As yes, thinly veiled insults. Lovely. Glad to see the internet bringing people together once again.pure.Wasted said:
Question about an element of Mass Effect 3 ending and the hatred towards it.
- Thread starter DigitalAtlas
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Says the guy who said, and I quote, "Enjoy being unhappy with the ending if you want." After terminating a civil discourse the moment his position began giving way with plot holes the size of the Destiny Ascension. No, it wasn't "these are reasonable counter-arguments, I'll have to re-assess the objective quality of an ending I nevertheless found entertaining at the time." It was "Enjoy being unhappy."Ordinaryundone said:
Really, guy.
Okay, I really REALLY think people are misreading what the AI was trying to say. Like completely missed the point. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe Bioware did just try to end with a stupid contradictory statement of "synthetics and organics will always fight" after we proved this wasn't true, but the AI states that the reapers' purpose is to keep evolution in check. Once a certain race or races gains enough power in the galaxy evolution would take a definite halt, as said race would dominate everything (see the Protheans) and cause evolution top stop occuring. This reasoning actually made a lot of sense to me personally, as even nowadays evolution is becoming obsolete. The reapers' purpose is to maintain the cycle of life, once evolution stops working they sweep in and restart the system. The prothean VI openly states that an almost exact sequence of events happens every cycle in the same repeating pattern. It just really didn't seem to me that reaper's purpose was sorely to be galactic peace-keepers. And even though the geth-quarian conflict was resolved peacefully, it was still a conflict, and I think that the Catalyst was saying that said conflicts would continue to happen.
Oh, and I really hate to say this, but if you honestly believe that organic life versus synthetic life and what it really means to be human isn't a major theme of Mass Effect, then you really haven't paid attention to the dialogue and story at all.
Oh, and I really hate to say this, but if you honestly believe that organic life versus synthetic life and what it really means to be human isn't a major theme of Mass Effect, then you really haven't paid attention to the dialogue and story at all.
The Catalyst turned the Reapers from the most terrifying and mysterious villains in entertainment into bumbling idiots serving the whim of an even bigger idiot.
Well there are a couple of problems
The Reaper Motivation: I'm sure half the comments on this thread have mentioned the irony/stupidity of using genocidal machines to prevent the development of genocidal machines but it bears repeating. They've discussed this problem on the Escapist Podcast and I agree that it makes sense in an insane computer logic sort of way. The problem is that Shepherd never calls the catalyst out on his bullshit. It's especially galling that Shepherd never brings up the newfound peace between the Quarians and the Geth. Even if the Catalyst said something along the lines of "they'll turn on each other again before too long" I might have been ok with it. As the ending stands, the Catalyst gives a bullshit explanation and Shepherd just sort of goes along with it. The only times Mass Effect's story falls flat for me is when there's a disconnect between what I'm feeling and what my Shepherd is feeling, that disconnect was never more obvious than during the Catalyst scene.
The stupid recurring kid: Like I mentioned above, Mass Effect is great except in those situations where there's a disconnect between how I'm feeling and how Shepherd is feeling. The game kept banging on about some stupid kid that Shepherd couldn't save on earth but I could hardly have cared less about him. It was annoying to have the game constantly telling me "look how sad you are about this dead kid." Leaving Ashley on Virmire made me sad. Thane, Mordin and Miranda's deaths were all heartwrenching. Seeing Kelly Chambers die on the collector base (and in a subsequent playthrough having her die in the Cerberus coup) was a punch in the gut. Why the HELL is Shepherd more haunted by some little shit in a hoodie?
More than anything else, my point is that BioWare can do better. I wasn't as bothered by G-man in Half-Life or the Moon Children in Majora's Mask partly because I didn't expect as much from either game's story, and CERTAINLY neither game emphasized player agency the way Mass Effect did.
