3598 réponses à ce sujet

[Tim van Beek]

The other thing I was going to mention is that if Mass Effect is such a character-driven series, why is the next game being billed as an exploration-heavy game, instead of a character-heavy game?

Because everybody already knows that the ME franchise is about characters and stories, no need to emphasize that, but the first three installments were linear corridor shooters, while many of the most successfull games of the last years were open world (more or less, Metal Gear Solid V being an example on the "less" side, the Far Cry series, Fallout 4 and Witcher 3 on the "more" side).

 

In addition to this is how things should have been (according to the fans) and claiming the writers didn't know their own story just kind of speaks of arrogance on the fans' part. No offense.

 

You can't know it better than them, because they created everything you're talking about. They wrote the book on Mass Effect's lore. They created the universe, you are just its inhabitants. I wouldn't go around trying to play God (the creator) or be in their shoes. There is only one God (Bioware), not millions of them (fans).

Makes me curious why you see the need to defend the writers against their critics?

You are years too late for that 

 

Of course you cannot be completely serious, because taking your statement at face value, you're saying that there cannot be any trainers (a baseball trainer cannot tell players anything who are better than he is), nor any critics (a movie critic can only talk about movies that are worse than those he made himself, or even only about those he made himself).

 

And (just picking one of many factual errors) when Anderson tells Shepard in the ME:3 intro "you shot down a reaper" and we say: "no Anderson, Shepard killed Saren and robo-Saren, but did not shoot down Souvereign, that was the Alliance fleet", you say...what? That we don't have the right to point that out because we did not invent the story? If, for the sake of argument, we agree for a moment that we haven't earned the right to point it out, is it still a factually wrong claim that both characters are supposed to know to be false?

 

(It's also something that both wouldn't bother telling each other about, especially in that scene, in that way, it's Anderson becoming a Mr. Exposition - but let's forget about that for now and concentrate on factual correctness.)

[Oni Changas]

In the Immortal words of BruceBlitz, that ending was TRASH, TRASH, TRASH, TRASH, TRASH! IT'S GARBAGE!!!

 

Still better than MGSV: The Phantom Game

[dorktainian]

I thought 'classic" IT was everything up til the Magic Space Elevator was real.  The Starchild was the only thing that was fake.  And the Reapers were trying to manipulate Shepard into using the Crucible to their benefit.

 

Of course, I've heard variations of IT with all sorts of ideas where the indoctrination started taking place.

 

I'm an IT fan, as with it the ending would truly be something astounding.

 

There are other trains of throught though that would have you - the player - basically becoming mortally wounded on Eden prime during the first game and everything that follows being a protagonist experiencing events through someone elses eyes until the breath scene. (Via Leviathan, see Choose Wisely - episodes 1-6)

 

I really do not know anymore.  I prefer IT as it wraps the endings up nicely, which looking at them literally does not.

[angol fear]

Makes me curious why you see the need to defend the writers against their critics?

You are years too late for that 

 

Of course you cannot be completely serious, because taking your statement at face value, you're saying that there cannot be any trainers (a baseball trainer cannot tell players anything who are better than he is), nor any critics (a movie critic can only talk about movies that are worse than those he made himself, or even only about those he made himself).

 

And (just picking one of many factual errors) when Anderson tells Shepard in the ME:3 intro "you shot down a reaper" and we say: "no Anderson, Shepard killed Saren and robo-Saren, but did not shoot down Souvereign, that was the Alliance fleet", you say...what? That we don't have the right to point that out because we did not invent the story? If, for the sake of argument, we agree for a moment that we haven't earned the right to point it out, is it still a factually wrong claim that both characters are supposed to know to be false?

 

(It's also something that both wouldn't bother telling each other about, especially in that scene, in that way, it's Anderson becoming a Mr. Exposition - but let's forget about that for now and concentrate on factual correctness.)

 

Not sure that it was what rossler talked about.

[Tim van Beek]

Not sure that it was what rossler talked about.

Neither am I 

 

The part I started with...

Of course you cannot be completely serious...

...could be rephrased as a question (which it was semantically, but not syntactially), like: 

 

 

Here is how I understand what you wrote, but it would seem that this cannot be what you meant to say, because it does not make much sense. Usually, when my first interpretation does not make sense, I try to come up with another one that does make sense, hoping that it is closer to reality, but unfortunately, in this case, I am unable to do that based on the available information   . So what did you want to say?

