168 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Serious answer? There's a pretty big disparity in what makes up the synthetics and organics in the series. A huge one. They're two entirely different domains of life. They're not the same as us. The synthetics are technologically based, not organic. They have, duh dunnah, machines making them work, not biology. They don't have cellular structures that function as organisms, they alloys that function as their body. 

 

It's more like why a high altitude emp blast disrupts technology while being relatively harmless to humans.

 

Except an emp is disruptive to all technology.  Again it's the computer vs calculator thing.  And then there are cyborgs with implants in their brains and nervous systems.

 

 

 

Saying that there is no sense does not preclude sense, just blindness. Now you're going with a shotgun argument, asking so many technical questions that I can't answer based off of ignorance to the lore. You're over-analyzing it to defeat the argument. I can't say how the memory mapping works. I'm not a neurosurgeon or neuroscientist. And on the second point, you're false. While there may be no feelings or emotions, there are patterns. Patterns that can be read to make a logical conclusion based on the neurological map which can make the Catalyst into a Shepard-intelligence facsimile. The Catalyst doesn't need Shepard's personality, just his patterns, to discern his logic.

 

No, I'm not over-analyzing it.  This is a choice that affects the structure of the galaxy.  Why I would choose this option has to make sense.  Shepard would have to know that this new Catalyst won't start the whole thing all over again.  Or do something worse.  

 

And logic goes screwy when emotions are involved.  Which can screw up the data its's receiving.

 

 

 

It is a generalization of all life. Which is sound. Because generalizations do exist, and many of them are valid. It notices patterns, analyzes data, and has over a billion years of credible experience to base its conclusions off of. As well, a fallacy does not preclude the soundness of an argument. You're making the fallacy fallacy here, by assuming that since some parts of the logic don't make sense means that the whole argument is fallacious. And you're appealing to diversity as well, assuming that, even if history says otherwise, the future will be different. That's just as much an appeal to probability as you put on the Catalyst.

 

Except we know the Catalyst has been fudging the data.  In at least two cycles it has interfered with synthetics to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

And if parts of an argument that justifies galactic genocide are called into question, yes it's worth questioning the whole thing.

 

 

 

Order vs Chaos. Stopping the Reapers no matter the cost. Victory through sacrifice. Surviving against the odds. Doing whatever it takes to win. Perseverance. Fighting on. Making relationships that matter. And yes, organics vs. synthetics.
They're all very consistent with the trilogy.

Some I agree with:  Order vs chaos, victory through sacrifice, Surviving against the odds.

 

Organics vs synthetics, however is a peripheral theme at best.  It goes largely ignored through the trilogy, and then is only mentioned in regards to the geth.

 

Similarly "whatever it takes" is only shown as a possible path.  I'd say the theme is more "what are you willing to pay for victory?"

[Vazgen]

Frankly, I really REALLY wish bioware shoved our faces in the sacrifice part. Not to the point of cheesy or overuse. But actually show us?

I think ME3 pretty much shoved our faces in the sacrifice part. Even with the best possible outcomes, so only Legion dies, we still face a lot of examples of sacrifice in the game. It's not squadmates, yes, but there is a lot of sacrifice in the game. Lieutenant Victus is just one example

[Ithurael]

The entire genophage arc is about the struggle between order and chaos.

Wasn't that more about extinction?

 

Or are you talking about order ==salarians vs chaos == wrex/wreav?

 

The way the reapers were presented was that they were the servants of order (thus Reaper==Order) and Organic life was chaos (Organic==Chaos)

 

However...that was in ME1

 

In ME3 we realize that the reapers are order and the conflict between synthetic and organic life is chaos.

 

However, the conflict of synthetic life fighting organic life was incited by the reapers (shown in ME1)

 

Then we see the Chaos shown again via the Geth v Quarian arch...well..I guess that counts...ya albeit it was a small segment of the whole game but still..it was there.. That matches I suppose.

[Iakus]

What a truly bizarre question. I'm sorry but I refuse to believe you're being sincerely serious about this.

 

 

Completely serious.  Why should an energy wave or radiation fry synthetics but not damage organics?  And even more so, why should it only harm AI and not other forms of technology?  

