1042 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

Yeah, sorry, none of my destroy Shepards "submitted" to anything. And they didn't wipe out the entire galaxy, either.

[Natureguy85]

Sorry for the post bombs but I had to deal with our residentdope and then there were a lot of good posts!

 

It appears that Synthesis only works if the galaxy is in sufficient harmony, which is why it requires the most war assets to unlock; effectively, Synthesis being unlocked is a sign that the galaxy has been brought together to a degree strong enough for it to work. How this is determined, I have no idea, but it's the only way that line makes sense.

 

 

 

It's unclear what exactly the Catalyst means when he says "you are ready." Does it mean the galaxy? Does it mean Shepard? What about that "it is not something that can be forced," line? This seemed like it was "borrowed" from The Matrix Reloaded. "Choice. The problem is choice."

 

 

 

*reads through assorted posts and decides that it was a waste of time*

 

Gee, this is like the ME3 forums all over again - only with the OP's grammar error the thread title thrown in to drive me nuts!

 

The only thing I really have to say is in response to everyone in the universe who hates Synthesis: Destroy, Control, and Refusal are the worst. Long live Synthesis!

 

I used to write intelligent and rational posts on the subject, but at this point, I would say the main reason that I support Synthesis is because in a utopian future, I probably wouldn't have to still be reading about people complaining/venting/whatever over the ME3 endings and their impact/lack of impact on other games in the ME series years and years and years and even more years after ME3 was released. /endsnark

 

Synthesis is the worst ending and just whitewashes its problems with its flowery, happy language. However, your last paragraph was funny.

 

 

 

 

Speaking of which, is Bio's design intent in play in this debate, or have we moved on to a pure interpretation exercise?

 

It's a mix of both for me. If I can tell what they were trying to do, I will use intent in deciding how to interpret something that might not be clear. However, if the writing describes something rather clearly, say, a black SUV, then it doesn't matter if the writer intended to describe a red minivan. The text still describes a black SUV. This tends to come up when I discuss themes and get the challenge of if I think I know what the story was about better than the writers.

 

 

 

 

When you have the option to actually get peace then it's really morally questionable to pick one side over the other when it's made pretty clear to you they're going to massacre the losers. But if you don't have that option, it's hard to say it's genocide - Shepard is caught between two viscious sides that want to exterminate one another. It's a bit too late to cry over the Quarians insanity and hard on for exterminating the geth at that point, and they were already gripping the idiot ball tighter than reasonably possible.

 

Does it matter that the Geth only massacre the Quarians in self defense? This is why I don't like how heavily they tipped the scales toward the Quarians being the bad guys. I partially do like that being the case in the ancient history, but less so for the current Quarians. It's also as though we're supposed to remember that the Quarians were the aggressors but forget that the Geth still slaughtered most of the population, far beyond what could have been military or police. To be fair, I think the latter does get mentioned, though maybe that's in ME2.

 

 

 

TTG does seem to be losing control of his tone lately. I don't think he's actually giving up on trying to convince people ..... that his fanfic is what Bio really wrote? Is that still the topic?

 

He's been like that the entire time. I don't think he was ever trying to convince anyone in the normal sense. He wanted to be told he was brilliant and when that didn't happen, he went about beating people over the head with his ideas.

 

 

 

Yeah, dude... since when did it become Fact that AI is so much like life that we toss around words like genocide so easily.

 

Fun's fun, but geez. Hudson himself said he created the game merely to pose questions. Not to dispense answers. That's up to you. None of us know ****... because it doesn't exist yet.

 

I don't know; while they do allow you to have Shepard disagree, the actual story seems to fall firmly on the side that the AIs are people.

 

 

 

It doesn't destroy their free will.

 

 

They retain their memories and identity from before, they're just vastly expanded.

 

As Saren said, "Sovereign has... upgraded me."

 

 

 

 

Going back to the original question, assuming you can't convince the Quarians and Geth to make peace, the question of whether it is genocide to destroy a race of robots becomes rather irrelevant.

 

1. The Geth have a history of working with the Reapers, and are now in the process of recieving a Reaper "Upgrade".

 

2. You don't really know at this point if the Geth won't simply become all "heretics" and attack you on-sight once the upgrade is complete.

 

3. Destroying the Quarians is most certainly genocide.

 

My conclusion is that if peace is impossible, a logical commander Shepard would choose the Quarians over the Geth any day.

