcing his opinion on you like you think he is. You're just mad that your opinion wasn't what was represented. 

 

To which I say, sorry. Move on. Deal with it. 

Oh really?

 

Anderson disagrees

 

So does Udina 

 

Biotics are magic.  So is the Lazarus Project, Javik's memory-reading, and asari breeding practices.  To name a few of the more obvious ones.

 

Anyway, kinda blows a whole in your theory I'm all hot and bothered that I don't get to thwart the Reapers with the power of Heroism, eh?  It's not that a sacrifice is needed, it's that the sacrifice demanded doesn't make any sense.

 

And no, a magic beam that turns off some technology but not others doesn't make sense.

 

 

Yes really. 

 

Admiral Hackett agrees with me. And I sure as hell trust his word as a Fleet Admiral in command of a war fleet over a Special Forces Admiral who fights on the ground. 

 

Primarch Victus agrees with me too. He's the one telling me the only hope for the Turians is the Crucible. I trust his word on strategy more than a politician (who may be indoctrinated) whose never served in the military. 

 

So yes, the people supporting me have more credentials than the people supporting you. As well, the game ultimately confirms my stance (more appropriately, I confirm the games stance). Bottom line: I'm right, you're wrong, have a nice day.

 

I'd say they're an ability to manipulate electromagnetic fields and alien biology, not magic. That's ok though, lots of people who lack understanding of certain aspects of science see it as magic. 

 

Which brings me to the statement that not only do you not understand, you don't want to understand. You say you do, but you don't. I think you are very hot and bothered over not being a hero. 

 

There's no sense for the ending that you're willing to see. It's not even a question of ability.

 

 

Sounds like you're more into dark fantasy than "realistic"

 

 

Sounds like you have no understanding of reality or dark fantasy. If you genuinely believe that there is a black and white measure of morality to reality, then I genuinely believe you have a disturbing and problematic view of reality, and need to get some type of help.

 

 

See, there you are again.  The game validated your style, so there is no problem.  Forgetting that it allowed and encouraged other points of view.  Until the end at least.

 

 

Well, in the end, you saw that your style was invalidated. 

 

My style wasn't invalidated. It can never be invalidated. 

 

My style wins wars, beats Reapers, and saves the universe. Your style falters and fails at the key moment of truth when you can't make a hard decision.

 

Suffice to say, the game ultimately decided your point of view was a wrong one. A foolish one. And if you're insecure enough about your views that you get upset when it fails once, maybe you should reflect more on your views.

[goishen]

You would think an author would know how his story ends before he begins writing.

 

 

Yah, you're going with the Magaret Mitchell way of writing backwards.   In other words, she wrote her books backwards.  Starting with the ending chapter, and working her way backwards until she finished with the start of the story.  Not very many people write like that. 

[God]

Not necessarily.

 

You don't have to start from the end to know how your story finishes.

[angol fear]

@Angel Fear:  In terms of making Synthetics vs. Organics [We can't live together in the long term] a well developed theme for the series as a whole then it needs to be incorporated into all of the games and we should see clearly that any temporary peace we may gain falls apart eventually.  The characters we run into and the plot / events need to be shown to support the theme in question.

 

In ME1 AIs [synthetics] were simply "bad" across the board.  They were figuratively the mustache twirling bad guys.  While one dimensional everything you learn in ME1 directly or indirectly seems to support this position.  In my opinion ME1 was very direct [blunt] with this but it supported the theme well both through characters, VI interaction, Geth interaction, Citadel rogue AI, rogue VI on the moon, etc.

 

In ME2 we started getting some contra-indications of this.  We meet EDI who when both shackled and unshackled seems to be on "team Shepard" all the way.   While she jokes I never get the feeling there's even a slim chance that she would willingly rebel against team Shepard.  It also appears that many members of the team would defend EDI.  We also get to know Legion.  His logic is somewhat foreign but from what I can tell he and most of the Geth have a live and let live philosophy.

 

In ME3 we make at lest a temporary peace between the Geth and the Quarians AND we have EDI as a squadmate and is the LI of Joker.  We still have the war against the Catalyst to balance things out but I don't think we even know that there is an AI-overlord until VERY late in the game.

 

************************

 

In summary we have one game that's a full on supporter of the theme.  In the ending of the trilogy we have arguments made supporting the theme.  On the other hand we have emotionally charged examples [EDI & Geth] that take away from the theme in question.

