To be honest Oddball I can't explain myself any further, I've put across exactly what I feel and think. Thank you for the discussion.
Alan, you are intelligent enough to know what i meant. Here you just seem to be spoiling for an argument.
You are welcome!Thank you as well!
Don't diss glitch hunting and please be a respectful person. All you are both doing is making yourself look like 4chan jabronies.
I Haven't read all of your banter because I don't care. Now kiss and go to bed. I can feel the sexual tension from your argument.
Hmm...I think I am respectful enough.I have nothing against glitch hunting,hell,some people probably make a living with that,I didn't see what it has to do with what we were discussing.And it was way too nitpicky.
I don't get the sexual argument!
That's your point of view. Objectively it wasn't bad. The majority here can say it's bad, the ending won't turn into a bad ending. Quality is not connected to popularity. You disliked it, many people here disliked it, that's just opinion. There's no "objective" truth in what you said.
it is my point of view. agreed.
Let me explain how the ending is a bad ending. The ending is a bad ending because in a singular narrative you cannot have multiple possible endings which effectively mean that our galaxy can be in any one of 4 possible states. That's not an ending at all. The slide shows they bolted on with the EC make it even worse. At least they could have had the balls to kill everyone off and leave the galaxy screwed, or maybe even have shepard survive, but no...... lets leave everything up in the air. How the heck is that an ending?
The only way past this car crash of multiple endings is to think outside the box.
Again tho.... plz note this is my opinion.
it is my point of view. agreed.
Let me explain how the ending is a bad ending. The ending is a bad ending because in a singular narrative you cannot have multiple possible endings which effectively mean that our galaxy can be in any one of 4 possible states. That's not an ending at all. The slide shows they bolted on with the EC make it even worse. At least they could have had the balls to kill everyone off and leave the galaxy screwed, or maybe even have shepard survive, but no...... lets leave everything up in the air. How the heck is that an ending?
The only way past this car crash of multiple endings is to think outside the box.
Again tho.... plz note this is my opinion.
Ok,I should ask again,what would personally satisfy you?What would you say is a very good ending to the trilogy?
That´s the problem, if you´re taking literal version for what it is, then Crucible was created to not just being some sort of battery, but to power up something aboard of Citadel, which brings lot of questions. If the Reapers were always successful in their surprise attack, then every cycle end up with disabled relays and no chance to not just deploy the crucible, but even to develop that thing. The answer is that someone else had to mess with Crucible, to even bring a plan of it to cycle that has no knowlendge of Reapers or Catalist or Leviathans.
The harvesting of a cycle can take a long time and they could still try to build the Crucible, but yeah, being surprised like that they still had the disadvantage which led to their failing. We know from the Protheans that they started building it but never finishing because infighting broke out due to indoctrination.
I assume each cycle always hoped for the next cycle to do something about it, and at least tried to hide the plans as best as they could from the Reapers for the next cycle to discover.
And sure, the Reapers disabled the relays in every cycle before, and the only reason this didn't happen to us was that the Protheans were smart enough to help our cycle, and even that was a very close one because no one believed in the Reaper threat. But this is the chance I guess many cycles have waited for.
I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to by "power up something aboard of Citadel". Powering up something would be in line with the energy the Crucible creates.
Indoctrination is being missunderstood quite frequently, it´s not about that Shepard was already indoctrinated, but about the process of being indoctrinated, thus Vendetta has said that indoctrination is not detected, but not the process which is entirely different thing. If you connect the dots, Rachni - dreams and indoctrination, then you´ll end up with conclusion that Shepard is simply in the process, and at the end of game you are having a choice betwen the joining the Reapers or being free of their influence, or even able to refuse to do anything at all.
Shepard was for years walking around the Reaper technology and he didn´t have the vision, not till the Arrival and after the start of invasion, whatever TIM did installed himself with, it seems that it gave him power to control, to manipulate Shepard´s body and will, which is strongly tied to indoctrination.
Still not buying it, sorry.
What TIM did was likely tied to his research at Sanctuary, it doesn't have to do with indoctrination, but truly control someone. There are even powers like that in the game, Dominate can do something like that.
