3528 réponses à ce sujet

[kalikilic]

From what I've read, they stand by the core game they made and were quite proud of their accomplishment. You guys? Not so much. 

they are the developers of the game and are a division of its publishers. if they made a turd on a plate they'd stand by it. there's no commendation to be handed to them there for that. they had to. and its quite ridiculous to reproach people who simply voice their dislike of the endings.

 

i stand by the core game they made. because the core game in no way entails the last 15 minutes of me3. thanks to their lack of narrative coherence everything you did up to that point, was useless, meaningless, and by the biggest retconned space magic writing ever, were narrowed down into - not ABC endings which Hudson had said would not be in the game - it was channeled into the RGB endings.

 

apart from that everything else was wonderful.

 

Hey, I appreciate you finally added your two credits. It was an interesting read! That's a post that helps me understand where you're coming from, unlike some of the previous ones. However, the problem is that, whether true or not, I don't think it explains why the ending is good. I mean, I may analyse a whatever piece of fiction to death, break it all the way down to all its -isms, literary elements, tropes and what have you, but that alone doesn't mean quality. Particularly if at face value - and I know you're going to dislike me going there - there are things like the ridiculous evac scene, magical waves of light inserting DNA into people, the contradiction with the first game, etc. In a franchise that takes place in cold, brutal reality otherwise. If it looks botched when you take it literally - and judging by the reaction of so many fans it did and still does - then some higher meaning, if it is even there, means little. I'm not going to argue whether you're right or wrong because I have no proof for or against it and I'm cool with that. What I know is that a lot of players aren't going to drop reality, even if it barely makes sense - and you can see it even from the posts of the people who defend the ending here - and actively look for some sort of higher meaning and appreciate it just for the ropes behind it all. I think in the ideal scenario, there would be both higher meaning present as well as an ending without plotholes and contradictions (which have been explained into painful detail throughout this very thread). Because those are not mutually exclusive.

 

no it doesnt explain why it was good at all. it is a pathetic attempt to retroactively give meaning to what was done. You dont ever write like that. Never ever. The catalyst is the biggest a$$pull i've read and i mean i read manga dude, i've seen the kinda crap some mangaka pull out from nowhere that'll just make you shake your head and laugh.

 

 And some how expecting what she says to have any meaning to anyone what isn't a far right hard core conservative.

The following is a good example of what you mean.

The original ending is what Bioware wanted to do. The extended cut is a compromise between what they wanted to do and what people needed to like it.

The original ending fits perfectly to the structure :

-first, the whole structure (in the macrostructure, the trilogy, and in the microstructure, Mass Effect 3) is more like a spiral (2/3, with an acceleration in the third part, and it goes faster and faster).

-second, Mac walters and casey Hudson talked about the high level of the catalyst scene. This notion is very important to understand the ending. When people refuse the "high level" (I'm not talking about you, I actually don't know what you think about it), it's the whole ending that they refuse. The catalyst scene is supposed to be a higher perception of things, which means that we are no longer in development of basic explanations, that's why the ending is based on implicit and paradoxes. It had to go against our perception of things. And it had to stay on this higher level, not to go back on the human scale of perception, that's why the narration goes higher and higher till it gets to the meta level (the stargazer scene with the idea that the game is a story told by someone).

-third, the writers and developers are not the stupid guys some people here want them to be. They know what breaking a cycle means. The cycle is determinism. But they also know that narration is determinism (when you tell a story you force the audience to follow you. Bioware know that when you give a choice, there is actually no freedom, you force the player to choose a path that was created.). So breaking the cycle is supposed to be creating freedom. But freedom isn't determinism. So when you impose a narration and the player is supposed to be free, there is a contradiction. That's why most of the (good) stories about breaking cycles do not have epilogue (I used snowpiercer and Bloodborne as very good examples). That's why they wanted "speculation for everyone", because they know that the game is a personal experience and the apex is the final choice and the consequences.

 

That's basically why the original ending had this form. Sure, because it goes against the habit of reading of most people, it created that reaction from a lot of people.

slurp slurp.

[kal_reegar]

Why is that? The Reaper's creator said so? And you believed him? I thought there was a line added in the Extended Cut where Shepard clearly states "I don't believe you", when talking with it. 

 

because

a. the reapers died

b. the geth are not in the final slides

c. edi doesn't come out of the normandy, and she is on the memorial wall

d. if the crucible cannot destroy all synth (or at least, AI), and so there is not a tech reset-fresh start, allowing destroy ending makes little sense from the catalys point of view (organic are now able to somehow "defend" themselves against the synth and tech singularity threat, so I accept - reluctantly - retirement; if this is not the case, destroy ending there is no point in allowing shepard to shot the red tube)

e. the catalyst doesn't lie about anything. Maybe he states debatable opinions, but lying? He doesn't even lie about refusal ending, why should he lie about the geth?

