3598 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Yes Saren closed the arms. Sovereign then docked with the Citadel. If Saren closed it with the push of a button Shepard would be able to open it with the push of a button. Once Sovereign docks with the Citadel he takes control of it. Meaning that simple button push is no longer an option. So Shepard uploads the data file from Ilos into the Citadel's Master Control Unit to corrupt the Citadel's security protocols. Which in effect corrupts the Citadel systems Sovereign is now in control of. Which allows Shepard to not only open the arms but unlock the Relays around and clear the jaming that prevents Joker from contacting Shepard sooner. Things that Saren would be incapable of doing alone.

 

When the article complains about how Duce Ex Machina the Crucible is and how Shepard uses something without even vaugly understanding as a complaint. It isn't nitpicking anymore. It is showing them cherry picking what they want so they can continue to complain about something.

 

And yet you call ME 1 nit picking but you have issue with ME 2 pulling the exact same thing? Seems like cherry picking ignoring the blatant hypocrisy. When ME 1 does it then you are just nit picking. But when ME 2 or 3 does it then it is a terrible thing.  -rolls eyes-

 

Oh you don't have to like or agree with what the Reapers are doing. But to call them malevolent is only if you didn't pay attention to anything. Catalyst and the Reapers by extension aren't interested in causing harm. They only do so because they see it as the last and only option to prevent synesthetic from wiping out organics. Which is why the Catalyst even brings Shepard up and offers him the 4 choices. One of which results in the destruction of everything it has worked for.

 

Guy even complains about Shepard dying and not being sure if the Catalyst would honor what it said. And that is the point of the heroic sacrifice. The hero never knows if his actions saved everyone. They simply have faith their actions were the correct one.

 

Red vs Blue Season 13 Finale does a great little speech about this

https://youtu.be/7DOxqOnSWCE?t=8m43s

 

No he sees though no BS because they create their own by attempting to over simply everything to fit what they want rather then what really happens.

 

No they really don't need to stop with it. They fall short of what they are aiming for how ever the basis of what they mean are there and obvious enough for people to see what they are attempting and complete it themselves. Unless they are the author of that article and people that parrot the words there.

If Sovereign had control of the Citadel, the dark space relay would have opened and everyone's screwed.  Obviously that didn't happen.  Ergo, Sovereign did not have full control of the Citadel.  Shepard interrupted Saren before that could happen.

 

The Vigil program was essentially a pause button for whatever Saren was doing.  The Crucible rewrites the galaxy.   Are you seriously telling me you don't see a difference in proportion here?  This isn't apples and oranges, this is blueberries and watermelons.

 

And I have my own serious problems with ME2, son't think I ever gave it or its story a pass.  Just ask Alan.  I will, however, say ME3 makes ME2 look good in comparison.

 

The Reapers are wiping out billions, perhaps trillions of individual sapient beings each cycle.  If you don't see something very wrong with that then frankly I'm worried about you.

 

This wasn't just failing short of what they were aiming for.  The entire ending was pseudo-intellectual nonsense. To this day I still can't believe it actually got approved.  They obviously had no idea where they were going with the story, and just scribbled something down at the last minute and hoped the awesome buttons would conceal all sins.

[Dantriges]

What´s the complaint?

The computer file that Shep used to manipulate the Citadel? Funny thing is, you could have left out the whole file thing and just said, the console is open and waiting for commands and nobody would have batted an eyelash. Considering how hacking worked in the game, they could have used omnigel instead.

 

It´s actually explained. It´s a key to unlock and control the CMU, so you can shut down the jamming, open the arms, etc. What else do you need? Do you want the source code? A look at the interface?

Compared to our favorite magic stick which rewrites the galaxy, that´s nothing. You knew exactly what it did. Shep didn´t know what the Crucible does, until Reapa Commaner told us something. You threw the largest fleet of the galaxy at the reapers at the vague hope, that the countless constructors of this thing knew what they were doing and you actually had the complete plans with just the project description missing.

You were barely involved with anything concerning the Crucible. 

 

I agree there is some fishy stuff surrounding the data file and Shamus Young went over the whole Vigil stuff a little too lightly, OTOH who cares. You could have cut it and no one would have noticed. It was relevant for 10 minutes or so (excluding the time you need to fight up the tower). The Crucible reared its ugly head all the time with a lot of dunno, no idea and shrugs. But yeah you could probably nitpick ME 1 a ot more.

[sveners]

Guy even complains about Shepard dying and not being sure if the Catalyst would honor what it said. And that is the point of the heroic sacrifice. The hero never knows if his actions saved everyone. They simply have faith their actions were the correct one.