I feel that with the EC slides, which directly show that you've actually shaped a future in all of the game's outcomes, and the dev tweet that confirmed Shepard is on the Citadel, I have even less reason to believe in IT than I did before (I played without EC first and never once thought Shepard was indoctrinated, I only read here that it's a thing). People can believe anything they want, I'm fine with that, but that will not convince me that IT is true.
The thing is that destroy ending was most disregarded by Catalist, he came with this supposed conflict, even if you encounter AIs that is not so happy to kill organics, and your whole jorney changed in one second from killing a Reapers into stoping some endless cycle of AI vs Organics.
Rannoch's truce doesn't prove anything imo. Each faction wants something and they both get it by playing nice... It's the same with the whole galaxy being united by Shepard, they all just do it because they face a common enemy that would wipe them out if they didn't all work together.
The Catalyst works with an equation from Leviathan's programming plus the data it gathered during Leviathan's time, so it always sees the organic-synthetic problem as true according to its logic.
I generally get rid of the Catalyst and the Reapers, but not because I think the Catalyst is wrong about the past, but because I think the races don't need something dictating their fate for them.
And how did your journey change? You can still kill all Reapers if you want to. And the cycle has always been a thing since ME1, so yeah, of course we deal with the cycle, we just didn't know the reason for the cycles up to this point.
You can't have the galaxy in four different states? I thought people complained because the ending supposedly wasn't different enough. So Bioware made the Extended Cut to give you more variation. Now you're saying they can't have four states in addition to what the Extended Cut provides, but only one (eg. canon ending)? In a game like this, there is going to be multiple ways to end the story, and there is (see below)
Depends on your definition of an ending. The Reapers were destroyed, thus bringing a resolution to the central conflict. Therefore that is technically an ending.
-In another ending, the Reapers control you and you become their puppet and they cease harvesting. Conflict resolved.
-In Synthesis, you jump off the platform and become one with the Reapers. The harvesting ceases because everyone is now injected with Reaper code. Conflict resolved.
-Under refuse, you just let them harvest you. Conflict resolved.
Or whatever conflict a literal person might say:
-Reapers controlled. No more harvesting. Conflict resolved.
-Reapers now live in harmony with organics under synthesis. No more harvesting. Conflict resolved.
-Reapers are destroyed. No more harvesting. Conflict resolved.
Depends on your definition of an ending. The Reapers were destroyed, thus bringing a resolution to the central conflict. Therefore that is technically an ending.
-In another ending, the Reapers control you and you become their puppet and they cease harvesting. Conflict resolved.
-In Synthesis, you jump off the platform and become one with the Reapers. The harvesting ceases because everyone is now injected with Reaper code. Conflict resolved.
-Under refuse, you just let them harvest you. Conflict resolved.
Or whatever conflict a literal person might say:
-Reapers controlled. No more harvesting. Conflict resolved.
-Reapers now live in harmony with organics under synthesis. No more harvesting. Conflict resolved.
-Reapers are destroyed. No more harvesting. Conflict resolved.
I wouldn't say the endings are that simple.For example,if you choose destroy you stop the reapers for now,but does it mean you doom the whole organic life by wiping out the force that "restarts" it and thus preserving it?So,do you doom all organics in the long run this way.
If you choose control does it mean Shepard,as the new catalyst,will do the same thing with the organics in the next cycle in order to preserve.
If you choose synthesis you basically create not only new type of life but,most importantly,new type of consciousness(org/synth),which brings so many questions on it's own.
I'm just throwing this out here, not as a definitive answer to the questions posted here, but as something cathartic for those who hated stuff in the game or are just curious on a very systematic review of all 3 games. I've found it quite interesting as the author does seem quite sharp. I don't think he's made one comment where I can say, "Ah, but you forgot about..." because he pretty much is covering it all.
