407 réponses à ce sujet

[DSiKn355]

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

 

......

 

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.

 

You see that I can respect because you aint blind to what is lacking from the game. Thank you

 

But for me there is too many variable to say its 100% accurate as to the decisons made for the cycles and later the Catalyst's choices by some supreme intellect.

 

I mean if that higher intellect or better tech made the Geth able to relate better to organics then why was destroying organics once they get to a certain level of tech seen as a good idea if when the organics get even higher level tech it can bring peace between Synthetics and Organics?

 

Do you understand?

 

I get everything you are saying and it makes sense sure but when I think of this^ it just seems like a plothole or something is missing or it's a case of Terminators and the machines just took over without fully understanding the possibilities of the organics.

 

@AlanC9

 

Please tell me again how I can keep Shepard alive or about the collateral damage I don't see lol.

[AlanC9]

 
@AlanC9
 
Please tell me again how I can keep Shepard alive or about the collateral damage I don't see lol.

Sounds like you've never seen a low-EMS ending. Try YouTube.

Are you actually serious about Shepard?

[DSiKn355]

Sounds like you've never seen a low-EMS ending. Try YouTube.

Are you actually serious about Shepard?

 

Very serious! I have never chosen destroy as the cycle is said that it will repeat in the future so it just seemed a dumb choice if all the trouble will just start again.

 

So I guess it's something to do with destroy? Possibly? lol.

 

With Control Shepard still lives... Kinda but it just in another form which is also immortal,

 

And Synergy is definite death.

[AlanC9]

Very serious! I have never chosen destroy as the cycle is said that it will repeat in the future so it just seemed a dumb choice if all the trouble will just start again.
 
So I guess it's something to do with destroy? Possibly? lol.
 
With Control Shepard still lives... Kinda but it just in another form which is also immortal,
 
And Synergy is definite death.

Gotcha. Yeah, it's only Destroy where Shepard survives (in his original body) with enough EMS.

[Berit]

You see that I can respect because you aint blind to what is lacking from the game. Thank you

 

But for me there is too many variable to say its 100% accurate as to the decisons made for the cycles and later the Catalyst's choices by some supreme intellect.

 

I mean if that higher intellect or better tech made the Geth able to relate better to organics then why was destroying organics once they get to a certain level of tech seen as a good idea if when the organics get even higher level tech it can bring peace between Synthetics and Organics?

 

Do you understand?

 

I get everything you are saying and it makes sense sure but when I think of this^ it just seems like a plothole or something is missing or it's a case of Terminators and the machines just took over without fully understanding the possibilities of the organics.

 

@AlanC9

 

Please tell me again how I can keep Shepard alive or about the collateral damage I don't see lol.

As I suggested, EDI I think puts it best.

 

No matter how 'advanced" the Synthetic intelligence is, unless it's given the correct parameters and has the correct "programming", it will still never be able to make decisions like a "human" or "organic" would.

 

The Geth were able to gain some semblance of "humanity", because there programing, when combined with the Reaper Code, created individuals with the ability to make "weighted" decisions based on personal preferences, just like organics do.

 

Despite there supposed advanced technology, the Reapers, and the intelligence controlling them, and even the Catalyst itself, were still "primitive" or restricted in that sense.

 

But despite the upgrades the Geth received, and the detente achieved between Synthetic Life and Organic Life, "societies" and the Galaxy as a whole, hasn't changed, So the Geth would eventually create a "lower caste" of Synthetic life with the same eventual conclusion, that being the destruction of "Life".

 

This is the central premise of the whole "Reaper" threat.

 

The idea that "Human" or Organic behavior is based on "rules" that are mathematically predictable is not a new one. Asimov envisioned something he called "Psychohistory" for instance in his Foundation Series. Marvel used a similar concept with the eventual goals of the Hydra Group (Captain America: The Winter Soldier)

 

So it's not totally fatuous to believe that the Intelligence discovered that Species and Societies advanced by a predictable and progressive set of mathematical formula and hence the "cycles" were born. This is actually hinted at by the Prothean A.I. that you uncover in the Temple on Thessia.

 

So the Cycles, and subsequently the Mass Relays and the Citadel, were created to control this mathematically predictable process, as an experiment to try and find a solution that did NOT eventually lead to the destruction of life (whether that life is "synthetic" or "Organic" is apparently irrelevant according to the Intelligences calculations).

 

The Harvest does not "destroy" any Species per se, the most advanced species in the Galaxy have their traits, knowledge, DNA and technology (in other words all that they are) subsumed by the Reapers. So in effect this Harvest "resets" the experiment to see if something will change or if there is some new parameter the next time the cycle reaches it's apex.

 

My guess is the writers where saying that, due to the fact that the Crucible has been envisioned and subsequently expanded upon, and that this has added some extra parameters to the equation which has allowed the Catalyst to derive a "possible" solution, however it's only now that it has finally been finished, that the Catalyst can implement the solution, which apparently requires a willing consciousness (Shepard in this case) to bring to fruition.