The Reaper Motivation: I'm sure half the comments on this thread have mentioned the irony/stupidity of using genocidal machines to prevent the development of genocidal machines but it bears repeating. They've discussed this problem on the Escapist Podcast and I agree that it makes sense in an insane computer logic sort of way. The problem is that Shepherd never calls the catalyst out on his bullshit. It's especially galling that Shepherd never brings up the newfound peace between the Quarians and the Geth. Even if the Catalyst said something along the lines of "they'll turn on each other again before too long" I might have been ok with it. As the ending stands, the Catalyst gives a bullshit explanation and Shepherd just sort of goes along with it. The only times Mass Effect's story falls flat for me is when there's a disconnect between what I'm feeling and what my Shepherd is feeling, that disconnect was never more obvious than during the Catalyst scene.
The stupid recurring kid: Like I mentioned above, Mass Effect is great except in those situations where there's a disconnect between how I'm feeling and how Shepherd is feeling. The game kept banging on about some stupid kid that Shepherd couldn't save on earth but I could hardly have cared less about him. It was annoying to have the game constantly telling me "look how sad you are about this dead kid." Leaving Ashley on Virmire made me sad. Thane, Mordin and Miranda's deaths were all heartwrenching. Seeing Kelly Chambers die on the collector base (and in a subsequent playthrough having her die in the Cerberus coup) was a punch in the gut. Why the HELL is Shepherd more haunted by some little shit in a hoodie?
More than anything else, my point is that BioWare can do better. I wasn't as bothered by G-man in Half-Life or the Moon Children in Majora's Mask partly because I didn't expect as much from either game's story, and CERTAINLY neither game emphasized player agency the way Mass Effect did.
I believe I stated earlier I did not want to debate. I wanted to learn why such clear comparisons are treated as contrasts. I did.Asita said:
Yep. That's the point. I'm not here for opinions. I'm here for objective facts. Putting people down is a way to get them to stop debating opinions with me.Vigormortis said:
I have no side. I proposed a question with reasonable evidence and wanted a reasonable answer. I got that. I think people thinking an ending doesn't sum up a story is just ignorance and they had a different view point. Sadly, they aren't the developers nor the writers, so I don't care. It's like saying Final Fantasy VII isn't about fighting stopping Sephiroth. Hell, the people who say that ME3's ending wasn't what the story was about are clearly ignoring the fact that a piece of media can be about multiple things. (Also, stop just referencing Geth vs Quarians, because it makes it seem like you can only take things at face value. Fear of an uprising and extinction was present in the Genophage story and it was VERY clear.)Savagezion said:
Also, who said I loved the ending? Who even said I played the game?
Putting Majora's Mask aside as I have not played it, the difference is that the Catalyst appears RIGHT AT THE END. The Anti-Spiral were introduced as soon as the second arc came about and Half-Life 1 and 2 were not the resolutions of the entire series.DigitalAtlas said:
While the Catalyst's completely un-built-up-to appearance is kind of the same as the Anti-Spiral and G-Man, the key difference is that the Catalyst appears right at the resolution of things for the ENTIRE SERIES. I can't really find a decent analogy for this so I'll leave it to you.
Thing of it is... Other people responded without opinions. They used citations and facts....AdamRhodes said:
#Reported.
Also, hi clearly alternate account.
No, he literally says "organics and synthetics will always fight."Nicolairigel said:
And I think the better theme is cohabitation and the conflicts that arise between races.
Let's count:
1. Humans vs. Turians
2. Humans vs. Batarians
3. Krogans vs. Turians
4. Krogans vs. Salarians
5. Vorcha vs. Everyone
6. Quarians vs. Geth
Please tell me if I'm missing any. But, as you can see, only one of the six I experienced involved synthetics.
The people also using citations and facts were the people you didn't agree with which you dismissed out of hand.DigitalAtlas said:
To put it simply:
Basically, the Cathalist's whole argument makes no freaking sense. Not to mention that since it came right at the end of the game, we don't know jack about it. Who created it and why? What about the Reapers?
