Question about an element of Mass Effect 3 ending and the hatred towards it.

[DigitalAtlas]

Yes, but when people gave an opinion which isn't in line with your opinion, you dismiss them asking for facts. Why bother replying if you have no interest in other's interpretation of facts?

You keep saying I had this thing called an "opinion"....

You want my honest opinion on the ending? Do you really? I played Chrono Cross the week after so I didn't really care to form one. It was a standard ending to me and better RPGs exist. That's all I got for this so called "deep" and "heavily biased" opinion you keep insisting I have.

 

[AdamRhodes]

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.

So you ask why people are against the Catalyst and not G-man. People tell you why they are against Catalyst and not G-man. "I don't want opinions!" Then you accept an explanation that was true for both. Could you argue with G-man? No, Gordon Freeman doesn't talk.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

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.

So you ask why people are against the Catalyst and not G-man. People tell you why they are against Catalyst and not G-man. "I don't want opinions!" Then you accept an explanation that was true for both. Could you argue with G-man? No, Gordon Freeman doesn't talk.

I didn't respond to them, so putting that in quotes is just incorrect. They were also not taking into account about G-Man back in the day, a lot of people forget. See, I was around when that first happened. It was one of the biggest surprises to have come. I'm guessing most of the people who played HL1 here had played HL2 first and already knew the twist ending.

Also, I accepted the argument that Shepard should've been able to argue, and he couldn't. Way to read.... and getting mad at me for not reading people's posts.... I'm so hypocritical and the only hypocrite ev-er!

 

[HemalJB]

You keep saying I had this thing called an "opinion"....

You want my honest opinion on the ending? Do you really? I played Chrono Cross the week after so I didn't really care to form one. It was a standard ending to me and better RPGs exist. That's all I got for this so called "deep" and "heavily biased" opinion you keep insisting I have.

First off, I did not mention you had a ""deep" and "heavily biased" opinion". I simply said you have an opinion.
Secondly, I merely stated that you dismiss other opinions that don't agree with yours.
To you it's a standard ending, to others it's a letdown. Leave it at that.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

You keep saying I had this thing called an "opinion"....

You want my honest opinion on the ending? Do you really? I played Chrono Cross the week after so I didn't really care to form one. It was a standard ending to me and better RPGs exist. That's all I got for this so called "deep" and "heavily biased" opinion you keep insisting I have.

First off, I did not mention you had a ""deep" and "heavily biased" opinion". I simply said you have an opinion.
Secondly, I merely stated that you dismiss other opinions that don't agree with yours.
To you it's a standard ending, to others it's a letdown. Leave it at that.

I wouldn't have even had to give an opinion to leave if people didn't keep assuming I had an opinion that was contradictory to their's, but nope, I'm apparently in disagreement with them because I ignore them.

 

[AdamRhodes]

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.

So you ask why people are against the Catalyst and not G-man. People tell you why they are against Catalyst and not G-man. "I don't want opinions!" Then you accept an explanation that was true for both. Could you argue with G-man? No, Gordon Freeman doesn't talk.

I didn't respond to them, so putting that in quotes is just incorrect. They were also not taking into account about G-Man back in the day, a lot of people forget. See, I was around when that first happened. It was one of the biggest surprises to have come. I'm guessing most of the people who played HL1 here had played HL2 first and already knew the twist ending.

Putting it in quotes is very correct because you said exactly that. And you still didn't address the actual arguments, namely that G-man's existence is foreshadowed while the Catalyst's is not. Instead you accepted the argument that the Catalyst sucks because we can't argue with it while completely ignoring that we can't argue with G-man, either. And people LOVE that guy!

 

[HemalJB]

You keep saying I had this thing called an "opinion"....

You want my honest opinion on the ending? Do you really? I played Chrono Cross the week after so I didn't really care to form one. It was a standard ending to me and better RPGs exist. That's all I got for this so called "deep" and "heavily biased" opinion you keep insisting I have.

First off, I did not mention you had a ""deep" and "heavily biased" opinion". I simply said you have an opinion.
Secondly, I merely stated that you dismiss other opinions that don't agree with yours.
To you it's a standard ending, to others it's a letdown. Leave it at that.

I wouldn't have even had to give an opinion to leave if people didn't keep assuming I had an opinion that was contradictory to their's, but nope, I'm apparently in disagreement with them because I ignore them.

Yes.

 

[Itsthefuzz]

>The second a post was using opinions as a basis, sounding incredibly hateful, or just ignorant, I skipped it.

For being a guy who skips over a post for being hateful or ignorant, you sure make a lot of hateful and ignorant posts.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

Putting it in quotes is very correct because you said exactly that. And you still didn't address the actual arguments, namely that G-man's existence is foreshadowed while the Catalyst's is not. Instead you accepted the argument that the Catalyst sucks because we can't argue with it while completely ignoring that we can't argue with G-man, either. And people LOVE that guy!

The difference in the arguments is Gordan can't/won't talk. Shepard does nothing put slay arguments. It's different.