The reason the 3 games being covered is important is, to me, something started feeling off in ME2 but I wasn't sure what it was. This series helps me put it together. At the moment, he's only a bit into ME2 and it's already a long read.
http://www.shamusyou...edtale/?p=27792
Now, this series linked above in no-way invalidates people loving the ending. There are game journalists out there who truly loved the original endings and still talk about it now. I'm a freak'n modder of ME and I'm still happy when people finish the whole trilogy or just ME3 and are like, "That was awesome!" To reiterate, I did not like the endings, I typically use modded endings, I spent about 300 hours modding the Citadel DLC, and I still love it when people don't need to use my mod or any mod* to feel good about Mass Effect.
Of course, if arguing is entertainment, carry on. But it always seems these threads devolve into this back and forth with people trying to "win."
*Seriously, though. Have you seen some of the awesome texture mods out there to make the trilogy look fantastic!? You gotta use those. 
If they had to answer every question anyone might have wanted to know, the extended ending would turn from a simple 10 minute epilogue into a 2 hour movie.
If they had to answer every question anyone might have wanted to know, the extended ending would turn from a simple 10 minute epilogue into a 2 hour movie.
Exactly!That's one of the reasons I love it.Because it makes you talk,analyze,assume.Well...what we are doing right now:)
In a nutshell. *Disclaimer language. Also, see his followup video on the EC endings.
Nice video, but I going to disagree.
If they had to answer every question anyone might have wanted to know, the extended ending would turn from a simple 10 minute epilogue into a 2 hour movie.
You don't have to answer every question. However, the Catalyst conversation manages to be both vague and contradicting at the same time. Giving the player some agency to resolve the descripancies that the Catalyst itself brings into the equation is necessary -- especially considering that is what's consistent with the rest of the player's experience with the series.
Player agency is not taken away in this scene. If it was you would only have one choice--destroy. If that was the case, you need more EMS to open up more options. So the moral is, don't go back to Earth with an EMS score of 1200 otherwise, you won't do so well.
The fact is that there is up to three or four choices, depending on whether you have the Extended Cut installed as well as your EMS score.
People can't complain that player agency was taken away because the game gives you three or four options and they don't like any of them, so they want different options. Those are the ones given, so play the hand you've been dealt even if it's not good.
Listening to that Jeremy guy, he wants a clear cut "good" ending because he deserves it due to all the hard work he put in. With no "vague ambiguous stuff", With at least one where he can tell the kid off and "use his might to destroy the Reapers" (conventional victory). One which destroys the Reapers only and leaves everything else alone. Not even one where the Reapers kill everyone and the galaxy is screwed. I don't recall him wanting this.
This is essentially a personal request of his. Just like people here. They're asking for stuff that wasn't intended to be done with the game. Conventional victory, Telling the kid off, and winning, depending on your EMS. You can refuse his options, but you will lose because the Reapers outnumber you in strength and numbers.
The scene is not vague or confusing either. The Extended Cut expands on this to make it less confusing for people--to clarify, like they said. You can chat and ask him questions about things. If it's still confusing and vague, not much they can do there.
He just touches on major points in his video. I, and many others here, have explained in detail and at great length about why we don't like the endings. Some here still don't like the compromise of the EC. Personally, I don't feel like going into it again because I've made my peace with it. If you like the original endings, good on ya, but I never will change my mind.
I know a lot of people wanted Bioware to redo the ending, but I think that would cause more problems than it would solve.
Choice isn't the same as agency.
Imagine for a second if Shepard walked into the Catalyst chamber and there's a panel of 3 buttons. The Catalyst says it doesn't know what each botton does, just that each as a large scale effect that has massive repurcussions for the galaxy and that Shepard has to pick one. This is a choice with no player agency. You're picking at random. A player needs to have a reasonable grasp of the consequences of his actions, without that there's no tension, and no story. You might as well shoot mooks for the alloted time.
This is where some of the problems come in. The Catalyst can't keep it's terms straight, including some important ones like the definition of 'synthetic' (which alternates between AI and technology in general), order and chaos (Reapers are implicitly both), the discrency between the Crucible options being 'solutions' despite one explicitly not being a 'solution', being asked to solve a problem without being able to bring up actual solutions, contradictions about the collateral effects of choosing each solution, and the list goes on. The EC certainly fixes some of these while introducing others (ex, "organics gain perfection through fully integrating with synthetic technology" and synthetics gaining "understanding").
