407 réponses à ce sujet

[ImaginaryMatter]

The Catalyst said the docking of the Crucible changed it and created new possiblities, maybe like some kind of reprogramming, if you will. We know that several cycle civilisations before have worked with new ideas for the Crucible, so I'm guessing that they actually created the new solutions at some point, and the Catalyst can't deny them since the Crucible docked. The Catalyst says he's not able to make them happen, and he simply presents the new solutions because it is forced to by the change it went through by the Crucible.

Not sure if it's making any sense, but that's what I think

 

Even though it also states they tried something like Synthesis before, so... maybe the idea of the Synthesis-similar solution was one the original creators of the Catalyst incorperated, but since it failed they never tried it again, even though the possibility is still there, or maybe was also added as an idea from former civilisations.

Meh, I wish we knew more about older civilisations and their role in designing the Crucible

 

No, I understand. That's what I think is the best explanation, if not the only one, needed to explain the Catalyst's actions. Even that runs into problems though. Which gets into my problem with these gaps in the ending. That they have answers though, once we go down far enough into the trade off of assumptions and lore searching to find answers about how any of this works, isn't the problem. It's that when playing, these questions take people out of the ending. They're not engaged in a story but a mental exercise of second guessing the writers intent and trying to figure things out. This guy has a good visual for this.

[angol fear]

No I think that it's the player himself you disengage. I mean the story gives enough informations to understand and to choose. Though I was surprised, I was engaged in the story till the end.

[fraggle]

Well if players are not engaged enough by the end of ME3 to want to go down the path and dive deeper into the story to maybe get some answers, then it's their choice, and their loss maybe. I understand it's easier to have every bit of information served on a plate rather than going back and pick every sentence apart, but not everything needs to be laid out imo.

I admit that for many games I am indeed not passionate enough to go back and find some answers if something isn't clear, and that's fine, and it's fine if players don't try and find answers for ME, but there's no need to hate on something just because they are too lazy to find some answers.

 

Granted, the game does have its problems and I would never say otherwise, but you can find some answers if you're willing to look.

 

On the other hand it's frigging beautiful the way the ending is presented, if we're roleplaying WE are Shepard, and Shepard doesn't have time to find all the answers from the Catalyst he would want to have, so he just needs to go and pick something that says is right in his gut. I know it was like that the first time I finished ME3, I was sooo overwhelmed I just sat there and went oh gosh, what to pick... I don't know much about any of these choices, wah!

In real life, we don't know many things, yet we make our choices based on the information we have, might it be complete or not. But I ramble.

[angol fear]

Well if players are not engaged enough by the end of ME3 to want to go down the path and dive deeper into the story to maybe get some answers, then it's their choice, and their loss maybe. I understand it's easier to have every bit of information served on a plate rather than going back and pick every sentence apart, but not everything needs to be laid out imo.

I admit that for many games I am indeed not passionate enough to go back and find some answers if something isn't clear, and that's fine, and it's fine if players don't try and find answers for ME, but there's no need to hate on something just because they are too lazy to find some answers.

 

Granted, the game does have its problems and I would never say otherwise, but you can find some answers if you're willing to look.

 

On the other hand it's frigging beautiful the way the ending is presented, if we're roleplaying WE are Shepard, and Shepard doesn't have time to find all the answers from the Catalyst he would want to have, so he just needs to go and pick something that says is right in his gut. I know it was like that the first time I finished ME3, I was sooo overwhelmed I just sat there and went oh gosh, what to pick... I don't know much about any of these choices, wah!

In real life, we don't know many things, yet we make our choices based on the information we have, might it be complete or not. But I ramble.

 

I agree. I would just add that on a narrative perspective, if you explain details that are not needed to be explained you create parenthesis in the narration that break the rythm. Instead of having a real solid structure, you'll have a lot of explanation that lead nowhere, that are made just to please people's curiosity but add nothing and break the narrative.

[Silcron]

Mechanically ME3 is the best of the series. Your problems in the combat (running out of ammo, long cooldowns) I'd wager are more a problem of you missing your shots and not being aware than the drawback of carrying too many weapons is long cooldowns. I mean, you just have to look at the succes that was the multiplayer as proof. ME3MP is for when you want to experience more of ME3 combat but without being on a scripted mission. You can also look at DA:IMP for this idea. That one's not a success because DA:I combat is just not enjoyable by itself.

 

No, the problems with ME3 were on the story department: auto dialogue, character assasination (thinking of geth), the ending.

 

As for the graphics, well, they're an slight update from ME2's. Good, but nothing that'd blow your mind at ME3's release time.

 

Then you have the opposite in ME1. Story wise it's really good but the combat really needed the overhaul it got in ME2, which could have been better, as demonstrated by ME3.

 

I've played them all from 10+ to 20+ times (completed walkthroughs) and for me now it's ME2>ME3>ME1 just because whenever I play 1 I feel how old it is, ME2 holds up great.

[DSiKn355]

I'd view ME3 as the worst game too. Numerous issues, too much auto-dialogue, limited squad and that ending for starters.

ME2 was the best of the three by a considerable way imo.

 

Totally agreed!

 

ME3 sucked plain and simple.

 

I have tried to complete ME3 for a second time and due to its utter **** ending and lack of companion interaction I find myself not wanting to play anymore main story since getting Tali back lol.

 

I don't wanna see her talking to Garrus more than me lol.

I don't wanna be brushed of with a "I'm busy" while she has a full ****** convo with Garrus no problem.

But most of all I don't want that ****** unproductive ending.

 

The ending choices didn't even make sense.