The Geth are a wild card at best and a potential enemy at worst.

 

Emphasis mine. This is a really good point especially considering there is already an example of a war asset biting you in the back: saving the cloned Rachni Queen.

 

 

 

 

 

Except, you know, the people who worked on assembling it and who watched the thing get built.

The notion that Walters and Hudson somehow snuck in the ending is hogwash.

 

Why would the people in charge have to sneak it in?

 

 

 

Unfortunately, it's true. People tolerated space magic, contradictions, and ass-pull explanations throughout the trilogy, up until it came to defeating the Reapers without actual tough repercussions. Then, things like "conventional victory" and a desire for a literal Reaper-off button surface.

 

I think this is disingenuous. The story could have been set up for a conventional victory to be more possible and there's no reason that wouldn't have dire repercussions. This would require changes as far back as ME2, of course.

 

The Reapers divide and conquer when they invade. If they can overpower the combined might of the galaxy, this isn't necessary. It would be better to heard everyone together as happens in ME3.  This cycle has advantages though.

 

1) Advanced warning

 

2) A dead Reaper to take technology from

 

3) Diverse groups united to fight the Reapers.

 

4) Knowledge of where the Reapers are hibernating and a possible way to get there.

 

There were ways to write a more conventional victory. However, something like the Crucible could also have worked if it had been done a lot better. In Mass Effect, Shepard uncovers the Thorian and the Rachnii while investigating Geth. In Mass Effect 2, TIM and Cerberus find the IFF  and in ME3, Liara finds the Crucible plans. Shepard is relegated to courier service.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

I sort of agree with the subject line of this thread. But on the other hand, ME3's ending was [maybe not literal] poop, so maybe it should be swept under the rug.

[Natureguy85]

Sure. They wanted players to speculate on what the MEU would look like in all three endings, and their many permutations, without burdening them with even more railroading.

 

And then the EC nailed a lot of things down when players brought up the unfortunate ultimate results of those endings that the writers seemed to have not thought about.

 

 

 

Oh, are you one of the Lovecraftian /Cthulhu mystery believers who thought Sovereign's exposition about order and chaos, technological paths they desire, and systematic cycles weren't baiting an explanation?

 

Some explanation was warranted but it didn't have to try so hard to be deep and profound, nor elevate a B-plot to the main overarching conflict.

 

 

 

The ME3 ending actually does this, through EMS and the geth-quarian decision.
 

What was so crucial about the Leviathan DLC? It filled gaps, but the story functioned well enough with the gaps it filled.

I agree that Leviathan enriches the experience, though.

 

But EMS doesn't reflect choice very well. It's just a score and there is no regard for from where that score comes. They went through the trouble to make all those categories, but didn't do any differentiating. I think that would have been cool. They made the three Normandy upgrades come into play at three different points of the attack on the Collector base.

 

Leviathan was an attempt to introduce the idea of the Catalyst earlier to make it seem like less of an asspull. Without it, all you have is one line from Vendetta on Thessia that the characters move right past and never discuss again.

 

 

I still don't see the difference between the magic portals the series is built around and the abilities of the catalyst. It all seems equally like space magic to me. Not that I agree that there's anything wrong with that.

 

The big difference is where they come in the story. The "magic portals," assuming you mean the Relays, are introduced immediately as part of the setting. It's starting the story by saying "pretend there are these things called Mass Relays" and we accept them at the start so we can enjoy the story that follows. Traveling through a Relay is the first thing that actually happens as the very first scene is just dialogue.

 

The Catalyst and Crucible/Citadel things, on the other hand, are introduced at the very end of the trilogy with little to nothing leading up to what they actually are.

 

I really like the illustration on this Deus ex Machina page to convey the last point.

 

 

 

 

 

My Shepards haven't been able to live with themselves since the fatal ending choice of ME1.

Hell, maybe they could've said something different to save Jenkins. That haunts their nightmares.

 

Wouldn't it have been better if someone like Jenkins actually did haunt Shepard's nightmares rather than Some Kid?

[dreamgazer]

Why would the people in charge have to sneak it in?

If it's such a contentious piece of work that the other writers argue against, they would have to, yes?
 
Like I said, tons of other eyes saw this thing, in many different stages. Believing otherwise is silly.
 

I think this is disingenuous. The story could have been set up for a conventional victory to be more possible and there's no reason that wouldn't have dire repercussions. This would require changes as far back as ME2, of course.