And I said, exactly, "I didn't want opinions." Past tense. At that point when I was posting in this thread to be educated, I didn't care for opinions. As for the rest, well, I'm honestly still here because I'm getting a hell of a laugh.

 

[AdamRhodes]

Putting it in quotes is very correct because you said exactly that. And you still didn't address the actual arguments, namely that G-man's existence is foreshadowed while the Catalyst's is not. Instead you accepted the argument that the Catalyst sucks because we can't argue with it while completely ignoring that we can't argue with G-man, either. And people LOVE that guy!

The difference in the arguments is Gordan can't/won't talk. Shepard does nothing put slay arguments. It's different.

And I said, exactly, "I didn't want opinions." Past tense. At that point when I was posting in this thread to be educated, I didn't care for opinions. As for the rest, well, I'm honestly still here because I'm getting a hell of a laugh.

Thing is, the question you asked was subjective in nature and any possible answer is gonna be opinion. Even the answer you agreed with was an opinion of why it failed. Every opinion provided was backed by factual evidence and yet you still dismissed them for being opinions. Which would almost have been fine if you weren't such an asshole about it. You are ignorant and hateful.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

Putting it in quotes is very correct because you said exactly that. And you still didn't address the actual arguments, namely that G-man's existence is foreshadowed while the Catalyst's is not. Instead you accepted the argument that the Catalyst sucks because we can't argue with it while completely ignoring that we can't argue with G-man, either. And people LOVE that guy!

The difference in the arguments is Gordan can't/won't talk. Shepard does nothing put slay arguments. It's different.

And I said, exactly, "I didn't want opinions." Past tense. At that point when I was posting in this thread to be educated, I didn't care for opinions. As for the rest, well, I'm honestly still here because I'm getting a hell of a laugh.

Thing is, the question you asked was subjective in nature and any possible answer is gonna be opinion. Even the answer you agreed with was an opinion of why it failed. Every opinion provided was backed by factual evidence and yet you still dismissed them for being opinions. Which would almost have been fine if you weren't such an asshole about it. You are ignorant and hateful.

I'll give you hateful!

I have better things to do here than debate. So, this time for real, done with this thread.

 

[Elamdri]

all planets with a gate in their system is destroyed.

Can we please stop spreading this. It's wrong and it's giving me an ulcer each time I have to read it. The destruction of the Mass Relays at the end of ME3 is NOT the same as the destruction of the Mass Relays at the end of Arrival. The explosions do NOT destroy the systems with the relays. They are used to spread the Space Magic of choice across the entire galaxy. That's why they have to be destroyed. Because if they weren't destroyed, then the Space Magic would only effect the Reapers in Sol system, and they would still be annihilating Palaven, Thessia and all the other planets not in the Sol System.

 

[Elamdri]

Double Post, sry

 

[Xirath]

The main thing that I noticed above all was this:

It did take me a while after things had died down to ponder into all the other issues with the ending, but out of everything this stood out instantly and I wondered why the hell the Catalyst was operating on such, as the Reapers put it, "incomprehensible" logic when I had managed to prove it wrong.

Seeing people claiming things like this as a plot hole always bothers me, it's a logical misinterpretation. The reaper's plan is to wait for the most advanced civilizations of the current cycle to reach a certain threshold before initiating a cull, this is why they leave one of the ships like sovereign in the system watching to send the signal back. the plan is not as people say we save you by killing you. People mistakenly take the more individualistic view of this where the reapers claim to take the macro view, the problem as stated being organics always war with synthetics, eventually as a means of self preservation, the synthetics will wipe out ALL organic life, not just the most advanced races that could cause an immediate threat. Consider it as though it is their belief that they can cull several high civilizations every 50,000 years or let "nature" run its course where there may never be any civilizations again.


Aside from that, all of the mass effect series we have been fighting to stop the reapers and their agents (with some fun pit stops along the way) and were barely able to defeat sovereign without severe losses. Then, throughout the remainder of the games, they are empowered to even greater and greater extremes to the point of near invincible gods where we see their attacks rip through capital ships in a single pass. Then literally the FIRST MISSION after the opening scene and tutorial of ME3 they tell you we are going to make a super weapon (because, lets be realistic, they made them unstoppable in any acceptable way) At what point did you think, this has all been totally reasonable so far but this deus ex machina at the end takes it too far?

All this being said. I like the Mass Effect series, all of them. I enjoyed 3 and I liked the end as well, because I'm one of the people who realized some things a long time ago
A) most games have plot holes of varying degrees
and B) If you want a great written and story experience DONT go to bioware! thats not what they are good at contrary to what most people have convinced themselves of. they do many things well but come on you fight "the reapers (they reap ppl), the collectors (take ppl), the illusive man, and the shadow broker" They never really tried very hard with a lot of this stuff did they?

 

[Asita]

Again, you assume the Star Child is lying. Why, exactly, would he lie? He doesn't see himself as wrong in his actions. He is just giving Shepard the facts.

