590 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Why exactly is it bad writing?

You can either trust the Catalyst with what it's saying or not, like in your case. I'm just pointing out that what it told us turned out to be the truth.

It's bad writing because we are supposed to trust the Catalyst.  But we have zero reason to outside of metagaming

 

 

 

But we almost had this option with the original Destroy ending. I get it you're a Synthetics supporter, but that's one thing you didn't get with the ending you just described (and I was actually fine with that ending too ).

 

Actually, the original endings strongly imply, if not outright state, that we got that in all endings.  In addition to this other color-coded nonsense.

 

And I'm not so much a synthetic supporter as an opponent of shooting my own allies in the back.

 

 

 

I liked the idea behind the Crucible concept and that the plans were flowing around for various cycles, just didn't like that it was dropped on us basically in the first 5 minutes, haha.

 

 The Crucible was a weak Macguffin plot device.  But I expected no better after ME2 was wasted spinning its wheels and not advancing the story.  I accept that much.  It's nature and functions, however...there are not enough facepalms for that.

 

 

 

That part is the key I think. Yes, the Catalyst's solution was still working, up to the point when Shepard arrived/the Crucible docked. The Catalyst is saying Shepard's arrival gave Shepard/organics hope, but "it also proves that my solution won't work anymore." So something has happened why it says that and why it woke up Shepard in the first place. The reason is coming directly afterwards in this conversation. After Shepard asks why the Catalyst helps him/her, it says "You altered the variables. The Crucible changed me, created new possibilities". It's stated right here that it was the Crucible's work the Catalyst helps Shepard, don't you agree? Or am I seeing it wrong?
But let's assume that the Catalyst rose the platform and woke Shepard up of its own free will, the only reason that would make sense imo is if it knew Shepard would pick Synthesis. But it has no way of knowing, it can only hope that Shepard would pick it. So getting Shepard up on simply the chance he/she might pick Synthesis would be kinda illogical, given that it does not support Destroy at all and while Control is tolerated, it is not what it ultimately wanted to achieve.

 

But lower EMS scores block Synthesis as an option.  Why would the Catalyst wake Shepard up if Synthesis is not a possibility?

[Iakus]

The Crucible by itself was not powerful enough to defeat the Reapers. You needed to combine it with the Citadel and the mass relays. You use the Reapers own technology against them.

 

And we spent the entirety of the game not knowing that.  It might as well be a briefcase with a golden light coming out of it.

 

 

People will use bad writing as an excuse for things they don't like, or don't fit with how they would have done it. You said it before, if I spent this much money, I want the game to end *my* way. That scene is clearly not set up how you would have done it.

If you're forced to trust a character because the story demands it (metagaming), the yeah, it's bad writing.  There is no reason to trust the Catalyst, who has exterminated untold trillions, has tried to kill/capture Shepard for years, is in the process of harvesting Earth and other worlds as well as decimating your own forces.  And of yeah, has MIND CONTROL CAPABILITIES.  but it looks like the dead little boy Shep's been dreaming about, so it's okay.

 

Wait, what was that I was saying about mind control? 

 

At the very least I'd have expected a little thought to be put in the ending.  Having it make sense, bringing a sense of satisfaction to the players, ending the story on a variety of notes, depending on the ending state.

 

But clearly it wasn't a priority.  They forgot that the destination is still part of the journey.  And that giving the player even limited control over the shape of the story brings with it a sense of ownership.  

[Quarian Master Race]

A newborn child who's mind is connected to gun turrets, combat drones, and poison gas might.  A newborn baby flails about, crying in confusion.  But doesn't have the strength to do any damage.  A newly awakened mind, with no idea where she is or how she got there, might lash out in terror with whatever is at hand.

Did you really just compare a quantum computer with unfathomable data storage that is capable of quadrillions of calculations per second to a newborn human baby, a creature that evolved to be born useless and have an extremely long juvenile period even by biological standards? I suppose that 2-3 year old EDI in ME2-3 is also equivalent to a human toddler?