Indeed, there's a very thin line between hero and terrorist. Somewhat more pronounced when you actually kill yourself on blind faith though.

I daresay that killing yourself while activating a device is more akin to terrorism than throwing yourself over said device.

[sveners]

Doublepost

[Reorte]

Several reason I can think of and non of them fall on the good scale of human nature.
 
Basically any emotion or mental state that makes a person think they know better then everyone else. And everything must be set up 110% exactly how they want it to be done. If it doesn't match up with that set up then the person making it (in this case BioWare) has no clue what they are doing. Are idiots and only they know exactly the correct thing that should have been done. Because the correct way is the way they see it.

Or they didn't like it for sound reasons. Anything not perfect deserves a complaint (although a small one if it's a small bit of non-perfection). Something with a lot of problems deserves a lot of complaints, and the effect of lots of problems tends to be multiplicative, i.e. if there was just the odd one then they're more likely to get overlooked - no-one is perfect after all, but lots of them, well, each one just becomes more evidence that the whole thing stinks.

In short you've got nothing to base your accusation on except perhaps emotional state, and if it creates a bad emotional state then it's a failure, and therefore something to justifiably complain about. People who go on about the emotional state of those who dislike ME3 usually appear to have a disturbing lack of grasp of emotional behaviour and awareness.

[Reorte]

Guy even complains about Shepard dying and not being sure if the Catalyst would honor what it said. And that is the point of the heroic sacrifice. The hero never knows if his actions saved everyone. They simply have faith their actions were the correct one.

Ah, heroic sacrifice for the sake of it, and it was really contrived here. Besides, for it to be heroic there has to be an alternative (cowardly slink away).

[Prince Enigmatic]

Someone needs to come up with an alternate continuation of Mass Effect from Mass Effect 1 onwards to justify there endless complaints, over analysing, nitpicking, toxic forum dumping and just endless spewing of negativity on a Mass Effect forum.

General consensus on tho thread is, ME2 and ME3 were awful. ME1 was great. Drew Karpyshyn for the win.

Then come up with a solution to the latter two's problems, instead of, after all these years, just pointing and naysaying and not providing a resolution.

There is a difference I think in complaining about bad writing and stories, but to still do so all these years later and not come up with a solution to the problems? Just endlessly peg Bioware with insults, not matter how justified you feel they may be?

This is not a productive discussion, its just endless negativity. That retrospective that has been touted on here is proof you pick apart any story, especially one in video games, it isn't going to be as shiny perfect as initial expectations.

Instead of the same opinions on Mass Effect being endlessly recycled, perhaps this thread can become a bit more positive or productive, and instead discuss ways that the problems in writing could have been changed?

That, or a mod just locks this soul crushing thread asap.

[Vanilka]

Complaining about complaining, yeah, that makes sense.

 

Simplifying and misinterpreting opinions of people who think differently from you sure isn't insulting.

 

People have come up with many different ideas on how to fix the story already but it's not like anything can be changed at this point, so your point is...?

 

I do think the endless b1tching and negativity about the same things needs to end somewhere, but if people need to vent their frustrations and those frustrations are actually very legit complaints about the writing, who are you to tell them to stop? The discussion is usually actually rather civil or even humorous until somebody tries to derail it with being emotional and defensive about every single thing. You don't know these people. I finished the ME trilogy not long ago, so maybe I want to talk about it with people that understand? Am I allowed to do that? Are new players? Who decides this? Plus, this a forum where people come to discuss things, good and bad. Don't like it, don't hang around.

 

Reading through the posts, the positive thing you can derive from them is the realisation that people don't like contrivances, they don't like drama for the sake of drama, they don't like when writers disrespect their own story, characters and lore, they don't like when writing is shallow and can be nitpicked this much. What I find the best of everything, that gamers will not be happy with just any bullshit you throw at them. It shows gamers take their video games and their writing seriously and that they have standards and that they think about them a lot.

 

What's soul-crushing to me is that ME3 ends with a war crime no matter which ending you choose and the fact that the game tries to sell it as positive, and I want this to be known.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Or they didn't like it for sound reasons. Anything not perfect deserves a complaint (although a small one if it's a small bit of non-perfection). Something with a lot of problems deserves a lot of complaints, and the effect of lots of problems tends to be multiplicative, i.e. if there was just the odd one then they're more likely to get overlooked - no-one is perfect after all, but lots of them, well, each one just becomes more evidence that the whole thing stinks.