 

 

I believe that the key to understand the ending is "my solution won't work anymore" combined with refusal ending "the reapers are no longer a threat".

The catalyst is admitting total and ultimate defeat, and the stargazer confirms that.

He isn't lying. He is truly defeated, and he needs/want Shepard to act, to find a new solution.

He does have preferences, and he try to persuade you, but he is not lying about the possible outcomes of you choiches.

[gothpunkboy89]

Sure, sure. 

 

You know that EDI has two parts. One is that mobile platform she controls remotely, and the other is her real form on the Normandy which is housed in the server room behind the med bay. 

 

I  usually agree with you on a lot of points but no EDI and the Geth are gone if you pick destroy option. Even if you figure it only targets Reaper tech both EDI and Geth were upgraded using Reaper tech. Meaning they would be targeted by the wave.

[gothpunkboy89]

This is not at all what we started talking about and it is not the point of the post you responded to. It also has nothing to do with what I said. The whole point was that the plan relied on the Reapers entering the Milky Way through the Citadel relay and the Reapers had absolutely nothing to make sure that's going to work out besides Sovereign despite the Catalyst itself sitting on the Citadel. This has been discussed into great detail already anyway. But I see you prefer to derail instead.
 

And yet again you fail to provide any proof. I can spout unfounded statements, too.
 

Why should I? You claim that people said things that never got actually said and that you never back up with actual proof. Plus, the response wasn't even about contradictions, but about people anthropomorphising the Catalyst. You don't even follow your own posts. 
 

No, sometimes you can't trust something simply because you don't know all the necessary data to make an informed decision or because there is a super ancient synthetic that thinks completely differently from you and thus you can't predict what it'll do and why. Or both. Or whatever.
 

And? Is there any point to this?
 

Lying by omission is a thing. Plus, I don't need that as a proof either way, because EDI did actively deceive people, proving synthetics can do that. 
 

Why you'd think making this sort of analogy is necessary is beyond me.

 

Not according to your post. Lack of Catalyst being connected to Reaper invasion makes sense. If a race doesn't find the citadel then it would have no way to judge how advance they have gotten and if the cycle needs to be started or not. With a big point of the trap to invite people to live on the citadel a disconnect requiring an out side force to trigger the activation would prevent any race living on it from accidentally finding.

 

Digging though many pages of the threads is a pain in the ass. Simply make a new threat bringing this up and the posts will show up. The many people practically chomping at the bit to complain about anything and everything with this game would ensure those posts would show up soon enough.

 

The reason people think it is a contradiction to earlier events in ME 1 is because they humanize it giving it the Catalyst humanoid motivations and logic. The complaint is that the revelation the Catalyst was on the Citadel the whole time renders the actions during ME 1 a contradiction. Because in their mind the Catalyst would act and think in a very humanoid way. Treating the cycle as something they have to get done now or applying the genocidal madman logic to it. Or any other variation besides a synthetic creation still looking for a more permanent solution then the Reapers seeing the actions Shepard takes during ME 1 as a variation that should be allowed to flourish to see if this is the solution it has been looking for all these millions of years. Which leads to Shepard being brought up to directly talk with the Catalyst and choosing which path the future will take.

 

Lying is defined by telling false statements. Removal of information does not make it false. EDI is questionable about her actions depending a lot on how you want to define it. She didn't out right lie because no one asked if she was an AI. If someone directly asked her if she was an AI and he said no then yea she would be lying. But acting like a simple VI program to avoid hostilities not really a lie because she was at one point a simple VI program. But if you want to be very strict about it then you can't trust anything anyone ever says no matter who it is. And that is a very boring world to live in.

 

Because those kind of analogies get the point across rather well. Plus it is interesting to see how people react to "shocking" statements like that. Selective application of what people consider acceptable behavior is an interest of mine.

[rossler]

they are the developers of the game and are a division of its publishers. if they made a turd on a plate they'd stand by it. there's no commendation to be handed to them there for that. they had to. and its quite ridiculous to reproach people who simply voice their dislike of the endings.

 

i stand by the core game they made. because the core game in no way entails the last 15 minutes of me3. thanks to their lack of narrative coherence everything you did up to that point, was useless, meaningless, and by the biggest retconned space magic writing ever, were narrowed down into - not ABC endings which Hudson had said would not be in the game - it was channeled into the RGB endings.

 

apart from that everything else was wonderful.

 

 

People didn't simply voice their dislike over the endings. They threw a tantrum for months until Bioware gave into their demands. They made three different colored cupcakes and mailed them off to Bioware. In addition to donating to charity in hopes that Bioware would change the ending. As well as flinging vitriol at the developers every chance they got. Even after releasing a free DLC to pacify these people it wasn't enough. The fans didn't want to compromise. They didn't want to meet Bioware halfway with the Extended Cut. They wanted everything to be fixed their way, or not at all. Why do you think people are still here talking about all the issues with the ending? They weren't fixed the way exactly the way they wanted it to be. 