Me? What pisses me off the most about the ending is that ME2 stabilishes Harbinger as this great enemy and ME3 does nothing with him. Harbinger appears ONCE, and has no lines whatsoever.
Basically, the Cathalist's whole argument makes no freaking sense. Not to mention that since it came right at the end of the game, we don't know jack about it. Who created it and why? What about the Reapers?
Me? What pisses me off the most about the ending is that ME2 stabilishes Harbinger as this great enemy and ME3 does nothing with him. Harbinger appears ONCE, and has no lines whatsoever.
Lemme explain the process real quick for ya:AdamRhodes said:
>Didn't take sides
>Read every post
>The second a post was using opinions as a basis, sounding incredibly hateful, or just ignorant, I skipped it.
>Move onto next post.
I did not have a side. I did not have an opinion. I wanted an answer to a question that wasn't blinded by hate. I found it. I said I was done. I was called out and decided to keep posting. It's not ignorant to not want a debate. I, in fact, have no opinion to even debate. Why would I get involved in a war between opinions when I can discuss why games today both suck at being games and, for the most part, are not respectable? Heck, why talk Mass Effect when I can talk Treasure?
I think a big problem is that Half Life and Deus Ex were single games, while Mass Effect trilogy is a series of games. Many expected more than an out of nowhere character that raises more questions.
BTW
Look, the facts are already there. Interpretation of facts are subject to opinion. Your opinion is that the ending fits. Other's opinion are that the ending doesn't. It's not a science.
It's like the Midichlorian explanation of the force. Some are glad that it explains that the force isn't some sort of space magic, while others feel it cheapens the appeal of the Star Wars movies. Neither are facts, both are opinions.
BTW
Okay, first you say you want only facts, not opinions, then you state an opinion that you prefer the ending. Really?DigitalAtlas said:
Look, the facts are already there. Interpretation of facts are subject to opinion. Your opinion is that the ending fits. Other's opinion are that the ending doesn't. It's not a science.
It's like the Midichlorian explanation of the force. Some are glad that it explains that the force isn't some sort of space magic, while others feel it cheapens the appeal of the Star Wars movies. Neither are facts, both are opinions.
You previously stated that you didn't read every post. In fact just now you said you didn't read every post.DigitalAtlas said:
From what I read, there were no arguments against the Catalyst based on opinion. No foreshadowing, flawed arguments, the inability to argue with it, completely negating and convoluting much of the series, etc. The only one who was ignorant was you. Deriding and completely dismissing one poster for not playing the game and later implying that you haven't played the game. Not only ignorant but hypocritical.
Oh, I've played the game three times. I was just effing with you.AdamRhodes said:
There were no arguments for either, just why it was different. I also said the ability to not argue with it was the answer that was what I needed to hear.
Okay, let me rephrase. I read all of the good posts from before I said I was done, and parts of the bad ones until where I said I was done. And then checked notifications from there.
>Saying I thought the ending was fitting.HemalJB said:
Did I say that? Nope. The only thing that slightly hints at that is where I said "ME1 and ME2 had the same scenes for their individual endings, blahblah but at least this one gave us a different color palette" which anyone who knows basic reading comprehension can tell, from the informality, that it was entirely tongue in cheek. In fact! This entire thread I said only how the ending could've been better. When I respond to people you claim I "disagreed" with, I usually ended everything in a question mark. Ya know.... asking a question.... Exactly what I said I wanted to do..... Just an fyi, I'm only counting pre-"I'm done with this thread" as since then I've had to come back and defend myself. It's like you feel entitled that I Read every post thoroughly and mark it as some form of truth because it's an opinion.
For me, it was the crappy-kid-voice acting, plus overuse of the dream sequences that made me hate the kid in general. I would have been much more satisfied if it was Harbinger or another Reaper (best voices ever if you ask me) having a similar exchange with Shepard.
And yeah, "what color would you like your explosions to be?"
And yeah, "what color would you like your explosions to be?"