In short you've got nothing to base your accusation on except perhaps emotional state, and if it creates a bad emotional state then it's a failure, and therefore something to justifiably complain about. People who go on about the emotional state of those who dislike ME3 usually appear to have a disturbing lack of grasp of emotional behaviour and awareness.

 

Complaining about complaining, yeah, that makes sense.

 

Simplifying and misinterpreting opinions of people who think differently from you sure isn't insulting.

 

People have come up with many different ideas on how to fix the story already but it's not like anything can be changed at this point, so your point is...?

 

I do think the endless b1tching and negativity about the same things needs to end somewhere, but if people need to vent their frustrations and those frustrations are actually very legit complaints about the writing, who are you to tell them to stop? The discussion is usually actually rather civil or even humorous until somebody tries to derail it with being emotional and defensive about every single thing. You don't know these people. I finished the ME trilogy not long ago, so maybe I want to talk about it with people that understand? Am I allowed to do that? Are new players? Who decides this? Plus, this a forum where people come to discuss things, good and bad. Don't like it, don't hang around.

 

Reading through the posts, the positive thing you can derive from them is the realisation that people don't like contrivances, they don't like drama for the sake of drama, they don't like when writers disrespect their own story, characters and lore, they don't like when the writing is shallow and can be nitpicked this much. What I find the best of everything, that gamers will not be happy with just any bullshit you throw at them. It shows gamers take their video games and their writing seriously and that they have standards and that they think about them a lot.

 

What's soul-crushing to me is that ME3 ends with a war crime no matter which ending you choose and the fact that the game tries to sell them as positive, and I want this to be known.

 

In a weird way though it makes me feel validated about my views on the ending.

 

So onwards I complain!

 

Also don't think every complaint is coming from a place of vitriol. For me personally ME2 is not only my favorite game in the trilogy but a game I regularly still play, and all I do is complain about it. Other people have displayed similar views.

[gothpunkboy89]

Complaining about complaining, yeah, that makes sense.

 

Simplifying and misinterpreting opinions of people who think differently from you sure isn't insulting.

 

People have come up with many different ideas on how to fix the story already but it's not like anything can be changed at this point, so your point is...?

 

I do think the endless b1tching and negativity about the same things needs to end somewhere, but if people need to vent their frustrations and those frustrations are actually very legit complaints about the writing, who are you to tell them to stop? The discussion is usually actually rather civil or even humorous until somebody tries to derail it with being emotional and defensive about every single thing. You don't know these people. I finished the ME trilogy not long ago, so maybe I want to talk about it with people that understand? Am I allowed to do that? Are new players? Who decides this? Plus, this a forum where people come to discuss things, good and bad. Don't like it, don't hang around.

 

Reading through the posts, the positive thing you can derive from them is the realisation that people don't like contrivances, they don't like drama for the sake of drama, they don't like when writers disrespect their own story, characters and lore, they don't like when the writing is shallow and can be nitpicked this much. What I find the best of everything, that gamers will not be happy with just any bullshit you throw at them. It shows gamers take their video games and their writing seriously and that they have standards and that they think about them a lot.

 

What's soul-crushing to me is that ME3 ends with a war crime no matter which ending you choose and the fact that the game tries to sell them as positive, and I want this to be known.

 

It is insulting when they use over simplifications as validation to complain. See the funny thing is video games and indeed any story is based on contrivances and drama. Again I return to Marvel Avengers movie. Loki's staff and the Tesseract both serve as contrivances. AKA something that causes things to happen in a story in a way that does not seem natural or believable. The entire bit were the team seems to break apart right before the end is drama for the sake of drama. Captain America Civil War another well received movie is build on drama for the sake of drama. Bucky's entire existence is a contrivance. I mean how many times does he get shot at and some how the bullets only ever hit his metal arm. And funny enough nameless marvel villain # 9 is both. The ending of the movie is pure drama for the sake of drama. Yet both movies are massively popular.  EA would sell their own mother to have Mass Effect Series be as popular as those two Marvel movies are.

 

The story, characters, and lore are not disrespected. Usually when people pull that they try to us examples like Tali not wanting to out her father during her trial. Because apparently a daughter who just found out her father is dead might want to attempt to save his reputation to the general public. Rather then rat him out for her own skin. Particularly since he was driven to do that because he wanted to have Tali be able to live on the home world. 

 

Over simplification of points BioWare were attempting to make so they can find something to complain about isn't nitpicking. Nitpicking is pointing out that between kinetic and biotic barriers adepts, vanguards and sentinels should be able to tank more damage then the other classes. Turning the Reapers from a mildly complex beings with mildly complex reasons behind their actions into a simplistic Reaper= evil isn't nitpicking. It is ignoring or altering what is being presented to you in a form you can easily complain about.