 

Technically your decisions affected how the third and final chapter of the trilogy plays out. That's what they sold you and that's what you got. So your decisions weren't meaningless.

 

Even the final cutscene isn't as simple as A,B,C or red, green, blue. It might look that way if you don't think about it. Same goes for the Reaper logic. It may seem completely silly that organics create synthetics which will then destroy organics every 50,000 years. That is an oversimplification of what he was talking about though. Same goes for calling everything in the ending space magic. That would be the kind of interpretation from someone who doesn't think about the story and oversimplifies things to fuel hate. 

 

That is the sort of person who should rightly be ignored for not being constructive enough. 

[Natureguy85]

Seriously dude you need to stop quoting that guy.  If this was a political discussion it would be like quoting Sarah Palin. And some how expecting what she says to have any meaning to anyone what isn't a far right hard core conservative.

 

Well I know it's above you, but I assume Angol Fear can at least read better than a small child.

 

 

 

 

They did defend their employees and all the hard work they put into the game as a whole. That's just another way to say they're proud of the product they made. 

 

They did say that the answers were in the game if you look for them though. 

 

A statement like that is BS unless they can explain what they mean. That's a cop-out they can just say and mean anything.

 

 

 

I didn't see them get killed by the Crucible's wave of destruction. 

 

So yeah, it's not hard to believe they survived. 

 

Again, the guy whose only retort to any argument is that other people need things explicitly explained to them ignores what he is explicitly told.

 

 

 

 

And the crew on the Normandy suddenly knows the implications of the Crucible without actually being where Shepard was? Yeah, I find that hard to believe. 

 

So what the game explicitly says is overridden by nebulous and meaningless tweets by people from the company? No.

 

 

 

Sure, sure. 

 

You know that EDI has two parts. One is that mobile platform she controls remotely, and the other is her real form on the Normandy which is housed in the server room behind the med bay. 

 

Yes, but the Normandy was hit by the Destroy wave. However, had they not used the Relays to transmit the signal, they could have used being in a massless corridor as an excuse for the Normandy not getting hit and EDI still being on the ship. I've come to the opinion that I wish they'd kept EDI just on the ship if they wanted to do the romance with Joker. That would have been more interesting. Joker's juvenile drooling over EDI when she first got the body killed it for me.

 

 

 

Not so much. Please try again. Because that guy who is continually referenced to people similarly minded who want to dislike the game and it's writing it all seems fair balanced and makes sense. For anyone not in that mentality how ever the bias and problems become apparent. I could have used Trump that is low hanging fruit everything considered.

 

Both people play very heavily to the core base. The problem is that core base is the only one who doesn't think they are complete idiots and full of ****. And that is the parallel I was drawing. For Natureguy it is a valid thing. For everyone else who doesn't think just like him is is like someone referencing something that was said on Fox News and being surprised why people might not find it a credible source do to the obvious bias for one side and view point.

 

Politics and conspiracy theory is were this set up flourishes uncontrollably.

 

Ok, so your bias prevents you from analyzing the article objectively. At least you admit it. This is just an ad hominem attack, but that's unsurprising.

 

 

Why is that? The Reaper's creator said so? And you believed him?

 

Certainly as the player. He's just there to dispense this information. He has no other purpose.

 

 

 

 

Not according to your post. Lack of Catalyst being connected to Reaper invasion makes sense. If a race doesn't find the citadel then it would have no way to judge how advance they have gotten and if the cycle needs to be started or not. With a big point of the trap to invite people to live on the citadel a disconnect requiring an out side force to trigger the activation would prevent any race living on it from accidentally finding.

The reason people think it is a contradiction to earlier events in ME 1 is because they humanize it giving it the Catalyst humanoid motivations and logic. The complaint is that the revelation the Catalyst was on the Citadel the whole time renders the actions during ME 1 a contradiction. Because in their mind the Catalyst would act and think in a very humanoid way. Treating the cycle as something they have to get done now or applying the genocidal madman logic to it. Or any other variation besides a synthetic creation still looking for a more permanent solution then the Reapers seeing the actions Shepard takes during ME 1 as a variation that should be allowed to flourish to see if this is the solution it has been looking for all these millions of years. Which leads to Shepard being brought up to directly talk with the Catalyst and choosing which path the future will take.

 

The Catalyst is still on the Citadel. How does being able to activate the Relay make it more likely that it will be found? Once it acts on this, the Reapers will be there and I think the surprise attack will have everyone's attention. The Reapers will then take the Citadel, not leaving time for anyone to go find how the Relay was turned on.

 

How is it an organic motivation to have a simpler, more efficient, and less likely to fail method to a critical task? To quote Morpheus from The Matrix Reloaded, "That sounds exactly like the thinking of a machine to me."