 

No peace between synthetics and organics? What did I just do for the Quarians and Geth?

Sheapard is still alive and only gets a communication from Hakett? wtf!? His concerned ship mates and his dedicated lover can't send him one damn call?

 

Seriously!?

 

Fricking have your love interest give birth to your child at least so you can take some solice from the relationship you have been building for 3 damn games.

 

I just wanted to atleast see Tali on the porch of her home on Rannoch with her and shepards kid playing in a field with a cybernetic dog or a geth or something.

 

And the fact that you had to get dlc to try and salvage the ending just shows how messed up it was.

 

The game just seems so much more lacking than the others.

 

Think about this....

 

Better textures require larger data yet...

 

ME1 was 20GB

ME2 was 15GB

and ME3 was 8GB

 

So ME3 has the best textures so then just how much is lacking from the game itself?

 

ME3 tried to concentrate on being more dramatic but it's quality dropped in playabilty standards significantly.

 

I am currently going through the Dragon age trilogy (DAO: witch hunt currently then DA2 after) and I hope I don't encounter the same issue.

[DSiKn355]

Well, in the beginning of Mass Effect, on Eden Prime, the first guy you see (if you do it) tells you that he sees our destruction. Then Mass Effect is about Shepard who is facing an unstoppable force that have harvested civilizations, even more advanced. Shepard warns the galaxy that the reapers are coming but no one listen. Mass Effect 1 and 2 is about delaying the reapers, not stopping them. In Mass Effect 1 and 2 Shepard fails. In Mass Effect 3 an unprepared galaxy is facing the reapers. So how could people think that it could end like an american movie with a happy end?

 

WRONG!

 

In ME1 and 2 Shepard didn't fail lol.

 

Otherwise the reaper invasion would have happened in ME1 lmao.

 

And in ME3 you again defeat a reaper.

 

It's a REAPER INVASION so the answer would be DEFEAT THE REAPERS which you have done multiple times ME3 included.

[fraggle]

The ending choices didn't even make sense.

 

No peace between synthetics and organics? What did I just do for the Quarians and Geth?

[...]

And the fact that you had to get dlc to try and salvage the ending just shows how messed up it was.

 

The "no peace between Synthetics and Organics" does not originally stem from the Catalyst. The Catalyst was tasked with preservation of organic life at all cost, and it cannot break out of this task, because that's what it was programmed to do. If anyone is at "fault", Leviathans are, because THEY thought that there can never be peace. So even if you achieved peace between the geth and quarians, it still will think the same because it cannot do otherwise.

 

And why do the ending choices make no sense? The 3 themes were present the whole time. Anderson stood for destroying the Reapers, the Illusive Man wanted to control them, and Synthesis would be your version of peace between Synthetics and Organics, a theme also presented throughout the game and it's also what the Catalyst always wanted to achieve.

 

Why was the DLC needed? I played it without first and it was fine. We don't necessarily need to know that the creators of the Catalyst were Leviathans, it's nice to know, yes, but not ultimately needed. We could've guessed that there's some other species who first created the Catalyst.

Besides, the devs probably didn't have enough time to implement all of their ideas for the final scenes, it's implied heavily as there are audio files on Youtube that never made it into the end game, and it shows that they planned on a bigger thing. But that's the gaming industry.

[Farangbaa]

ME2 is the best videogame in pure gameplay mechanics.

But the story... lol. Dr Phil simulator in space. Only Dr Phil has been forced to watch Arnold Schwarzenegger movies for weeks so all he can do is be a tough guy about it.

I'm sure people like those things, and it's a great stand alone game. But it butchered, no... massacred Mass Effect.

[Geth Supremacy]

I thought this was a given?  ME1 was an amazing game, but pacing and gameplay were vastly improved in ME2.  ME3 added good gameplay enhancements (and MP!!!!!), but 2 is still where its at.

 

I wouldn't even call it close.

 

I still cringe every single time the remember the Mako is coming back in the next ME........ugh that is so bad.  I won't be pre ordering or anythign though so I will know EXACTLY what I am getting into this time and get it for $40 or less. The Mako won't kill the game at that point.

[angol fear]

WRONG!

 

In ME1 and 2 Shepard didn't fail lol.

 

Otherwise the reaper invasion would have happened in ME1 lmao.

 

And in ME3 you again defeat a reaper.

 

It's a REAPER INVASION so the answer would be DEFEAT THE REAPERS which you have done multiple times ME3 included.

 

So imagine there's an exam. You have to go to the retake exam. Will you say that you succeed the first time? You probably will say that you failed the first time and succeed the second.

You didn't get my point : Shepard tried to stop the reapers, he didn't in Mass Effect 1 and 2. He didn't stop he just delayed it. If you start to think that Mass Effect 1 and 2 are epic win, then you didn't play Mass Effect, you imagined that you were playing Mass Effect but you actually totally ignored the story. Mass Effect 1 and 2 are supposed to lead to an unprepared galaxy facing an unstoppable force. That's what happened. If you see that as if Shepard succeed and the endings of the first two games were epic win, well you can but you'll have problem with Mass Effect 3. You'll consider that the game doesn't fit to the trilogy while it's you who misinterpreted, who didn't understand the trilogy.

All I can say that could be in the way you see it is, yes, it's not a total failure because Shepard Destroyed Sovereign and a baby reaper. 

 

But it's obvious that you didn't get what Mass Effect 1 and 2 were about, you ignored the writing and will ignore everything that will go against the way you want Mass Effect 1 and 2 to be : 

 

"ME3 sucked plain and simple."

[God]

Bioware said that their ending wasn't made in the last minute. If you really want to think that it was made like this, you're free to think that.