 

From the start of ME 1 I never saw the Reapers as evil or malevolent. A bit egotistical but from a Reaper stand point Shepard and crew are the equivalent to what we see in a dog or a cat. They are a threat but only in the same way a wolf is a threat to a deer. Their plan while involving a lot of death still has allowed despite hundreds to thousands of times being repeated allowed life to flourish in the galaxy. Considering the power they the ability to end all life in the galaxy is well within their power and yet they choose not to. They could raise species to be slaves for them completely under their domination from the moment they develop basic society till they deem them developed enough to be harvested. But they don't they give them the free ability to grow, develop and expand to a certain point then they harvest them.

 

All for the reason that even today people are worried about. And why do people claim this is BS? Geth because 1 year of working with organics to prevent their mutual death some how over rides near genocide of the Quarian race and 300 years of treating organic ships like target practice. And EDI a singular AI some how means everything the Reapers try to do is pointless. And this is all ignoring the fact that the Reapers to the average person in the galaxy would look at them as the apex of the synthetic problem.

 

Or to put this another way in US and I'm sure other countries there is a lot of anti Muslim feelings from some people due to the actions of ultimately a minority of people of the Muslim faith. Now picture that same group setting off a nuclear bomb in New York, Atlanta, LA, London, Paris,etc. The amount of anti Muslim backlash for again ultimately only a minority of that group would only be about 4% of what they galaxy would feel about synesthetic post Reaper War. So even in an ending were EDI and the Geth survive the hatred of synthetics would be thriving heavily almost ensuring a confrontation.

 

And before you claim well the Reapers caused that shows how bad they were. AI research before the Reapers and before the Geth was already illegal. Post Morning War they really cracked down on it heavily. Which means organics were only allowing computer to develop so far before they put an end to it. If an AI was formed it was either heavily controlled or destroyed if it developed to much and they could no longer control it. Doesn't that sound familiar? Were a group allows a life form to develop only so far before stepping in and wiping it out.

 

But these subtle nuances are ignored because it doesn't allow them to complain about the Reapers and about the writing job.

[Prince Enigmatic]

It is insulting when they use over simplifications as validation to complain. See the funny thing is video games and indeed any story is based on contrivances and drama. Again I return to Marvel Avengers movie. Loki's staff and the Tesseract both serve as contrivances. AKA something that causes things to happen in a story in a way that does not seem natural or believable. The entire bit were the team seems to break apart right before the end is drama for the sake of drama. Captain America Civil War another well received movie is build on drama for the sake of drama. Bucky's entire existence is a contrivance. I mean how many times does he get shot at and some how the bullets only ever hit his metal arm. And funny enough nameless marvel villain # 9 is both. The ending of the movie is pure drama for the sake of drama. Yet both movies are massively popular.  EA would sell their own mother to have Mass Effect Series be as popular as those two Marvel movies are.

 

 

For the most part? I sort of agree here.

 

I find, that video game stories are placed under an extra light of scrutiny, because video games are able to provoke much stronger emotional responses from gamers because they can take time to tell their story, to develop characters etc. much like television, with recent good examples being Daredevil and Jessica Jones. 

 

Plus interactivity makes us feel much more attached and protective, and there is all sorts that goes into much deeper detail how games sink their hooks into gamers and when problems arise, it provokes such dangerously varying reactions that it shows how hard games have it sometimes.

 

Just look at the reaction to the No Man's Sky delay, a game that hasn't even come out yet.

 

For the most part, in terms of video game storytelling, I think BioWare have done a good job with their franchises, and the majority of gaming journalism agree that as a whole, the Mass Effect trilogy tells one of the best stories in gaming. 

I've played a lot of story driven games, and series wise, none come close to how Mass Effect told its story, its rich universe, and the emotions it provoked in me.

 

There is dissonance between gameplay and storytelling, but it is no way near as jarring as some games, with recent examples being Rise of the Tomb Raider and Uncharted 4. 

 

Opinions will vary on what good storytelling in games are and should be, and whether there are much better examples than Mass Effect, but video game stories as a whole have not reached a standard yet where the rest of the media industry wholly takes it seriously, or begin to stop treating video games with disdain that can be seen from news outlets.