A problem is a lot of players aren't actually engaged in a decision making process. They're trying to string together incongruous patchworks of information. You could survive with ambiguity as long as what the Catalyst says is consistent. But it isn't. Player's lack agency because the consequence of their actions is obscured by all this jumble of things the Catalyst says. This could be confirmation bias but even proponents of the endings even seem to readily admit to at least some of these problems.
As for the other stuff a definitive clear cut 'good' ending is totally consistent with other choices in the series (if anything the ending choices are, arguably, the odd duckling) -- keep in mind I'm not one for dismissing the ending because of this, just that it's a pretty valid argument; especially after ME2. And Conventional Victory isn't so out of place considering the bulk of the player's interaction with the Reapers has them in iron sights (but that is another discussion about lugoscabib discobiscuits).
He does tell you though. From the literal view which most people subscribe to. He says destroy will destroy the mass relays, synthetic life as well as take away any advanced technology you have. In synthesis, he tells you that all organic and synthetic life will be combined to create a new life form. Clarifying this in the Extended Cut, he will make you into a Reaper. Or without the EC, anyone who played ME2 knows he's trying to breed Reapers because they are organic/synthetic hybrids. Control, you will die, but will have control, and he explains how this works in the Extended Cut.
Therefore, he explains to you what each option does. Even refuse too. There's no real confusion, unless you over analyze everything, which I think people are doing.
He gives you all the information you need to make your decision. He tells you the consequences of each one as well as a little cutscene in the EC demonstrating its effects.
The closest thing to a good ending is the one where the Reapers are destroyed and Shepard is alive at the end. They don't put his name on the wall and they go rescue him. The end.
Here is a post describing how one guy feels everything about the ending and the Catalyst made complete sense to him. I would suggest reading it. It's not even the same take as mine I posted a few pages ago. Quite different.
Choice isn't the same as agency.
Imagine for a second if Shepard walked into the Catalyst chamber and there's a panel of 3 buttons. The Catalyst says it doesn't know what each botton does, just that each as a large scale effect that has massive repurcussions for the galaxy and that Shepard has to pick one. This is a choice with no player agency. You're picking at random. A player needs to have a reasonable grasp of the consequences of his actions, without that there's no tension, and no story. You might as well shoot mooks for the alloted time.
This is where some of the problems come in. The Catalyst can't keep it's terms straight, including some important ones like the definition of 'synthetic' (which alternates between AI and technology in general), order and chaos (Reapers are implicitly both), the discrency between the Crucible options being 'solutions' despite one explicitly not being a 'solution', being asked to solve a problem without being able to bring up actual solutions, contradictions about the collateral effects of choosing each solution, and the list goes on. The EC certainly fixes some of these while introducing others (ex, "organics gain perfection through fully integrating with synthetic technology" and synthetics gaining "understanding").
A problem is a lot of players aren't actually engaged in a decision making process. They're trying to string together incongruous patchworks of information. You could survive with ambiguity as long as what the Catalyst says is consistent. But it isn't. Player's lack agency because the consequence of their actions is obscured by all this jumble of things the Catalyst says. This could be confirmation bias but even proponents of the endings even seem to readily admit to at least some of these problems.
As for the other stuff a definitive clear cut 'good' ending is totally consistent with other choices in the series (if anything the ending choices are, arguably, the odd duckling) -- keep in mind I'm not one for dismissing the ending because of this, just that it's a pretty valid argument; especially after ME2. And Conventional Victory isn't so out of place considering the bulk of the player's interaction with the Reapers has them in iron sights (but that is another discussion about lugoscabib discobiscuits).