 

 

 

How it works is a matter of speculation. One that is ultimately irrelevant. We don't need to know HOW it works, only that it DOES work. It isn't only the ending that proves it. Javik and his memory shard prove it. Know who definitely proves it? The Virtual Aliens. Your consciousness is separate from your body and can be transferred back and forth from a hardware medium to another, entirely alien body. How? Hell if I know. It's still true of the Mass Effect universe though.

It's clear in the control ending that Shepard DOES maintain his personality. Theres two variations of the control ending for paragon and renegade Shepard, even.

 

It's as relevant as knowing the Reapers' motives, at least.  And hand-waving isn't an explanation.  

 

Though remember this is coming from someone who thought the Lazarus Project was the worst part of the Mass Effect trilogy pre-Catalyst.

 

 

 

It's perspective is based on the empirical observation going on for over a BILLION years. That is a long, long, long time. If you see the same thing happen consistently over and over cycle by cycle for a billion years would you not say "okay, this is statistically inevitable." Or would you say "welllllll, it might be different THIS time!" One is logic, one is insanity. I'll let you decide.

 

With a few nudges here and there to make sure it happens?  

 

 

 

Oh, I'm sure you can. You just choose not to see them because you rather complain that they're not there rather than admit that they are. Synthetics vs organics is a theme consistent in the entire trilogy. Even your precious TVTropes made note of it. Yet you'd probably ignore that with the reasoning of "Well, they COULD had been organics!"  There are many other themes present in the trilogy, as well. Ones I'm sure you'd actually recite if it in anyway helps your argument.
IMO the ending has enough REAL things to complain about. I don't understand this persistent need to make stuff up and headcanon stuff specifically for the purpose of ridiculing and criticizing it.

 

Sorry, but spending 30 hours shooting organic mercs inME2 kinda drowned out any serious  organic vs synthetic thematic material I might have seen.

[Ithurael]

I think ME3 pretty much shoved our faces in the sacrifice part. Even with the best possible outcomes, so only Legion dies, we still face a lot of examples of sacrifice in the game. It's not squadmates, yes, but there is a lot of sacrifice in the game. Lieutenant Victus is just one example

 

Victus sacrificed himself to stop cerberus. And while I do agree it was a great and nobel sacrifice, for some reason cerberus was painted as the main enemy over the reapers in terms of gameplay and story. I mean when you look at it...cerberus is responsible for Thane/Kirahee/Counselor, Miranda*, Jacob*, Jack* and Lt Victus (I am sure there are more). Whereas reapers we got...what? Mordin* and Legion. There really wasn't that much sacrifice against the reapers that we could see.

*=player determinant

 

I mean, there was some stuff we could read about...

like Emily wong or Kal'Reeger I guess.

[Vazgen]

Victus sacrificed himself to stop cerberus. And while I do agree it was a great and nobel sacrifice, for some reason cerberus was painted as the main enemy over the reapers in terms of gameplay and story. I mean when you look at it...cerberus is responsible for Thane/Kirahee/Counselor, Miranda*, Jacob*, Jack* and Lt Victus (I am sure there are more). Whereas reapers we got...what? Mordin* and Legion. There really wasn't that much sacrifice against the reapers that we could see.

*=player determinant

 

I mean, there was some stuff we could read about...

like Emily wong or Kal'Reeger I guess.

Turian fighters on Tuchanka, asari soldiers on Thessia, Legion, Admiral Koris/civilians, Rila - neither is involved with Cerberus. Legion and Admiral Koris mission deal with geth which are under Reaper control. And these are the ones we see in cutscenes. There are a lot more who you can read or listen about, like Joker's sister, for example.

[Alamar2078]

@Lakus:  As explained / seen in game the "Destroy" option is basically RSM [Red Space Magic].  While not as offensive [to me] as GSM there's still not much logic to it. 

 

If you take what we see in-game as a somewhat literal version of the truth the blasts we see centered on each relay would cause MASSIVE destruction given their range and apparent brightness as compared to the Milky Way.  I prefer to just ignore that piece of the puzzle as an attempt to communicate the effective range & scope of the solutions involved.  If needed I could "wave my arms" or headcanon what happens here without too much trouble.