Not sure where I'm trying to get to with this, but maybe its just me trying to sort of summarise that for me, I think Mass Effect has done a great thing with its three games and its story, and the scrutiny it has been placed under by the likes of Shamus and others shows that you dig deep enough, even video game stories are going to have poor writing, but that doesn't mean the games and stories are no less entertaining, and for a lot of people, good, for how the stories makes them feel.

[rossler]

What's soul-crushing to me is that ME3 ends with a war crime no matter which ending you choose and the fact that the game tries to sell them as positive, and I want this to be known.

 

I suppose by war crime you are referring to the Reaper's solutions?

 

The game trying to convince you that the Reaper solutions are good and ideal is actually well documented throughout the series. 

 

It happened before with Saren and the Illusive Man, as well as many others. Now it's happening to Shepard, or the player. 

[Monica21]

Someone needs to come up with an alternate continuation of Mass Effect from Mass Effect 1 onwards to justify there endless complaints, over analysing, nitpicking, toxic forum dumping and just endless spewing of negativity on a Mass Effect forum.

General consensus on tho thread is, ME2 and ME3 were awful. ME1 was great. Drew Karpyshyn for the win.

Then come up with a solution to the latter two's problems, instead of, after all these years, just pointing and naysaying and not providing a resolution.

No, because it's not my job to come up with a different ending. I am not the producer of the product. I am the consumer of the product. So you can see how that might be bit of a problem. Even if someone did come up with alternate storylines for ME2 and ME3, we can't play through those. Those alternates will never be canon, even if they are universally agreed up by the fanbase as much better stories. You don't get to magically erase the previous stories and Become Shepard all over again. That's not how it works.
 

There is a difference I think in complaining about bad writing and stories, but to still do so all these years later and not come up with a solution to the problems? Just endlessly peg Bioware with insults, not matter how justified you feel they may be?

There is no solution. People are coming to the game new. I just finished it not long after Vanilka. When word of Andromeda spreads people may start picking up the original trilogy. There will always be new people to a game, and to tell them that you're just tired of hearing it so they don't get to voice an opinion that falls within forum guidelines is a bit over my own tolerance level.
 

This is not a productive discussion, its just endless negativity. That retrospective that has been touted on here is proof you pick apart any story, especially one in video games, it isn't going to be as shiny perfect as initial expectations.

Instead of the same opinions on Mass Effect being endlessly recycled, perhaps this thread can become a bit more positive or productive, and instead discuss ways that the problems in writing could have been changed?

That, or a mod just locks this soul crushing thread asap.

This isn't soul crushing. You're just annoyed by it, which is fine, but call it what it is. And forum participation is entirely voluntary. So don't click the link.

[AlanC9]

Indeed, there's a very thin line between hero and terrorist. Somewhat more pronounced when you actually kill yourself on blind faith though.
I daresay that killing yourself while activating a device is more akin to terrorism than throwing yourself over said device.

Wait a minute. By that definition kamikaze pilots were terrorists, and the Tsarnaev brothers were not.

[Prince Enigmatic]

There is no solution. People are coming to the game new. I just finished it not long after Vanilka. When word of Andromeda spreads people may start picking up the original trilogy. There will always be new people to a game, and to tell them that you're just tired of hearing it so they don't get to voice an opinion that falls within forum guidelines is a bit over my own tolerance level.
 

 

I didn't think that there may be people still coming to the franchise, and thus coming here to express there fresh reactions to the game, and for that I do sincerely apologize, my previous post was a bit too heated and I wasn't thinking as carefully as I should have done about what I was typing.

 

I still stand by my thinking that this thread should maybe move towards being a more productive discussion. 

 

I haven't been agreeing with a lot of what gothpunkboy89 has been posting, but like you said, he too is voicing an opinion and he shouldn't have had to get all those insults because of that, which is why I said that this thread has become a toxic dumping ground, I didn't mean to insult anyone by that, its just how I feel this thread has become. A lot of back and forth insulting, which is not within the forum guidelines.

 

I should probably not keep coming to this thread, as I feel my own feelings about the games make me more passionate about seeing the negative opinions become more productive instead of just repeating the same criticisms that don't go anywhere.

[Vanilka]

I had to divide the post because it doesn't allow me to address so many points separately, sorry. So, part one:
 

It is insulting when they use over simplifications as validation to complain.

You've missed the point of my post, so I'll leave this be.

 

See the funny thing is video games and indeed any story is based on contrivances and drama.

Drama? Sure. Nothing against drama as long as it's not made shallow and stupid. Contrivances? When they break suspension of disbelief, absolutely not. I agree that every piece of fiction is probably a little contrived - e.g. the hero survives several unlikely life-threatening situations. However, it's another thing entirely when the contrivance is so messy that you don't understand e.g. why your character acts so stupid or e.g. you get a device like the Crucible (which I already explained earlier).
 