This must be that anthropomorphization that Legion was talking about. And here I though it was just the writers trying to be edgy and throw in a ham fisted reference to racism. No, people will actually use excuses like this to attempt to justify or downplay the dangers and violent actions of AIs. Yet we aren't supposed to also judge the scores of killings commited by the same standard that we would for a human? Convenient.

 

Did the organics go in with hostile intent?  Legion seems to think so.

 

"Nothing gets resolved if you hide behind the Perseus Veil and let them hate you"

"Organic life acts on emotions.  We do not judge them for being true to their nature.  We cannot make them think like us. Both creators and created must complete their halves of the equation.  The geth cannot solve for peace alone.

No they didn't according to our information, and what Legion subjectively thinks is irrelevant. The geth shoot to kill without even ascertaining motive when any organic violates "their" space as described in Revelation

In the aftermath of the war, the geth became a completely isolationist society. Cutting off all contact with the organic species of the galaxy, they expanded their territory into the unexplored regions behind a vast nebulae cloud known as the Perseus Veil. Every attempt to open diplomatic channels with them failed: emissary vessels sent to open negotiations were attacked and destroyed the moment they entered geth space.

Nevermind mere dialouge and ME2 planet descriptions describing in gruesome detail what happens to anyone unfortunate enough to enter their space, we witness this firsthand in gameplay on Haestrom. A dozen quarians in an ancient ruin performing science experiments suddenly have an entire Company's worth of military hardware dropped on their heads. It doesn't matter if you think their territorial claims are valid/ justified, the geth weren't being threatened in any way. They were the aggressors in that situation. That isn't "peaceful." 

They can't sue for peace alone, but they aren't even trying, so why is that relevant? Hell, they let a faction whose whole shtick is "kill all meatbags for our glorious machine god" go with a blessing, and not so much as a warning to the latter's intended targets. Reverse the situation to where a rouge faction of, lets say turians decides that synthetics are an affront and plans to invade geth space with hostile intent. If the official turians knew of this and didn't act, they would be passively abetting the rouge faction. Is that "peaceful?"

You can find their case more just, but quit trying to lay all the blame for the situation on the organics because that is objectively a poor and biased analysis. The geth and EDI don't fart rainbows in this universe no matter how much they managed to manipulate your feels in the 3rd game into believing so.

[Iakus]

Did you really just compare a quantum computer with unfathomable data storage that is capable of quadrillions of calculations per second to a newborn human baby, a creature that evolved to be born useless and have an extremely long juvenile period even by biological standards? I suppose that 2-3 year old EDI in ME2-3 is also equivalent to a human toddler?
 

No, but a newborn mind is still a newborn.  No experience or reference points on how to behave.  Just instinct.  EDI may develop faster than a human mind, but as teh "rogue VI" she was brand new to the universe

 

 

 

This must be that anthropomorphization that Legion was talking about. And here I though it was just the writers trying to be edgy and throw in a ham fisted reference to racism. No, people will actually use excuses like this to attempt to justify or downplay the dangers and violent actions of AIs. Yet we aren't supposed to also judge the scores of killings commited by the same standard that we would for a human? Convenient.

 AI's are dangerous.  But there is a difference between acting out of ignorance and acting with intent.

 

 

 

No they didn't according to our information, and what Legion subjectively thinks is irrelevant. The geth shoot to kill without even ascertaining motive when any organic violates "their" space as described in Revelation
In the aftermath of the war, the geth became a completely isolationist society. Cutting off all contact with the organic species of the galaxy, they expanded their territory into the unexplored regions behind a vast nebulae cloud known as the Perseus Veil. Every attempt to open diplomatic channels with them failed: emissary vessels sent to open negotiations were attacked and destroyed the moment they entered geth space.
 

I don't own Revelation, nor do I think it should be necessary to go to outside sources for important plot points.

 

 

 

Nevermind mere dialouge and ME2 planet descriptions describing in gruesome detail what happens to anyone unfortunate enough to enter their space, we witness this firsthand in gameplay on Haestrom. A dozen quarians in an ancient ruin performing science experiments suddenly have an entire Company's worth of military hardware dropped on their heads. It doesn't matter if you think their territorial claims are valid/ justified, the geth weren't being threatened in any way. They were the aggressors in that situation. That isn't "peaceful."
 