 

Note:  With a few minor changes the devs could have explained this as a "Reaper kill switch" so that anything with any integrated Reaper tech would deactivate.  This could still be construed to be a risk to EDI and the Geth though so you'd still have your sacrifice involved with picking destroy.

[von uber]

It's strange how the decision chamber even exists. it's not part of the crucible, that's above us.

[Valmar]

No, I'm not over-analyzing it.  This is a choice that affects the structure of the galaxy.  Why I would choose this option has to make sense.  Shepard would have to know that this new Catalyst won't start the whole thing all over again.  Or do something worse.  

 

 

Shepard IS the new catalyst, if thats what you're getting at.

 

 

And logic goes screwy when emotions are involved.  Which can screw up the data its's receiving.

 

Priceless.

 

And if parts of an argument that justifies galactic genocide are called into question, yes it's worth questioning the whole thing.

 

 

This is assuming of course that you view it as genocide to wipe out the geth, if they're even still alive. Which is a bit of a paradox isn't it? I mean, if you view the geth as alive and therefor wiping them out to be genocide... then you can take the same moral stance against destroying the reapers. Or does it only count as genocide when you like the species you're wiping out? What was it you were saying about emotions screwing up logic?

 

Some I agree with:  Order vs chaos, victory through sacrifice, Surviving against the odds.

 

Organics vs synthetics, however is a peripheral theme at best.  It goes largely ignored through the trilogy, and then is only mentioned in regards to the geth.

 

 

Naturally, as predicted, you only see the ones that favor your agenda and find excuses to disregard anything to the contrary.

 

 

Completely serious.  Why should an energy wave or radiation fry synthetics but not damage organics?  And even more so, why should it only harm AI and not other forms of technology?  

 

 

It does actually effect other forms of technology. Paraphrase: "The technology you rely on will be damaged but the survivors should have no trouble repairing it."

 

As for why a wave might target specifically synthetic machines yet not harm organics... I'm still not willing to take you seriously on this one, which is actually a sign of respect. With perhaps a dash of self-delusion as I really don't want to believe someone can ask such a question.  Implications are unpleasant to say the least.

 

 

It's as relevant as knowing the Reapers' motives, at least.  And hand-waving isn't an explanation.  

 

 

I don't see how its relevant to their motives. Shepard gains control and maintains his memories and personality. Like it said he would. The how doesn't change the fact that its true.

 

With a few nudges here and there to make sure it happens?  
 

 

The even older Leviathan's observed the same pattern and clearly never nudged it to happen. I guess we should throw that out too, though, right?  Afterall, God forbid we ever concede anything not being rubbish is regards to the ending. 100% horrible. It's only logical! /s

 

 

 

Sorry, but spending 30 hours shooting organic mercs inME2 kinda drowned out any serious  organic vs synthetic thematic material I might have seen.

 

Certainly there are more organic mercs than there are synthetics. That doesn't change the fact that there are numerous missions in the game that involve you fighting synthetics. The collectors themselves are synthetic, even by your own admission (since you included Miranda), which you spend the majority of the main storyline fighting.

[Iakus]

@Lakus:  As explained / seen in game the "Destroy" option is basically RSM [Red Space Magic].  While not as offensive [to me] as GSM there's still not much logic to it. 

 

If you take what we see in-game as a somewhat literal version of the truth the blasts we see centered on each relay would cause MASSIVE destruction given their range and apparent brightness as compared to the Milky Way.  I prefer to just ignore that piece of the puzzle as an attempt to communicate the effective range & scope of the solutions involved.  If needed I could "wave my arms" or headcanon what happens here without too much trouble.

 

Note:  With a few minor changes the devs could have explained this as a "Reaper kill switch" so that anything with any integrated Reaper tech would deactivate.  This could still be construed to be a risk to EDI and the Geth though so you'd still have your sacrifice involved with picking destroy.

 

And if it was explained as a "Reaper kill switch" I'd have, well, not no problem, but at least less of a problem with it.  Despite we told told months earlier that there would be no such thing.

 

There'd still be a problem, such as how this wave propagates throughout systems and even beyond to nearby systems with no relay which the Reapers can't simply ftl away from.  Not to mention the question of at what point does the energy wave weaken to the point where it's survivable?   

 

But yes, the Red wave is space magic.  And not as bad as the Green wave.  But it's still terribad.