Back further than that. We're getting into rewriting the entire trilogy.
 

The Reapers divide and conquer when they invade. If they can overpower the combined might of the galaxy, this isn't necessary.

Of course it is. Dividing and conquering minimizes casualties and prevents most organics from doing stupid stuff like mass suicide and destroying their local relays. There's no reason to bombard the galaxy and create mass panic, thus mass destruction, if you don't have to.

There were ways to write a more conventional victory.

Sure, but not credible ones.

However, something like the Crucible could also have worked if it had been done a lot better. In Mass Effect, Shepard uncovers the Thorian and the Rachnii while investigating Geth. In Mass Effect 2, TIM and Cerberus find the IFF  and in ME3, Liara finds the Crucible plans. Shepard is relegated to courier service.

Well, Shepard was pointed at both Noveria and Feros in the hunt for the Conduit, though, and didn't really uncover much of anything at their own accord. Those things fell into Shepard's lap, too.

[The Twilight God]

I believe Iakus's position is that it doesn't feel like Shepard lives in high-EMS Destroy, even though intellectually we all know it to be true.

Intellectually, no. Emotionally we believe it. What we choose to believe is a product of how said belief make us feel emotionally. Shepard surviving makes us feel good so we are drawn to that conclusion over more dire possibilities.

To intellectually know would require hard evidence. All we know is that he takes a breath. That could be his last breath, he could die in the hospital hours later, etc. We don't KNOW. There is nothing concrete that I can fathom to prove he survived.

[KaiserShep]

Intellectually, no. Emotionally we believe it. What we choose to believe is a product of how said belief make us feel emotionally. Shepard surviving makes us feel good so we are drawn to that conclusion over more dire possibilities.To intellectually know would require hard evidence. All we know is that he takes a breath. That could be his last breath, he could die in the hospital hours later, etc. We don't KNOW. There is nothing concrete that I can fathom to prove he survived.

Or Shepard could slip on a bar of soap and break her neck in the shower. Good thing soap bars were eliminated from the market in 2136.

[dreamgazer]

And then the EC nailed a lot of things down when players brought up the unfortunate ultimate results of those endings that the writers seemed to have not thought about.

Right. BioWare pulled out the spoons.
 

Some explanation was warranted but it didn't have to try so hard to be deep and profound, nor elevate a B-plot to the main overarching conflict.

It wasn't all that deep or profound, though, nor was it trying too hard to be.

It asks the player to think about the organic-synthetic balance, then forced them to make a sacrificial choice, like the previous two games (alien-human politics and relations, ethics of scientific research and value of human lives).
 

But EMS doesn't reflect choice very well. It's just a score and there is no regard for from where that score comes.

It reflects choice well enough. Role-playing games have been doing this for a very long time. What makes a Sword +1? Why is their Wisdom 16? Etc.

You surmise.
 

They went through the trouble to make all those categories, but didn't do any differentiating.

How many categories do we need?
 

I think that would have been cool. They made the three Normandy upgrades come into play at three different points of the attack on the Collector base.

And it all amounts to the same conclusion. Unless you deliberately try to get Shepard killed, it's the same damn narrative.
 

Leviathan was an attempt to introduce the idea of the Catalyst earlier to make it seem like less of an asspull. Without it, all you have is one line from Vendetta on Thessia that the characters move right past and never discuss again.

What further are they going to say about it? Are they going to ruminate on its intelligence?

Leviathan once again pulled out the spoons.
 

The big difference is where they come in the story. The "magic portals," assuming you mean the Relays, are introduced immediately as part of the setting. It's starting the story by saying "pretend there are these things called Mass Relays" and we accept them at the start so we can enjoy the story that follows. Traveling through a Relay is the first thing that actually happens as the very first scene is just dialogue.

So you're saying that the first installment has free reign to introduce as much bullcrap as it wants, so long as the following installments don't introduce any other bullcrap?
 

The Catalyst and Crucible/Citadel things, on the other hand, are introduced at the very end of the trilogy with little to nothing leading up to what they actually are.

Where's the line between exposition and ass-pulls?

Considering what ME2 did to this series' forward-moving narrative, and considering this cycle's trust and reverence for the Protheans, the Crucible works a lot better than I was expecting.
 

I really like the illustration on this Deus ex Machina page to convey the last point.
 