 

So your choices in the end are NOT even remotely equal.

 

- Destroy is NOT a solution to the original problem, thus you are simply postponing the inevitable destruction of all life. = Worst possible decision you can make from a Galactic and " preservation of life" perspective, and therefore not a solution at all. (won the battle but lost the war)

 

- Control is essentially continuing, though lengthening, the current "cycle" but inevitably the level of interference by the controller (the "Shepard Entity" in this case) will slowly increase as species develop until all species essentially are just drones being sheparded around (no pun intended) = Not a great eventual result, and not a true solution.(Ended, not won the battle, but eventually lost the war)

 

- Synthesis is the Solution to the original problem. It alters Organic behavior (alters the "behavior equation" or the "Cycle of life") or so the Catalyst believes, in such a way that the extinction of life does not or will not occur as an inevitable conclusion of the equations. = Best possible outcome.(Ended the battle and war, and prevented a war from ever occurring again)

 

Obviously no-one has yet discovered the mathematics of "Psychohistory" or worked out the "Behavior Equation" in real life, so we can't say what exactly the catalyst in ME3 has changed to accomplish it's solution. Just like we don't yet know what a Mass Effect Field is, and whether or not FTL travel is viable. But the "concept"  or "logic" is sound.

...

 I too would have liked to keep at least one of my Sheps alive (had a few dates planned with my various LI's ... Oh my yes, I had plans   ) But apparently that's not what Bioware wanted.

 

Maybe they were trying to crush completely any speculation about whether Shepard could be brought back as the Main Playable Character of yet another game. Though why they then gave us the now infamous "breathe scene" is a big question mark. Perhaps it's simply a way to show that "someone survives the destruction" as it's not necessarily Shepard we see, just an N7 chestplate.

[DSiKn355]

As I suggested, EDI I think puts it best.

 

No matter how 'advanced" the Synthetic intelligence is, unless it's given the correct parameters and has the correct "programming", it will still never be able to make decisions like a "human" or "organic" would.

 

The Geth were able to gain some semblance of "humanity", because there programing, when combined with the Reaper Code, created individuals with the ability to make "weighted" decisions based on personal preferences, just like organics do.

 

Despite there supposed advanced technology, the Reapers, and the intelligence controlling them, and even the Catalyst itself, were still "primitive" or restricted in that sense.

 

But despite the upgrades the Geth received, and the detente achieved between Synthetic Life and Organic Life, "societies" and the Galaxy as a whole, hasn't changed, So the Geth would eventually create a "lower caste" of Synthetic life with the same eventual conclusion, that being the destruction of "Life".

 

This is the central premise of the whole "Reaper" threat.

 

.........

 

Ok well Just think about this for a sec... because I don't agree with your analysis or speculation 100% lol.

 

Now going by the game's events...

 

The only synthetic vs Organics going on is the Geth vs Quarians of that galaxy's time.

 

DO NOT include any Geth from ME1 or any synthetics in ME2 as they were under the control of the Reapers and not attempting to wipe out life of their own accord.

 

The Geth and Quarians finally got sorted in ME3 so from that point there are no Syn vs Org going on.

 

Your speculation of Geth creating a lower caste is just that speculation and where you get the idea for it I am not sure.

Are you thinking the Geth have become more Organic so will do the organic thing and build synthetics?

Can individuality do that? That would mean EDI would want to do that also as she had her individuality throughout ME3.

 

And the whole matematics job isn't even getting questioned as mathematics is in everything lol.

 

Control ending though isn't as you said as its Shepard's consciouness if you will that now has control over all reapers so they would only act on his will.

Unless you are thinking it means Shepard is now connected to the super computer (Intellect) and could be corrupted over time to just think like them...

Indoctrinated if you will lol.

 

And I just noticed you kinda contradicted yourself as you said previously:

 

"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."

 

So how could it then be lesser than the Geth with upgrades or EDI?

 

The reapers may have had the hive mentality but the "Intellegence" that created them was only one (individuality) thus would have given them rules from a individuals point of view.

 

But like you thats speculation lol.

[Berit]

It's all totally speculation. I have no way of knowing what the writers of ME where thinking about. I can only tell what my interpretation of what is stated and what is inferred in the game.

 

To me it's inferred that the intelligence created by Leviathans race, has deduced that all life forms/races/species/civilizations eventually follow the same sociopolitical patterns, regardless of their physical construction or properties.

 

And apparently (or according to the ME writers) it's an inevitable conclusion, that life forms will create "thralls" either through conquest or construction (enslaving "lesser" races or building computers/robots) and that these "thralls" will eventually equal and/or surpass their masters and destroy either their makers, themselves or perhaps even both.

 

At least that's the way i interpret what Leviathan, the Catalyst, Sovereign, Harbinger, Javik, the Prothean A.I. plus other sources are saying.

 

So Reapers could quite easily be less advanced by organic standards in some ways than say EDI or the Upgraded Geth, because they haven't changed or altered there original core functions.