Anyway, Casey didn't see anything wrong in the ending, Casey was involved in the writing of the ending, the other producers didn't see anything wrong, the voice actor didn't see anything wrong. well that's more than one guy who didn't see anything wrong. And after that some critics didn't see anything wrong.

 

At the end of the day, only two people had a say at what went into the ending of the game. Nobody else's opinions mattered. You think the VA matters if he saw anything wrong or not?

 

And even though people didn't see anything wrong does not mean that they were correct. Paul Verhoeven and United Artists didn't see anything wrong with Showgirls. 

 

Guess how that turned out. 

 

What a creator thinks does not always matter compared to what the consumer base thought. 

 

The fact that it received so much criticism and outcry shows that what Casey thought about the ending wasn't entirely relevant.

[God]

So imagine there's an exam. You have to go to the retake exam. Will you say that you succeed the first time? You probably will say that you failed the first time and succeed the second.

You didn't get my point : Shepard tried to stop the reapers, he didn't in Mass Effect 1 and 2. He didn't stop he just delayed it. If you start to think that Mass Effect 1 and 2 are epic win, then you didn't play Mass Effect, you imagined that you were playing Mass Effect but you actually totally ignored the story. Mass Effect 1 and 2 are supposed to lead to an unprepared galaxy facing an unstoppable force. That's what happened. If you see that as if Shepard succeed and the endings of the first two games were epic win, well you can but you'll have problem with Mass Effect 3. You'll consider that the game doesn't fit to the trilogy while it's you who misinterpreted, who didn't understand the trilogy.

All I can say that could be in the way you see it is, yes, it's not a total failure because Shepard Destroyed Sovereign and a baby reaper. 

 

But it's obvious that you didn't get what Mass Effect 1 and 2 were about, you ignored the writing and will ignore everything that will go against the way you want Mass Effect 1 and 2 to be : 

 

"ME3 sucked plain and simple."

 

Saying that the problem is on the end of the receiver only works when only one or a few receivers are reporting negative.

 

If many of them, or even most of them are reporting negative, that's usually an indication something is wrong on the transmitting end. 

 

It's downright denial to say that people are ignoring everything to criticize. If that was the case, they'd likely have no ground to criticize. As well, it's exceedingly difficult (to the point where I'd invoke the surprise principle) to have everything be so perfect that absolutely all criticism is unfounded, as you are trying to forward.

 

It's unrealistic, and it makes your view uncredible. 

[jak11164]

Hmmm. What I think that ME1 had a mystery behind it. We had to uncover hidden Reapres behind Saren moves. It was epic and had a twist of fresh sifi concept. It was excellent game that I love to repeat it again and again just couple levels here, couple levels there.

ME2 was not so bad we were learning what Reapers are. Changing the side was nice trick... but empty

"ME3 sucked plain and simple." because it had no mystery I think Leviathan DLC was diminished. It should be primary plot to find "makers" in the  outer space and use them. Instead we made huge machine gun that raped galaxy. Plain and simple It sucks. And  so called multi-player lol. Instead making main characters playable so friends could play trough the game with friends they made stupid coop running with guns around the block.

[angol fear]

At the end of the day, only two people had a say at what went into the ending of the game. Nobody else's opinions mattered. You think the VA matters if he saw anything wrong or not?

 

And even though people didn't see anything wrong does not mean that they were correct. Paul Verhoeven and United Artists didn't see anything wrong with Showgirls. 

 

Guess how that turned out. 

 

What a creator thinks does not always matter compared to what the consumer base thought. 

 

The fact that it received so much criticism and outcry shows that what Casey thought about the ending wasn't entirely relevant.

 

You didn't read me till the end. "Some critics didn't see anything wrong". I could have said the critics didn't see anything wrong but I don't know if they all played it till the end. Anyway some of them defended the ending. And the game won a lot of awards.

Here we've got more than the creator who thinks that there's nothing wrong.

In real life, all the people I know who played the game liked the ending. Most of them work in art. There's only on internet that I see people complaining. Internet is full of people who has nothing to do but complain. Vox populi. You've probably never read Niezsche, don't you?

[DSiKn355]

The "no peace between Synthetics and Organics" does not originally stem from the Catalyst. The Catalyst was tasked with preservation of organic life at all cost, and it cannot break out of this task, because that's what it was programmed to do. If anyone is at "fault", Leviathans are, because THEY thought that there can never be peace. So even if you achieved peace between the geth and quarians, it still will think the same because it cannot do otherwise.

 

And why do the ending choices make no sense? The 3 themes were present the whole time. Anderson stood for destroying the Reapers, the Illusive Man wanted to control them, and Synthesis would be your version of peace between Synthetics and Organics, a theme also presented throughout the game and it's also what the Catalyst always wanted to achieve.

 

Why was the DLC needed? I played it without first and it was fine. We don't necessarily need to know that the creators of the Catalyst were Leviathans, it's nice to know, yes, but not ultimately needed. We could've guessed that there's some other species who first created the Catalyst.

Besides, the devs probably didn't have enough time to implement all of their ideas for the final scenes, it's implied heavily as there are audio files on Youtube that never made it into the end game, and it shows that they planned on a bigger thing. But that's the gaming industry.

 

The ending without any dlc which is the "Extended" dlc I am referring to is awful. It's the whole reason for the dlc in the first place lol.

 

Anderson yes

Illusive man yes

 

But my choice which I wanted was Synthesis? That was what all my decisions were leading to regardless of being Paragon or Renegade?

 

Finding understanding between the races and synthetics sure... But becoming part synthetic without understanding or choice of the others was never shepards way!