[Killdren88]

While the ending on its own is bad, what made it worse was Bioware's attitude. First it was Holier than thou. Then for the next year and a half stringing people along  with EVERY piece of DLC sold, being totally ambiguous with the content in the DLC. And then once all the DLC sold and money collected as a final middle finger they say no ending change and IT is fan fiction. 

[Iakus]

Shepard IS the new catalyst, if thats what you're getting at.

 

Nope.  Shepard is the charred lump of meat lying on the floor next to the control rods.  The new Catalyst is something else, with Shepard's memories.

 

 

 

Priceless.

 

How is an emotionless, logical AI going to understand memories of romancing someone?

 

 

 

This is assuming of course that you view it as genocide to wipe out the geth, if they're even still alive. Which is a bit of a paradox isn't it? I mean, if you view the geth as alive and therefor wiping them out to be genocide... then you can take the same moral stance against destroying the reapers. Or does it only count as genocide when you like the species you're wiping out? What was it you were saying about emotions screwing up logic?

 

Yes, I view the geth as alive.  And up until meeting the Catalyst I even viewed the Reapers as alive as well.  Wiping them out would have been a sad act, but necessary act given the galaxy was defending itself and there were no Reaper noncombatants so far as I could tell (though if there were I'd certainly have allowed them a chance t surrender or leave)  

 

With the whole "I control the Reapers" and such, I am no longer certain the Reapers were sentient though.

 

 

 

Naturally, as predicted, you only see the ones that favor your agenda and find excuses to disregard anything to the contrary.
 

Yes, I agreed with the themes listed that I agree with.  Funny how that works out, huh?  

 

 

 

It does actually effect other forms of technology. Paraphrase: "The technology you rely on will be damaged but the survivors should have no trouble repairing it."
As for why a wave might target specifically synthetic machines yet not harm organics... I'm still not willing to take you seriously on this one, which is actually a sign of respect. With perhaps a dash of self-delusion as I really don't want to believe someone can ask such a question.  Implications are unpleasant to say the least.
 

Okay, let me explain in more detail, then.

 

The Catalyst specifically points out that Shepard is "partly synthetic" and thus potentially vulnerable to the blast.  We also know via EDI that despite SHepard's cybernetics, he/she still has a wholly organic mind.

 

And yet Shepard is still at risk

 

Okay, then, so maybe the wave targets cybernetics, right?  Then, why aren't the quarians (who are known to utilize cybernetics) or the salarians (which embrace the concept of posthu-er-salrianism) affected?

 

 And then there are biotics.  All trained biotics, save possibly asari, utilize cybernetic implants in their brains and nervous system.  Remember, Kaidan didn't want to have his L2 implants replaced despite the migraines e\they caused because the procedure was risky and could have ended in brain damage.  So, why doesn't the Red wave hit them?  Logically, there should have beena major die-off of biotics after the wave.

 

 

 

I don't see how its relevant to their motives. Shepard gains control and maintains his memories and personality. Like it said he would. The how doesn't change the fact that its true.
 

 

I didn't say it was relevant to their motives.  I said their relevance was comparable.  Some people think knowing the Reapers' motives is vital.  Others don't care.

 

 

The even older Leviathan's observed the same pattern and clearly never nudged it to happen. I guess we should throw that out too, though, right?  Afterall, God forbid we ever concede anything not being rubbish is regards to the ending. 100% horrible. It's only logical! /s

 

I question the Leviathan's judgement due to their insistence, a billion years later, that there was no mistake.

[Killdren88]

Yes, I view the geth as alive.  And up until meeting the Catalyst I even viewed the Reapers as alive as well.  Wiping them out would have been a sad act, but necessary act given the galaxy was defending itself and there were no Reaper noncombatants so far as I could tell (though if there were I'd certainly have allowed them a chance t surrender or leave)  

 

 

 

I find it terrible that the Geth have to pay for the Reaper's crimes as well. And Edi for that matter

[prosthetic soul]

No.

Nice argument you have there.  Backed up by real evidence.  I think we're done here. 

 

Also, the Extended Cut didn't fix a damn thing.