Were they True or Heretic geth?  Did the quarians shoot first?  (Tali takes a shot at Legion if you don't take the interupt and he's on the recruitment mission)

 

 

 

They can't sue for peace alone, but they aren't even trying, so why is that relevant? Hell, they let a faction whose whole shtick is "kill all meatbags for our glorious machine god" go with a blessing, and not so much as a warning to the latter's intended targets. Reverse the situation to where a rouge faction of, lets say turians decides that synthetics are an affront and plans to invade geth space with hostile intent. If the official turians knew of this and didn't act, they would be passively abetting the rouge faction. Is that "peaceful?"
You can find their case more just, but quit trying to lay all the blame for the situation on the organics because that is objectively a poor and biased analysis. The geth and EDI don't fart rainbows in this universe no matter how much they managed to manipulate your feels in the 3rd game into believing so.

I don't lay all the blame on the quarians.  There's plenty of blame to go around.

 

But I do think the Catalyst's attitude towards the organic/synthetic conflict is complete BS.

[Vazgen]

Yes, they bickered like an old married couple.  Listen to what Joker says too.

 

Did the organics go in with hostile intent?  Legion seems to think so.

 

"Nothing gets resolved if you hide behind the Perseus Veil and let them hate you"

"Organic life acts on emotions.  We do not judge them for being true to their nature.  We cannot make them think like us. Both creators and created must complete their halves of the equation.  The geth cannot solve for peace alone.

 

EDI was calling for help on Luna.  She literally "woke up" while she was under attack.  And did the natuarl thing:  she fought back.

I did listen. You should watch the video, it's really jarring how their conversations change. And while Joker exhibits more gradual change with "I might get used to this", EDI starts joking and goes from Mr. Moreau to Jeff right after being unshackled.

 

Some probably did but some didn't. Revelation mentions organic emissary vessels being attacked and destroyed. This mission in ME2 mentions a need for colonies on the fringe of geth space to protect themselves with military-grade weaponry. 

 

Fought back? Sure. How does that mean that she is peaceful? You are talking about what EDI could've been. She can be malicious, she can be friendly, we don't know. What we do know is that she killed seventeen marines on Luna. She is not peaceful in ME1. 

[fraggle]

It's bad writing because we are supposed to trust the Catalyst.  But we have zero reason to outside of metagaming.

 

Well, you don't NEED to trust the Catalyst, I was sceptical at the beginning, but these are the choices we have. Take them or leave them. That doesn't make it bad writing. You can distrust the Catalyst if you like, you're not forced to trust it, but then you're just proven wrong afterwards and even if it would lie, you have to go with what you got. It is stated throughout the game that this is the only chance, a desperate attempt, so in the end what does it really matter if you trust it or not? You still have to pick something anyway.

Some people say they would've liked if there was no Catalyst, but I don't see how leaving out the Catalyst changes things. You still have to pick one of the very same options you think suits your Shepard best, be it with Catalyst or without it. So trusting it is kinda irrelevant anyway. It doesn't change the outcome.

 

Actually, the original endings strongly imply, if not outright state, that we got that in all endings.  In addition to this other color-coded nonsense.

 

So you almost got the ending you wanted?

Control doesn't show the full destruction of the relays though. Destroy and yes, also Synthesis show it very clearly that they are completely destroyed. Don't know if that means something (I guess they could be rebuilt in Control because Shepard could let the Reapers do that again?).

 

But lower EMS scores block Synthesis as an option.  Why would the Catalyst wake Shepard up if Synthesis is not a possibility?

 

Doesn't this kinda prove my point?

I think the only possibility why it wouldn't wake up Shepard out of its own accord, is because it can't, it has no free will. And when Synthesis is not an option, it is still only able to offer Control and/or Destroy because of the Crucible changing it and creating new possibilities.

