He probably tried all the radios from the ground team. Honestly though this was just inconsiderate narrative convenience, that they tried to fix with EC (before EC you dont' even hear Hackett say "someone made it to the citadel") but they left out some details.
Seriously though, I'm not as nitpicky as to not buy that Hackett contacts Shepard in the ending. I'm not too picky on Anderson getting there let alone ahead of Shepard either.
One my questions that went weren't addressed by anyone is:
Admiral Hackett is told by the ground team that nobody made it to the beam (although Shepard and Anderson did). Then why does Hackett contact Shepard on the radio once he's in front of the control panel?
Interesting question. I chalk it up to poor writing myself but that doesn't mean a reasonable explanation can't be found in it. Technically, if I remember correctly, Hackett wasn't actually told anything of the sort. Or rather, we don't hear him being told it. It was Coats that said that.
Hackett only 'calls' in after Shepard and Anderson have had a brief com-chat on the citadel and Shepard's squad is back on the Normandy. It's possible Hackett, being keenly interested in tracking those coms, noticed Shepard and Anderson were still in contact and were located on the citadel. It's also possible the Normandy informed him that Shepard made it up which would explain why it takes him some time to send a message to Shepard, as it would take time for them to deliver the message to him. They'd also likely know Shepard is definitely still alive since they can track his heart rate and vitals on the Normandy. Though the damage Shepard took to his armor might have damaged that so it could go either way.
...you're it up yourself this time. This is exactly why the ending of the final arc fails. It doesn't really gel with the rest of the trilogy we've witnessed. I view ME3 as a whole as an ending and that's why those last 10 minutes so completely destroyed it for me because instead of closing it all off, it changes genre, central theme, conflict and just destroys the narrative and it was the only thing I could remember from the game for so long after I beat it the first time.
I'm it up myself? At anyrate, we still (shocking revelation) have completely different views on this. Like I said earlier when I explained why I didn't want to get into this argument with you in the first place. ME3's ending does not break out the genre, theme, conflict or narrative of ME3. This argument would actually have more merit if it was saying ME3's ending broke out of the narrative of ME1-2. Which I believe it does to certain degrees. Like I've said before, ME1-2, to me, were far simpler stories. ME3's ending was more complicated and nuanced than their target audience was prepared for. Which is perfectly reasonable of those fans, imo, since ME1-2 never tried to be so deep or engrossed with lore.
You're absolutely right though. A hollywood ending would've been lame, but they could've made the Crucible's function ambiguous in another way than unmasking and unmystifying the Reapers and simultaniously telling us that it's all about a central conflict which we have never seen and can't really believe in. If the ending had to be done well the entire rest of ME3 and possibly the entire trilogy would have to be compeltely changed.
We have seen it. We certainly can believe it. Just because you choose not to doesn't mean it isn't there.
So by putting an emphasis on something, you have to mention its like someone's family and/or children being murdered.
Okay, I'm objectively and factually saying that people complain about ME3 murdering their family and children. It came into their houses in the middle of the night and did unspeakable things to them. Happy now? What do you want from me? I thought it was obvious that I wasn't being literal. The fact that I had to explain to you that I wasn't being literal seems like a nitpicking argument.
One may term Shepard's Love Interest refusing to believe that Shepard died as 'Hollywood' too, right?
Perhaps. Though not to the extent I was referring. I was more on the lines of something more cliche action hero star. Get the girl/man/asari/whatever, save the galaxy, be a hero, ride off into the sunset. I dare say not many people found the gasping chest plate and hesitant LI on the Normandy to be really uplifting or happy. Even adding a screen of Shepard reuniting with the crew would had likely done wonders.
But how'd the illusive mean get there lol
He was evidently already making his way to the Citadel when Shepard was tearing his way through Cerberus' headquarters. Cerberus also seemed to have a fair understanding of the Citadel layout since they're shown to make use of the keeper tunnels earlier in the game. He was even able to find out about the artifact on Thessia so it isn't a stretch to think he would be able to find a pathway into that room.
Worse case scenerio you can just point out the fact that he's clearly indoctrinated at this point and the reaper's are guiding him to where they want him to be.