 

 

 

 

Because those kind of analogies get the point across rather well. Plus it is interesting to see how people react to "shocking" statements like that. Selective application of what people consider acceptable behavior is an interest of mine.

 

No, they just repeatedly expose you as a rather sick individual. Your mind often goes to some strange places. We're talking about Mass Effect and writing, and you're thinking about old people orgies.

 

 

 

 

 

People didn't simply voice their dislike over the endings. They threw a tantrum for months until Bioware gave into their demands. They made three different colored cupcakes and mailed them off to Bioware. In addition to donating to charity in hopes that Bioware would change the ending. As well as flinging vitriol at the developers every chance they got. Even after releasing a free DLC to pacify these people it wasn't enough. The fans didn't want to compromise. They didn't want to meet Bioware halfway with the Extended Cut. They wanted everything to be fixed their way, or not at all. Why do you think people are still here talking about all the issues with the ending? They weren't fixed the way exactly the way they wanted it to be.

 

The extended cut wasn't half way. It was better than nothing, but it attempted to polish a fundamentally flawed product. I'm not surprised that they didn't rewrite the ending,

[Vanilka]

Not according to your post. Lack of Catalyst being connected to Reaper invasion makes sense. If a race doesn't find the citadel then it would have no way to judge how advance they have gotten and if the cycle needs to be started or not. With a big point of the trap to invite people to live on the citadel a disconnect requiring an out side force to trigger the activation would prevent any race living on it from accidentally finding.

That's nonsense. You'd have me believe the Reapers are complete idiots because they had a plan and leaving one of them behind was the best they could do despite their brain sitting on the Citadel. But, well, thanks to the revelation of the Catalyst, they look like idiots, either way. Dumb★sses had to fly all the way from the dark space afterwards because their slave master is incapable of moving the furniture in the house it sits in. They were lucky the need for the Citadel relay was retconned in ME2. This has been discussed already and you didn't persuade anybody back then, what's the point of going through exactly the same song and dance again?
 

Digging though many pages of the threads is a pain in the ass. Simply make a new threat bringing this up and the posts will show up. The many people practically chomping at the bit to complain about anything and everything with this game would ensure those posts would show up soon enough.

Again, why should I do that? I don't give a flying fluff because I know that people giving organic features to the Catalyst is not the problem here and never has. You just desperately want to find something, anything to disagree about.
 

The reason people think it is a contradiction to earlier events in ME 1 is because they humanize it giving it the Catalyst humanoid motivations and logic. The complaint is that the revelation the Catalyst was on the Citadel the whole time renders the actions during ME 1 a contradiction. Because in their mind the Catalyst would act and think in a very humanoid way. Treating the cycle as something they have to get done now or applying the genocidal madman logic to it. Or any other variation besides a synthetic creation still looking for a more permanent solution then the Reapers seeing the actions Shepard takes during ME 1 as a variation that should be allowed to flourish to see if this is the solution it has been looking for all these millions of years. Which leads to Shepard being brought up to directly talk with the Catalyst and choosing which path the future will take.

Yet again, making sure your plan goes as supposed to has nothing to do with being organic. The fact Sovereign was desperate enough to open the Citadel relay manually shows how badly they thought the harvest was needed. And the Reapers failed in absolutely spectacular fashion. You know why? Because the Catalyst didn't exist in ME1 since the writers had no idea where they were going to go from the first game. (Drew Karpyshyn, the lead writer, confirmed this.) The writer of ME3's ending simply didn't give a damn about having it make sense in retrospect. It's as simple as that.
 

Lying is defined by telling false statements. Removal of information does not make it false. EDI is questionable about her actions depending a lot on how you want to define it. She didn't out right lie because no one asked if she was an AI. If someone directly asked her if she was an AI and he said no then yea she would be lying. But acting like a simple VI program to avoid hostilities not really a lie because she was at one point a simple VI program. But if you want to be very strict about it then you can't trust anything anyone ever says no matter who it is. And that is a very boring world to live in.

You're making stuff up just to suit your ends. Shepard directly asks whether EDI can lie. The answer is yes. Whether lying, pretending, or omitting the truth, it is all a factor while making decisions because the game introduced it as such. What you think is a definition of lying doesn't matter.
 

Because those kind of analogies get the point across rather well. Plus it is interesting to see how people react to "shocking" statements like that. Selective application of what people consider acceptable behavior is an interest of mine.

No, they don't. Omitting crucial information is not the same as white lies and whatnot. You're comparing apples and oranges.

And "acceptable behaviour" is not the issue here. The issue here is you making up random and ridiculous examples about somebody's grandmother dying to explain absurdly simple concepts. Maybe you should realise you're not talking to five year olds. On the other hand, please, don't give five year olds analogies about their family dying.