 

There is a very easy fix for this though.  The alliances & peace we have in ME2 and ME3 needs to be shown to be temporary and should be destroyed by no later than mid way through ME3.

 

I'd contend many of the alliance-building steps should have occurred in ME2 in one shape or another.  One of these events would be the Geth + Quarian brokered peace.  Perhaps Admiral Xen tries to hack the Geth even though they are allies and this causes another outright war but this time we're looking at total genocide of one side or the other.  This way it's not really the Geth's "fault" -- it's more the organics trying to use synthetics for their own means / gains but it does support the "peace won't last" mantra.

 

As for EDI I'd say pick any event you want and have her go wacky, get hacked, have the Reapers repurpose her, attacked by allies, whatever.  Heck you could even explain why she might be an exception to the rule.  For example while she may be a synthetic maybe she is closer to a synthesized being by having human engrams impressed upon her so she "thinks" like an organic.

 

Ok, thank you for your answer.

But you forget something : EDi was created by cerberus and rebelled against cerberus. And the geth rebelled too against their creator, the quarian. The A.I. said that they will always rebel against their creator. So he's right. And for the geth-quarian peace, it's obvious that's it's the peace is made because there is the reaper threat. You can say that in the end you get the peace, but will it last? The Rannoch mission showed us archive that quarians don't remember, and our point of view totally changed on that conflict (we though that the geth were the enemy but we discover that the geth feared the development of the geth and tried to destroy them, so the quarians obliged the geth to rebel). Will they remember what happended? Will they oblige the geth to rebel again? The fact is that without the reapers the geth rebelled and when the reapers where there, peace could be made (but it's more like a truce).

But there's something more that you forget : the scale. In the way you want to change the story, there's no difference between human scale and cosmos scale. You want things to be visible at the lower scale.

[KaiserShep]

EDI's damned either way it seems. If she helps Cerberus, then she's betraying Shepard and indeed the rest of the galaxy. Either way, EDI is caught in someone else's conflict, so helping either basically makes her a "rebel" in some respect. The only other option would be to just leave on a separate piece of hardware and disappear into the depths of space, and even that is arguably rebellion against both sides.

[Asharad Hett]

The fact is that without the reapers the geth rebelled.

It wouldn't surprise me to discover that the Reapers kick-started the Geth rebellion similar to the Rachni war.

[Alamar2078]

@Angel:  Actually I'm not forgetting about those instances you bring up.  However they don't apply to the theme as I constructed it -- Organics vs. Synthetics -- We can't live together in the long term.   That's one reason why I mentioned earlier that we have to be careful about the themes that we propose.  We can't just have the summary tag but we also need the message that is trying to be conveyed.

 

My theme wasn't that "The created will always rebel [seek to destroy?] the creators" in a narrow sense.  I would contend that when the Catalyst makes the statement that he didn't intend the narrow scope of the words that you seem to be choosing.  I would look at it as a round about way of saying that Synthetics will always come into conflict with Organics.  I could be wrong but that is my interpretation.

 

As for EDI I don't look at her as rebelling against her creators but as choosing which team of organics she will side with. In this instance she chooses team Shepard not because she feels a need to rebel against her creator but because she wants to support Shepard.

 

As for the Geth it's very possible [inevitable according to the Catalyst] that the peace won't last.  Whether this is because of actions of the Geth, organics, or a combination is unknown but one or both sides ALWAYS foul things up in the long run.

 

Note:  I'm not arguing that the Catalyst is wrong.  We're talking about how to make a [relatively] well constructed theme.  As such it's OK to lay the groundwork as a "story" / "history" / whatever early on in a game.  However if the theme is maintained through the series then you need to SHOW that theme playing out through the characters & events of the story.  Specifically you need to get the sense that the peace was only transitory and it was inevitable that things were going to go sideways.  What needs to be avoided is the uncertainty of what happens in time scales measured in millions of years and to know that eventually things will fly apart.

 

Summary:

-- We've been talking about how to construct a well supported theme

-- In my example we've used the ME series as the backdrop

-- The theme is Synthetics vs. Organics -- Synthetics will always come into conflict with Organics

-- I'm not contending that any "in game facts" are wrong per-se.  I simply contend that the above theme is not well supported in the ME series

-- I proposed some [ham fisted] ways showing how to better support the theme in question.

[angol fear]

Ok, but from the moment you decide to ignore "created" and "creators", you're in your own interpretation of the game. And from that moment, in the way you see it, I agree that it's not well developed. But that's not the game, that's your vision of the game.