 

Shepard never enforced his beliefs on others.

 

And I don't think you played ME3 without the extension otherwise you too would have questioned how the destruction of a relay can destroy neighbouring planets so then the destruction of the mass relay would have killed billions of lives and left those that survive in the battle stranded with no mass relay to get home.

 

So imagine there's an exam. You have to go to the retake exam. Will you say that you succeed the first time? You probably will say that you failed the first time and succeed the second.

You didn't get my point : Shepard tried to stop the reapers, he didn't in Mass Effect 1 and 2. He didn't stop he just delayed it. If you start to think that Mass Effect 1 and 2 are epic win, then you didn't play Mass Effect, you imagined that you were playing Mass Effect but you actually totally ignored the story. Mass Effect 1 and 2 are supposed to lead to an unprepared galaxy facing an unstoppable force. That's what happened. If you see that as if Shepard succeed and the endings of the first two games were epic win, well you can but you'll have problem with Mass Effect 3. You'll consider that the game doesn't fit to the trilogy while it's you who misinterpreted, who didn't understand the trilogy.

All I can say that could be in the way you see it is, yes, it's not a total failure because Shepard Destroyed Sovereign and a baby reaper. 

 

But it's obvious that you didn't get what Mass Effect 1 and 2 were about, you ignored the writing and will ignore everything that will go against the way you want Mass Effect 1 and 2 to be : 

 

"ME3 sucked plain and simple."

 

Lmao I love how you ignore the reaper that was taken out on Rannoch or even the one on Earth (I will discount the one taken out by the giant worm lol).

 

Destroying Reapers could be done as you did do throughout the 3 games.

To just give up and accept they can't win is NOT how the story of Mass Effect has played out up to that point.

Shepard was always the hopefull (paragon) or determined (Renegade) but never the pessimist lol.

 

And as for the gameplay and interactions of ME3 it's quality had fallen considerably.

 

Because afterall it is to be judged as a game in its entirity and not just as a story right?

 

There was alot less content.

There was alot less interactions with your crew and love interest.

There was alot less technique or skill needed for the combat

It was overly dramatic which made some scenes feel forced and predictable.

 

Thus ME3 sucked plain and simple.

 

It was a game that was rushed and gave a crap ending which didn't reflect on the player's choices throughout the 3 games.

If it wanted a linear ending then it should have had a linear story with no choices involved.

 

What were the "war assets" for? What did they even effect, change or do? just pointless

[fraggle]

The ending without any dlc which is the "Extended" dlc I am referring to is awful. It's the whole reason for the dlc in the first place lol.

 

Anderson yes

Illusive man yes

 

But my choice which I wanted was Synthesis? That was what all my decisions were leading to regardless of being Paragon or Renegade?

 

Finding understanding between the races and synthetics sure... But becoming part synthetic without understanding or choice of the others was never shepards way!

 

Shepard never enforced his beliefs on others.

 

And I don't think you played ME3 without the extension otherwise you too would have questioned how the destruction of a relay can destroy neighbouring planets so then the destruction of the mass relay would have killed billions of lives and left those that survive in the battle stranded with no mass relay to get home.

 

The reason for the EC is that fans bitched about the ending, otherwise they wouldn't have done it. And imo all they did in that is enhance some scenes and explain things on a deeper level, but that is only to give the fans the knowledge they want. Oh, and a happier approach to things.

 

Uh, so I take it you didn't like Synthesis...? So why not pick Destroy or Control? And it's not like Shep's never made big decisions for other races before or wiping them out if he wanted to (see rachni).

 

Believe it or not but I played it first without EC.

I take it you're talking about the Arrival ending with the destruction of the mass relay? My guess is that this happened because they slammed an asteroid into it. In ME3 pre-EC the Catalyst only talks of the mass relays being destroyed, not the planets or whole systems, and you see no planets being affected when the relays blow up. So I assume the energy of the Crucible prevents the mass relays from taking out planets. Of course this is all pre-EC speculation as they've changed the destruction of the relays there.

And even if planets were destroyed and billions were wiped out in the process, then that would have been the cost of stopping the Reapers. Not easy, depressing as hell, but life can flourish from now on.

 

The EC was added only to make the outcome look less grim and fans can have a "happier" ending and more closure. IMO.

[Berit]

My $0.02 ...

 

ME1 = By far the best and most comprehensive "story" in the trilogy - Visually i's looking sadly "dated" now though, and the "gameplay" does have several flaws.

ME2 = By far the best "gameplay" in the trilogy - Except for a few "Oh FFS" things like Planet Scanning  and those hacking "mini-games" (Goddess/Spirits/Ancestors kill me now ...please) And the" WTH is this s**t ?!?!? With regards to Sheps Resurrection, and the 'story' that had less depth than a 6 year old's alibi for the mess in the kitchen.

ME3 = Meh. Good all round gameplay, as they got rid of several of the annoying things from ME2. Good Story, as it had more impact and pertinence to the over all "Reaper Threat" theme and actually flowed pretty well, and it's Galactic reach surpassed even ME1's level. Good graphics though I think, at least for the PC version, they could have done better but it was a vast improvement over ME1.

 

Trying to look objectively at each game separately and purely as a stand alone game, I'd probably say ME1 -> ME3 -> ME2

 

But in reality, I cant be totally objective, so I end up looking at the Trilogy as one long game, particularly if I import a Shep from ME1 or ME2 with all the LI's and decisions being thrown back at me, so in that view, it's all great and I can't really say which is the "best" or "worst".

 

...

On the "endings" side issue, I personally don't see why people dislike the Synthesis ending.