One my questions that went weren't addressed by anyone is:
Admiral Hackett is told by the ground team that nobody made it to the beam (although Shepard and Anderson did). Then why does Hackett contact Shepard on the radio once he's in front of the control panel?
The question I have for Hackett is after Shepard collapses, why didn't he send a shuttle to the area to investigate what happened to Shepard?
The question I have for Hackett is after Shepard collapses, why didn't he send a shuttle to the area to investigate what happened to Shepard?
I imagine he likely did send some teams in the moment the arms opened. We just get whisked away to wonderland before they could arrive.
Okay, I'm objectively and factually saying that people complain about ME3 murdering their family and children. It came into their houses in the middle of the night and did unspeakable things to them. Happy now? What do you want from me? I thought it was obvious that I wasn't being literal. The fact that I had to explain to you that I wasn't being literal seems like a nitpicking argument.
I'm just surprised someone would even mention that and apparently it bothers you that I asked
Another kind of hokie thing I never completely understood nor was it ever explained in any away: Shepard is the first organic to stand on the opposite side of the Citadel ring, you know, the underside where there isn't the Citadel Tower? ...or does the catalyst mean it as in "the first organic to make it to this circumstance?"
Valmar. Requote that previous message. It was a typo that I fixed. "You set it up yourself" not "you're up it yourself" and don't be a sophist, please.
Watch this or rewatch it. I'm most likely done trying to understand you since you're apparently in an entirely different league of intelligent than me.
You guys might remember how Shepard resisted Morinth's seduction attempts at Omega... The same thing could've been done at the ending, where Shepard is able to resist indoctrination if he has a high enough parameter (such as Paragon or Renegade)... Or perhaps Shepard in the center, surrounded by darkness, attempting to fight it as it tries to consume him... lol
He kinda does. You just have to go renegade. You can shoot the Illusive Man.
That's an awesome idea...
Actually that other bigger threat could have been the Dark Energy plot they were originally going to use for ME3.
Say i'ts been like 20 years after the events of ME3 and tensions are growing between Geth and Quarians (red herring) and suddenly Reapers are returning and all the races think that they are returning to finish the cycle , all the races are preparing for an all out war....Reapers finally appear but they are not here for war they are here to warn about the Dark Energy danger (don't remember the specifics but I remember it had to do with mass effect fields causing problems, not sure at all) and after that all goes to chaos.People are fighting over whether the Reapers should be trusted or not, people are fighting for political power in the midst of the chaos, civil war is ready to erupt within the humans against pro-alien or anti-alien.Krogans are getting all ready for war again.(Expansion and conquest if you cured genophage, revenge and brutality if you sabotaged genophage cure ).
They wouldn't need to use save imports for this, they could do what they did with Dragon Age and tailor the game based on choices like the Dragon Age Keep tapestry which you could edit and adjust the way you want.
He kinda does. You just have to go renegade. You can shoot the Illusive Man.
Then again, does he actually shoot the Illusive man or does he actually just deliver a blow to the indoctrinated part of his brain? And there's of course Shepard's bleeding abdomen that doesn't make sense...
I envy your dedication guys.
Mass Effect 3 has flaws. ME2 and ME1 too. The question here is the ability to overlook those flaws and enjoy the game. If you pick every small detail apart, no game of the trilogy stands a chance.
People bash Weekes for claiming that they didn't want their Shepard to die. Yet all those people easily ignored all the problems of the previous games, which are no less disconnected from the narrative, filled with plot holes and railroading. What made those people to ignore those problems but notice the ending? And now tell me that the outcry would've been the same if Shepard walked out of the rubble with a smirk.
Lazarus project is as disconnected as ME3 ending. And while the ending at least tries to bring some of the themes from the trilogy (synthetic vs organic), Lazarus project simply forcefully kills the protagonist and resurrects him with SCIENCE!
People complain about having only two dialogue options in ME3. How many times did you have the same binary choice in ME2 then? Like, for example, this
If you're going to complain about the game, at least complain about things specific to that game. Like, for example, handwaving of the rachni, journal problems, not challenging gameplay, unnecessary reaffirmation of romances, lack of content for ME2 LI...