[Valmar]

While the ending on its own is bad, what made it worse was Bioware's attitude. First it was Holier than thou. Then for the next year and a half stringing people along  with EVERY piece of DLC sold, being totally ambiguous with the content in the DLC. And then once all the DLC sold and money collected as a final middle finger they say no ending change and IT is fan fiction. 

 

Remember how the message you receive upon completion was basically "buy some DLC!"

 

 

Nope.  Shepard is the charred lump of meat lying on the floor next to the control rods.  The new Catalyst is something else, with Shepard's memories.

 

 

 

I don't remember there being any charred remains at all. I remember him being dissolved into nothingness. Not even ashes. So you really need to take a step back and stop insisting that your fictional headcanon is factual truth. I also don't see it fair to make such an assertion about the Shepardlyst. I certainly don't think fans of the control ending would appreciate you making such absolute statements. It's speculation either way, up to the player to decide.

 

 

How is an emotionless, logical AI going to understand memories of romancing someone?
 

 

Again, Shepardlyst isn't emotionless. Coincidentally I find it funny that you'll pass him off as some emotionless AI yet play the moral high ground about killing the geth.

 

 

Yes, I view the geth as alive.  And up until meeting the Catalyst I even viewed the Reapers as alive as well.  Wiping them out would have been a sad act, but necessary act given the galaxy was defending itself and there were no Reaper noncombatants so far as I could tell (though if there were I'd certainly have allowed them a chance t surrender or leave)  

 

With the whole "I control the Reapers" and such, I am no longer certain the Reapers were sentient though.

 

 

1. Disturbing.

 

2. Is it fair to ridicule and hate on the writing that by your own words is a contradiction and full of plotholes but at the same time use that writing to justify not viewing the reapers as sentient? 

 

 

 

 

Okay, let me explain in more detail, then.

 

The Catalyst specifically points out that Shepard is "partly synthetic" and thus potentially vulnerable to the blast.  We also know via EDI that despite SHepard's cybernetics, he/she still has a wholly organic mind.

 

And yet Shepard is still at risk

 

Shepard's body was resurrected from the dead largely in part due to the cybernetics within him. Remember the cutscene? Nanites and cybernetic implants jabbed onto organic to revive and regulate things. A blast that destroys cybernetics would of course have ill effects on a man who's survival was dependent on being augmented with such cybernetics. Doesn't mean he HAS to die but it is understandable why it would affect him.

 

In a similar vein I highly doubt an EMP blast would be healthy for an individual with a pacemaker, either. Just because Shepard's brain is organic doesn't mean the rest of his body is completely 'normal'. The cybernetics he relies on would be effected. I actually speculate the reason we don't see his face is because his (cybernetic) eyes exploded or melted and it looks rather gorey, lol.

 

 

 

Okay, then, so maybe the wave targets cybernetics, right?  Then, why aren't the quarians (who are known to utilize cybernetics) or the salarians (which embrace the concept of posthu-er-salrianism) affected?

What is to say they weren't effected? The quarian's cybernetics are not extensive to the point that they hinge on their survival. Though they certainly help, no doubt. Shepard has a damn pacemaker. In EC I'd argue we even hear it resuscitating him.

 

 

 And then there are biotics.  All trained biotics, save possibly asari, utilize cybernetic implants in their brains and nervous system.  Remember, Kaidan didn't want to have his L2 implants replaced despite the migraines e\they caused because the procedure was risky and could have ended in brain damage.  So, why doesn't the Red wave hit them?  Logically, there should have beena major die-off of biotics after the wave.

 

 

Having a blast that disables electronics isn't the same as cutting open the back of your skull and poking around nerve endings. We shouldn't assume that just because the tech was damaged that it should had killed those who had it in them. Which clearly it didn't, if we look at the ending. Using the word 'logical' doesn't suddenly make your argument any less speculation and assumption.

 

 

 I didn't say it was relevant to their motives.  I said their relevance was comparable.  Some people think knowing the Reapers' motives is vital.  Others don't care.

 

 

 

Ah, my mistake. I misread.

 

 

 

I question the Leviathan's judgement due to their insistence, a billion years later, that there was no mistake.

 

Their judgement in relation to their opinion of themselves, sure. It doesn't have any correlation with the pattern, however.

 

 

Also, the Extended Cut didn't fix a damn thing. 