[Iakus]

 

I really do not know anymore.  I prefer IT as it wraps the endings up nicely, which looking at them literally does not.

That's why I am sympathetic to IT, even if I don't believe in it.  I wish I could believe that what I saw isn't really what I saw.

 

I'm like that X-Files poster:  "I Want to Believe" 

[MrFob]

IT (in any form, IIRC, the "Harby shot to breath scene is in Shep's mind" one was the first one) was great in March 2012. I would have absolutely loved it if that had been BW's original plan (here is why). Alas, it was not to be, so right now, I don't see how it wraps up anything. If Shepard defied the reaper's attempts of indoctrination and wakes up in the rubble, no one defeated the reapers yet and the story is not finished.

[angol fear]

Neither am I

The part I started with...
...could be rephrased as a question (which it was semantically, but not syntactially), like:

The lack of relation between what you quoted and your answer is normal. You confirmed it, then everything is ok.

[rossler]

Not sure that it was what rossler talked about.

 

What I was saying is kind of in the same vein as this guy (from about the third paragraph down). One of my many bookmarked threads. 

 

People are fine not to like the game or write about what's wrong, or what could be improved, but that doesn't equate to them giving them anything more. Like a better ending, or different choices, because they somehow don't fit with how each fan views the story, because this game means something different for everyone. 

[Natureguy85]

Correction, I mainly bought it for the story, not for the characters. How's that? 

 

The other thing I was going to mention is that if Mass Effect is such a character-driven series, why is the next game being billed as an exploration-heavy game, instead of a character-heavy game?

 

In addition to this is how things should have been (according to the fans) and claiming the writers didn't know their own story just kind of speaks of arrogance on the fans' part. No offense.

 

You can't know it better than them, because they created everything you're talking about. They wrote the book on Mass Effect's lore. They created the universe, you are just its inhabitants. I wouldn't go around trying to play God (the creator) or be in their shoes. There is only one God (Bioware), not millions of them (fans).

 

Your $60 you paid for this game doesn't, and shouldn't give you that kind of power. Remember, if it wasn't for Bioware, there would be no Mass Effect. Not the other way around. So please try to show some respect to those who crafted this universe. 

 

It goes back to you guys wanting to play armchair writer and take control of things when it goes off the tracks. 

 

It depends on which story. In my view, the series became more character focused in Mass Effect 2. There, the plot was crap but the characters were much more well done. The focus on exploration speaks more to gameplay, so it would make more sense to compare that to the 3rd person cover shooter style of the previous games. Character focus has more to do with the writing.

 

As for the rest, this is a copout and I really hate it. I am critiquing the product put in front of me. Bioware can write whatever they want and I can critique it. hat the writers didn't know their own story, as much as it was considering the change in writing teams, is evidenced by all the nonsense and contradictions. They forget events that happened earlier. There is a shift in tone, a shift in theme, a shift in central conflict, and a shift away from the characters. Possibilities include that they meant to communicate something else with the story and failed or that I viewed or interpreted something incorrectly. However with as much thought as I've given it and as much of other people's ideas I've consumed, I do not believe the latter to be the case.

 

So any argument that the endings are good is a waste of time since you have de facto declared them bad and instantly invalidated any such argument in their favor since such arguments (you claim) are only supported by headcanon. 

 

I'd argue the point, but http://awesomegifs.c.../dead-horse.gif

 

By the way, MrBtongue's video that you link in your signature has been pulled for a copyright claim. 

 

Yes, I am very disappointed that the video was struck. That's recent too, despite the video being years old.

 

As for depth, it's possible you could change my mind, but so far all I have heard is "it's deep" without any explanation, or people invent things that were not in the story. There certainly was an attempt at depth through philosophical blather, but that's part of the problem.

 

Added: Of course, you're not going to point at a puddle and convince me it's the ocean.

 

IT (in any form, IIRC, the "Harby shot to breath scene is in Shep's mind" one was the first one) was great in March 2012. I would have absolutely loved it if that had been BW's original plan (here is why). Alas, it was not to be, so right now, I don't see how it wraps up anything. If Shepard defied the reaper's attempts of indoctrination and wakes up in the rubble, no one defeated the reapers yet and the story is not finished.

 

Well an Indoctrination plot would have made sense. I find it rather strange that they didn't fully go that route.