But no, everyone just bashes the starchild scene which is filled with no less plot holes and space magic than the entire trilogy
Then again, does he actually shoot the Illusive man or does he actually just deliver a blow to the indoctrinated part of his brain? And there's of course Shepard's bleeding abdomen that doesn't make sense...
Uhm, a Reaper blast and Marauder's shot are not enough to cause bleeding?
EDIT: Sorry... browser acting weird. Refer to my next post...
The marauder shoots him in the right shoulder. Is it a mere coincidence that Anderson is also shot in the abdomen by TIM.
The game shows Anderson, Shepard and TIM in a room and there are two possible inferences:
1. Stuff is actually happening
2. Shepard's mind is playing tricks
What I think the game should've done is showed scenes in such a way that only one of the above inferences is rendered to be correct.
I envy your dedication guys.
Mass Effect 3 has flaws. ME2 and ME1 too. The question here is the ability to overlook those flaws and enjoy the game. If you pick every small detail apart, no game of the trilogy stands a chance.
People bash Weekes for claiming that they didn't want their Shepard to die. Yet all those people easily ignored all the problems of the previous games, which are no less disconnected from the narrative, filled with plot holes and railroading. What made those people to ignore those problems but notice the ending? And now tell me that the outcry would've been the same if Shepard walked out of the rubble with a smirk.
Lazarus project is as disconnected as ME3 ending. And while the ending at least tries to bring some of the themes from the trilogy (synthetic vs organic), Lazarus project simply forcefully kills the protagonist and resurrects him with SCIENCE!
People complain about having only two dialogue options in ME3. How many times did you have the same binary choice in ME2 then? Like, for example, this
SpoilerIf you're going to complain about the game, at least complain about things specific to that game. Like, for example, handwaving of the rachni, journal problems, not challenging gameplay, unnecessary reaffirmation of romances, lack of content for ME2 LI...
But no, everyone just bashes the starchild scene which is filled with no less plot holes and space magic than the entire trilogy
An ending which abandons the central themes and conflicts for a hamfisted artistic statement is something specific to ME3. Anyone who claims there's no depth to ME1 or ME2 is simply not looking deep enough. The entire trilogy had plenty of subtext, it's just the ending of ME3 that suddenly thinks that subtext needs to be imposed with little to no context beforehand (oh yeah, Leviathan DLC, sorry about leaving that out!)
And you're cherry picking with that dialogue wheel example. ME2 has plenty of para/netural/renegade wheels. ME3 was the only one which specifically decided to have a format of only 2 options per dialogue wheel, so that criticism is completely valid unless you're cherry picking like you just did.
An ending which abandons the central themes and conflicts for a hamfisted artistic statement is something specific to ME3. Anyone who claims there's no depth to ME1 or ME2 is simply not looking deep enough. The entire trilogy had plenty of subtext, it's just the ending of ME3 that suddenly thinks that subtext needs to be imposed with little to no context beforehand (oh yeah, Leviathan DLC, sorry about leaving that out!)
And you're cherry picking with that dialogue wheel example. ME2 has plenty of para/netural/renegade wheels. ME3 was the only one which specifically decided to have a format of only 2 options per dialogue wheel, so that criticism is completely valid unless you're cherry picking like you just did.
Uhm, did I write anything about the lack of depth in the trilogy?
Tell me, what context did you have for the Lazarus project and working with Cerberus?
It's not cherry picking. People praised ME2 despite all its flaws. I didn't notice anyone complaining about binary choices in ME2. So they decided, "well, if people like it, let's make it more prominent".
There are a lot of such choices in ME2.
Uhm, did I write anything about the lack of depth in the trilogy?
Tell me, what context did you have for the Lazarus project and working with Cerberus?
Because TIM knew that Shepard was the right person for the job? We have to be careful to stay within scientific boundaries set by the game (such as making it possible to make a dead person alive) while at the same time not crossing the boundaries of basic logic...
Imagine if after the supposed death of Shepard in ME3, Cerberus once again brings him back to life and he becomes their leader lol...