 

What has been changed and how that's done to EDI and the Upgraded Geth, I have no idea, that is probably Space Magic on the part of the writers. We can't (yet) create an A.I. that complex and we don't (yet) have the mathematical formula to predict organic behavioral patterns (and perhaps Humans never will). But again my interpretation is that the logic, at least, is sound.

 

...

 

The peace between the Geth and the Quarians is no different in concept to the peace between the Krogan and the Turians, it's simply one species or race agreeing to peace with another. So the upgraded Geth are just simply another "race", They may have slightly different cultures, and methodology, but they fit into the equation no differently than any other race or species in the Galaxy.

 

In the case of EDI, she seems to be trying to mimic "Humans" so she is perhaps eventually going to simply be a Human made from Synthetic rather than Organic materials.

 

...

 

Having simulated emotions is not the same as being "alive".

 

As EDI states in an early conversation, she has a self preservation routine, and things that improve or facilitate that routine feel better than those that don't, so she tells the crew she "likes" it. So simulated emotions are merely a way for a "program" to be able to assign priorities and smoothly execute it's core functions.

 

However it takes several discussions with Shepard, and several programming upgrades to her core functions, before EDI begins to place a higher value on other things, and eventually other entities, and It's apparently not until the very end, when discussing why Shepard believes he can win against insurmountable odds, that EDI feels "truly alive" or in other words, human.

 

The Reapers and the controlling intelligence must also have simulated emotions. I imagine they must "feel good" when a Cycle concludes and "all life" hasn't been extinguished. They also must understand Organic emotions to some extent, as they are accused of running "terror campaigns" in or to help pacify and control organics to facilitate more efficient harvests.

 

But all of this is only to accommodate their core function which is to find a solution to the problem of these chaotic life forms constantly destroying themselves.

 

...

 

As for the Control Ending dilemma.

 

From my interpretation of what the Intelligence has derived from it's equations, it eventually boils down to simply  - the controlled will inevitably surpass and/or rebel against the controller.

 

So even though you may think that you, as the Shepard Entity now controlling all things, is simply THE greatest thing since sliced bread and totally incorruptible, the rest of the Galaxy may not think that, and in fact they will eventually rebel against your control.

 

So you will have to either a) relinquish control or tighten your control.

 

Relinquishing control simply leaves a gap for yet another controller to fill (TIM would dive right in there) and the cycle simply starts again with someone else

 

Tightening control turns you more and more into what the galaxies inhabitants would consider a despot, and turns those same inhabitants more and more into mindless drones. (Hello TIM)

 

Either way, rebellion and/or destruction is inevitable.

 

And this is the point and/or central "theme" to the whole "Reaper Threat" story arc that the Bioware writer/s were aiming at.

...

 

At least that's the way I interpret what is being shown to me in the games, you may very well see it differently.

 

Do I personally (in R/L ) believe any of it? Well ... maybe. It does has some validity (and empirical precedent) and the concept does have a certain "elegance" to it, But I guess I like to be more of an optimist (like Gene Roddenberry) and hope that we, as a Species (and maybe aliens as well?) will evolve past this. (the Synthesis ending )

 

... but then, after all, this is what makes us individuals and "human" right?

[DSiKn355]

 

And this is the point and/or central "theme" to the whole "Reaper Threat" story arc that the Bioware writer/s were aiming at.

...

 

At least that's the way I interpret what is being shown to me in the games, you may very well see it differently.

 

Do I personally (in R/L ) believe any of it? Well ... maybe. It does has some validity (and empirical precedent) and the concept does have a certain "elegance" to it, But I guess I like to be more of an optimist (like Gene Roddenberry) and hope that we, as a Species (and maybe aliens as well?) will evolve past this. (the Synthesis ending )

 

... but then, after all, this is what makes us individuals and "human" right?

 

Another good interesting read thanks

 

I would have like the "go out fighting" option with the ending which would have kept Shepard in character.

At least for me anyway lol.

 

For me the perfect ending Synthesis was a case of "If you can't beat them join them" in essence.

Yes you didn't end up working for the Reapers but instead you took in apart of them and joined it to yourself.

Adaptation some may see it as I guess.

 

I understand it... But just don't like it as I see it as just giving in rather than "fighting fate" because you don't find the solution on your own.

It's not a goal set out by yourself nor a plan you conceived.

 

But I guess it can work by its own ambiguous logic.

I just personally don't like it or the crews response through out the game and especially with the ending.

 

I mean its been minutes since Shepard dies and your love interest (EC content) who has a sad/tearful abrupt departure from you suddenly steps out of the normandy on that strange planet A OK and even smiling.

 

Like the guy she loved didn't just die right? lol.

 

It's just the considerations or content for the gamers who get personally invested in the game that I would have liked to have seen.

 

Tali is the sweetest romance partner to have in the series but my god the lack of interaction with her in ME3 and her flirting with Garrus was vexing.