[rossler]

IT (in any form, IIRC, the "Harby shot to breath scene is in Shep's mind" one was the first one) was great in March 2012. I would have absolutely loved it if that had been BW's original plan (here is why). Alas, it was not to be, so right now, I don't see how it wraps up anything. If Shepard defied the reaper's attempts of indoctrination and wakes up in the rubble, no one defeated the reapers yet and the story is not finished.

 

There's a lot of different ways to view IT. Not all of them revolve around Shepard waking up and defeating the Reapers for real. Perhaps the real IT that happened in the game is different than what the internet says. 

 

In addition, indoctrination is extremely subtle, so if there was any hint of it in the game, it wouldn't jump out at the player. You might have already had the IT reveal in game. The key thing to understand is that the Reapers do not wish to indoctrinate Shepard. They want to indoctrinate us as players. 

[MrFob]

There's a lot of different ways to view IT. Not all of them revolve around Shepard waking up and defeating the Reapers for real. Perhaps the real IT that happened in the game is different than what the internet says.

Well, could you explain your interpretation of the ending, as I asked here? Because I still don't get how one can fit together the fact that everything after the beam run happened in Shepard's head and that at the same time the endings somehow did happen. I just don't get how you actually view the ending. If you could explain it, I think it would solve a whole number of questions I have about your posts.
 

In addition, indoctrination is extremely subtle, so if there was any hint of it in the game, it wouldn't jump out at the player. You might have already had the IT reveal in game. The key thing to understand is that the Reapers do not wish to indoctrinate Shepard. They want to indoctrinate us as players.

The reapers are trying to indoctrinate the players? So the reapers are aware that they are just part of a video game world and as fictional characters they were written to break the fourth wall and use their powers of indoctrination on the players as they realize that it is those players who ultimately control their own fate and that of the fictional galaxy they live in? Wow, that is pretty deep stuff indeed.
Or did you maybe mean to say that BioWare tried to indoctrinate the players? Because that is what I would have loved about IT if it had been done in the game (see the post I linked before). But clearly, that's not what BioWare wanted to do, so saying how cool it would have been doesn't make the stuff we actually got any better.


By the way:

What I was saying is kind of in the same vein as this guy (from about the third paragraph down). One of my many bookmarked threads.

People are fine not to like the game or write about what's wrong, or what could be improved, but that doesn't equate to them giving them anything more. Like a better ending, or different choices, because they somehow don't fit with how each fan views the story, because this game means something different for everyone.

 
I agree with that but it's not what you wrote before. You wrote:

In addition to this is how things should have been (according to the fans) and claiming the writers didn't know their own story just kind of speaks of arrogance on the fans' part. No offense.

You can't know it better than them, because they created everything you're talking about. They wrote the book on Mass Effect's lore. They created the universe, you are just its inhabitants. I wouldn't go around trying to play God (the creator) or be in their shoes. There is only one God (Bioware), not millions of them (fans).

which has a very different meaning and this, I disagree with. I think it is very possible that the writers forget something they wrote before and thus cause contradictions later. They are after all only human beings as well, as much as you'd like to elevate them to godhood. It happens all the time, not just to BW and with changing writers between games, it's not really a surprise either. In fact, even Mac Walters said once in an interview that he goes to the (fan created and maintained) Mass Effect Wiki to look stuff up. I would also argue that there are several cases in the ME trilogy where there are obvious contradictions (just look at the "history" of Cerberus throughout the games), so either they didn't know their story that well or they contradicted themselves on purpose or they simply didn't care. I don't know which is worse.

[Ithurael]

Once he explains it we should look to make sure to see how close that lines up to the actual material.

 

If it is just an interpretation that he enjoys - great, my favorite is the Dinosaur Theory or the one where I just headcanon all of ME3. However, if he truly beleives that this information IS in the core product and what it was truly designed to do...then....probably not. From what we have seen in the material, Indoctrination does not work the way that IT proposes (Elaborate dreams, tricking, etc). Just because the process is subtle, does not mean one can make things up about it. Postulating one's interpretation (or headcanon) as fact comes off a bit abrasive and is logically fallacious.

 

I mean, haven't you already found that Synthesis IS the best ending as represented by the developers (although, by rosslers interpretaiton, it is the fictional reapers that made the game. Thus the best ending for the fictional reapers WOULD be synthesis with the real players)

clicky

 

AND that Gambol confirms Shepard is on the Citadel

Clicky

 

Though, in the end nothing anyone can put forward against IT will work. Most who follow IT will reject or ignore anything that contradicts them. Some just assume what they can.