 

Factually inaccurate. Rather than being objectively wrong it's also very subjectively bias. You're essentially saying "I wasn't happy with it therefore it was bad for everyone, no discussion" which is just wrong on many levels. A lot of people were satisfied by EC and felt it fixed a lot of the issues they had with it. You shouldn't make such absolute statements like that. You don't speak for all of us. Besides that you're still objectively wrong - you're exaggerating a great deal.

 

[prosthetic soul]

Factually inaccurate. Rather than being objectively wrong it's also very subjectively bias. You're essentially saying "I wasn't happy with it therefore it was bad for everyone, no discussion" which is just wrong on many levels. A lot of people were satisfied by EC and felt it fixed a lot of the issues they had with it. You shouldn't make such absolute statements like that. You don't speak for all of us. Besides that you're still objectively wrong - you're exaggerating a great deal.

 

Actually you're the one who's wrong.  Many people think the EC fixed the ending completely, some think it fixed only certain things, while I, think it didn't fix a damn thing.  It's ALL subjective.  You on the other hand, along with GOD think your opinion is law and believe the endings were magically fixed and this somehow gives you the right to dictate to others how they should feel about the endings too.  Which is deplorable and downright heinous.  Don't speak for ME, how about that?  You're essentially saying "I'm happy with it therefore others should be too."  Aww, see what I did there? 

 

I never ONCE stated how God or YOU or anyone else should feel about the endings.  I've only been venting MY frustration about it.   And I am christ almighty sick of being pushed around by stuck up know it all's like you! 

[Valmar]

Actually you're the one who's wrong.  Many people think the EC fixed the ending completely, some think it fixed only certain things, while I, think it didn't fix a damn thing.  It's ALL subjective.  You on the other hand, along with GOD think your opinion is law and believe the endings were magically fixed and this somehow gives you the right to dictate to others how they should feel about the endings too.  Which is deplorable and downright heinous.  Don't speak for ME, how about that?  You're essentially saying "I'm happy with it therefore others should be too."  Aww, see what I did there? 

 

I cannot speak for God (I'm not a priest) but I can speak for myself. I've /never/ insisted my OPINION was the only truth. I insist the lore and facts are the only truth. It is not my opinion that the cycle exists. It is lore fact. It is it not my opinion that synthetic-organic conflict is a theme in each game. It is objective, factual truth that I can back up with actual facts. 

 

I say: don't make up stuff and pretend its true. Stick to what is real. Just like you saying Shepard dies no matter what. Not true. Not true at all.  You two are the ones who presents speculation and opinion as FACT. I'm only calling you out on it.

 

Ironically, you are the one speaking for me, not the other way around. You're the one who presented your opinion as if it was fact, as if it was true. Did you say it was your opinion EC didn't fix anything? No. You said it didn't in an absolute way.

 

Coincidentally, I'm NOT happy with the ending. Far from it. I just judge it for what it factually did wrong rather than make up headcanon and speculation to rage about. Keep that in mind before you make stuff up.

[prosthetic soul]

I cannot speak for God (I'm not a priest) but I can speak for myself. I've /never/ insisted my OPINION was the only truth. I insist the lore and facts are the only truth. It is not my opinion that the cycle exists. It is lore fact. It is it not my opinion that synthetic-organic conflict is a theme in each game. It is objective, factual truth that I can back up with actual facts. 

 

I say: don't make up stuff and pretend its true. Stick to what is real. Just like you saying Shepard dies no matter what. Not true. Not true at all.  You two are the ones who presents speculation and opinion as FACT. I'm only calling you out on it.

 

Ironically, you are the one speaking for me, not the other way around. You're the one who presented your opinion as if it was fact, as if it was true. Did you say it was your opinion EC didn't fix anything? No. You said it didn't in an absolute way.

 

Coincidentally, I'm NOT happy with the ending. Far from it. I just judge it for what it factually did wrong rather than make up headcanon and speculation to rage about. Keep that in mind before you make stuff up.

You said I was objectively wrong for thinking the EC didn't fix anything.   If that isn't speaking for me I don't know what is.   What the endings FACTUALLY did wrong was kill Shepard in three out of the four endings and leave the fourth ending stupidly ambiguous.  Those are not varied nor satisfying in anyway.   The fourth in particular offers no conclusion to those wanting answers on Shepard's fate.  And sorry, Bioware confirming in some Tweet that he survives doesn't ****ing count.  It's half-assed at best and flaccid story telling at worst. 