 

Except nothing at all like this happens in ME3. The galaxy works its ass off to build the Crucible and learns the basics of what's going on underneath the hood, and it functions as expected by ending the cycle and stopping the Reapers.
 

Wouldn't it have been better if someone like Jenkins actually did haunt Shepard's nightmares rather than Some Kid?

You mean like the voices of the other squad members? Check.

No, the visualization of the kid as a representation of innocents lost during the Reaper was is actually quite appropriate.

[Lady Artifice]

 

The big difference is where they come in the story. The "magic portals," assuming you mean the Relays, are introduced immediately as part of the setting. It's starting the story by saying "pretend there are these things called Mass Relays" and we accept them at the start so we can enjoy the story that follows. Traveling through a Relay is the first thing that actually happens as the very first scene is just dialogue.

 

The Catalyst and Crucible/Citadel things, on the other hand, are introduced at the very end of the trilogy with little to nothing leading up to what they actually are.

 

That's my entire point, though. If you look past the time frame, past whether or not the player is exposed enough to a fantastical concept in the narrative to take it's believability for granted, what makes the fantastical abilities of magic portals more or less legitimate than a giant magical wand?

 

 

I really like the illustration on this Deus ex Machina page to convey the last point.

 

-snip-

 

 

There's plenty to criticize about the ending, but it doesn't actually fit the definition of Deus ex Machina as precisely as people often suggest. The illustration you sourced actually demonstrates that. They key part of DeM is that it is unreferenced before it occurs, which isn't the case with ME3.

 

DeM originally was a term to describe a device used in greek theater for the bringing the "god" character onto the stage to save the hero. That's the most important element in the device. The god must come to you, unannounced, unprecedented.

 

If instead, the hero had travelled to the site of a mysterious entity or constructed a magical item in search of hope against a major antagonist like Shepard did, and a god was revealed to be waiting with all the answers, that wouldn't fit the definition.

 

ME3 involved a twist ending, one that I agree was deeply unsatisfying. You can still call it lazy, inelegant writing. You can accuse it of a lot of things. But you cannot accurately accuse it of being DeM.

[dreamgazer]

The closest thing to a DEM in the Mass Effect series is actually in ME1, in the form of the data drive that Vigil gives to Shepard that hacks the Citadel.

[Iakus]

 

Except nothing at all like this happens in ME3. The galaxy works its ass off to build the Crucible and learns the basics of what's going on underneath the hood, and it functions as expected by ending the cycle and stopping the Reapers.

The galaxy was a bunch of monkeys blindly following a blueprint they didn't understand hoping it would do something to stop the Reapers.  There was no planning, innovation, or intelligence behind it.  

 

It didnt' "function as expected" because literally no one knew what to expect!

 

 

So you're saying that the first installment has free reign to introduce as much bullcrap as it wants, so long as the following installments don't introduce any other bullcrap?

 

As long as the cr*p they introduce remains consistent with what has already been introduced.

 

 

No, the visualization of the kid as a representation of innocents lost during the Reaper was is actually quite appropriate.

Yeah I'm sure that was a totally appropriate image for the stone cold Renegade Sheps who resembled a Sith Lord more than a space marine 

[dreamgazer]

THe galaxy was a bunch of monkeys blindly following a blueprint they didn't understand hoping it would do something to stop the Reapers.  There was no planning, innovation, or intelligence behind it.

It functioned. Some planning, innovation, and intelligence had to have occurred behind the scenes for it to function at all.
 

It ddint' "function as expected" because literally no one knew what to expect!

They expected it to target and stop the Reapers. Lo and behold, it did!

Expectations = met.

As long as teh cr*p they introduce remains consistent with what has already been introduced.

Please. ME1 wasn't even consistent within itself.
 

Yeah I'm sure that was a totally appropriate image for the stone cold Renegade Sheps who resembled a Sith Lord more than a space marine 

LOL @ ANY Sheps being anything close to a "Sith Lord".

[KaiserShep]

THe galaxy was a bunch of monkeys blindly following a blueprint they didn't understand hoping it would do something to stop the Reapers.  There was no planning, innovation, or intelligence behind it.  
 
It ddint' "function as expected" because literally no one knew what to expect!
 

 
As long as teh cr*p they introduce remains consistent with what has already been introduced.

That reminds me of the Vega machine in Contact.

[UpUpAway]

One of these I'm going to take a few hours and actually count how many times the same people have had this same endings discussion here on BSN.