I could swear at one point I felt jealous lmfao. (I am happy with my partner and 2 kids btw lol)

[fraggle]

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

[...]

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.

 

Yeah allright, starting to insult people is a good move. You realise you do the same with defending things that you didn't like? It's only a discussion, no need to get all insulting about it just because we don't see eye to eye on certain topics.

And simply because you didn't get the ending you wanted does not mean it can't be fulfilling for other people. I'm sorry you didn't get the ending you wanted, but if the devs didn't intent a happy rainbow ending you need to accept that fact. Imagine you're writing a story and someone doesn't like the ending, would you change it to please your audience or would you not change it in order to keep your artistic integrity? Endings never please everyone and I think we all know that, but if the ending is the ending the devs chose and wanted to create, we have to simply go with it. Or get over it and move on to other games.

 

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

 

Agreed.

 

1. 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.

[...]

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?

 

2. 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.

 

3. 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.

 

1. Leviathan stated that the intelligence studied organics for a long time to come up with a solution, so emotions wouldn't play a big role here I'd guess. Study implies it's a very dry approach in order to see how to deal with the problem.

The question of whether it was a collective intelligence is an interesting one, because in the end dialogue the Catalyst refers to "we tried several solutions" before it came up with the concept of the Reapers, and I doubt it meant Leviathan and it teamed up to find a solution

 

2. Hm, so far I didn't really think of the original intelligence and the Catalyst being 2 separate things, but if they were, the "we" would make total sense; do you have any specific dialogue in mind that hints at this?

I only think of this sentence during Leviathan DLC: "Until the Intelligence finds what it's looking for, the harvest will continue.", and since that is happening in the present, I guess the Intelligence always stayed the same? Meaning it *is* the Catalyst?

 

3. Bioware could have given us much more, yes, but we should also keep in mind that developer in general are under a lot of strain, and they rarely get the time they need in order to implement everything they wanted. Would I have liked to see my War Assets in action? Hell yes! It would have made it so good. But I can also accept what we got, whatever the reasons may be they kept it out (I'm guessing they ran out of time during the end).

And agreed about the logic

 

I mean if that higher intellect or better tech made the Geth able to relate better to organics then why was destroying organics once they get to a certain level of tech seen as a good idea if when the organics get even higher level tech it can bring peace between Synthetics and Organics?

 

But it's only with Shepard that peace can be established. Never before have all species been united, so Shepard is the only reason for this to happen. He gets ALL species to work together in order to fight the Reaper threat, and the Reapers and even the Catalyst acknowledge this fact.

We do not know what the Catalyst orginally tried in order to unite Organics and Synthetics, but it failed because they were not ready yet to cooperate. Shepard's cycle is different. Species are ready to accept.

And if it hadn't been for Shepard, the quarians would not have let the geth live and vice-versa as the geth also have developed a drive to survive (happens when Legion turns on you when you try to stop him from uploading the Reaper code).

 

I have never chosen destroy as the cycle is said that it will repeat in the future so it just seemed a dumb choice if all the trouble will just start again.

 

Ever thought about that the Catalyst might be wrong about it? I mean, you just proved it wrong by making peace between Organics and Synthetics. And maybe it's a too hopeful approach from me, but maybe all the species learned a thing or two from what happened? To actually coexist with each other because they experienced now that it can work?

The way I see the ending, anything can happen. It's up to the player to imagine how things will play out. And that's what I like about it as you can really shape your own ending, even a happy end. If you go for Destroy, you can live, find your LI again, and can create your own ending in which Organics and Synthetics can coexist because they learned from the past, if that is what you wish.

 

Maybe they were trying to crush completely any speculation about whether Shepard could be brought back as the Main Playable Character of yet another game. Though why they then gave us the now infamous "breathe scene" is a big question mark. Perhaps it's simply a way to show that "someone survives the destruction" as it's not necessarily Shepard we see, just an N7 chestplate.

 

It was confirmed by devs that this was Shepard taking the breath

And they indeed didn't want to have him as a protagonist again since they told the story they wanted to tell, and Shepard's arc is over now.

[Berit]

Oh, I agree, it definetly wasn't a "great" ending.by any means, regardless of which option you choose. Myself I would have liked the Crucible to actually be the Ultimate weapon, and by all means have the Star Child offer the same 3 choices even, just don't kill Shepard at the end.

 

But we are stuck with the finale to the Trilogy that Bioware gave us, and in my opinion it is consistent and perfectly valid. It's not a "happy" or really even a "good" ending, merely acceptable. Not the the ending to the Trilogy I was hoping for, but ...

[angol fear]

 

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

 

First, being intellectual is a negative thing? When you start to think isn't it an intellectual process?

When you're doing a criticism it's supposed to be an intellectual process too.

If you talk about the narration, you have to know what the narratology is. 

 

So first, you were arguing that we killed reapers, true but how many? And how? If you ignore that part, you can say that they were killed but that's all, you can't defend the opinion that because they were killed we can kill them in Mass effect 3, there's no failure etc...