 

IT is a facinating study in sociology and in cognition. So much so, that IT has actually become a Brand - akin to ME - in and of itself.

 

Though...there is always the other facet to this...he could just be trolling. Not sure.

[MrFob]

IMO, all of that is fine. If people want to go with IT (any form of it) or any other interpretation of the ending, even if it includes copious amounts of head canon, that's perfectly alright. I also think it doesn't have much to do with "believing" in something or not (a word which is often used in conjunction with IT). It's just a way for people to make sense of the story for themselves.
 
The only way the word "believe" fits into this is when you ask the question "Do you believe that BW planned the IT?" and I think all indications in the game and from dev comments are that the answer to this is "No". However, that doesn't make IT any less cool IMO or any less valuable to the people who still choose to run with it.
 
I think this one guy you linked has a point when he says:

I'm inclined to reject Bioware's interpretation and substitute my own.

I mean, why not?

 

The only thing where I would have to disagree on is if people say that IT (now that we concluded that it was not planned) somehow makes up for BW's writing mess and I also still maintain that it doesn't provide an ending t all because the reapers are not yet defeated.

 

 

Oh, just a side note: Careful when linking to that post of mine with the synthesis-was-best-ending screenshot. It was more a joke than anything else really. As I said on page 2 of that thread, we don't know who put that comment in, so technically it doesn't really "prove" anything.

[rossler]

I'm not really sure if I should. I'll try to explain it and someone will come in and say it's not canon, or that's not what's in the game, or whatever, because I know how the other side of the coin works. It's like a game to them.

 

If you guys are going to rely on what Mike Gamble and the game says, you can do so. That's your choice.

 

The only way the word "believe" fits into this is when you ask the question "Do you believe that BW planned the IT?" and I think all indications in the game and from dev comments are that the answer to this is "No". However, that doesn't make IT any less cool IMO or any less valuable to the people who still choose to run with it.

 

I believe Bioware wants people to decide for themselves, without them telling which answer is correct. I don't think Mass Effect has ever told the player what they did is right or wrong. Except for things like driving the Mako into a lava lake on Therum and you wind up being killed. I'm talking about the choices you make throughout the game.

 

What's with all the links in the third last paragraph?

[Ithurael]

If you guys are going to rely on what Mike Gamble and the game says, you can do so. That's your choice.

 

So somehow us relying on and using the Producer's statments and going off what the content logically shows = invalid? If you want to reject reality and substitute your own imaginaiton, then great. That is great for you. However, if you start saying that what is in your imagination is what was represented in the core product ...then probably not bud. As Mr FOB said, looking back IT was not intended in the final product. There was an indoctrination segment at the end during the TIM sequence, but that was about it.

 

You can continue to have your headcanon, but that does not refute valid criticisms of the game.

[MrFob]

I'm not really sure if I should. I'll try to explain it and someone will come in and say it's not canon, or that's not what's in the game, or whatever, because I know how the other side of the coin works. It's like a game to them.

 

Oh, come on now, don't be so defensive, I have come up with my own share of interpretations for the ending that are pretty far out there. so I really just want to know. As a matter of fact, I read your post about the reapers manipulating parts of Shepard's brain before you edited it. I think you wrote that you figure that the reaper's messed with Shep's ability to question things (correct me if remember wrong), which is why s/he is rather timid in the conversation with the catalyst. I think it's an interesting idea as it would explain one of my biggest issues with the ending. I still don't see how Shepard can never have left London and still somehow activated the crucible though. I didn't quite get the part about the audio-visual system being manipulated. So do you think Shepard left London or not? If yes, how is he back there during the breath scene, if not, how did the endings occur and conclude the story? That's what I don't understand.
 

I believe Bioware wants people to decide for themselves, without them telling which answer is correct. I don't think Mass Effect has ever told the player what they did is right or wrong. Except for things like driving the Mako into a lava lake on Therum and you wind up being killed. I'm talking about the choices you make throughout the game.

Agreed, BW even stated at some point that they consider IT as valid an interpretation as any other. That's not the issue though. I am not critizising IT or the people who choose it as an interpretation of the ending. I am criticizing the writing of the game and that cannot be defended with a theory that was added on by fans after the game was released without any intentional effort by the writers. The ending simply was not created as an ingenious masterstroke to set up IT. I wish it would have been but it was not.