[Vanilka]

apart from that everything else was wonderful.

I think the game had some flawed writing before the ending happened. Like, Shepard's body surviving atmospheric entry and hitting a planet. (Not to even mention you can find Shepard's helmet on Alchera while in ME3 they say the same helmet was what kept the brain intact. WHAT?!) Like everybody leaving the Normandy at once before the Collector attack when this had never been the case before and it's never explained why the whole crew left. (I guess there was a pizza party on Omega.) The way ME2 is more about kissing squaddies' boo-boos than about the Reapers. KAI LENG. The lack of reason for the Cerberus to attack the Citadel. People getting shot because they argued whether a door would stay closed or would open. Killing and endangering as many friends as possible, sometimes just for shock value, regardless of whether it makes sense and whether it's in character for them. (Grunt, Kaidan/Ashley, Thane, etc.) And so forth.

 

However, the games managed to be an enjoyable ride in spite of these flaws. We still had well-written characters to rely on. The gameplay is pretty awesome. The core of the story is decent. Some of the missions are rather good. The cinematics got pretty great. If you get emotionally invested enough, some of the asspulls are easy to ignore.
 

no it doesnt explain why it was good at all. it is a pathetic attempt to retroactively give meaning to what was done. You dont ever write like that. Never ever. The catalyst is the biggest a$$pull i've read and i mean i read manga dude, i've seen the kinda crap some mangaka pull out from nowhere that'll just make you shake your head and laugh.

Yeah, I've seen my share of frustrating Japanese comic book and TV show BS, as well, and nothing left me quite this disappointed. Not to even mention that when you watch a questionable genre (not talking about the media in general), then you expect it to be stupid or have a lame story. You'll have different expectations for watching a random ecchi-harem-romcom thing from a less well-known and less well-funded studio than from something by Satoshi Kon. With the former, you kind of expect it to be dumb from beginning to end and there's room to be pleasantly surprised. Mass Effect? Not so much. Mass Effect was the "Satoshi Kon" for me. The ME3's ending is definitely one of the worst pieces of fiction I've seen and that's despite all the crap I've already experienced. Nothing else has ever left me feeling this amount of WTF. The fact I was rather invested in the franchise made it worse.

 

But, anyway, I've ranted more than enough. I'm repeating myself at this point.

[ArcadiaGrey]

I think the game had some flawed writing before the ending happened. Like, Shepard's body surviving atmospheric entry and hitting a planet. 

 

I'm confused by this....I've always just assumed Shep is in the ruins of the crucible/citadel.  

[Natureguy85]

I'm confused by this....I've always just assumed Shep is in the ruins of the crucible/citadel.  

 

She's talking about ME2, when Shepard dies. His/her body lights up as the scene fades away, indicating it hitting the atmosphere and crashing onto Alchera, the planet they are near. That's where the Normandy Crash Site DLC takes place.

[Vanilka]

I'm confused by this....I've always just assumed Shep is in the ruins of the crucible/citadel.  

 

You're right. During the ending, she lies in the ruins of the Citadel. But, as Natureguy85 clarified for me (Thanks!), I was talking about the beginning of ME2.

 

 

 

I can't get over this.  I try not to think about it too much. It was all nice and dramatic, the visuals were amazing, but yeeaaaahh...

[ArcadiaGrey]

She's talking about ME2, when Shepard dies. His/her body lights up as the scene fades away, indicating it hitting the atmosphere and crashing onto Alchera, the planet they are near. That's where the Normandy Crash Site DLC takes place.

 

 

You're right. During the ending, she lies in the ruins of the Citadel. But, as Natureguy85 clarified for me (Thanks!), I was talking about the beginning of ME2.

 

 

 

I can't get over this.  I try not to think about it too much. It was all nice and dramatic, the visuals were amazing, but yeeaaaahh...

 

Ah okay, thanks guys.  I thought it was stupid that they could re-animate a dried up dead body, but it hitting the atmosphere of the planet hadn't occurred to me.

 

Let's just whistle a happy tune and go on our way, not thinking about how unlikely it all is. 

[Natureguy85]

I could have forgiven all of that if they hadn't brought Shepard back in the very next scene, destroying all the drama of Shepard's death. No mission or two as the Virmire Survivor or someone else. Hell, even playing a Cerberus Joe for a mission to get a key component of Lazarus Phlebotinum would have been fine. They at least waited a mission to give the Normandy back, which was nice. I really liked the reveal, especially with Shepard's theme playing when they are first showing the inside. The launch cutscene is cool too. But they also stole what made it special, the stealth. It's mentioned for Legion's mission, but not only do the Collectors see through it, even the assholes on Omega can pick you up.