I know. Hence why I used it in the context for why "I'm not alone in my fandom". I was justifying the crazy behavior of repeatedly having the same argument over and over again, expecting a different result. In hindsight its amusing Vaz posted the Far Cry "definition of insanity" clip but I was actually thinking of that very thing when I wrote that post.
I don't recall saying it was. Just because I understand it doesn't mean I agree with its direction. I wasn't the one saying it doesn't make sense or is contradictions, though.
You really have a thing for semantics don't you. I wasn't being literal. It was to put emphasis on how ridiculous some of the hate is that gets slurred at the ME3's ending and just how personal some people take it.
Again, you have some comparing it to rape. Me saying that people are crying about it murdering their family and children is my way of trying to draw focus to the extreme levels of hate some individuals are flinging at it. I would say "some people act like its rape" to put emphasis on how extreme it is but since some ACTUALLY think that way it wouldn't be extreme enough to make it stand out. Murdering their family and children is the highest extreme I could think of that hasn't actually been used. Its the only one I can think of where there won't be someone going "Well, it does!"
Though since some people wanted their Shepard to run off in the sunset and have a family and children and are upset we didn't get their headcanon immortalized in the the game I wouldn't be terribly surprised if some did compare that to murdering their family and children. Though I'm probably just being overly pessimistic in that regard.
Coming from The Transformers fandom I can't tell you the number of times I've read or heard that "Micheal Bay raped my childhood!" (and don't get me started on Star Wars nutballs whose hatred of the prequels say the same thing about George Lucas are insane) every single time a Micheal Bay directed Transformers movie comes out. Bay and Lucas didn't rape my childhood because NOBODY can rape my childhood. I'm sick of this meme, which IMHO degrades actual sexual rape. The whole ending to ME3 wasn't as bad as everyone thinks it is nor is it a great artistic vision. I got my resolution in The Extended Cut DLC.
Then again, does he actually shoot the Illusive man or does he actually just deliver a blow to the indoctrinated part of his brain? And there's of course Shepard's bleeding abdomen that doesn't make sense...
I'm not even going to touch on that one.
All I will say if those who put all this time scourging through all the little details and picking out every little element to make up something as wild as the Indoctrination Theory clearly should have the potential to understand the actual ending. If they applied that same effort to the ending, they should be able to understand it. Yet they usually don't. Why?
I have two theories on this:
1. They don't actually want to understand the ending, they just hate it and want something different, so they focus on making up some elaborate headcanon fantasy rather than try to understand the real ending.
2. It is easier to understand since it holds your hand. There are videos on youtube that walk you through it step by step. I really doubt most people just played the game and managed to piece IT together all on their own. The videos definitely helped. Hand-holding helps tremendously which is why I think the original ending should have done it that way.
What I think the game should've done is showed scenes in such a way that only one of the above inferences is rendered to be correct.
Ironically it does since indoctrination does not work the way IT describes.
An ending which abandons the central themes and conflicts for a hamfisted artistic statement is something specific to ME3.
Except ME3 doesn't do any of those things other than the writer's making the artistic BS line. Saying it does doesn't magically make it so. You're letting your emotions guide you away from facts because you want to view the ending negatively, damn anything that counters your claim.
That being said, this will be all I say on the subject for now. I don't feel like proving Vaas right again. Least not now.
Uhm, did I write anything about the lack of depth in the trilogy?
If I had to guess I'd say he's making a subtle jab at my past comments here where I said ME1-2 were easier to follow. If so, he is twisting my words. Though I could be wrong and he's talking about something else entirely.
Because TIM knew that Shepard was the right person for the job?
I'll admit I don't really know Vaz's position on these since I haven't spoken to him outside the realm of ME3 much, specifically about Lazarus. That being said I'm going to take a large leap here and say his argument has nothing to do with whether or not Shepard is the right person for the job.
Coming from The Transformers fandom I can't tell you the number of times I've read or heard that "Micheal Bay raped my childhood!" (and don't get me started on Star Wars nutballs whose hatred of the prequels say the same thing about George Lucas are insane) every single time a Micheal Bay directed Transformers movie comes out. Bay and Lucas didn't rape my childhood because NOBODY can rape my childhood. I'm sick of this meme, which IMHO degrades actual sexual rape. The whole ending to ME3 wasn't as bad as everyone thinks it is nor is it a great artistic vision.