[rossler]

I'm not sure what it would take for IT to be intended in the final product. Maybe that scene with TIM was the big IT reveal.

 

I don't consider saying the writers didn't know the story as constructive criticism. I'd call that vitriol.

 

Saying there was a change in theme, tone or central conflict in the ending is an opinion, IMO.

 

Wanting more closure, some answers, in addition to more choice impact in the ending would be a valid form of constructive criticism.

 

I'm not dismissing everyone here.

[Han Shot First]

Discussion of IT was banned on this forum at one point. If Bioware really intended IT to be a thing when they wrote the endings to Mass Effect 3, they wouldn't have banned discussion of it. You don't ban discussion of major plot elements of released games on the official forums. 

 

I can understand why people wanted Indoctrination Theory to pan out, or even to maintain it as their personal head canon...but to still see it as the actual developer intent almost four years after release with no DLC ever validating it and discussion of IT having once been banned... is delusional. 

[Natureguy85]

Once he explains it we should look to make sure to see how close that lines up to the actual material.

 

If it is just an interpretation that he enjoys - great, my favorite is the Dinosaur Theory or the one where I just headcanon all of ME3. However, if he truly beleives that this information IS in the core product and what it was truly designed to do...then....probably not. From what we have seen in the material, Indoctrination does not work the way that IT proposes (Elaborate dreams, tricking, etc). Just because the process is subtle, does not mean one can make things up about it. Postulating one's interpretation (or headcanon) as fact comes off a bit abrasive and is logically fallacious.

 

I mean, haven't you already found that Synthesis IS the best ending as represented by the developers (although, by rosslers interpretaiton, it is the fictional reapers that made the game. Thus the best ending for the fictional reapers WOULD be synthesis with the real players)

clicky

 

Though, in the end nothing anyone can put forward against IT will work. Most who follow IT will reject or ignore anything that contradicts them. Some just assume what they can.

 

IT is a facinating study in sociology and in cognition. So much so, that IT has actually become a Brand - akin to ME - in and of itself.

 

Though...there is always the other facet to this...he could just be trolling. Not sure.

 

Ah, a kindred spirit. IT people get mad when I tell them I like their ideas and that they would be better than the what is in the game, but they aren't in the game. No matter how many times I point out how their "evidence" of Indoctrination doesn't match what we know about Indoctrination, it doesn't matter.

 

That picture of the files was cool. I always knew they wanted Synthesis as the "good" ending, and now there is proof.

I'm not sure what it would take for IT to be intended in the final product. Maybe that scene with TIM was the big IT reveal.

 

I don't consider saying the writers didn't know the story as constructive criticism. I'd call that vitriol.

 

Saying there was a change in theme, tone or central conflict in the ending is an opinion, IMO.

 

Wanting more closure, some answers, in addition to more choice impact in the ending would be a valid form of constructive criticism.

 

I'm not dismissing everyone here.

 

Saying the writer's didn't know the story is merely a conclusion based on observation. The change in theme, tone, and central conflict is obvious. The best way I can put it is this; in a series and game about forging alliances, making friends, and bringing people together, Shepard makes the final choice alone, completely cut off from everyone else.

[rossler]

Discussion of IT was banned on this forum at one point. If Bioware really intended IT to be a thing when they wrote the endings to Mass Effect 3, they wouldn't have banned discussion of it. You don't ban discussion of major plot elements of released games on the official forums. 

 

I can understand why people wanted Indoctrination Theory to pan out, or even to maintain it as their personal head canon...but to still see it as the actual developer intent almost four years after release with no DLC ever validating it and discussion of IT having once been banned... is delusional. 

 

They locked the thread because it became too off-track. Like any thread. You can still talk about it though. Not sure if you read the forum rules, but there's nothing against the rules of talking about stuff that you claim was debunked using DLC.

 

The developer intent was for people to make up their own minds on the ending. Whatever people want to believe the ending to be, it can be.

 

Saying the writer's didn't know the story is merely a conclusion based on observation. The change in theme, tone, and central conflict is obvious. The best way I can put it is this; in a series and game about forging alliances, making friends, and bringing people together, Shepard makes the final choice alone, completely cut off from everyone else.