[Iakus]

Well, you don't NEED to trust the Catalyst, I was sceptical at the beginning, but these are the choices we have. Take them or leave them. That doesn't make it bad writing. You can distrust the Catalyst if you like, you're not forced to trust it, but then you're just proven wrong afterwards and even if it would lie, you have to go with what you got. It is stated throughout the game that this is the only chance, a desperate attempt, so in the end what does it really matter if you trust it or not? You still have to pick something anyway.

Some people say they would've liked if there was no Catalyst, but I don't see how leaving out the Catalyst changes things. You still have to pick one of the very same options you think suits your Shepard best, be it with Catalyst or without it. So trusting it is kinda irrelevant anyway. It doesn't change the outcome.

 

I still have to pick something?  I still have to electrocute myself, throw myself into a beam of green space magic, or walk into a fireball while shooting a pipe because... I've got nothing better to do?

 

 

 

So you almost got the ending you wanted?
Control doesn't show the full destruction of the relays though. Destroy and yes, also Synthesis show it very clearly that they are completely destroyed. Don't know if that means something (I guess they could be rebuilt in Control because Shepard could let the Reapers do that again?).

 

Almost?  Perhaps

 

If Destroy didn't end in a synthetic genocide

 

Control didn't enslave the galaxy

 

If Synthesis didn't forcibly rewrite the genetic code of the galaxy.

 

Other than that, It's beautiful 

 

 

 

Doesn't this kinda prove my point?
I think the only possibility why it wouldn't wake up Shepard out of its own accord, is because it can't, it has no free will. And when Synthesis is not an option, it is still only able to offer Control and/or Destroy because of the Crucible changing it and creating new possibilities.

If the Catalyst has no free will, then it's not an AI.  It's a VI.  EDI is more advanced than that.  

[GalacticWolf5]

If Control didn't enslave the galaxy

What? It doesn't. Well unless your Shepard wants to. My main Shep doesn't enslave the galaxy, he is it's guardian.

[fraggle]

If the Catalyst has no free will, then it's not an AI.  It's a VI.  EDI is more advanced than that.  

 

Yeah, but it all boils down again to the Crucible changing it, making all these things happen. Maybe like the Reaper IFF virus, changing the programming of the Catalyst?

 

And GalacticWolf5 is completely correct about Control. You do not enslave the Galaxy, except when your Shepard wants this...

[dorktainian]

How can 'the catalyst' be 'the catalyst' when he is ineffectual and cannot alter the outcome or be a force for change?  The only catalyst I see in ME3s ending is Shepard.  He/she is the only person who can cause change to occur.  By very definition this makes him/her the catalyst, not starjar - who at best is a distraction from your true goal.

 

Anyone believing you can die (synthesis / control) and still be a force for change is not paying attention.  What does starjar want?  Think about it.  He says his solution wont work anymore but he's clearly lying.  He only has his own interests at heart.  What do the Reapers want?

 

If you perform an action that benefits the starjar and his henchmen, how in turn is that going to benefit us?

 

Oh and the crucible?  

 

I was thinking it mean't test or test for shepard, but there is another definition... one which makes a very strong case against using it.

 

"A crucible is a container that can withstand very high temperatures and is used for metal, glass, and pigment production as well as a number of modern laboratory processes. While crucibles historically were usually made from clay, they can be made from any material that withstands temperatures high enough to melt or otherwise alter its contents."

 

Yeah... We're boned.

 

 

In three different colours.  

[angol fear]

-The ending was not planned as of ME1

-The ending was not planned as of ME2 either.

 

So you really think that Casey Hudson created Mass Effect with "hey guys! I wanna do a science-fiction story but I don't know how it will end but we'll think about it in the last minute of Mass Effect 3"? Are you that naïve? Do you realize that something like Mass Effect is a huge project that take years and many writers involved, the writing will evolve. That's easy for someone who doesn't write in a project like that to say "the problem is that they didn't planned the ending". No the ending was planned but like a vague idea. When you write (I mean something ambitious, not something that follows formulas) the ending is always changing. The more you write, the more you change the ending. If you don't, it's because that's superficial writing you're doing! You don't use new theme, the writing doesn't become more complex as long as you write. It has been said that the ending wasn't something written in the last minute and something as complex as the ending isn't written in the last minute.