Again I return to Marvel Avengers movie...

No, you don't. I'm not going to talk about unrelated media that have nothing to do with Mass Effect. Although actually... recently Marvel pulled an awful move with making Captain America a nazi all along for some edgy plot twist. Captain America who punched Hitler on the cover of his very first comic book, somebody who's stood for the good fight the entire time. It is tasteless. (And of course, it made the fandom that loves Captain America for being the good guy explode. Hell, CHRIS EVANS that plays the role of Captain America in the movies, somebody who's embodied the character for quite some time, who's had to learn to be in Captain's head, expressed his disgust at this.) That's what I felt like when finishing ME3. But, you know, what? It'd be easier to swallow if everything around it wasn't such a mess.
 

EA would sell their own mother to have Mass Effect Series be as popular as those two Marvel movies are.

And you actually think that is a good thing???
 

The story, characters, and lore are not disrespected. Usually when people pull that they try to us examples like Tali not wanting to...

Has nothing to do with anything I have said and I have never seen this argument made. I think Tali is perfectly fine in that part and I've mostly heard praise about that mission. Rightfully so. It is well made.
 

Over simplification of points BioWare were attempting to make...

By that comment I was addressing the post above and not BioWare, so that comment is born of misunderstanding and I will leave it be.
 

From the start of ME 1 I never saw the Reapers as evil or malevolent...

I guess you missed the part of the story when a sapient machine communicates to creatures it apparently recognises as sapient as well that "You will end because we demand it," and the fact that they're planning to annihilate all advanced species.
 
Either way, does it matter? I think the fact we're discussing this is a good thing because we're discussing what happens in the game and related matters, not complaining about the writing any more. This has nothing to do with ranting or wanting to change things. When we're musing about the nature of the Reapers and other things, that's definitely positive, don't you think? We've actually done a lot of that in this very thread. Thinking that the Reapers are evil or whatever isn't a complaint. Discussing whether or not it is bad that they're killing organics and whether or not they're doing them a favour is also not complaining. It's pondering about the information we've been given. As far as I'm concerned, that's great.
 

[Vanilka]

Part two:
 

All for the reason that even today people are worried about. And why do people claim this is BS? Geth because 1 year of working with organics to prevent their mutual death some how over rides near genocide of the Quarian race and 300 years of treating organic ships like target practice. And EDI a singular AI some how means everything the Reapers try to do is pointless. And this is all ignoring the fact that the Reapers to the average person in the galaxy would look at them as the apex of the synthetic problem.

 
Except that nowhere in the game are synthetics presented as unbeatable or a problem that threatens the entire galaxy. The only actual synthetic threat are the Reapers that are also revealed to be the ones responsible behind the geth on Eden Prime and other aggressive geth. No matter how you solve Rannoch, it always shows you that either 1) geth are willing to cooperate and make up with the quarians, 2) are beatable, or 3) are willing to cooperate with all the other organics that don't threaten their existence. You will excuse me then that I struggle to believe the Catalyst.
 

Or to put this another way in US and I'm sure other countries there is a lot of anti Muslim feelings from some people due to the actions of ultimately a minority of people of the Muslim faith...

 
And that is racist and xenophobic, isn't it? Yet the ending wants me to believe that about all synthetics, despite the fact the game showed us that they can also be allies and friends. You can't set up a significant part of synthetics as quite human and willing to cooperate and then tell me that war with them is inevitable. OF COURSE I'm going to fight that notion because I've found friends and harmless individuals among them. Just like I wouldn't turn against an entire real life race just because somebody tells me to. What I find sad is that the game worked really hard to make us understand synthetics, you know? And then the Catalyst just throws them all on the same pile. It doesn't seem unfair to you?
 

And before you claim well the Reapers caused that shows how bad they were. AI research before the Reapers and before the Geth was already illegal.

Of course. The Council also forbids the creation of organic sapient species because of ethical reasons. Synthetic life, as Mass Effect knows it, is a complicated issue. With geth we've seen how thin the line between having servants and having slaves is.
 

But these subtle nuances are ignored because it doesn't allow them to complain about the Reapers and about the writing job.

 
These subtle nuances being ignored is why we're angry, though.
 

 

I suppose by war crime you are referring to the Reaper's solutions?
 
The game trying to convince you that the Reaper solutions are good and ideal is actually well documented throughout the series. 
 
It happened before with Saren and the Illusive Man, as well as many others. Now it's happening to Shepard, or the player.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. Might you explain?