The ending made perfect sense to me and I didn't need anything further explained.It felt slightly like a dream sequence after a very very long struggle where the hero is already tired.I think everyone wanted Shepard to be so mighty,mightier even than the reapers.In powerful stories like this the hero must have an insurmountable obstacle in order for the gamer/reader/watcher to FEEL for him/her and to be able to go in his/her shoes easily,in general,to be attached.In other words,I think many people just refused to believe that the reapers are a true godly force and Shepard is not able to overcome it.I think throughout the whole game it's very well done,from cinematic,writing,gameplay point of view how these Reapers are this absolutely insurmountable force that no one can stop.I guess many people just refused to believe it."Biggest military force in the galaxy,and the reapers are obliterating it!",says Shepard.And it's clear,again,throughout the whole game that he is as overwhelmed as everyone else.He/she is quite different compared to ME1 and ME2 where he/she was certain about everything.In ME3 there is this constant sense of dread,loss,sadness which I loved because it gives the characters and the universe they created much more layers and reasons to feel for them and be attached.In ME3 there isn't a single moment where Shepard is even sure they will survive.
"How do we fight them?"
"Fight them?It's not about fighting them,it's about survival"
Whoever wants a "they lived happily ever after" ending has to go to some other game.ME is much more complicated than that.
In a nutshell. *Disclaimer language. Also, see his followup video on the EC endings.
Please don't quote me some guy that you and me perfectly know hasn't played the game as much as we(if he has played it at all,that is)and is doing this only for clickbait for his poor career.A guy that is competent in everything is not competent in anything.
If they had to answer every question anyone might have wanted to know, the extended ending would turn from a simple 10 minute epilogue into a 2 hour movie.
There's a lot of questions I wanted to ask the thing, but its stuck to the limits of its programming. So I won't bother.
The questions I would ask are related to after talking with the catalyst
Why does Shepard have to shoot the tube while walking towards it? Is there a reason why she couldn't shoot at it from a distance?
If ems is above 2600, the Normandy is seen leaving. So what was the point of that planet?
If ems is below 2600, the thrusters are seen being torn from the fuselage yet the fuselage is in one piece on the unknown planet. How is that possible? It should be in pieces with everyone onboard dead.
Why isn't Adams and Chakwas seen in the memorial scene?
Anderson's nameplate is already on the wall. Who informed the Normandy that Anderson is dead?
How do they know Shepard is dead in the control and synthesis ending to be able to put up the nameplate? If anything I would just say Shepard is currently missing
If ems is below 3100 and destroy was picked, Shepards nameplate is put on the wall. That means someone found the body confirming he/she is dead. So wouldn't that same person, whoever it might be, find Shepard alive if ems is above 3100? So why would the character hesitate at putting up the nameplate?
If ems is below 2600, the Normandy is stuck on that unknown planet. How long are they stuck on that planet for?
How much time has passed from the crucible firing to the memorial scene?
The closest thing to a good ending is the one where the Reapers are destroyed and Shepard is alive at the end. They don't put his name on the wall and they go rescue him. The end.
You mean the Normandy crew rescues Shepard? How is that possible? If ems is below 3100 and destroy is chosen, Shepard's nameplate is put on the wall. So that means whoever found Shepard's body confirmed he/she is dead. That same person or persons, found Shepard alive and rescued him/her, if ems is above 3100. Most likely the Normandy gets back to see Shepard in the hospital.
You mean the Normandy crew rescues Shepard? How is that possible? If ems is below 3100 and destroy is chosen, Shepard's nameplate is put on the wall. So that means whoever found Shepard's body confirmed he/she is dead. That same person or persons, found Shepard alive and rescued him/her, if ems is above 3100. Most likely the Normandy gets back to see Shepard in the hospital.
There's a lot of questions I wanted to ask the thing, but its stuck to the limits of its programming. So I won't bother.
The questions I would ask are related to after talking with the catalyst
I guess I was referring to the high EMS version. Which again, in order to see this scene, it pays to build your EMS up high enough.
Otherwise, the Normandy crashes, can't repair engines, and Shepard dies.
It's always best to leave some stuff open than spell out everything. Gotta use a bit of common sense.
Please don't quote me some guy that you and me perfectly know hasn't played the game as much as we(if he has played it at all,that is)and is doing this only for clickbait for his poor career.A guy that is competent in everything is not competent in anything.
I think you probably didn't see his reviews for ME1, ME2 and ME3.
It's always best to leave some stuff open than spell out everything. Gotta use a bit of common sense.
What common sense would explain why Shepard has to fire at the tube while walking towards it?
Retour en haut