 

I don't see it as everyone essentially being turned into husks The way I see it or the way it seems to come across to me (with the EC Ending and Leviathan lore included) It's similar to a software company creating a game engine for the PC and another engine for MAC and another for PS and another for XB. The assets are essentially the same (graphic, textures, story etc) But they run on all different hardware and they are completely non-interchangeable. This equates to the "chaos" which the "Intelligence" was programmed to stop.

 

Or maybe they can create a game engine that runs on all platforms regardless of the hardware.

 

In the ME sense then, Synthesis has simply created a "universal" engine that all living things now run on, It doesn't take away any individuality, it doesn't change any hardware. And the assets, in his sense the graphics and textures =  race, culture, eating, breathing, reproducing, and the story = love, friendship, companionship, need and desire are now to a lesser or greater degree interchangeable.

 

As EDI says in her epilogue "I am no longer alone" All living things regardless of what "hardware" they run on are linked by a common underlying code but they are still separate and individual. How much is changed? We'll probably never know unless BW deign to tell us which ending is actually "canon".

 

So would you no longer need to be warned about eating the nuts the red bowls?. Maybe. maybe not.

 

I like to think that the re-writing in Synthesis was only at the deepest most fundamental "engine" level and that the Galaxy's inhabitants weren't simply turned into clones, But, maybe that's just me, and after all, we each have our own interpretations.

[DSiKn355]

The reason for the EC is that fans bitched about the ending, otherwise they wouldn't have done it. And imo all they did in that is enhance some scenes and explain things on a deeper level, but that is only to give the fans the knowledge they want. Oh, and a happier approach to things.

 

Uh, so I take it you didn't like Synthesis...? So why not pick Destroy or Control? And it's not like Shep's never made big decisions for other races before or wiping them out if he wanted to (see rachni).

 

Believe it or not but I played it first without EC.

I take it you're talking about the Arrival ending with the destruction of the mass relay? My guess is that this happened because they slammed an asteroid into it. In ME3 pre-EC the Catalyst only talks of the mass relays being destroyed, not the planets or whole systems, and you see no planets being affected when the relays blow up. So I assume the energy of the Crucible prevents the mass relays from taking out planets. Of course this is all pre-EC speculation as they've changed the destruction of the relays there.

And even if planets were destroyed and billions were wiped out in the process, then that would have been the cost of stopping the Reapers. Not easy, depressing as hell, but life can flourish from now on.

 

The EC was added only to make the outcome look less grim and fans can have a "happier" ending and more closure. IMO.

 

The dlc was made because the ending was stupid and full of plotholes.

 

You still failed to admit that all those at earth were stranded with the mass relay gone lol.

 

The Normandy crew shipwrecked on some far off unseen before planet.

 

The Rachni were very different as they were seen as monsters/a menace but then again I chose to save the Rachni queen both times so the Shepard I played would have never made that Synthesis decision just like he would have never given in to the Catalysts choices.

This is why I said if they wanted a linear ending then they should have made a linear game without the choices.

 

And your trying to avoid my point of "Shepard didn't enforce his beliefs on others" lol

 

If you and Angol Fear love ME3 in its entirity then atleast address all points made by people that have grievances lol.

 

Last conversation with Tali was "Adapt? Is that what we do to survive?" Tali's response "You adapt to your environment, cold heat sure but to Reapers?... No"

But then Synthesis (so called best ending) is "we adapt to reapers" lol.

 

Even the reason for the reapers makes no sense.

 

"we preserve life by wiping out life that becomes too smart" you can't preserve if you make that race extinct once they reach a certain intelligence.

It's contradictory

 

Tbh it seemed like the Catalyst wanted to stop the reapers but just couldn't do it alone hence Shepard had to follow the Catalyst's choices.

 

The ending didn't become "happier" only more closure as they never changed the outcome.

[Berit]

Even the reason for the reapers makes no sense.

 

"we preserve life by wiping out life that becomes too smart" you can't preserve if you make that race extinct once they reach a certain intelligence.

It's contradictory

 

Tbh it seemed like the Catalyst wanted to stop the reapers but just couldn't do it alone hence Shepard had to follow the Catalyst's choices.

 

The ending didn't become "happier" only more closure as they never changed the outcome.

It actually makes a great deal of sense. The "Intelligence" was programmed with one goal, "find a way to preserve 'life' at all costs". After much study it determined that the only way to stop the extinction of all life, was to prevent any one "species" or "race" from advancing or developing the technology to a point whereby it could possibly extinguish itself or others, either intentionally or unintentionally. Thus the "Cycles" were born and it started with Leviathan's "species" as they obviously had the ability to destroy themselves or others.

 

At the end or near the end of each cycle the best Traits and Technology from all sufficiently advanced species is incorporated or subsumed into a new Reaper, which becomes the template for the Reapers which will carry out the next Cycle. But life is not extinguished completely, sometimes this distinction is confused in certain dialogues throughout the series, but it's finally clarified in the end.

 

The "Catalyst" emerged as an entity from the A.I. controlling the Citadel but was not the original "Intelligence". So it did not want to "stop the Reapers" it wanted to find the solution to the problem the "Intelligence" was originally created to solve. The "intelligence" did this with the Cycles, but the advent of the Catalyst and subsequently the Crucible offered other options.

 

Now obviously in the Original Release of the game, though it was implied, little of this logic was given to the player, hence the confusion, but I believe the "intention" was always the same, and the EC Ending and Leviathan DLC's were added for clarification only, to a player base that obviously "didn't get it".