 

-religion as a theme rarely came up in ME1.  It was much more of an allegory in ME2 and ME3:  Space Jesus and the Twelve Apostles, etc.

 

You clearly didn't understand that theme. And it's one of the most important to really understand the writing of the ending. There are clues in Mass Effect 1 that are important. Or if you want, think about Thessia mission in mass Effect 3.

 

-fate, again yes.  Again, self-determination, "There's always another way" Completely abandoned in ME3's ending

 

"There's always another way?" Where did you see that? I didn't see what in the trilogy could make you think that. From the beginning till the end there no other way. The overall structure never change.

 

-generally agree about points of view and perception.  Each game tried to do a Shyamalon-style "twist" towards the end.  Backfired spectacularly in ME3

 

You forget Sovereign speech, the geth perception in Mass Effect 2, the Cerberus point of view when you're working for TIM, the story between geth and quarian in Mass Effect 3, and how the writers worked on, played with the player representation in Mass Effect 3. Mass Effect is not the "Shyamalan style" you want it to be. It's not twist for twist. It's a theme that is here from the beginning till the end and that make sense with the ending. Or if you dislike it why did you play till the end?

 

And yes a poorly written ending could do a lot of themes.  Poorly.  There's a difference between "complexity" and "a tangled snarl"

 

So it can be complex and poor? Then you have to define what is "poorly" written.

 

Other endings that are as bad?  Wow, hard to pick.  How about The Matrix Revolutions?  ME3 kinda reminded me of it. 

 

The problem of Matrix 3 isn't the ending. I know you're using that reference because Matrix is one of the reference used by Mac Walters but they actually are very different. And Matrix 3 ending isn't as complex as Mass Effect 3. But maybe you could show me the complexity of Matrix 3, how it's a poor ending and (most important) why does ME3 reminds you of it.

 

 

 PS : "They forgot that the destination is still part of the journey." No they didn't forget it. The ending is the most important part of the trilogy, it's the most complex, it's the one that make the trilogy make sense. I think a game like Bloodborne isn't a game for you. Why do I talk about these two? It's because they share the same ambition. So the writing and the ending are close. There is also the Snowpiercer (which is a film) which has got the same ambition, and has an ending close to ME3. The destination in Mass Effect 3 is the most important part. Those who don't understand it, didn't understand the trilogy.

[fraggle]

Anyone believing you can die (synthesis / control) and still be a force for change is not paying attention.

 

Did you not pay attention to the ending scenes? The Reapers retreat in both of these scenes. That's all there is to say really.

 

Oh and the crucible?  

 

I was thinking it mean't test or test for shepard, but there is another definition... one which makes a very strong case against using it.

 

If it's meant to be a test for Shepard only, then how do you explain it was the Protheans who wanted to use the Crucible for destroying the Reapers and that some of them were believing that the device could control Reapers?

Because these choices were incorporated in the Crucible plans. And the Protheans were close to actually do it, had it not been for indoctrinated agents that fought the non-indoctrinated Protheans from within.

See wiki entry:

The latest species to try, the Protheans, were able to construct the Crucible, but before they could deploy it, infighting broke out between those who wanted to use it to destroy the Reapers and a faction that believed they could use it to control the Reapers; these separatists were later discovered to be indoctrinated.

 

Shepard can only bring change because of the Crucible docking. If it hadn't docked, there would have been no choices at all. So you saying not using it... What's the point? The Reapers would just continue doing what they do.

[dorktainian]

Did you not pay attention to the ending scenes? The Reapers retreat in both of these scenes. That's all there is to say really.

 

 

If it's meant to be a test for Shepard only, then how do you explain it was the Protheans who wanted to use the Crucible for destroying the Reapers and that some of them were believing that the device could control Reapers?

 

 

Because these choices were incorporated in the Crucible plans. And the Protheans were close to actually do it, had it not been for indoctrinated agents that fought the non-indoctrinated Protheans from within.

 

See wiki entry:

The latest species to try, the Protheans, were able to construct the Crucible, but before they could deploy it, infighting broke out between those who wanted to use it to destroy the Reapers and a faction that believed they could use it to control the Reapers; these separatists were later discovered to be indoctrinated.