 

Second, the EC was made to please people : take a look at what people wanted or were complaining about :

- we didn't see the squadmate, we can't know what happened to them (consequence : a scene added)

-the dialogue with the catalyst make no sense (consequence : more dialogue to understand make explicit what was implicit)

-it's too depressive, there's no feeling of victory (consequence : a scene added with a music that creates an epic feeling, victory!)

-the mass relay can't explode, it's can't happen (consequence : the mass relays are not totally destroyed)

-the game need closure, I don't know what happened after (consequence : a closure was added that only say what we could understand before)

 

Third the choices are not ignored. Mass effect is based on your choices. You might consider them as detail but that's what you did. I'd like to know a choice that could have a direct impact on the ending.

That's the problem many have with the game. Well, they basically think that your choices lead to an ending. But Mass Effect isn't Jade empire, it's not Dragon Age etc... If I would like to have the same mechanics, I would replay them, not expecting to have a clone with a different context.

People were invested in the trilogy and they had a game (a narration) very different from player to another player. Isn't that enough? The choices you made make Mass Effect 3 different, isn't that enough?

The illusion of choice wasn't a surprise : Since the first game I saw that the story didn't change, when Mass Effect was released I saw that what I imagined to be important choices had very few impact, but it changed the narration. If you dislike it, then it's the entire trilogy that you have to hate, not the last opus.

 

And I will finish with the important part : Bioware wrote the ending to make people think and imagine, to be active. What you want is to be passive (happy ending with your love interest, no thinking about anything, every answer given, no problem). You can want that from Gears of war or many other games. Mass Effect isn't gears of war. The level of writing isn't the same. Mass Effect is one of the few games that have a narration that people who work in literature can defend.

[DSiKn355]

Yeah allright, starting to insult people is a good move. You realise you do the same with defending things that you didn't like? It's only a discussion, no need to get all insulting about it just because we don't see eye to eye on certain topics.

And simply because you didn't get the ending you wanted does not mean it can't be fulfilling for other people. I'm sorry you didn't get the ending you wanted, but if the devs didn't intent a happy rainbow ending you need to accept that fact. Imagine you're writing a story and someone doesn't like the ending, would you change it to please your audience or would you not change it in order to keep your artistic integrity? Endings never please everyone and I think we all know that, but if the ending is the ending the devs chose and wanted to create, we have to simply go with it. Or get over it and move on to other games.

 

Not sure why you are answering for someone else but it was their condescending attitude with was firstly rude, not that you noticed obviously lol.

 

And again for the last time...

 

I never needed/wanted a happy ending.

I was fine with Shepard dying.

However I was not fine with the lack of content regarding personal stakes for the gamer who had already invested into the series.

 

No feedback from the crew over Shepards death?

A funeral speech from different crew members would have been fulfilling.

 

Nothing from your LI

Her giving birth to a child would have been fulfilling as you could see Shepard as also dying to keep his child safe.

 

Fighting to the death in an all out war where only a few survivors are left would have been perfectly fine too lol.

 

Just getting something more personal from the ending is what I wanted rather than the impersonal "Mission Complete"

 

The thing BW forgot is when people read a story which follows the journey of a character they tend to put themselves in the MC's shoes.

And when this happens the journey then becomes personal for the reader/gamer as they thing about the events and situations as if it's happening to them.

They connect with the character and those who did would have been searching for some kind of solice in the ending that we were given

 

No solice was found.

No personal achievement for Shepard was gained.

[angol fear]

Not sure why you are answering for someone else but it was their condescending attitude with was firstly rude, not that you noticed obviously lol.

 

Aren't you the one who came saying :"WRONG!", establishing that Mass Effect 3 sucked, imposing your opinion and your strange interpretation as an objective fact. Don't you think that it's quite pretentious? If you don't, then you should. But if you start thinking that your opinion is objective, then you have to know how to make a real criticism, then you should know about narratology, about thematical criticism, about imaginary criticism about genetic criticism, about generic criticism and many more things that are needed. Anyway what I told you is true, if you don't want to listen because you think that it's intellectual, you can. But your opinion is an opinion not the truth. You dislike, you can, but it's your opinion. And as long as you won't try to understand the game, you'll complain about it.

[DSiKn355]

Aren't you the one who came saying :"WRONG!", establishing that Mass Effect 3 sucked, imposing your opinion and your strange interpretation as an objective fact. Don't you think that it's quite pretentious? If you don't, then you should. But if you start thinking that your opinion is objective, then you have to know how to make a real criticism, then you should know about narratology, about thematical criticism, about imaginary criticism about genetic criticism, about generic criticism and many more things that are needed. Anyway what I told you is true, if you don't want to listen because you think that it's intellectual, you can. But your opinion is an opinion not the truth. You dislike, you can, but it's your opinion. And as long as you won't try to understand the game, you'll complain about it.