 

I also think the BW steadfastly wanted to avoid the stereotypical and cliched "medal ceremony" cheesy ending, and to conclusively close the book on "Shepards Tale" hence there was no real "happy" ending for Shepard, but there were "better" even "happy" endings for the Galaxy, and "life" as a whole.

 

 

So you need to be careful about several distinctions - Life and Species are two different things.

 

The "Intelligence" and "Reapers" are two different things.

 

The "Intelligence" the "Catalyst" the "Citadel" the "Crucible" and the "Reapers" are all separate things.

 

Harvesting and annihilation/destruction/genocide are different things.

 

...

 

So maybe some players did want the cheesy medal ceremony and happily ever afters,(sitting on a beach with Jacob, or quaffing a beer with Garrus in a Bar) but most I think are at least content with the FINAL resolution of the Trilogy.

[angol fear]

The dlc was made because the ending was stupid and full of plotholes.

That's your opinion.

 

 

 

The Rachni were very different as they were seen as monsters/a menace but then again I chose to save the Rachni queen both times so the Shepard I played would have never made that Synthesis decision just like he would have never given in to the Catalysts choices.

This is why I said if they wanted a linear ending then they should have made a linear game without the choices.

 

 

First, philosophycally, choice are absence of freedom. You have to know that to understand the writing.

Second, you may have noticed that there are different level of influence. Your choices can change some details in the story but can't chance the overall story. The reapers are at a level that you have no influence. The story is at a level that you have no influence. 

Third, if you didn't get the first two point, you can't get the last : the gameplay is all about that and the ending reveals it. Mass Effect is about trying to fight fate.

 

So no they didn't make a linear ending, and if you can't see in the entire trilogy the tension between linear and non-linear that becomes an explicit theme in the ending (it was implicit during the while trilogy), I suggest you to play the trilogy again and to think about why it was made this way. You don't have to play till Mass Effect 3 to understand.

 

PS : I won't say anything about how you can't understand the difference between the original ending and the extended cut. That's the basis of narratology. And if you didn't see how the extended cut was actually made to please people, you should see them again and make a real comparison.

[fraggle]

1. The dlc was made because the ending was stupid and full of plotholes.

 

2. You still failed to admit that all those at earth were stranded with the mass relay gone lol.

The Normandy crew shipwrecked on some far off unseen before planet.

 

3. The Rachni were very different as they were seen as monsters/a menace but then again I chose to save the Rachni queen both times so the Shepard I played would have never made that Synthesis decision just like he would have never given in to the Catalysts choices.

This is why I said if they wanted a linear ending then they should have made a linear game without the choices.

 

4. And your trying to avoid my point of "Shepard didn't enforce his beliefs on others" lol

If you and Angol Fear love ME3 in its entirity then atleast address all points made by people that have grievances lol.

 

5. Last conversation with Tali was "Adapt? Is that what we do to survive?" Tali's response "You adapt to your environment, cold heat sure but to Reapers?... No"

But then Synthesis (so called best ending) is "we adapt to reapers" lol.

 

6. Even the reason for the reapers makes no sense.

"we preserve life by wiping out life that becomes too smart" you can't preserve if you make that race extinct once they reach a certain intelligence.

It's contradictory

Tbh it seemed like the Catalyst wanted to stop the reapers but just couldn't do it alone hence Shepard had to follow the Catalyst's choices.

 

7. The ending didn't become "happier" only more closure as they never changed the outcome.

 

1. No. Fans complained until it was made. BW explained more, and changed a few tiny things, but that was it. Nothing completely turned around.

Excerpt from BW's official site:

Through additional cinematic sequences and epilogue scenes, the Extended Cut will include deeper insight to Commander Shepard's journey based on player choices during the war against the Reapers.

2. Uh, no, I do admit that they're stranded, I just didn't feel the need to reply because you're right about that.

3. Ok look, I also didn't kill the Rachni the first time and I don't like Synthesis either, but you said it yourself: YOUR Shepard would've not done it, neither would mine, but we all choose the ending according to our own perception, what we believe suits our Shepard and our shaped world best. Hence why 4. and 5. are a bit pointless. If players can justify for themselves WHY they would go for the Synthesis road, it's completely fine. They're entitled to choose it, just as you are entitled to go with Destroy or Control, whatever you prefer. None of the endings are wrong or right, everyone has their personal reasons for choosing one of those.

6. What Berit said

7. It did. The Catalyst states that with Destroy, some technology will be destroyed, but species should have little difficulty in repairing everything. Which means the relays as well, as only the inner part is destroyed in the EC, not the full blow as seen in pre-EC. So there's a chance that Shep will be found and can re-unite with his crew if you have high EMS. You just need to make it happen in your own thoughts

[DSiKn355]

It actually makes a great deal of sense. The "Intelligence" was programmed with one goal, "find a way to preserve 'life' at all costs". After much study it determined that the only way to stop the extinction of all life, was to prevent any one "species" or "race" from advancing or developing the technology to a point whereby it could possibly extinguish itself or others, either intentionally or unintentionally. Thus the "Cycles" were born and it started with Leviathan's "species" as they obviously had the ability to destroy themselves or others.

 

At the end or near the end of each cycle the best Traits and Technology from all sufficiently advanced species is incorporated or subsumed into a new Reaper, which becomes the template for the Reapers which will carry out the next Cycle. But life is not extinguished completely, sometimes this distinction is confused in certain dialogues throughout the series, but it's finally clarified in the end.

 

The "Catalyst" emerged as an entity from the A.I. controlling the Citadel but was not the original "Intelligence". So it did not want to "stop the Reapers" it wanted to find the solution to the problem the "Intelligence" was originally created to solve. The "intelligence" did this with the Cycles, but the advent of the Catalyst and subsequently the Crucible offered other options.