[dreamgazer]

That reminds me of the Vega machine in Contact.

Very much so. Carl Sagan wrote a story where humanity could very well have been building an alien bomb that'd detonate Earth. OOPS.

That's not the only similarity, either.

[Iakus]

It functioned. Some planning, innovation, and intelligence had to have occurred behind the scenes for it to function at all.
 

 

And all of it went into just comprehending the instructions.  What deos it do.  "it harnesses a lot of energy"

 

I'll bet it also uses "Resources" too.

 

 

 

They expected it to target and stop the Reapers. Lo and behold, it did!

Expectations = met

You're joking, right?  Tell me you're joking!  

 

Seriously, I don't think my brain can take that kid of crazy

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=BOP6uMTYaM8

 

 

LOL @ ANY Sheps being anything close to a "Sith Lord".

 

I said "resembles a Sith Lord"  You know, glowing eyes, really bad skin?

[dreamgazer]

And all of it went into just comprehending the instructions.  What deos it do.  "it harnesses a lot of energy"
 
I'll bet it also uses "Resources" too.

You know, it probably did use resources!

They also discovered that it would utilize mass relay-type of technology.

It was beyond their scope, but the resident Prothean expert plainly deciphered that it was designed to target and defeat the Reapers.
 

You're joking, right?  Tell me you're joking!

Totally not joking. It's just as harebrained as jumping through the Conduit without knowing what the hell it'd do. What if Saren was in league with Vigil? What if Saren had hacked Vigil, or hacked the Conduit?

We've been blindly trusting the advanced Protheans for a long, long time. No reason to stop now, especially not knowing how many Reapers would be coming out of darkspace. Could've been millions. Conventional victory not only wasn't possible, it was also something that couldn't be properly planned for because nobody had any idea what they would be fighting.
 

I said "resembles a Sith Lord"  You know, glowing eyes, really bad skin?

Mhm. Backpedal if you'd like.

[The Twilight God]

The only reference to dreams on the derelict Reaper (unless I missed a log) is the last one where the scientist refers to the Reaper as dreaming when talking about how Indoctrination still occurs even when the Reaper is dead. The only hallucination is one guy seeing something pop out of the wall and disappear. There is nothing as vivid and real as seeing and talking to a person. Which Harbinger conversation is a hallucination? Arrival isn't. That's a fun way to look at it and could work, but it's not what was intended.  A log in Arrival will talk about having a dream, but it sounds more horrific than the ones Shepard has.

You say that not what was intended. On what basis do you make this assertion? Because you say so? What exactly do you think it was? It literally appears out of thin air and starts talking to Shepard. We know that in the process of indoctrination hallucinations may be an occurrence. We know that Shepard has been in the presence of a Reaper device that is proven to indoctrinate. We can see that there was no holocom station present. The "apparition" literally appears out of nowhere, descending from the sky and starts talking to Shepard. Shepard was in a vacuum so he didn't hear the voice of Harbinger with his ears. This is, as far as I can tell, a textbook hallucination.

Note that I not only stated what I think it was, but I also backed it up with supporting evidence.

Natureguy, you can't just dismiss something without giving an alternate explanation and evidence to support that explanation. Or at least producing counter-evidence to refute my claim. Until you can do this your assertion has no merit. You're basically just saying, "uh-uh, you're wrong because I don't want it to be so". This type of "debating" is why I ridicule you and Xilthra so much. If all you're rebuttal is going to be is, "uh-uh", don't waste my time.
  

That video is ambient noise. There are some points that sound like they could be muffled speech, but considering it's in the background and drowned out by other dialogue, I don't think there is any significance to it. It's a red flag when you have to manipulate the game to make a point. It seems a stretch, much like the IT claim that Harbinger says "serve us" before blasting Shepard.

It does not matter what you think. It's there. Bioware put it there intentionally. They did not have to, but they did. And you can hear the reaper sounds while playing. To simply dismiss it because it doesn't fit within your desired narrative is intellectually dishonest.

So what we have is a dream sequence that does not make any sense for Shepard to have (some random kid who may very well have been a reaper hallucination on earth). We have oily shadows, whispers, Reaper sounds, electronic noises. All intentionally recorded and put there by Bioware. That fact alone is evidence enough that it serves a purpose. An interesting point I'd also like to bring up is that the noise Harbinger makes at the Conduit before knocking Shepard out is heard in the dream before you ever hear it in the waking world. So that sound did not originate from anything he'd heard before. 
  