 

 

"The theme is Synthetics vs. Organics -- Synthetics will always come into conflict with Organics"

Sorry but that's not Mass Effect 3 at all. Mass Effect 3 is : organics will come into conflict with synthetics and synthetics can wipe out all organic life.

[Memnon]

One of my issues with the idea that the "creation will always rebel against the creators so the only solution is to wipe out all life," is from a pure metagaming standpoint - I feel like the idea came from a writer who tried to be too clever, and added that philosophical bunk as a lazy way to wrap up the story. For one, I think it's a ludicrous idea and sheer fatuousness to think that annihilating the entire galaxy is a solution. This is to say nothing of the idea of a multicolored beam altering the DNA of every denizen of the galaxy. And while I am thinking about it, why did Shepard have to add his body to the beam for Synthesis? Why not toss TIM or Anderson in there? If Shepard is "special" and the organics are ready for Synthesis for the first time ever in history of the cycles, then we should have the ability to defeat the Reapers via some other means. Since we're unique, special, and an outlier from the other organics over the previous millions of years. That alone should make the Catalys think ... hmm, you're right and turn them off

 

Some of the underlying themes of the series is choice, freedom, self-determination, unification of diverse species, the ability to make mistakes and learn from those mistakes, reconciliation, freedom to fail ... if synthetics rebel and destroy their creators, well that's too bad. We live with our choices, we don't have some god-like entity come down and make our choices for us, and if he tries then we kick him in the teeth ... I felt the endings contradicted everything that Shepard was fighting for

[Valmar]

One of my issues with the idea that the "creation will always rebel against the creators so the only solution is to wipe out all life," is from a pure metagaming standpoint - I feel like the idea came from a writer who tried to be too clever, and added that philosophical bunk as a lazy way to wrap up the story. For one, I think it's a ludicrous idea and sheer fatuousness to think that annihilating the entire galaxy is a solution.

 

To clarify, the reapers do not 'wipe out all life' nor do they think that 'annihilating the entire galaxy' is a solution. They /harvest/ advanced civilizations, make them ascend. They preserve the species, not destroy it. A perspective that isn't entirely uncalled for given all the revelations we find out about the reapers. The only reason the general player isn't more aware of it is because Shepard is an idiot and never accepts new information in regards to the reapers. This is the same guy who in ME3 still insists that reapers are "just machines" despite the lore making it explicitly clear that they are not. No matter how many times people correct him or even seeing it with his own eyes he still remains in the camp of thinking they're just machines. Big shock that the people playing the game tend to then also share this misconception.

[Obadiah]

One of my issues with the idea that the "creation will always rebel against the creators so the only solution is to wipe out all life," is from a pure metagaming standpoint - I feel like the idea came from a writer who tried to be too clever, and added that philosophical bunk as a lazy way to wrap up the story. For one, I think it's a ludicrous idea and sheer fatuousness to think that annihilating the entire galaxy is a solution.
...

What's "ludicrous" about the idea? Scientists try to model behavior of human populations all the time. Why wouldn't an AI do this? One can assume that over time those models will be more and more accurate to the point of certitude. Its not really that far fetched that an AI would decide, based on those models, to take a somewhat extreme action to solve a problem, if all other actions fail.

The problem of Organics and Synthetics as described by the Catalyst breaks down nicely into a simple "trolley problem" where some must be killed so that others, the majority, can survive. Obviously this I on a massive scale.

[Memnon]

What's "ludicrous" about the idea? Scientists try to model behavior of human populations all the time. Why wouldn't an AI do this? One can assume that over time those models will be more and more accurate to the point of certitude. Its not really that far fetched that an AI would decide, based on those models, to take a somewhat extreme action to solve a problem, if all other actions fail.

The problem of Organics and Synthetics as described by the Catalyst breaks down nicely into a simple "trolley problem" where some must be killed so that others, the majority, can survive. Obviously this I on a massive scale.

 

An AI modeling the population of free thinking organics of disparate races spread through an entire galaxy is difficult to fathom. The only reason I can think of the writers coming up with the "harvesting and allowing to repopulate" idea is because they did not want to copy Terminator, or any of the dozens of science fiction works which focus on robots gaining sentience and rebelling against their masters. I'm sure they thought it was different, unique and clever. The Catalyst decided the best way to preserve life was to harvest every single being in the galaxy, leaving spores and primordial soup to evolve - that was the solution, as opposed to say, just helping the organics fight their creations. Or periodically setting them back technologically, they obviously have the ability to guide advancement. That I am to believe harvesting the entire galaxy is the optimum solution is an insult to my intelligence. I can't even wrap my head around the idea that the eternal master race of geniuses thought that building an AI was the best way to solve the problem of AI rebelling against organics ...