 

Now obviously in the Original Release of the game, though it was implied, little of this logic was given to the player, hence the confusion, but I believe the "intention" was always the same, and the EC Ending and Leviathan DLC's were added for clarification only, to a player base that obviously "didn't get it".

 

I also think the BW steadfastly wanted to avoid the stereotypical and cliched "medal ceremony" cheesy ending, and to conclusively close the book on "Shepards Tale" hence there was no real "happy" ending for Shepard, but there were "better" even "happy" endings for the Galaxy, and "life" as a whole.

 

 

So you need to be careful about several distinctions - Life and Species are two different things.

 

The "Intelligence" and "Reapers" are two different things.

 

The "Intelligence" the "Catalyst" the "Citadel" the "Crucible" and the "Reapers" are all separate things.

 

Harvesting and annihilation/destruction/genocide are different things.

 

...

 

So maybe some players did want the cheesy medal ceremony and happily ever afters,(sitting on a beach with Jacob, or quaffing a beer with Garrus in ar) but most I think are at least content with the FINAL resolution of the Trilogy.

 

Ok check it...

 

The Intelligence is the epitome of smart without emotion right?

Yet...

The "not so smart" Shepard could bring an end to a 300 year war by making a Geth upload "the code" of a reaper or reapers to give the Geth a higher intellect and better understanding thus ending the war.

 

From the code of a reaper who is the product of the intelligence, yet the intelligence failed to see this option as a way to bring peace between Synthetics and Organics.

 

The Catalyst AGAIN a product or byproduct of the Intelligence has 3 options to preserve life and 2 of which brings an end to the cycle permenantly (Destroy doesn't) YET the intellegence failed to see this.

 

I don't need a Star Wars medal ending, that would have been absolute crap.

I just wanted my decisions and romance choices to mean something.

THAT is the major issue.

 

Spending time building War assets for what? What does it change?

Choosing to save or kill the Rachni Queen what does it change?

Choosing To have a relationship with a crew member changes what?

 

The linear story you can defend until the cows come home no problem but it's the PERSONAL journey which is seriously lacking any consideration for in that linear ending.

 

Your personal choices and journey means nothing to the ending.

 

It's just a martyrs death and a name plaque.. thats it.

 

I don't mind him dying as self sacrifice is cool in my eyes (I'm a parent and being a parent is all about that lol) but to have no personal gain from any of it is just sad and feels wasteful of the journey being personal in the first place with choices understand?

 

It's why I said having your love interest giving birth to your child would satisfy me as even though it was Shepard "fulfilling the mission" something personal as a reflection of your choices would be gain thus giving you something personal from the ending.

 

I mean come on not even a personal message from each crew member when putting up the plaque!?

Nothing to be said about this great guy that sacrificed himself to save an entire galaxy??

 

That's your opinion.

 

 

 

First, philosophycally, choice are absence of freedom. You have to know that to understand the writing.

Second, you may have noticed that there are different level of influence. Your choices can change some details in the story but can't chance the overall story. The reapers are at a level that you have no influence. The story is at a level that you have no influence. 

Third, if you didn't get the first two point, you can't get the last : the gameplay is all about that and the ending reveals it. Mass Effect is about trying to fight fate.

 

So no they didn't make a linear ending, and if you can't see in the entire trilogy the tension between linear and non-linear that becomes an explicit theme in the ending (it was implicit during the while trilogy), I suggest you to play the trilogy again and to think about why it was made this way. You don't have to play till Mass Effect 3 to understand.

 

PS : I won't say anything about how you can't understand the difference between the original ending and the extended cut. That's the basis of narratology. And if you didn't see how the extended cut was actually made to please people, you should see them again and make a real comparison.

 

Lol you wannabe intellectual types are funny how hard you try to defend things that failed that you liked.

the fact so many fans complained shows that it FAILED to make people understand.

The EC then had to "Explain" not "Please" people.

 

And you are missing the point of much complaints.

 

As you said "Your choices can change some details in the story but can't change the overall story. The reapers are at a level that you have no influence. The story is at a level that you have no influence."

 

So the players PERSONAL stake in the game (choices made) is completely ignored and doesn't mean **** in the end.

 

And THAT is the problem many have.

 

You invest 90+ hours into the trilogy and get nothing out of it.

No personal stake fulfilled as "apparently" it's not about that and all your choices were just an illusion of freedom within the game and having a personal stake in all of it.

 

Thanks BW for making our opinion throughout our journey mean fcuk all! Nice one! lmao

 

1. No. Fans complained until it was made. BW explained more, and changed a few tiny things, but that was it. Nothing completely turned around.

Excerpt from BW's official site:

Through additional cinematic sequences and epilogue scenes, the Extended Cut will include deeper insight to Commander Shepard's journey based on player choices during the war against the Reapers.

2. Uh, no, I do admit that they're stranded, I just didn't feel the need to reply because you're right about that.

3. Ok look, I also didn't kill the Rachni the first time and I don't like Synthesis either, but you said it yourself: YOUR Shepard would've not done it, neither would mine, but we all choose the ending according to our own perception, what we believe suits our Shepard and our shaped world best. Hence why 4. and 5. are a bit pointless. If players can justify for themselves WHY they would go for the Synthesis road, it's completely fine. They're entitled to choose it, just as you are entitled to go with Destroy or Control, whatever you prefer. None of the endings are wrong or right, everyone has their personal reasons for choosing one of those.