 

Different strokes for different folks. Not everyone believes the game was about you said. Just like not everyone believes this is a character-focused game series. From what I understand the main theme was victory through sacrifice, not strength through unity. The ending follows through with victory through sacrifice, because certain people are sacrificed to achieve victory over the Reapers. If your EMS is extremely low, Harbinger kills your squadmates right in front of you. Then you move on to finish the job. Others are killed on the way to the beam. Mostly alliance soldiers.

 

Shepard makes the final choice alone because the Normandy picks up your squad before you enter the beam. Just because the mass relays were temporarily disabled doesn't mean people aren't brought together. Not every single person from every race went to Earth to help. Maybe a couple thousand. In the Extended Cut it shows that the relays were back in working order quickly, so this so-called disconnection didn't last very long.

 

If you forge alliances, the ending doesn't make that pointless. It's not like destroying the Reapers somehow un-cures the genophage and undoes your work. It's not like destroying the Reapers kills all synthetic life. Shepard is a mix of organic and synthetic (his implants). If your EMS is high enough, Shepard lives. In addition to EDI, because if Shepard was supposed to die, but he lives, then EDI and the Geth live too.

 

It's a fan opinion that the game was centered around strength through unity, but don't put the writers down because how they wrote the story doesn't match how the fan views it.

 

The best way is not to come across as a know-it-all-better-than-the-writers, because that would not be constructive feedback. And no one would really take you seriously anyway.

[Han Shot First]

They locked the thread because it became too off-track. Like any thread. You can still talk about it though. Not sure if you read the forum rules, but there's nothing against the rules of talking about stuff that you claim was debunked using DLC.

 

The developer intent was for people to make up their own minds on the ending. Whatever people want to believe the ending to be, it can be.

 

It wasn't just the IT thread that got locked. IT digressions in other threads were being deleted by the mods as well. Bioware shut down discussion of IT for a period, or at least tried in vain to shut it down before finally giving up. You just don't do that if the thing being discussed is the actual plot of your game.

 

There also isn't any indication that the devs initially intended for the fans to interpret the endings in a multitude of different ways, one of which could be IT. Read the leaked scripts. There is nothing in them about Indoctrination Theory, and what you saw during the endings was really what you got. The dev statements made about there been many valid interpretations was PR and damage control from the aftermath of the ending controversy.

 

To be clear, IT fans can still head canon IT as their ending. I see no reason why it couldn't coexist with other fan headcanon like MEHEM, but when the IT crowd starts preaching that IT was the actual ending to ME3...well no, now you're just confusing your head canon for the actual writer's intent.

[rossler]

Han, any moderator can shut down any thread if it becomes too off-topic. It doesn't matter if it's a main thread or not. I've seen this happen on many forums. You are making up things to cover the fact that they wanted to shut people out, but they didn't.

 

The leaked script wasn't even finished. It was a rough draft. It was pretty obvious it was.

 

You know, the IT crowd saying the ending is indoctrination, is no different than those people who preach about what Mass Effect was supposed to be about. How the ending breaks that, and how the writers are wrong and the fans know what it's about. Maybe that's headcanon too. Besides, author intent doesn't matter because they aren't going to be around forever. So in a hundred years, who cares what their intent was.

 

The damage control wasn't really necessary if people acted in a constructive, non-vitriolic way in response to this controversy. You guys kind of went a bit overboard. That's what happens when people get too emotionally invested in a franchise and when things go wrong, it's a deadly concoction.

 

Guaranteed, you wouldn't be able to do that in real life. Only on the internet.

[Natureguy85]

Different strokes for different folks. Not everyone believes the game was about you said. Just like not everyone believes this is a character-focused game series. From what I understand the main theme was victory through sacrifice, not strength through unity. The ending follows through with victory through sacrifice, because certain people are sacrificed to achieve victory over the Reapers. If your EMS is extremely low, Harbinger kills your squadmates right in front of you. Then you move on to finish the job. Others are killed on the way to the beam. Mostly alliance soldiers.

 

Shepard makes the final choice alone because the Normandy picks up your squad before you enter the beam. Just because the mass relays were temporarily disabled doesn't mean people aren't brought together. Not every single person from every race went to Earth to help. Maybe a couple thousand. In the Extended Cut it shows that the relays were back in working order quickly, so this so-called disconnection didn't last very long.