This criticism should be directed at the writers, not me, if it's even valid, which is questionable. They decided that this kid was going to be the representation of Shepard's concern for Earth and humanity. Remember, they decided for ME3 that Earth was super special for some reason. Arrival got that ball rolling by having Shepard declare in Arrival "because that's what humans do!" This focus on humans in a series about uniting different galactic species was strange. Then again, we'd been working with Cerberus all game.

You're going off topic. Dismissing whatever you don't like as writer incompetence, dismissing the very possibility of it having any narrative value, is Bad Writing theory. That isn't an argument on your part about the content of the game. That's just you bashing the writers which as I've told you on multiple occasions is not what this discussion is about. You're opinions about the writers has no bearing on this discussion. Any discussion of merit can only be had within the world the writers created. Stepping outside of that world to bash them is an irrelevant non-sequitor within this context. If you can't accept this do not reply to me again.

So, do you have any actual evidence for the Kid being Shepard's concern for Earth and Humanity or is this just what you choose to believe, evidence or not? If the latter, we have nothing more to discuss and my argument stands.
  

Shepard only sees a vision of the Arrival from the artifact. That vision is said and shown to be similar to the vision from the Prothean beacon. It ends quickly and Shepard snaps back to reality.  That doesn't happen in Mass Effect 3 unless you count waking up from the dreams. The dreams are not similar to that vision though.

Well, until you refute my argument - and, no, you saying "uh-uh" is not a counter-argument - Harbinger's appearance at the end of Arrival was a hallucination.

Shepard only sees hallucinations while in relative close proximity to Reapers or reaper devices. Specifically, involving Harbinger as Harby was the one projecting through the device. The instances I recall are Arrival (ME2 DLC), Earth (start of ME3) and Citadel (end of ME3). I'm going to give you some addition detail on why I think the kid on Earth is a hallucination. The dreams and the Reaper's using that kid's image leans me toward the kid never having been real. Literally no one else acknowledges or interacts with that kid. Even when he's getting into the shuttle and struggling climb in no one helps him. No even turns to look at him. He seems to be there just for Shepard further alluded to by the fact that he makes and maintains eye contact. Even his dialog seems like Reaper defeatist mentality meant to make Shepard doubt. Everything about the intro with him makes him out to be something only Shepard sees or hears.
  

Seeing the child and the dreams were already evidence of Shepard's mind slipping.

Define "mind slipping". We need to be on the same page.
 

The noises in the confrontation with TIM are from what TIM is doing to control Shepard and Anderson. TIM is Indoctrinated, but like Saren, he has a certain level of control over himself still. The Reapers trying to Indoctrinate Shepard would make sense in this story, but that is not evidence that it actually is occurring.

That's what you assert. There is evidence which I'll show you. But first I have to ask what makes you think TIM is producing a cacophony of whispers? The only ability in the game in which TIM could possibly be using is Dominate. Dominate has nothing to do with whispers or headaches. Both things occur during this encounter.

Mass Effect Codex...

Organics undergoing indoctrination may complain of headaches and buzzing or ringing in their ears. As time passes, they have feelings of "being watched" and hallucinations of "ghostly" presences. Ultimately, the Reaper gains the ability to use the victim's body to amplify its signals, manifesting as "alien" voices in the mind.

The Reapers are using TIM's heavily modified body to amplify their signals. If you read Mass Effect: Retribution, Paul Grayson who is also heavily infected with Reaper tech is used by the Reapers to indoctrinate anyone nearby. So this is an established ability of the Reapers.
 

Remember that Indoctrination is slow unless you just want a useless husk, like that group of Salarians in the cell on Virmire.

And in the end Shepard is rendered into a near imbecile. The Reapers appear as the kid and he does not even acknowledge this. He never argues against the Kid, but simple accepts whatever it says as truth. Remember, this is the Reapers we're talking about. In 2 out of 4 endings Shepard believes the Reapers to such an extent that he is willing to bet the entire galaxy on the word of the Reapers. He is willing to commit suicide based on the word of the Reapers.

Mass Effect Codex...

Reaper indoctrination is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds, reprogramming the brain through physical and psychological conditioning using electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise, and other subliminal methods. The Reaper's resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions.