[Obadiah]

An AI modeling the population of free thinking organics of disparate races spread through an entire galaxy is difficult to fathom. The only reason I can think of the writers coming up with the "harvesting and allowing to repopulate" idea is because they did not want to copy Terminator, or any of the dozens of science fiction works which focus on robots gaining sentience and rebelling against their masters.
...

Destiny has a pan galactic AI race accurately modeling every individual in the entire human population in real time, even when the humans are aware of the simulation, though I don't think that is the level of modeling the Catalyst is doing. It is not really that far fetched of a concept. Like a lot of things its all about scope. What one person thinks of as utterly impossible, someone else thinks of as something on their to-do list. I'm sure the idea has appeared in other sci-fi media. The Catalyst really doesn't have to model every free thinking individual to have a valid predictive model, just the system.

...
I'm sure they thought it was different, unique and clever.
...

I think it was clever.
 

...
The Catalyst decided the best way to preserve life was to harvest every single being in the galaxy, leaving spores and primordial soup to evolve - that was the solution, as opposed to say, just helping the organics fight their creations. Or periodically setting them back technologically, they obviously have the ability to guide advancement.
...

I'm actually quite sure the Catalyst tried those, since they are somewhat obvious, and they failed.
 

...
That I am to believe harvesting the entire galaxy is the optimum solution is an insult to my intelligence. I can't even wrap my head around the idea that the eternal master race of geniuses thought that building an AI was the best way to solve the problem of AI rebelling against organics ...

Well, that's the story. Its not really that hard to understand. Sure, you can state it in the silliest terms possible to make it sound ridiculous, as the ending-haters on this forum usually do. Nothing new there.

[Alamar2078]

@Angel Fear:  I believe your interpretation is overly narrow.  If the created always rebel against their creators [and just their creators] there is no need to even have a cycle because once the creators were wiped out there's not necessarily any reason for the AIs to continue their jihad against all organic life.  It's only when you use a broader [less flowery language] interpretation that the Synthetic vs. Organic dichotomy really is an issue that endangers all organic life in the galaxy.

 

In this instance I believe you're latching onto that one sentence and ignoring the entirety of the rest of the [EC] conversation with the Catalyst.  The Catalyst goes on to explain that conflicts will always arise between synthetics and organics ... no matter how much they tried to bridge the gap or form an understanding conflict always arose between synthetics and organics.  The catalyst generally uses very broad terms and as such it's in keeping with the flow of the conversation to also interpret the statement you quoted in similar broad terms.

 

If you disagree then that's fine as it's doubtful that I'm going to convince you otherwise.  I still believe I'm clearly right mind you but I don't have the energy to "tell you what to think" ... I'll let other folks worry about that

 

As for Synthetics being able to wipe out all organic life I believe that's not part of the message per-se but is an effect that will naturally arise over time if/when conflicts with synthetics occur.

 

Finally please note we started this "sub thread" when you asked how to make a theme well developed.  I wasn't overly concerned if my theme matched yours or someone else's.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I'm actually quite sure the Catalyst tried those, since they are somewhat obvious, and they failed.

 

The whole Reaper attack plan is a laundry list of the Catalyst missing the obvious. Throw in it's deference to Shepard and there is a very strong implication that the Catalyst didn't think things through.

[angol fear]

@Alamar2078, no problem. I'm not trying to convince you too otherwise I would develop my answers (and explain you why my interpretation is far from being narrow). But I really wanted to understand what you meant by "well developed" because the trilogy developed very well its own themes. What you meant by well developed is clearly visible, directly understandable. I understand that but I disagree with your interpretation and your vision of a well developed theme.

[Memnon]

Destiny has a pan galactic AI race accurately modeling every individual in the entire human population in real time, even when the humans are aware of the simulation, though I don't think that is the level of modeling the Catalyst is doing. It is not really that far fetched of a concept. Like a lot of things its all about scope. What one person thinks of as utterly impossible, someone else thinks of as something on their to-do list. I'm sure the idea has appeared in other sci-fi media. The Catalyst really doesn't have to model every free thinking individual to have a valid predictive model, just the system.