 

Ok I will explain to you the point you are missing when you talk about this "Story"

 

Firstly I understand a story which is geared or guided by events along the plot which turns it into what it is.

 

This is not that.

 

This is an interactive story which events can be changed depending on your choices.

 

Your main character who you CREATE, design personality of and use.

 

Now of course you know with story telling how important it is to keep characters "in character" right?

 

So when your "I will fight fate"/"We will overcome the odds" character gets to the Crucible and the Catalyst says "This is your fate, now choose"

 

It's not his character to just swallow what the Catalyst says and accept it right?

 

So it would be bad storytelling to make your character fall out of character just to fit in an ending right?

 

I know what you said about "Your choices don't effect the overall story" but...

 

ME1 you could kill the Rachni queen who then wouldn't be in ME3 because of that right?

Or you could kill/lose crew members in ME2 that would then not be in ME3 and would make events change right?

 

But with the ending it is set for a majority of it to be a certain way (Shep dies, Crew stranded, Mass relay gone, Soldiers/aliens races stranded near earth) originally.

Then the EC tried to give an option to keep Shepard in character which allowed you to shoot the Catalyst...

 

Result being the destruction of every race lol.

 

Now if you wanna talk about "How " the Reapers have been destroyed in ME3 and previous games which they could have done then it's a case of "Direct battle" and "Satellite/Ship laser targeting" which could have still been used as there was ALOT of ships right?

 

And The Catalyst despite seeing Shepard as an "anomaly" still thinks its able to say what options or choices are best made!?

A "Anomaly" is an abnormality, an irregularity vyet somehow the Catalyst can say with 100% certainty "This is your options and what will happen"

 

By definition that makes no sense.

 

How can you predict the outcome of an irregularity?

 

You can predict any possible outcome with the right data yes.

 

But when something becomes an anomaly it is then outside of your realm of possibilities by definition.

 

So the ending/s make no sense as the Catalyst should not be able to predict or choose what an anomaly can/can't do.

 

And being an anomaly then makes Shepard able to resist/fight fate as Shepard then becomes an unpredictable element with infinite possibilities.

 

But that's only if the story sticks to that logic its spewing and keeps Shepard in character lol.

 

I understand that you like the ending and feel you are right in your analysis and understanding of the ending and that's cool.

Just don't think your opinion governs others when its the fine details you miss out in that analysis.

 

You can't look at a game the same way as a book or movie just like you can't look at a book the same way as a game or movie.

Different formats require different analysis as it's criteria changes.

 

Books have no visuals or sound. Movies have no choices. Games are interactive.

 

These criterias affect how a story is told and its effect on its audience.

 

So as a game it becomes more than just a story as it's interactive and the MC's look and persona is controlled by the player and not set by the story.

 

Hopefully you understand me better lol.

[angol fear]

I understand!

You said something interesting and I totally agree with you on that point (because that's something I've defended many times) : books, films and video game are different. But at the same time it's not true. I mean, all of these mostly work on narration. Films are influence by book. Video games are influence by films. These influence come from the narrative part. But when you have a narration, you have no freedom. The narrator make choices to make a coherent story. Even with different choices like some book where you have to follow some path and you had different events. But these  book didn't make any masterpiece. A narration need to be coherent, it needs to have an idea behind, a purpose, a message.

Sorry I'd like to develop but I don't have more time!

[DSiKn355]

I understand!

You said something interesting and I totally agree with you on that point (because that's something I've defended many times) : books, films and video game are different. But at the same time it's not true. I mean, all of these mostly work on narration. Films are influence by book. Video games are influence by films. These influence come from the narrative part. But when you have a narration, you have no freedom. The narrator make choices to make a coherent story. Even with different choices like some book where you have to follow some path and you had different events. But these  book didn't make any masterpiece. A narration need to be coherent, it needs to have an idea behind, a purpose, a message.

Sorry I'd like to develop but I don't have more time!

 

I see this game's story from the anomaly angle like "The Matrix"

 

Neo was an anomaly and "The Architect" who knows everything by data and design Told Neo "By your coming here you cannot save the girl (Trinity)"

And because thats what "The machines/Intellect" could only equate to from their realm of possibilities that was the only outcome they could predict.

.....

But Neo is an "Anomaly"

Something outside their realm of possibilities.

So Neo was able to save Trinity.

 

He still had the martyr end to bring an end to the equation which was trying to "match" him BUT it was his choice from his own understanding of what "The Oracle" told him.

 

And The Oracle could see a choice would come but could not see past the choice that Neo makes thus couldn't tell him "This is your options and what will happen"

 

Same angle "The Catalyst" (The Oracle) had and the Intelligence (The Architect) and the Reapers (Agents/Agent Smith) lol.

 

But ME3 broke it's own logic by being able to predict the anomaly.

[fraggle]

Not sure why you are answering for someone else but it was their condescending attitude with was firstly rude, not that you noticed obviously lol.

 

And again for the last time...

 

I never needed/wanted a happy ending.

I was fine with Shepard dying.