[Vanilka]

My problem with Shepard's death is largely also that they do absolutely nothing with it. It's almost as if it had never happened. I love the idea of Shepard becoming an artificially enhanced super soldier. For my Shep it nicely ties into her Akuze background where the talk of Cerberus creating a super soldier already occurred. It's like a bad joke - she avoided it once just for it to happen anyway. I think it also explains all the crazy feats Shepard is capable of. The thing is that you can never express how it influenced Shepard as a person. There's no trauma, no existential crisis, no emotion. It doesn't serve more than as a joke on the rare occasions. When I first started playing, I thought, "Wow, that experience's gonna really mess her up, isn't it?" But no. I had to wait all the way to almost the end of ME3 for her to express that she isn't even sure what she is any more. That was rather disappointing.

 

I did love the Normandy reveal scene.

[TurianSpectre]

My problem with Shepard's death is largely also that they do absolutely nothing with it. It's almost as if it had never happened. I love the idea of Shepard becoming an artificially enhanced super soldier. For my Shep it nicely ties into her Akuze background where the talk of Cerberus creating a super soldier already occurred. It's like a bad joke - she avoided it once just for it to happen anyway. The thing is that you can never express how it influenced Shepard as a person. There's no trauma, no existential crisis, no emotion. It doesn't serve more than as a joke on the rare occasions. When I first started playing, I thought, "Wow, that experience's gonna really mess her up, isn't it?" But no. I had to wait all the way to almost the end of ME3 for her to express that she isn't even sure what she is any more. That was rather disappointing.

Never really thought about it that way but yeah your right

[Vanilka]

Never really thought about it that way but yeah your right

 

I think somebody here on the forums pointed out that the way Shepard dies gives the oh so romantic window above their bed a really dark twist. Sleep well, Shepard!   I don't know whether nobody realised it or it didn't matter or it's just Cerberus having a really messed up sense of humour.

 

The window's pretty, though! (I actually didn't know it was there until Shepard got rolled over in one of the ME3's bed scenes. Many exciting discoveries were made that night.)

[Natureguy85]

My problem with Shepard's death is largely also that they do absolutely nothing with it. It's almost as if it had never happened. I love the idea of Shepard becoming an artificially enhanced super soldier. For my Shep it nicely ties into her Akuze background where the talk of Cerberus creating a super soldier already occurred. It's like a bad joke - she avoided it once just for it to happen anyway. I think it also explains all the crazy feats Shepard is capable of. The thing is that you can never express how it influenced Shepard as a person. There's no trauma, no existential crisis, no emotion. It doesn't serve more than as a joke on the rare occasions. When I first started playing, I thought, "Wow, that experience's gonna really mess her up, isn't it?" But no. I had to wait all the way to almost the end of ME3 for her to express that she isn't even sure what she is any more. That was rather disappointing.

 

I did love the Normandy reveal scene.

 

Yes, that's the biggest problem with Shepard's death ultimately. Watching the footage and the line about "a high tech VI that thinks it's Commander Shepard" should have been in ME2.

[gothpunkboy89]

That's nonsense. You'd have me believe the Reapers are complete idiots because they had a plan and leaving one of them behind was the best they could do despite their brain sitting on the Citadel. But, well, thanks to the revelation of the Catalyst, they look like idiots, either way. Dumb★sses had to fly all the way from the dark space afterwards because their slave master is incapable of moving the furniture in the house it sits in. They were lucky the need for the Citadel relay was retconned in ME2. This has been discussed already and you didn't persuade anybody back then, what's the point of going through exactly the same song and dance again?
 

Again, why should I do that? I don't give a flying fluff because I know that people giving organic features to the Catalyst is not the problem here and never has. You just desperately want to find something, anything to disagree about.
 

Yet again, making sure your plan goes as supposed to has nothing to do with being organic. The fact Sovereign was desperate enough to open the Citadel relay manually shows how badly they thought the harvest was needed. And the Reapers failed in absolutely spectacular fashion. You know why? Because the Catalyst didn't exist in ME1 since the writers had no idea where they were going to go from the first game. (Drew Karpyshyn, the lead writer, confirmed this.) The writer of ME3's ending simply didn't give a damn about having it make sense in retrospect. It's as simple as that.
 

You're making stuff up just to suit your ends. Shepard directly asks whether EDI can lie. The answer is yes. Whether lying, pretending, or omitting the truth, it is all a factor while making decisions because the game introduced it as such. What you think is a definition of lying doesn't matter.
 

No, they don't. Omitting crucial information is not the same as white lies and whatnot. You're comparing apples and oranges.

And "acceptable behaviour" is not the issue here. The issue here is you making up random and ridiculous examples about somebody's grandmother dying to explain absurdly simple concepts. Maybe you should realise you're not talking to five year olds. On the other hand, please, don't give five year olds analogies about their family dying.