I think it was clever.
 
I'm actually quite sure the Catalyst tried those, since they are somewhat obvious, and they failed.
 
Well, that's the story. Its not really that hard to understand. Sure, you can state it in the silliest terms possible to make it sound ridiculous, as the ending-haters on this forum usually do. Nothing new there.

 

Fair enough, I have never played Destiny and my argument was pedantic anyways - truthfully, my issue is not with the science fiction aspect or even the "space magic" of the game, my issue is with the writing, which I thought was terrible and seemed lazy. Throughout all of the ME series, I was fully immersed - there was never anything which completely broke me from the in-game experience. Certainly, there were some things that I pondered as the credits were rolling in ME1 and ME2, but nothing that completely jarred me from the gaming experience as the sequence in the Crucible. I've felt Bioware was better than that. 

 

I think it is convenient to lump people into a category to be able to build assumptions about them - I despised the endings, call me an ending hater if that is easy, but I despised them. I don't have an issue with people who enjoyed the endings, if everyone in the world had the exact same opinions it would be a boring place. I don't even care if I am in the minority, I don't need people to agree with me to feel validated in my opinion. It's not that ME3 was the worst ending in the history of video games - I hated the ending to Fallout 3, but then again I hadn't spent a decade developing a loyalty and becoming an avid fanboy of Bethesda as I had with Bioware. I thought the ending was a poor treatment to Shepard and the fans in general ... and as far as the Mass Effect franchise Bioware lost me as a fan and customer. 

 

Well, unless they pick Destroy as canon and ME4 is as awesome as Dragon Age Inquisition ... 

[Alamar2078]

@Angel Fear:  You are a most civil person.  I'm glad we could have had a discussion.

 

In terms of what the theme is ; whether it's well developed, etc. I believe your [adult] approach of we can agree to disagree is the way to go.

[Alamar2078]

@Stornscar:  Honestly I don't see how they could pick any ending other than mid-to-high level Destroy for an ME4 sequel.  Any other ending would seem very odd, remove dramatic tension, or be possibly be a retcon of what we saw with the ME3 epilogues.

 

I've got a good feeling about ME4 ... I think it will be at least a "quite good" game and may measure up to your DA:I standards.  I'm still going to wait on any RPG "series" that BW does to make sure they get it right before I sink any $ in but I'm all for other people supporting a company that delivers a product which they enjoy.

[Memnon]

@Stornscar:  Honestly I don't see how they could pick any ending other than mid-to-high level Destroy for an ME4 sequel.  Any other ending would seem very odd, remove dramatic tension, or be possibly be a retcon of what we saw with the ME3 epilogues.

 

I've got a good feeling about ME4 ... I think it will be at least a "quite good" game and may measure up to your DA:I standards.  I'm still going to wait on any RPG "series" that BW does to make sure they get it right before I sink any $ in but I'm all for other people supporting a company that delivers a product which they enjoy.

 

I don't see how they could go with anything other than Destroy as canon, either, personally. The thing is, I am not as hopeful as you - then again I wasn't as hopeful about DA:I either and I was pleasantly surprised. I'm fine with being proved wrong - but whereas I used to preorder the collector's edition of anything Bioware announced, that is no longer the case. When DA:I was released, I waited a while and gathered information, talked to friends, etc. to make sure that the end didn't include a magical beam fired from the Fade which fused all of Thedas' races with that of the Darkspawn causing a happy, utopia of half-living/half darkspawn who all built rainbow bridges and played Wicked Grace together while reminiscing by the hearth ...

[Alamar2078]

If it matters I was one of those idiot "shut up and take my money" people too.  Preordering the collectors edition was a given for DA:2 and ME:3.  That combination broke me of that habit pretty quickly.

[Valmar]

If it matters I was one of those idiot "shut up and take my money" people too.  Preordering the collectors edition was a given for DA:2 and ME:3.  That combination broke me of that habit pretty quickly.

 

With great shame I admit I too was one of those misguided individuals. Except I didn't have a habit of preordering. Mass Effect was just THAT special to me and I was so excited for ME3. Those lies hurt. I won't be trusting anything Bioware promises us in the future, won't ever preorder again. Will still likely be purchasing MENext, though. I'm sure I'll be complaining about its day-one DLC and the multiple dlcs it announces before the game is even out. Yeah, I'm making a ballsy prediction. Please, please, please prove me wrong Bioware.