 

If you forge alliances, the ending doesn't make that pointless. It's not like destroying the Reapers somehow un-cures the genophage and undoes your work. It's not like destroying the Reapers kills all synthetic life. Shepard is a mix of organic and synthetic (his implants). If your EMS is high enough, Shepard lives. In addition to EDI, because if Shepard was supposed to die, but he lives, then EDI and the Geth live too.

 

It's a fan opinion that the game was centered around strength through unity, but don't put the writers down because how they wrote the story doesn't match how the fan views it.

 

The best way is not to come across as a know-it-all-better-than-the-writers, because that would not be constructive feedback. And no one would really take you seriously anyway.

 

Actually Ive said the theme was strength through diversity, but unity works because you're bringing together these diverse groups. You could argue that victory through sacrifice was a theme of ME3 itself, but not really of the series as a whole. Sacrifice isn't the same as loss, however. Mordin and Legion sacrifice themselves for a goal. Harbinger killing your sqaudmates is your failure to be prepared. Unfortunately, it's your failure as a player as opposed to Shepard's failure as a leader because it's not connected to anything within the game world. You just didn't have enough points. The alliance soldiers are just faceless masses with no more impact than all the people killed in any other scene. This is, of course, one of the problems with the game. You're supposed to care about Earth but you spend the entire game away from it only knowing vaguely that things are bad.

 

All you said about Shepard making the final choice alone say what happened before. I know why they aren't there in a practical sense because I saw the evac scene. However, we're discussing the theme, so the question remains; why do that? Why remove Shepard's companions?

 

The Mass Relays only being temporarily destroyed was a change with the Extended Cut. You're right that not every single person went but it was far more than a few thousand. doesn't the Destiny Ascension alone have a crew of over a thousand? Anyway, it was still the major military might of every race. And they were initially stuck in Sol if the destruction of the Charon Relay or Citadel didn't wipe out the solar system ala Arrival.

 

I never said Destroying the Reapers undoes the Genophage or whatever, but Destroy certainly does wipe out Synthetic life. The Catalyst specifically says so and it's the entire cost or sacrifice of that option. Otherwise there is zero reason to choose anything else. Shepard's survival doesn't mean anything because he's only partly synthetic. Besides, that line is used in reference to Synthesis, if I recall correctly.

 

As far as it being "fan opinion", it's what the events of the series pointed toward. It's what they showed and what they were about. As someone else said, there are many contradictions where it appears that they forgot about previous events. The problem isn't that they wrote it differently from how I viewed it; it's that they wrote it differently from what came before. This whole last bit reeks of you grasping at straws because you can't actually argue with what I said, so the problem becomes how I said it.

 

 

 

 

Han, any moderator can shut down any thread if it becomes too off-topic. It doesn't matter if it's a main thread or not. I've seen this happen on many forums. You are making up things to cover the fact that they wanted to shut people out, but they didn't.

 

The leaked script wasn't even finished. It was a rough draft. It was pretty obvious it was.

 

You know, the IT crowd saying the ending is indoctrination, is no different than those people who preach about what Mass Effect was supposed to be about. How the ending breaks that, and how the writers are wrong and the fans know what it's about. Maybe that's headcanon too. Besides, author intent doesn't matter because they aren't going to be around forever. So in a hundred years, who cares what their intent was.

 

The damage control wasn't really necessary if people acted in a constructive, non-vitriolic way in response to this controversy. You guys kind of went a bit overboard. That's what happens when people get too emotionally invested in a franchise and when things go wrong, it's a deadly concoction.

 

Guaranteed, you wouldn't be able to do that in real life. Only on the internet.

 

Author intent certainly does matter but it's not everything. It could be that the writer communicated ideas poorly, or they wrote something that could be interpreted in a different way, as described in this article about a Frost poem. So while a different interpretation works, it may not be the story the writer was telling.

 

IT, however, is very different from what I was doing because I can point to events in the game that show what I said. IT, however, points to events that don't show what the proponents claim they do. It's not a matter of interpretation; it's a matter of not fitting the definition.

 

A lot of the "vitriol" came from being flipped the bird by Bioware over their "artistic integrity".

[angol fear]

Ashley or Kaidan in Mass Effect 1, sacrifice or loss?

Removing Shepard companions in the end is a "problem" for some people but how many companions come with Shepard in Mass Effect 3? Why not the same number we had in Mass Effect 2?