Indoctrination can create perfect deep cover agents. A Reaper's suggestions can manipulate victims into betraying friends, trusting enemies, or viewing the Reaper itself with superstitious awe. Should a Reaper subvert a well-placed political or military leader, the resulting chaos can bring down nations

I cannot emphasize enough how anti-Control the conversation with TIM is. Literally ever point Shepard makes against Control he completely ignores/forgets 5 minutes later. FIVE... FREAKIN... MINUTES... So his mind had definitely taken a beating and he was definitely losing IQ points. I argue that hard fast indoctrination was definitely occurring. And the proof is in the pudding.
 

I did not lie. I acknowledged the differences and do not give them any significance. I saw both as having synthetic eyes.

That seems to be a recurring theme with you. When facts are against you you simply dismiss them. You're being intellectually dishonest. And you said the only difference was the color and that the three dots were turned upside down. There is more to it than that.
 

The books and comics may be canon, but should not contain plot critical information. Secondary media, or side media, is great for fleshing out stories that add to the universe. For example, I think one book deals with the Cerberus attack on the Quarian fleet that Prazza mentions on Freedom's Progress. Another deals with Anderson's run in with Kai Leng. Those are good uses since they flesh out something that was mentioned in the games, but they don't affect our understanding of the games. If something plot critical to the games was put in side media, they did it wrong. That's unfair and is bad writing. So I don't take any of that into account when analyzing the games. They should stand entirely on their own merit. If I need to know something to understand the games' plots, that information must be in the games.

It doesn't matter what you think should or shouldn't be critical plot information, if that's what you are going to calling these events. The fact remains that it happened, it's canon and the events in the ending call back to events in the books. Now personally I do not feel it is plot critical. I'm fairly certain you weren't confused by anything in ME3 because you didn't read a novel or a comic. Liara's whole ME2 backstory is from the comics. Without the comics you miss out on details of how Cerberus got Shepard, why Liara hates the Shadow Broker, etc. But it didn't make things confusing.

You don't have the option to not take FACTS into account. It is a part of the lore rather you like it or not. Again, this type of "debating" you're showing is... asinine. It's taking a lot for me not to ridicule you right now. You might as well just admit you lost the argument. And I'm not saying this to be condescending. If your only recourse is to deliberately ignore FACTS in order to maintain your stance you are de facto admitting that you are wrong.
 
You realize that by that logic I can just dismiss anything you say on the basis that I just don't like it. Where is the debate there? I say something and you just refuse to acknowledge it. You say something and I just hand wave it away. Are you even serious?


Italics are for quotes. There were too many quote boxes to post.
 
Mass Effect was all about bringing together diverse people to achieve a common goal and species having the freedom to forge their own path. It was also about Shepard and company overcoming seemingly impossible odds. So it was entirely consistent with the rest of the series for Shepard to tell the Catalyst t go pound sand and that they were going to fight the Reapers. Even the idea of dying for that chance was mentioned before. Saren asked Shepard "Is submission not preferable to extinction?" The answer was a clear "No!" That's what Refuse ultimately is.

No, as I already stated, Refuse is defeating Saren and then letting Sovereign win. The only option for the Kid to "pound sand" is Destroy. Anything else is the Kid pounding Shepard's butthole with either is green or blue condom. Refuse is the Reapers just going raw.

Refuse spits in the face of the entire plot of the game. The entire game is rendered pointless. Everything you did was for nothing. You literally go through the entire game talking about destroying the Reapers. You went to Earth with the Crucible for the sole purpose of destroying the Reapers. When you, the player - you, yourself, whatever your name is - started that mission you know damn well you were planning to destroy the Reapers. So how is it that suddenly Destroying them and saving all space faring life in the galaxy (against all odds) anti-thematic. You're not making any sense.

Refuse post...

"Refuse is the ultimate betrayal. Unlike Control and Synthesis where Shepard is made susceptible to reaper influence and is deceived into fulfilling their will. Shepard is so broken that he knowingly condemns his allies to destruction and the Reapers have him convinced it is his idea. Shepard betrays his lover, his friends, his crew, humanity and every species he rallied together to confront the Reapers at Earth. All these beings came together, followed him into hell and he hung them all out to dry. Every sacrifice made, every life given to provide a future for their children - all of it - was rendered null and void by Shepard's act of betrayal. He effectively gathers all the galaxy's forces into one spot, tactlessly throws them against the Reapers in an unwinnable frontal assault and then hangs them out to dry. The Crucible is thus a trap."