 

How are they idiots the entire point is to remain hidden until the harvest starts. A single lone Reaper to recon the galaxy is the smart thing to do. Easier to hide and less likely to be found then half of the Reaper Fleet floating around. And like wise a separate isolated system needing an outside Reaper signal to activate is exactly how you would keep it a secret when the entire point of the Citadel is to invite species to live on it for sevearl thousand years. It really is quite brilliant when you think about it. But you need a sense of guile to appreciate it and seems to be lacking. How was anything retconned? Only an idiot creates a single set up. A smart person has contingency in case of a problem. AKA Citadel as main way or back up way though Alpha Relay just in case.

 

A couple of lines from a degraded Prothean VI that technically shouldn't know half of what it knows is now some how inescapable proof of something? Who then later complain about the Catalyst doing a similar thing. Irony. Oh it is very much the problem giving organic characteristics to the Catalyst. Because you then change what it is into something it isn't that you then base your assumptions on. Since you are basing the assumptions on fiction rather then fact the assumptions are inherently wrong. The most common set up of this in the real world is usually someone making a video saying how sweet and innocent and non violent then full grown tiger is. A Tiger that later mauls them to death because it is a god damn tiger. And no matter how you my humanize them with non existent human emotions and thoughts it is still a tiger and will think and act like a tiger no matter what fantasy personality you give it.

 

It isn't the same old song and dace. I see a waltz going on and players keep playing dub step then complaining why it doesn't match up. It isn't that the dance is wrong it is that the players keep applying the wrong music.

 

You are again applying odd logic to the Catalyst. The Catalyst is a scientists of sorts. It was created to solve a single problem. It researched it for an indeterminate amount of time. Tried different solutions that failed before going with the only working options the Reapers. It then turned the entire galaxy into a giant testing ground using evolution as it's tool and the Reapers as a way to wipe the slate clean after each experiment fails. The actions of the Protheans would cause an unexpected variable in the experiment. An egotistical human scientist who is supremely convinced their idea is best would do their best effort to crush said variable because it might mean they are wrong. That variable how ever leads to other events that ends with the cycle altering enough to no longer need the Reapers.  But that human ego of always being correct and anything that might vaugly make what they say as wrong must be crushed instantly because it would mean they are no longer correct comes creeping in and applied to Catalyst and that is were the trouble beings for many.

 

 

Claims omitting facts is lying and that lying is bad. But then claims that white lies are perfectly ok and not anything like omitting facts. So which is it is lying bad or ok? Do you assume everyone is a lying sack of poo or do you think only select people are lying sacks of poo even if they have lied to you white or other wise in the past?  I ask because people have a bad habit of over simplifying anything. And when it is applied to the Catalyst is seems to follow the line of logic that it being the embodiment of the collective Reaper intelligence there for it must automatically be a lying sack of poo that can't be trusted. This is a problem when dealing with most Reaper related issues as everyone wants to simplify everything some times to the point of over simplification.

 

 

Hey I explain stuff people don't even get close to what I"m trying to say. So I have to make it even more simpler and direct to ensure people understand what I am saying. Besides old folks need love two and statistically speaking they do the beast with two backs more then middle age adults do.

[themikefest]

Why do you think people are still here talking about all the issues with the ending? They weren't fixed the way exactly the way they wanted it to be.

If that's the reason, what's your excuse for being here?
 

 

[Vanilka]

How are they idiots the entire point is to remain hidden until the harvest starts. A single lone Reaper to recon the galaxy is the smart thing to do. Easier to hide and less likely to be found then half of the Reaper Fleet floating around. And like wise a separate isolated system needing an outside Reaper signal to activate is exactly how you would keep it a secret when the entire point of the Citadel is to invite species to live on it for sevearl thousand years. It really is quite brilliant when you think about it.

It's so brilliant that it failed and they had to go "on foot".   
 

But you need a sense of guile to appreciate it and seems to be lacking.

I appreciate the hilarity of the fact that a super advanced machine race completely and utterly failed to meet its goals despite their OS sitting on the Citadel.

 

How was anything retconned? Only an idiot creates a single set up. A smart person has contingency in case of a problem.

LOL! I don't have to explain the irony in that, do I?
 

A couple of lines from a degraded Prothean VI that technically shouldn't know half of what it knows is now some how inescapable proof of something?

Who said anything about the VI? I judge from the hilarious fact the Reapers had to go "on foot".
 

Oh it is very much the problem giving organic characteristics to the Catalyst. Because you then change what it is into something it isn't that you then base your assumptions on. Since you are basing the assumptions on fiction rather then fact the assumptions are inherently wrong.

And you still haven't given any proof of this made up statement, still haven't said how making sure your plan works as supposed to is organic. Since Sovereign was ready to expose itself and attack the Citadel directly in order to open the relay, it seems that it was very much time for them to do so. But nope, the brilliant and amazing Catalyst was completely and utterly outplayed by primitives, apparently. 
 