However I was not fine with the lack of content regarding personal stakes for the gamer who had already invested into the series.

 

No feedback from the crew over Shepards death?

A funeral speech from different crew members would have been fulfilling.

 

Nothing from your LI

Her giving birth to a child would have been fulfilling as you could see Shepard as also dying to keep his child safe.

 

Just getting something more personal from the ending is what I wanted rather than the impersonal "Mission Complete"

 

The thing BW forgot is when people read a story which follows the journey of a character they tend to put themselves in the MC's shoes.

And when this happens the journey then becomes personal for the reader/gamer as they thing about the events and situations as if it's happening to them.

They connect with the character and those who did would have been searching for some kind of solice in the ending that we were given

 

No solice was found.

No personal achievement for Shepard was gained.

 

Since you said to me I should read all of the above I had assumed you meant me as well with your insult, if not, then sorry, my mistake.

Ok, I can understand that you wanted to have more content, in all honesty, who wouldn't. But the things you said for example, like having a child? That's not what everybody wants as it would be a major choice basically forced on players, so I think it's better to actually leave that to the imagination of each individual player.

I understand that you would want something like that to have closure, but it's not like BW can make endings for each player unfortunately.

And about the LI getting out of the shuttle smiling? I interpreted as a symbol of a fresh beginning for everyone. With the Reaper threat gone everyone is just reliefed, even if it's only for one tiny moment when you see that beautiful untouched planet instilling hope, before the LI remembers what he/she has lost. The smile just symbolized this ray of hope to have a future again.

(Btw you should really try Destroy ending once with High EMS so your Shepard can live Then there's even more reason for the LI to smile.)

 

You said when you play games like this you find yourself in Shepard's shoes. Maybe I have a weird taste, but in the end, when you only follow Shepard and your surroundings or the war outside the Citadel don't matter anymore? When the only goal is to put an end to the Reapers? I found it pretty cool we're only seeing the end through Shepard's eyes. In this moment, we became him/her and what's left is him/her and the choice, nothing else matters. Not for everybody, I know, but I thought it was fitting. My solace was that I made it. I freed all these species from the grasp of the Reapers, and that would also count for your LI. You enabled a future for those you care about.

But let's just agree to disagree here

 

1.It's not his character to just swallow what the Catalyst says and accept it right?

2. ME1 you could kill the Rachni queen who then wouldn't be in ME3 because of that right?

Or you could kill/lose crew members in ME2 that would then not be in ME3 and would make events change right?

 

3. And The Catalyst despite seeing Shepard as an "anomaly" still thinks its able to say what options or choices are best made!?

A "Anomaly" is an abnormality, an irregularity vyet somehow the Catalyst can say with 100% certainty "This is your options and what will happen"

 

4. How can you predict the outcome of an irregularity?

You can predict any possible outcome with the right data yes.

But when something becomes an anomaly it is then outside of your realm of possibilities by definition.

So the ending/s make no sense as the Catalyst should not be able to predict or choose what an anomaly can/can't do.

 

1. That is true, but to be fair, the way it was presented in the game is that this whole Catalyst/Crucible thing is their only shot. So Shepard needs to work with what's given to him/her in the end. Shep may not like it, but what other choice is there? Shepard doesn't necessarily need to trust what the Catalyst says, he/she just has to assume the Catalyst states what it witnessed over the various cycles. And yes, maybe Organics and Synthetics never made peace before, but that doesn't mean that Shepard can't believe it will happen this time. That the path for a coexistence has been laid out because every species worked together for the first time.

2. From what I've seen so far I think there are not really big changes no matter how you decide. The same story arcs still can occur more or less the same with substitutes for characters who died, and also there's a reaperised Rachni Queen if you killed her in ME1. The only difference is that if you help the Reaper-Queen, she will turn on you later (results in getting some EMS taken away), whereas the original Rachni Queen will stay loyal to you and help in the fight (which doesn't make a huge impact anyway sadly).

3. I think that some of the choices were only made accessible because the Crucible docked and thus changing the Catalyst in its "programming". It says that it has been changed, but it cannot make the changes happen by itself (maybe there's some restriction from within the Crucible). I believe it merely presents the choices incorporated by the Crucible, as a result of it being changed.

The Catalyst saying that Shepard is an anomaly to me always seemed referring to either:

a. making Synthesis possible because Shepard united the galaxy for the first time ever

b. the fact that Shepard is the first to actually make it to the Catalyst and talk to it

which leads to

4. The Catalyst never witnessed anything else in all these cycles it lived through but Synthetics turning on Organics, so I can give it some credit that it believes this. If something happens over and over it's hard to accept that it could be different some day. Like for example I could say the real world will always wage wars in some countries, it's in the nature of humans. We've witnessed it countless times and it happens again and again, so I say there will never be a complete peace in the future. It's basically the same, so I can understand why the Catalyst says it, however, to me, its "prediction" is just based on its observations and doesn't necessarily need to be the truth. Just like it doesn't need to be true that there will always be wars.