[Valmar]

You said I was objectively wrong for thinking the EC didn't fix anything.   If that isn't speaking for me I don't know what is.  

 

Pointing out that you're wrong is speaking for you? You're the one who said EC didn't fix anything. I didn't say you said it. You said it. Which is objectively wrong because EC /did/ fix some things. The relays blowing up in all endings, for example. Fixed that. That's objective, not subjective. How the squad got back on the normandy? Fixed it. Though, arguably, the fix isn't very satisfying or make much sense but it did fix the issue of them just magically teleporting there. Not knowing if your squad survived? Fixed. Not seeing if Shepard really took control of the reapers? Fixed. Not seeing if synthesis really changed all life? Fixed. A lot of things were fixed.

 

That doesn't, of course, mean the fixes were perfect or without their own flaws. A lot of things WERE addressed, however, and saying that NOTHING was fixed is just wrong. You don't have to be satisfied with it to admit facts.

 

What the endings FACTUALLY did wrong was kill Shepard in three out of the four endings and leave the fourth ending stupidly ambiguous.  Those are not varied nor satisfying in anyway.  

 

Well, rather or not Shepard dies in Control is a matter of some philosophical debate. The endings are varied from one another, however, so claiming that they aren't is false. I wasn't that satisfied with the result either, though.

 

Still, the variation on endings is part of what is going to make MENext so difficult. If the ending was really as non-varied as you let on then they'd have no problem whatsoever continuing the story.

 

 

The fourth in particular offers no conclusion to those wanting answers on Shepard's fate.  And sorry, Bioware confirming in some Tweet that he survives doesn't ****ing count.  It's half-assed at best and flaccid story telling at worst. 

 

Having bioware confirm something to you doesn't count? Wow, guess the author's words for their intended interpretation are meaningless. I'll agree with the sentiment that the ending we got was lackluster and I definitely would had appreciated a happier send-off with more closure, but Shepard is alive. The game confirms it and Bioware confirms it. You can accept that fact without being satisfied with how it was handled. I don't like the gasping chest plate ending anymore than you do, I definitely felt that we should had gotten more from it.

 

[Iakus]

 

 

I don't remember there being any charred remains at all. I remember him being dissolved into nothingness. Not even ashes. So you really need to take a step back and stop insisting that your fictional headcanon is factual truth. I also don't see it fair to make such an assertion about the Shepardlyst. I certainly don't think fans of the control ending would appreciate you making such absolute statements. It's speculation either way, up to the player to decide.

 

 

You're right.  My faulty memory that Shepard burnt to a crisp rather than turning to ash and blowing away completely undermines the point I was making that Shepard was in fact dead and the Shepalyst was a separate being..

 

/sarcasm

 

 

 

Again, Shepardlyst isn't emotionless. Coincidentally I find it funny that you'll pass him off as some emotionless AI yet play the moral high ground about killing the geth.

 

 

I'm not passing it off as emotionless, Massively was:

 

 

 

 

And yes, Shepard probably has his brain scanned, and had the new model built on those blue-prints. Makes sense. It has his memories and thoughts, while getting rid of his feelings and emotions.

 

 

 

1. Disturbing.
2. Is it fair to ridicule and hate on the writing that by your own words is a contradiction and full of plotholes but at the same time use that writing to justify not viewing the reapers as sentient?

 

 

Disturbing how?

 

I wasn't "justifying" anything.  I said it casts doubt.  Because yes, plot holes.  In those last few minutes, nothing makes sense anymore.

 

 

 

Having a blast that disables electronics isn't the same as cutting open the back of your skull and poking around nerve endings. We shouldn't assume that just because the tech was damaged that it should had killed those who had it in them. Which clearly it didn't, if we look at the ending. Using the word 'logical' doesn't suddenly make your argument any less speculation and assumption.

 

 

But these are electronics that are attached to nerve endings.

 

And yes the ending shows they don't die or left crippled.  But given the warnings the Catalyst gives, it doesn't make sense why they aren't affected.  Salarians with their minds augmented with tech suffering brain damage, quarians with limbs that suddenly don't work right.  Haptic interfaces no longer responsive.  And yes biotics suddenly having the worst migraines ever.