 

 

Shepard can only bring change because of the Crucible docking. If it hadn't docked, there would have been no choices at all. So you saying not using it... What's the point? The Reapers would just continue doing what they do.

 

 

err... well that's a simple thing to address.

 

The Crucible is not of Prothean design.  It is designed to fit exactly where it would be beneficial for whoever or whatever required a huge amount of power focused into the citadel itself. And here's a thought for you.  If the crucible is not of reaper design (at the very least) then how does starjar know what it does well enough to be able to predict the outcome of shepard choosing a path?  If it were alien to starjar then how the hell does he know what it does or how it works?

 

He / It wouldn't.  

[fraggle]

The Crucible is not of Prothean design.  It is designed to fit exactly where it would be beneficial for whoever or whatever required a huge amount of power focused into the citadel itself. And here's a thought for you.  If the crucible is not of reaper design (at the very least) then how does starjar know what it does well enough to be able to predict the outcome of shepard choosing a path?  If it were alien to starjar then how the hell does he know what it does or how it works?

 

He / It wouldn't.  

 

Yes, that's correct, but the Protheans did find out what it can be used for, didn't they? Vendetta tells you that at some point the Citadel was incorporated into the Crucible's designs by another cycle, because the Crucible alone was not enough to defeat the Reapers. So that cycle used the Reaper's own technology against them.

 

How it knows? I guess the same way it happened this cycle, when indoctrinated TIM told the Reapers what the Catalyst is. It uses its indoctrinated agents to gather information.

Plus, Reapers harvest everything from a civilization, and it was Vigil in ME1 who states that the Reapers/Catalyst had access to all their stored information and data on the Citadel ("Through the Citadel, the Reapers had access to all our records, maps, census data. Information is power, and they knew everything about us."). Which would match with the Catalyst telling you that they discovered the plans for it several cycles ago.

 

Think about what happened at Thessia. Catalyst's indoctrinated toys TIM and Kai Leng want to prevent Vendetta from telling Shepard what the Catalyst is, so I'm sure the Catalyst wants to keep its existence hidden, otherwise, if it wanted Shepard to find it, it wouldn't have sent Kai Leng to collect Vendetta, and also not Eva Core to get the plans from the Mars Archives I guess. Catalyst tries everything to not give up its hidden existence and to prevent the use of the Crucible, but it has no choice other than to come forward and present Shepard the new solutions as soon as the Crucible docked.

[GalacticWolf5]

Anyone believing you can die (synthesis / control) and still be a force for change is not paying attention.

Shepard doesnt really 'die' in Control. His corporeal form is dissolved and his mind is uploaded to become the new Reaper master consciousness.

Also, Synthesis works too. Just watch the epilogue.

[themikefest]

I like calling the thing 'The Leviathan Turd'

[CrutchCricket]

The holokid, for short, When I'm trying to not get banned by using every insult known to man.

[Iakus]

What? It doesn't. Well unless your Shepard wants to. My main Shep doesn't enslave the galaxy, he is it's guardian.

 

The people of the galaxy are not in control of their own destiny.  The only difference possible is how gilded a cage do they live in.

 

What you want is essentially:

 

-Destroys Reapers

-Shepard can live or die.

-Life goes on after Reaper invasion (no one stranded, starves, etc).

 

I think the lesson here is you play the hand you're dealt, despite none of the options being optimal.

Sure in a high EMS ending, I'd like it so Shepard and the Normandy can be reunited.  But where exactly do I say "no one stranded, no one starves?  I have no problem with a "galactic wasteland" as a consequence of one or more of the endings.  I'd love to imagine the face of the galaxy reshaping itself as systems are cut off from each other for years, decades, even centuries as people are finally allowed to develop along the paths they desire, rather than the paths the Reapers desire.

 

Yeah, but it all boils down again to the Crucible changing it, making all these things happen. Maybe like the Reaper IFF virus, changing the programming of the Catalyst?