 

I guess what I want to say is: the Catalyst only reveals its own convictions to Shepard because it never experienced anything else. You could say it's "narrow-minded" in a way.

In the end it doesn't matter what it thinks will happen, as you can prove it wrong. And that is what makes Shepard the anomaly, that things happen the Catalyst didn't think possible.

[DSiKn355]

Since you said to me I should read all of the above I had assumed you meant me as well with your insult, if not, then sorry, my mistake.

Ok, I can understand that you wanted to have more content, in all honesty, who wouldn't. But the things you said for example, like having a child? That's not what everybody wants as it would be a major choice basically forced on players, so I think it's better to actually leave that to the imagination of each individual player.

 

........

 

however, to me, its "prediction" is just based on its observations and doesn't necessarily need to be the truth. Just like it doesn't need to be true that there will always be wars.

 

I guess what I want to say is: the Catalyst only reveals its own convictions to Shepard because it never experienced anything else. You could say it's "narrow-minded" in a way.

In the end it doesn't matter what it thinks will happen, as you can prove it wrong. And that is what makes Shepard the anomaly, that things happen the Catalyst didn't think possible.

 

Firstly.... Your LI having a child IS NOT a major choice forced on the player as it is SET that you sleep with your LI twice if you stick to the same one or once if she/he is a new choice in ME3.

 

The deed is already done. No choice in it. And if you are dead your LI having your child doesn't effect you because... Your dead lol.

 

And your last line of point 4 again enforces my belief that we should have had other options and Shepard should not have given in.

 

And either way you are looking at the "Anomaly" aspect it is STILL "Shepard is outside of its/their realm of possibilities" as Shepard is doing things "Never seen before"

 

So again by definition the end doesn't make sense as Shepard falls out of character and the logic of the Catalyst falls apart.

[Vazgen]

Firstly.... Your LI having a child IS NOT a major choice forced on the player as it is SET that you sleep with your LI twice if you stick to the same one or once if she/he is a new choice in ME3.

 

The deed is already done. No choice in it. And if you are dead your LI having your child doesn't effect you because... Your dead lol.

What about female Shepards who romanced Thane? Or worse, Jacob?

[DSiKn355]

What about female Shepards who romanced Thane? Or worse, Jacob?

 

Then a child couldn't be born because you died lol

 

As a 33yo father of two I can say with 100% certainty that no woman knows they are pregnant straight away.

A the birth of a child takes 40 weeeks there abouts.

 

The last time you sleep with your LI you die the next day lol.

[Vazgen]

Then a child couldn't be born because you died lol

Doesn't Extended Cut cover all the points you mentioned in your earlier post (save the funeral speech which would've been weird for High EMS Destroy)

 

Crew is sad and holds a sort of a funeral near the memorial board

LI places Shepard's name on the wall (or not), or is shown in a slide. Destroy shows them being all hopeful. 

 

I have no problems with closure with Extended Cut

[DSiKn355]

Doesn't Extended Cut cover all the points you mentioned in your earlier post (save the funeral speech which would've been weird for High EMS Destroy)

 

Crew is sad and holds a sort of a funeral near the memorial board

LI places Shepard's name on the wall (or not), or is shown in a slide. Destroy shows them being all hopeful. 

 

I have no problems with closure with Extended Cut

 

No it doesn't lol.

 

It tried to in a cheap roundabout way. (We can't be asked giving you actual valid content so you will get a still picture and guess what is going on ~ BW)

 

And seeing a chestplate move doesn't mean much as the epilogue still doesn't say "Yes he lived" because the Epilogue shows the restoration of the Mass Relay, planets etc yet still no Shepard found lol.

 

Guess his clone bodies comes with the ability to breathe in space lol.

[Vazgen]

No it doesn't lol.

 

It tried to in a cheap roundabout way. (We can't be asked giving you actual valid content so you will get a still picture and guess what is going on ~ BW)

 

And seeing a chestplate move doesn't mean much as the epilogue still doesn't say "Yes he lived" because the Epilogue shows the restoration of the Mass Relay, planets etc yet still no Shepard found lol.

 

Guess his clone bodies comes with the ability to breathe in space lol.

So you are not satisfied with the way they did the Extended Cut? OK, I can get it.

Like I said, I don't have any problems with it. I choose High EMS Destroy and my Shepard teaches at Grissom Academy with his LI Jack.

[DSiKn355]

So you are not satisfied with the way they did the Extended Cut? OK, I can get it.

Like I said, I don't have any problems with it. I choose High EMS Destroy and my Shepard teaches at Grissom Academy with his LI Jack.

 

In your mind! Kool lol

[Vazgen]

In your mind! Kool lol

Yeah I don't need the game to show it to me. And if it did, it would've probably pissed off other Jack fans who envisioned a different fate for their characters. But then again, I resort to headcanon a lot in the course of the trilogy. Some things are unexplainable even with that. And it is not constrained to ME3.