 

 

 

 
Their judgement in relation to their opinion of themselves, sure. It doesn't have any correlation with the pattern, however.
 

Except it shows their perspective is clearly skewed.

[Killdren88]

Remember how the message you receive upon completion was basically "buy some DLC!"

 

 

Ahh...yes I remember that well....

 

Link

[Obadiah]

The entire genophage arc is about the struggle between order and chaos.

The launching of the Genophage, and perhaps the earlier genocide on the Rachni, is also foreshadowing the Destroy choice, an action to win the war outright at some heavy cost.

[TMA LIVE]

But when the story ends this badly, I'm sad because I can't go back and enjoy it.  I'm helpless to change anything because someone decided their "art" was more important than the concerns of the players.

 

Well, to be fair, it's more specific you and players with your mind set.

 

I remember way back when, people were making a big deal over how many people liked the endings in their original form, and those who didn't. And those who didn't really wanted to prove how big their numbers were, and considered themselves the majority. Bioware however, didn't think so, and players thought they were in denial.

 

The truth is, though I'm positive many do in fact think the original endings were either "ok" or "Meh" or "clearly this isn't put together well" or "WTF just happened?" or "I don't get it?" or "%$^#%%#% you BIOWARE! Making this ending is like stealing me shoes!", the majority were most likely "I don't care about the ending. I liked the game in general".

 

Or "I rarely finish games period" or "I'm just here for the multiplayer" or "What's logic? I like explosions. Action mode was what I wanted all along". Or "ME3 is my first ME experience, so past choices don't matter to me".

 

I mean, with ME1 and ME2, you have 50% of players not even beating the game. Meaning they didn't even care about the ending in those games.

 

It's like Femshep. When you see the buzz online, you think Femshep is the most played character over maleshep. No contest. But then you look at the actual data, 18% play femshep, despite all the marketing.

 

A large group of people thinking the endings needed fixing in general was the only thing getting us the Extended Cut in the first place. But the things people wanted were all different. They wanted the same endings but wanted their choices to have more meaning, and plotholes to be fixed. They wanted an Indoctrination Ending where the current were just mind tricks. They wanted Dark Energy brought back. They wanted to beat the Reapers with ships. They wanted no Catalyst at all, and the three choices to be removed. They wanted the entire Earth mission to be redone. They wanted their own fan fiction ending to become a reality. etc.

 

You got to understand, when you say players, you really mean "your" kind of players. And when it comes to a fanbase, there's more the one kind. We're all different and think different things. Hell, some people prefer the endings in their original forms and don't like Extended Cut (I think they're crazy, but that's "me"). Nothing Bioware could do to please everyone. If they made you happy, they'd make me angry. If they made you angry, they make me happy. There's no middle ground.

[prosthetic soul]

Pointing out that you're wrong is speaking for you? You're the one who said EC didn't fix anything. I didn't say you said it. You said it. Which is objectively wrong because EC /did/ fix some things. The relays blowing up in all endings, for example. Fixed that. That's objective, not subjective. How the squad got back on the normandy? Fixed it. Though, arguably, the fix isn't very satisfying or make much sense but it did fix the issue of them just magically teleporting there. Not knowing if your squad survived? Fixed. Not seeing if Shepard really took control of the reapers? Fixed. Not seeing if synthesis really changed all life? Fixed. A lot of things were fixed.

 

That doesn't, of course, mean the fixes were perfect or without their own flaws. A lot of things WERE addressed, however, and saying that NOTHING was fixed is just wrong. You don't have to be satisfied with it to admit facts.

 

You seem to think just because Bioware threw the hammer at the proverbial nail and hit something must mean they fixed it.  Newsflash: all fixes are not created equal.  There's fixing something and then there's fixing something PROPERLY, ADEQUATELY.   That's the crux of what we're talking about.  You even admit that the fixes weren't perfect or without their flaws.  That's what I've been telling you since the beginning. You think the fixes are adequate.  I don't think they are.  And in MY mind, a bad fix is no better than not fixing something at all. 

[themikefest]

The extended cut fixed the flashbacks, but still can't explain how Steve got back on the Normandy