Correction: Star Child is giving what he claims to be the facts, but we cannot independently verify that. His stated allegience actually gives us every reason to distrust his claims, especially with regards to motive, given that breaking someone through talk isn't exactly unheard of. In fact, it's something regularly attempted by the villains of Mass Effect both through speech (Perhaps most notably Saren and Harbinger's last lines in ME1 and ME2) and the more insidious process of indoctrination, which was first introduced to us as a similar concept (See Beneziah's description of the experience). Why do this? Well, as put so succinctly in another Bioware game (KoTOR), "What better weapon is there than to turn an enemy to your cause?" That this falls so well in line with the Reaper M.O. is a major source of fuel for the so-called "Indoctrination Theory".

But it really all boils down to whether you assume the Star Child is lying. You clearly do. I do not. This changes the nature of the ending both ways, but neither interpretation is wrong. Just pick what makes you happy, and if you are incapable of enjoying it then simply move on.

Mmm. I see it more as whether you believe exposition trumps demonstration in storytelling. Given the vested interests of the speaker in this case, I know I consider the Catalyst to be an unreliable narrator and thus untrustworthy as a source of information.

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.

You subjected yourself to the rules of debate the minute you decided to try and rebutt an opposing view. It is not out of line for me to insist that you explain your position. Without such clarification a proper discourse cannot begin.

 

[luckshot]

all planets with a gate in their system is destroyed.

Can we please stop spreading this. It's wrong and it's giving me an ulcer each time I have to read it. The destruction of the Mass Relays at the end of ME3 is NOT the same as the destruction of the Mass Relays at the end of Arrival. The explosions do NOT destroy the systems with the relays. They are used to spread the Space Magic of choice across the entire galaxy. That's why they have to be destroyed. Because if they weren't destroyed, then the Space Magic would only effect the Reapers in Sol system, and they would still be annihilating Palaven, Thessia and all the other planets not in the Sol System.

so it says this somewhere in game and we all just missed it?


maybe they do both, they send the signal and then explode like a nova

 

[Elamdri]

all planets with a gate in their system is destroyed.

Can we please stop spreading this. It's wrong and it's giving me an ulcer each time I have to read it. The destruction of the Mass Relays at the end of ME3 is NOT the same as the destruction of the Mass Relays at the end of Arrival. The explosions do NOT destroy the systems with the relays. They are used to spread the Space Magic of choice across the entire galaxy. That's why they have to be destroyed. Because if they weren't destroyed, then the Space Magic would only effect the Reapers in Sol system, and they would still be annihilating Palaven, Thessia and all the other planets not in the Sol System.

so it says this somewhere in game and we all just missed it?


maybe they do both, they send the signal and then explode like a nova

No, it doesn't explicitly say it, but you could easily figure it out if you pay any attention whatsoever to the ending of the game. It boggles my mind that so many people do not get that there is a difference between the Relay Explosions in ME3 and the Relay Explosion in Arrival.

 

[Xirath]

all planets with a gate in their system is destroyed.

Can we please stop spreading this. It's wrong and it's giving me an ulcer each time I have to read it. The destruction of the Mass Relays at the end of ME3 is NOT the same as the destruction of the Mass Relays at the end of Arrival. The explosions do NOT destroy the systems with the relays. They are used to spread the Space Magic of choice across the entire galaxy. That's why they have to be destroyed. Because if they weren't destroyed, then the Space Magic would only effect the Reapers in Sol system, and they would still be annihilating Palaven, Thessia and all the other planets not in the Sol System.

so it says this somewhere in game and we all just missed it?


maybe they do both, they send the signal and then explode like a nova

Its a very easy explanation, 1 is the use of the energy through a conduit much like draining off the power from a generator or battery by using it. The second as shown in arrival is the rapid destabilization of the containment field and the mechanisms of the relay which then resulted in the release of the huge amount of energy stored, causing a violent explosion.

In the same way that a nuclear bomb and reactor may work on similar principles. everyone nearby isn't incinerated when a new reactor goes online.

 

[Avatar Roku]

all planets with a gate in their system is destroyed.

Can we please stop spreading this. It's wrong and it's giving me an ulcer each time I have to read it. The destruction of the Mass Relays at the end of ME3 is NOT the same as the destruction of the Mass Relays at the end of Arrival. The explosions do NOT destroy the systems with the relays. They are used to spread the Space Magic of choice across the entire galaxy. That's why they have to be destroyed. Because if they weren't destroyed, then the Space Magic would only effect the Reapers in Sol system, and they would still be annihilating Palaven, Thessia and all the other planets not in the Sol System.

so it says this somewhere in game and we all just missed it?


maybe they do both, they send the signal and then explode like a nova

No, it doesn't explicitly say it, but you could easily figure it out if you pay any attention whatsoever to the ending of the game. It boggles my mind that so many people do not get that there is a difference between the Relay Explosions in ME3 and the Relay Explosion in Arrival.

I have to agree. I hated the ending with a passion, but that part never bothered me.

Also, I have to say, this whole thread seems familiar: an argument about ME3 in which the OP dismisses his opponents out of hand because they disagree with him...is DigitalAtlas just Zeel with the reverse position? Anyone else getting that vibe?