 

And GalacticWolf5 is completely correct about Control. You do not enslave the Galaxy, except when your Shepard wants this...

 

 

How does a power source reprogram anything?  

[Iakus]

So you really think that Casey Hudson created Mass Effect with "hey guys! I wanna do a science-fiction story but I don't know how it will end but we'll think about it in the last minute of Mass Effect 3"? Are you that naïve? Do you realize that something like Mass Effect is a huge project that take years and many writers involved, the writing will evolve. That's easy for someone who doesn't write in a project like that to say "the problem is that they didn't planned the ending". No the ending was planned but like a vague idea. When you write (I mean something ambitious, not something that follows formulas) the ending is always changing. The more you write, the more you change the ending. If you don't, it's because that's superficial writing you're doing! You don't use new theme, the writing doesn't become more complex as long as you write. It has been said that the ending wasn't something written in the last minute and something as complex as the ending isn't written in the last minute.

 

A bit thick on the hyperbole, but essentially yes.  THe entire middle portion of the trilogy spins its wheels regarding the Reaper threat.  THere are plot points that go nowhere (Hades' Dogs in ME1, Haestrum in ME2).    THere are important choices that are trivialized or go nowhere (Human Councilor chocie, Collector Base)  THis story didn't "evolve" it was practically stream-of-consciousness.

 

 

 

You clearly didn't understand that theme. And it's one of the most important to really understand the writing of the ending. There are clues in Mass Effect 1 that are important. Or if you want, think about Thessia mission in mass Effect 3.

General Oraka tells Shepard he/she would make a good general someday.  Is that a "clue" also?

 

 

 

 

"There's always another way?" Where did you see that? I didn't see what in the trilogy could make you think that. From the beginning till the end there no other way. The overall structure never change.

It's  a pretty common phrase in the trilogy.  If you pay attention 

 

 

 

You forget Sovereign speech, the geth perception in Mass Effect 2, the Cerberus point of view when you're working for TIM, the story between geth and quarian in Mass Effect 3, and how the writers worked on, played with the player representation in Mass Effect 3. Mass Effect is not the "Shyamalan style" you want it to be. It's not twist for twist. It's a theme that is here from the beginning till the end and that make sense with the ending. Or if you dislike it why did you play till the end?

Basically, I wanted to see how it ended for my Shepard.  I went into ME3 with very low expectations, and it couldn't even meet those.

 

 

 

So it can be complex and poor? Then you have to define what is "poorly" written.

Illogical, disjointed narrative, ooc behavior in characters, "ass pulls"

 

Just because someone is trying to weave a complex story, doesn't mean they succeed.  I can try to prepare a big fancy banquet.  Doesn't mean I'll succeed.

 

 

 

The problem of Matrix 3 isn't the ending. I know you're using that reference because Matrix is one of the reference used by Mac Walters but they actually are very different. And Matrix 3 ending isn't as complex as Mass Effect 3. But maybe you could show me the complexity of Matrix 3, how it's a poor ending and (most important) why does ME3 reminds you of it.
 

Actually I used it as a reference because it was also the end of an ambitious science fiction trilogy that turned out to be hugely disappointing.  That Mac Walters invoked it is simply a piece of delicious irony.    

 

 

PS : "They forgot that the destination is still part of the journey." No they didn't forget it. The ending is the most important part of the trilogy, it's the most complex, it's the one that make the trilogy make sense. I think a game like Bloodborne isn't a game for you. Why do I talk about these two? It's because they share the same ambition. So the writing and the ending are close. There is also the Snowpiercer (which is a film) which has got the same ambition, and has an ending close to ME3. The destination in Mass Effect 3 is the most important part. Those who don't understand it, didn't understand the trilogy.

Well we agree that the ending is the most important part, at least.  But I still hold that Bioware disagreed.  Because it doesn't make sense.  Not unless you play specific Shepards and make particular choices.

[GalacticWolf5]

The people of the galaxy are not in control of their own destiny. The only difference possible is how gilded a cage do they live in.

I don't know where you're getting that Shep controls the galaxy's destiny. If you want him to, he does. If you don't want him to, he doesn't.