The themes of Mass Effect have never been giving up for no reason, getting everyone needlessly killed and being the polar opposite of a hero.
 
Whether the writers are incompetent or just made bad decisions is irrelevant. Either way, the end result was poor writing. The bold part shows where our problem is. That does not exist. Mass Effect is not a narratively consistent game series. You're imposing things onto the narrative to make it so. That's fine for your personal enjoyment, but it's another thing to go around screaming at everyone that it's the game as it actually exists.
 
I've proven that it is narratively consistent. You've tried to convince me otherwise, but you've failed. You've failed to be able to deconstruct my arguments. You've failed to present credible alternatives. You've failed to produce evidence based counter-arguments. You've even admitting to intentionally ignoring any data that contradicts your view. If you really felt that there was no way the narrative was consistent you would not need to make such a blatant display of willful ignorance.

As I've said already, if you believe the writers are incompetent that's fine. I disagree. Both ideologies can mutual co-exist. Mine is in the game universe, yours is outside the game universe. Apparently, you don't believe this. You believe it's either your way or the highway. Fine. But if that's all you have to say I've heard it. You could have stopped at the writers are incompetent and nothing has to make sense because it's all garbage. In that case there is nothing more for you to say. You have nothing more to offer.

That the one person being a jerk says "Can't we all just get along?" shows a horrific lack of self awareness.

I am man enough to admit when my sense of humor gets toxic. I apologized to Xilthra. And I was attempting to apologize to you (through that post) for being mean. If you don't accept that apology it so be it.

[Lady Artifice]

My suspicion, ultimately, is that most people are just as likely question and search out logical failings of the stories they don't like as they are to not like stories with logical failings. Plenty of the problems people point out in ME3 were just as present in ME1. It's just that suddenly, they think they're problems worth noticing.

[iM3GTR]

I really hope a moderator comes and locks this thread. My head hurts.

[Hammerstorm]

So, the whole ending is either a Grand illusion by the reaper grandmaster OR a Grand illusion by Shepard as s/he dies?

Or is this whole thread a illusion?

(Please say it is )

[Lady Artifice]

An apology, he says.

 

Yeah, yeah, I've address all your arguments and soundly debunked them all. That's why all you can do is sit here and lie that I didn't even though you and everyone else here can go back and read where I most definitely did. Sssh, just bleed out... go to the light.

Anyway, I'd like to apologize for my manners. I shouldn't have ridiculed you like that. It is conduct unbecoming of the Mass Effect Loremaster Supreme™.

 

That's his "apology."

[rapscallioness]

Or maybe BW just wanted to go to Andromeda. I could easily see some suit pitching the idea. "Andromeda" has got alot of traditional sci-fi sell and sizzle to it. Let's not over-inflate our importance to BW as far as our choices and them being so afraid of fan backlash, because I don't think too many would have backlashed if they had made an ending canon.

 

But Andromeda does have more sell to it. Heck, maybe that's what they wanted all the time. Maybe it was about torching the MW. There were no mistakes. The ending functioned as it was designed to do.

 

So I don't think BW is that overly concerned with our choices and all that, not to that depth of concern. Or even if the devs are, I promise you EA don't give a dam about any of that.

 

It may have simply been some higher up that thought  "Andromeda" was cooler than the MW. The idea of it anyway.

 

Regardless, that's where we're going.

 

What I do hope from this trip we're making is that the characters have the opportunity to be conscious of the fact that they so completely left their home. The psychological challenges of such a journey are just as steep as the technological challenges. Especially if they know anything about the impending Reaper invasion.

[goishen]

ME3 involved a twist ending, one that I agree was deeply unsatisfying. You can still call it lazy, inelegant writing. You can accuse it of a lot of things. But you cannot accurately accuse it of being DeM.

 

 

The game is ultimately closest to a tragedy.  That's what I think most people actually despise about the game.  Or rather, the last 15 minutes.  Because that's where it takes its most somber turn and you realize that you're walking into death (for the greater good, in most cases).

[dreamgazer]

My suspicion, ultimately, is that most people are just as likely question and search out logical failings of the stories they don't like as they are to not like stories with logical failings. Plenty of the problems people point out in ME3 were just as present in ME1. It's just that suddenly, they're problems worth noticing.

Absolutely. I find it fascinating.