As you said, however, these solutions were presented by the games' antagonists. But that's not so much my problem because I like to think for myself anyway. My problem is that the ending offers genocide, eugenics or slavery (or treason) as solutions (in addition to submitting to the enemy, which Shepard mentioned several times as unacceptable). Not only I have a problem with what leads to these moments (I explained earlier in the thread.), but I also think that the fact it disguises them as something positive in the end is horrifying and that perhaps the writer didn't realise this. (I mentioned making Captain America a nazi earlier in this post and how I find it tasteless. Sure, nobody can forbid the writers from going that way, but it is an extremely risky path to walk and for good reasons. Many people will and do consider it disrespectful towards the character and his history and origin.) The game shows you nothing of the consequences of what you have done, either - I killed EDI and the geth. I KILLED EDI AND THE GETH, which the game worked so hard to set up as people, and I saw nothing of it besides EDI's name on the memorial wall. I did something horrible and it wasn't addressed at all. I literally got away with mass murder and everything was awesome. Does it make sense why it bothers me? I don't NEED to come to an agreement here, I'm just looking for understanding.

[Vanilka]

I didn't think that there may be people still coming to the franchise, and thus coming here to express there fresh reactions to the game, and for that I do sincerely apologize, my previous post was a bit too heated and I wasn't thinking as carefully as I should have done about what I was typing.
 
I still stand by my thinking that this thread should maybe move towards being a more productive discussion. 
 
I haven't been agreeing with a lot of what gothpunkboy89 has been posting, but like you said, he too is voicing an opinion and he shouldn't have had to get all those insults because of that, which is why I said that this thread has become a toxic dumping ground, I didn't mean to insult anyone by that, its just how I feel this thread has become. A lot of back and forth insulting, which is not within the forum guidelines.
 
I should probably not keep coming to this thread, as I feel my own feelings about the games make me more passionate about seeing the negative opinions become more productive instead of just repeating the same criticisms that don't go anywhere.

 
In a way, I do agree with you. And, hell, I wouldn't mind if somebody put this thread out of its misery, either. But mostly because it's been all over the place and we do get stuck in circular arguments pretty often. I also would prefer if, regardless of our opinions and whether we agree or disagree, we simply remained civil (which I have already stated earlier). And that applies to BOTH sides of the fence and everybody in between. (There's been a lot of passive aggressive, subtle jabs flying around, which of course in turn makes the targeted people react negatively.) On the other hand, you find out that it is rather difficult to have a discussion with certain individuals here if you happen to engage with them, no matter how hard you try, and at some point one side loses patience entirely. (I've been guilty of this and I acknowledge that. I don't feel good about it, either.) It's not nice and it shouldn't happen, but it's complicated. I do agree we should try to remain civil, though. All of us.
 
You know what I like about this thread, though? Every single person here, I believe, is incredibly passionate about the franchise. Hell, we play tug-o-war about super minor details like how the Citadel works and whether or not the Catalyst should be able to access this or that part of it. It's not just about complaining. I mean, LOOK HOW MUCH PEOPLE HERE KNOW ABOUT THE GAME, some of those are super tiny things an average player that plays through the game and then moves onto another might not even think about. A lot of time we don't even argue about how bad the writing is, but about what the lore says about this or that issue and what it means in larger scope of things. If that's not a testament about how much we're obsessed with this franchise and what kind of lasting impact it's made, then I don't know what is. Although I understand how that can get drowned in all the noise.

[sveners]

Wait a minute. By that definition kamikaze pilots were terrorists, and the Tsarnaev brothers were not.

Did you reply to my previous answer?

I made no definition. I made a general statement.

Use some context. The kamikaze pilots were dying to save their nation. They knew what they were doing, and what results they could expect.

The Brothers were the same way.

Can you say that about Shepard?

[Shechinah]

Although actually... recently Marvel pulled an awful move with making Captain America a nazi all along for some edgy plot twist. Captain America who punched Hitler on the cover of his very own comic book, somebody who's stood for the good fight. It is tasteless. (And of course, it made the fandom that loves Captain America for being the good guy explode. Hell, CHRIS EVANS that plays the role of Captain America in the movies, somebody who's embodied the character for quite some time, who's had to learn to be in Captain's head, expressed is disgust at this.)

 

What made what seemed to have happened with Captain America even more terrible in the eyes of a number of people was that Joe Simon and Jack Kirby, the creators of Captain America, were Jewish.  

 

From what I've heard, though, Marvel do seem to be going with the ol' mindrolled-and-controlled.