My sentiments exactly.
Because TIM knew that Shepard was the right person for the job? We have to be careful to stay within scientific boundaries set by the game (such as making it possible to make a dead person alive) while at the same time not crossing the boundaries of basic logic...
Imagine if after the supposed death of Shepard in ME3, Cerberus once again brings him back to life and he becomes their leader lol...
I was referring to his statement that the ending imposed subtext with little to no context beforehand and introducing a later DLC to remedy the issue.
What I said was that the trilogy has done it before. Lazarus project comes out of the blue with no explanation, no prior knowledge of such technology and without giving the player any choice in that regard. Later, Shepard is forced to work with Cerberus, a group presented as terrorists in the first game. We don't even have an option to express distaste with that. The most you can say "If they work with the Reapers, I'll consider helping you" or something like that.
It is certainly true that there is this mentality that anything we didn't get in the ending is apparently better, whether it's the IT or Dark Energy Karpyshyn ending and I've even seen many say they think the ending would've been amazing if it just faded out after Anderson dies, to which I've always said, I don't think you realize what you're asking for.
I will give the ending that it's better than any of those headcannon substitutions but still... it's a fuckin' shitty ending.. not the lore, the explanation of the reapers or the catalyst. the ending and those 3 choices, combined with the rest of the plot. It just falls apart.
Vazgen, I'm not going to argue that Cerberus or Shepard's death in ME2 wasn't stupid and thematically inconsistent, but why does that bit of narrative incoherence determine whether we can criticise similar flaws in ME3 just because they aren't exclusive. ME2 may have fucked up the premise a bit, but it got back on track IMO. Mass Effect 3 screwed up its premise with "EARTH" IMO but it got back on track at some point... then the ending happens and that's where I draw the line. Stories can stumble a lot but the ending ****** matters too.
Go ahead Vaas, I don't mind, as long as some people in here can get it through their skulls.
No more dead than Shepard was in ME2, but that didn't really stop Shepard from finishing up the ME2 story arc and even the ME3 story arch after that.
It is certainly true that there is this mentality that anything we didn't get in the ending is apparently better, whether it's the IT or Dark Energy Karpyshyn ending and I've even seen many say they think the ending would've been amazing if it just faded out after Anderson dies, to which I've always said, I don't think you realize what you're asking for.
I will give the ending that it's better than any of those headcannon substitutions but still... it's a fuckin' shitty ending.. not the lore, the explanation of the reapers or the catalyst. the ending and those 3 choices, combined with the rest of the plot. It just falls apart.
Vazgen, I'm not going to argue that Cerberus or Shepard's death in ME2 wasn't stupid and thematically inconsistent, but why does that bit of narrative incoherence determine whether we can criticise similar flaws in ME3 just because they aren't exclusive. ME2 may have fucked up the premise a bit, but it got back on track IMO. Mass Effect 3 screwed up its premise with "EARTH" IMO but it got back on track at some point... then the ending happens and that's where I draw the line. Stories can stumble a lot but the ending ****** matters too.
Go ahead Vaas, I don't mind, as long as some people in here can get it through their skulls.
So long as you acknowledge that the ending is not alone in that regard. Every game has its problems. For me, ME2 has the most. Ending matters, as does beginning and middle of the story.
If I was a Bioware employee tasked to figure out what fans liked and didn't like about the trilogy to include in ME:Next what would I see? I see people bashing the ending of ME3 and praising ME2 despite the exact same flaws. I see people hating Synthesis but being fine with Lazarus project. What's the difference between the two? Shepard dies in one and survives in the other.
People need to understand that the negatives of the ending, so many times mentioned here, are not exclusive to it and they got over them before. They need to find the reasons why can't they get over it like they did before.
Iakus, for example, has clearly stated his position and he holds the same position regarding the similar issues in the previous games. But many people go with claiming that 99% of the trilogy was amazing and the ending ruined it all. That's something I don't understand.
Retour en haut