The most common set up of this in the real world is usually someone making a video saying how sweet and innocent and non violent then full grown tiger is. A Tiger that later mauls them to death because it is a god damn tiger. And no matter how you my humanize them with non existent human emotions and thoughts it is still a tiger and will think and act like a tiger no matter what fantasy personality you give it.

The only person trying to push this notion and put words into people's mouth here is you.
 

It isn't the same old song and dace. I see a waltz going on and players keep playing dub step then complaining why it doesn't match up. It isn't that the dance is wrong it is that the players keep applying the wrong music.

The Citadel and the Catalyst's access to it has been discussed into great detail. There's exactly zero need to rehash the same discussion.
 

You are again applying odd logic to the Catalyst. The Catalyst is a scientists of sorts. It was created to solve a single problem. It researched it for an indeterminate amount of time. Tried different solutions that failed before going with the only working options the Reapers. It then turned the entire galaxy into a giant testing ground using evolution as it's tool and the Reapers as a way to wipe the slate clean after each experiment fails. The actions of the Protheans would cause an unexpected variable in the experiment. An egotistical human scientist who is supremely convinced their idea is best would do their best effort to crush said variable because it might mean they are wrong. That variable how ever leads to other events that ends with the cycle altering enough to no longer need the Reapers.  But that human ego of always being correct and anything that might vaugly make what they say as wrong must be crushed instantly because it would mean they are no longer correct comes creeping in and applied to Catalyst and that is were the trouble beings for many.

That doesn't explain why its backup plan sucked balls and why it was so easy to outplay it.
 

Claims omitting facts is lying and that lying is bad. But then claims that white lies are perfectly ok and not anything like omitting facts. So which is it is lying bad or ok? Do you assume everyone is a lying sack of poo or do you think only select people are lying sacks of poo even if they have lied to you white or other wise in the past?  I ask because people have a bad habit of over simplifying anything. And when it is applied to the Catalyst is seems to follow the line of logic that it being the embodiment of the collective Reaper intelligence there for it must automatically be a lying sack of poo that can't be trusted. This is a problem when dealing with most Reaper related issues as everyone wants to simplify everything some times to the point of over simplification.

 

I have explained two times that trust isn't necessarily about lies and deceit, but since you seem to love going that way, I humoured you. Twice. However, now I'm done. You wanted my opinion, you've got it. The fact that you like to draw ridiculous assumptions to drag the argument ad absurdum doesn't concern me.

 

Hey I explain stuff people don't even get close to what I"m trying to say. So I have to make it even more simpler and direct to ensure people understand what I am saying. Besides old folks need love two and statistically speaking they do the beast with two backs more then middle age adults do.

Have you ever considered that maybe it's because people either disagree with you or think that what you say makes little sense?

 

Where have ever I complained about old folks "getting love"? I don't give a damn. Let them invite all the neighbours if they want to. I complained about the stupid death scenario used for ridiculous reasons. This is a topic completely irrelevant and it's pointless to bring it up in this context.

[AlanC9]

I'm confused by this....I've always just assumed Shep is in the ruins of the crucible/citadel.

Me too. There was no particular way for Shepard to fall out of orbit anyway in ME3.

As for Alchera, don't sweat it. There are plenty of final Normandy velocities where Shepard wouldn't be heated too much, and terminal velocity for a free-falling human is pretty slow with those atmosphere and gravity conditions.

[Ithurael]

If that's the reason, what's your excuse for being here?
 

 

Lalala Lololo

[Natureguy85]

How are they idiots the entire point is to remain hidden until the harvest starts. 

 

Oh it is very much the problem giving organic characteristics to the Catalyst. Because you then change what it is into something it isn't that you then base your assumptions on. Since you are basing the assumptions on fiction rather then fact the assumptions are inherently wrong.

 

So how does the Catalyst having direct control of the Citadel Relay but not using it until it's too late make it more likely to be detected?
 

How is it "organic" to want the simplest, most efficient set up with the least possible ways to fail?

[gothpunkboy89]

So how does the Catalyst having direct control of the Citadel Relay but not using it until it's too late make it more likely to be detected?
 

How is it "organic" to want the simplest, most efficient set up with the least possible ways to fail?

 

Because if the Catalyst could control it then it is entirely possible organics living on it could tap into it and find out about it. The Catalyst can pretend to be a simple maintenance program to hid it self if ever found out. It can't hide programs that would open close and activate the relay part.

 

I get the feeling that your idea of a good hiding place during hide and seek is standing on a hill or wrapping your arms around a tree and thinking you are invisible.

[kal_reegar]

The catalyst is a constant source of potential plot holes. This is undeniable.

The more incorporeal and unable to perform any kind of concrete/material actions we assume it to be, the more the storyline make sense.

The more abilities and dominion over the reapers we assume it to have, the less believable/hard to explain the storyline become.

imo.