 

[AlanC9]

Did you reply to my previous answer?
I made no definition. I made a general statement.
Use some context. The kamikaze pilots were dying to save their nation. They knew what they were doing, and what results they could expect.
The Brothers were the same way.
Can you say that about Shepard?

But what does dying for your nation have to do with terrorism? The Tsarnaev brothers were certainly terrorists, but did not intend to die. They planted their bombs and made their escape. One got killed by the cops later, but that wasn't the plan. A kamikaze pilot, like any other suicide bomber, did plan to die in the course of the mission. But I don't see how attacking a warship counts as "terrorism."

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Shepard. By the time Shepard can actually choose Control or Destroy, her chances of survival are just about zero. Refuse is obviously a non-starter as far as survival goes too. Destroy's got the best chance of personal survival and, as it happens, can pay off.

[rossler]

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. Might you explain?

As you said, however, these solutions were presented by the games' antagonists. But that's not so much my problem because I like to think for myself anyway. My problem is that the ending offers genocide, eugenics or slavery (or treason) as solutions (in addition to submitting to the enemy, which Shepard mentioned several times as unacceptable). Not only I have a problem with what leads to these moments (I explained earlier in the thread.), but I also think that the fact it disguises them as something positive in the end is horrifying and that perhaps the writer didn't realise this. (I mentioned making Captain America a nazi earlier in this post and how I find it tasteless. Sure, nobody can forbid the writers from going that way, but it is an extremely risky path to walk and for good reasons. Many people will and do consider it disrespectful towards the character and his history and origin.) The game shows you nothing of the consequences of what you have done, either - I killed EDI and the geth. I KILLED EDI AND THE GETH, which the game worked so hard to set up as people, and I saw nothing of it besides EDI's name on the memorial wall. I did something horrible and it wasn't addressed at all. I literally got away with mass murder and everything was awesome. Does it make sense why it bothers me? I don't NEED to come to an agreement here, I'm just looking for understanding.

 

Well I have a little theory which goes something like this. Why else would all of these options be giving the Reapers what they want?

[Monica21]

But what does dying for your nation have to do with terrorism? The Tsarnaev brothers were certainly terrorists, but did not intend to die. They planted their bombs and made their escape. One got killed by the cops later, but that wasn't the plan. A kamikaze pilot, like any other suicide bomber, did plan to die in the course of the mission. But I don't see how attacking a warship counts as "terrorism."

This is neither here nor there, but I can see the argument for kamikaze pilots being terrorists. The Emporer of Japan was a god-king, so by killing themselves in service to their country, you can more broadly argue that they were killing themselves in service to their god.

To be fair, my definition of terrorism has more to do with the targets themselves. If it's a civilian target attacked by a suicide bomber, then definitely terrorism. If it's a military target, I think it's more gray, but that might just be a product of the time in which we live. I don't remember if Reagan called the bombings in Beirut terrorism, but I could easily make an argument that it was, despite it being a military target.

Anyway, sorry for the tangent.

[Vanilka]

Well I have a little theory which goes something like this. Why else would all of these options be giving the Reapers what they want?

 

I say why not. We can't prove it or prove otherwise because the game doesn't go much into the device's origin. For what it's worth, it's a good theory. However, then wouldn't it be strange that it included an option to destroy or control them? I suppose that could be explained through the work and additions of other cycles. None of it is really explained in the game, though, so all we have are theories.

 

My problem with that would be and with the Crucible as such is mostly that countless cycles worked on it without knowing of the existence of the Catalyst. Yet they successfully added extra parts to it. Our cycle had absolutely no idea what it does or where it goes until almost the end of the game. It also successfully added a new part to it (the remains of the Reaper larva) somehow. That really strains what I'm able to believe.

 

Anyway, I'm repeating myself and thus I'm shutting up about that. Either way, I think people here come up with many interesting, creative theories. I wouldn't mind seeing some of them realised in the game.

[rossler]

However, then wouldn't it be strange that it included an option to destroy or control them? 

 

Not really. They can give you the power to destroy them, and make it look like a really bad choice (death of EDI, Geth, etc), and so people don't choose it. Had there been no strings attached, then everyone would want to destroy the Reapers. 

 

Controlling the Reapers has always been sort of a no-no, as we saw from the Illusive Man. 

 

Some people just feel sorry for the Reapers, because they are prisoners to their creator, so they don't destroy them.

 

I personally destroy them every time. 

 

I say why not. We can't prove it or prove otherwise because the game doesn't go much into the device's origin.

 

You have this.