6. What Berit said

7. It did. The Catalyst states that with Destroy, some technology will be destroyed, but species should have little difficulty in repairing everything. Which means the relays as well, as only the inner part is destroyed in the EC, not the full blow as seen in pre-EC. So there's a chance that Shep will be found and can re-unite with his crew if you have high EMS. You just need to make it happen in your own thoughts

 

Read all the above lol

[AlanC9]

The "not so smart" Shepard could bring an end to a 300 year war by making a Geth upload "the code" of a reaper or reapers to give the Geth a higher intellect and better understanding thus ending the war.

This is a bizarre misreading of how the Rannoch scenario plays out.

Spending time building War assets for what? What does it change?
Choosing to save or kill the Rachni Queen what does it change?
Choosing To have a relationship with a crew member changes what?

In order:
War Assets determine which choices you have available, how much collateral damage the Crucible dies, and whether ir no Shepard survives.
Saving the rachni queen means the same thing in ME3 that it meant in ME1. Euther the specues goes extinct, or it doesn't.
What should a relationship change? What are you looking for?

[Berit]

Ok check it...

<snip>

The Intelligence is the epitome of smart without emotion right?

<snip>

You invest 90+ hours into the trilogy and get nothing out of it.

No personal stake fulfilled as "apparently" it's not about that and all your choices were just an illusion of freedom within the game and having a personal stake in all of it.

<snip>

Thanks BW for making our opinion throughout our journey mean fcuk all! Nice one! lmao

Trying to be concise and not copy yet another "wall of text"

 

No the "Intelligence" is a software program created with a purpose. Nowhere does it state or implied, nor is it even mandatory, that he Intelligence ( A.I.) does not or need not, have emotions. The Intelligence in fact would have HAD to have simulated emotions at least, to not only understand Organics, but to be able to perform it's assigned task, otherwise it would never have been able to assign priorities.

 

No. Shepard was only able to negotiate a cease fire between the Quarians and the Geth, which may eventually lead to a lasting peace, after the Geth were "upgraded" and became individual intelligences as opposed to a collective consciousness. In other words, the Geth became "living" beings, and they could then "choose" to aid the Quarians and live with them peacefully. and harmoniously.

 

The original Intelligence was working within whatever parameters it was originally given. But we have no way of knowing what those parameters are except for it's mandate to find a way that will preserve life at all costs. We also do not know how the intelligence was structured i.e. was it an individual or a collective?

 

The "birth" if you like, of the Catalyst is never discussed chronologically, but it's implied that it came about as a consequence of the original intelligence attempting to "speed up" and then "control" the flow of the cycles, in order for it to accomplish it's assigned task of finding a solution to the "life eventually destroys itself" problem. And it eventually subsumed or "took over" the task of the original intelligence, and thereby also took over control of the Reapers.

 

The invention of the Crucible is what added new data, and therefore revealed new parameters, by which the Catalyst might eventually discover a solution, but it had not, until the arrival of Shepard and the completion of the Crucible, been able to find a way to implement these possible solutions.

 

"Reaper Code" is nothing more than a convenient label, as we are never given the name for the original race of Leviathan - Leviathanese? Nor are we every told whether the original intelligence was given a name (or even needed one?) The only "named" entity I supposed is the Catalyst, but this is more a verb than a noun in game context. (Catalese?) Reaper Code then is nothing more than a software program upgrade with no "mystical" powers or abilities.

 

note - EDI actually has several cool discussions with Shepard centering around the differences between Synthetic and Organic entities. - EDI turning herself 'good' by assigning higher priorities to traits that humans value (love, altruism etc.) - EDI discussing the difference between the Geth consensus programming and her Heuristic programming, and how they differ, which allows EDI to appear more "human" in her behavior. - Legion in ME2 describing how the Geth function as a collective, and subsequently why Shepard needs to be the one to make the decision about the Virus (it's not simply that the two sides are equal, because they actually aren't, it's far deeper than that, the Geth aren't able to decide which option has a higher "value" because they lack the ability to assign values to random outcomes.

...

 

I agree that BW could have included much, much more content, and actually shown way more examples of how your decisions affect the end game.

 

Cutscenes of Geth Fighters protecting Quarian Ships in the space battle (provided you save them both). The Destiny Ascension destroying a Reaper (provided you saved it in ME2). Terminus System Rogue Fighter Pilots (shouting yeeee... hawww) whilst destroying the Reaper drones (provided you acquired Aria's fleet)

 

Cutscenes of Jack throwing Biotic Bubbles over troops in London, while her students toss Biotic Artillery around (provided you saved Grissom Academy) Cutscenes of a Krogan standing over a fallen Turian to protect him, then helping him to his feet to continue the fight side by side. Seeing Samara do her Floaty Flying Trick (so, cool, I so wanted that as a power for my Adepts ... damn you BW!!!) as she drops down to butcher some husks (maybe even with Falere or a few other Justicars or Asari Commando's with her.

 

James Vega with a squad of several N7's charging a group of enemies. Geth Primes standing guard over a bunch of Salarians while they toss grenades at enemies ... the list goes on and on.

 

I also agree that it might have nice to see an ending option that didn't result in Martyrdom (as in the 'destroy' ending) that actually shows Shepard alive and (semi) well with his companions, helping to rebuild, but at the same time wondering if they hadn't simply exchanged one enemy for another enemy in the future. It also might have nice to have some of the interactions and scenes from the Citadel DLC actually occur after the ending. But that's not what we were given.

 

So yes, I agree that BW didn't end the Trilogy as well as they could have, but I do NOT agree that BW screwed up with the logic of the ending they chose to give us.