I'll look it over again then. I'm doing Isopleths for my MET lab as I read this, so my mind slips back and forth.BloatedGuppy said:
Oh wells, at least there was an attempt at analysis and discussion. Even if that discussion is debatable or not.
Very Long Analysis of ME3 Ending, aka why the ending is great (spoilers)
- Thread starter Skyfyre
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh wells, at least there was an attempt at analysis and discussion. Even if that discussion is debatable or not.
It's more holding court under the guise of an appeal to authority while aggressively hand-waving any issues or opposing points of view. Analysis requires an even hand and an objective mind, IMO, not just the ability to ramble at length. Right from the headline you get a sense of just how even a keel he's intending to maintain.Atmos Duality said:
PS - Totally read that as METH lab.
I got the initial feeling too; it's stated in the expository, rather than in passive-neutral or without an opinion-clause. I caught the Appeal to Authority too, but I've seen so much pretentious debate as of late my brain just skips over it automatically now.BloatedGuppy said:
Heh. Incidentally, Major METH country starts just outside of Chicagoland (where I'm at); one of the biggest (known) METH producing counties in the United States is less than 200 miles away. I have no idea why or how they keep setting up shop out there after so many busts.
It's "Meteorology Lab". Specifically: COMET Modules.
Boring as bread to do by hand.
I couldn't agree less, I hope you have braced yourself for a lot of disagreement after posting this. You are obviously in a very small minority who think the ending is good. And I respect you for going up against those sort of odds. But naw the ending was way too flawed, I can bring to mind a few off the top of my head.
How did Anderson get on the citidel? he wasnt running with you and harbinger lazered everyone who was with you. And also he says he is going through a different corridor in front of you, when u get to him there are no alternate routes.
Shepard has a bullet wound where he shot Anderson (weird)
Where the fuck is the normandy?
Why did Joker leave?
Why are my team on the Normandy? they were with me a 10 mins ago!
Also the ending is a very unsatisfying one leaving more questions unanswered. like what happens to everyone? you know the characters and the whole rest of that massive fleet you just gathered. Also no more relays essentially means no mass effect. You and about 20 other guys may be satisfied, with this half arsed ending but no one else is.
As for the people whining about us whining they are just trying to sound clever, or vent their annoyance. Not even they think the ending is good they just want us to be quiet about it.
BUT WE WONT GOD DAMMIT, THAT ENDING WAS SHIT ON A CROOKED STICK. GAMING IS AN ART FORM, BUT A SPECIAL KIND, A KIND THAT CAN BE ALTERED. SO HURRY UP AND MAKE WITH THE MORE SATISFYING ENDING BIOWARE. We paid £40/$60 for this so we have a right to ask for an improvement. If I was whining about the Mona Lisa being too sad and demanding a happy one, you can tell me to fuck off. But if I commissioned it then it is my right to ask for an improvement.
AMEN
How did Anderson get on the citidel? he wasnt running with you and harbinger lazered everyone who was with you. And also he says he is going through a different corridor in front of you, when u get to him there are no alternate routes.
Shepard has a bullet wound where he shot Anderson (weird)
Where the fuck is the normandy?
Why did Joker leave?
Why are my team on the Normandy? they were with me a 10 mins ago!
Also the ending is a very unsatisfying one leaving more questions unanswered. like what happens to everyone? you know the characters and the whole rest of that massive fleet you just gathered. Also no more relays essentially means no mass effect. You and about 20 other guys may be satisfied, with this half arsed ending but no one else is.
As for the people whining about us whining they are just trying to sound clever, or vent their annoyance. Not even they think the ending is good they just want us to be quiet about it.
BUT WE WONT GOD DAMMIT, THAT ENDING WAS SHIT ON A CROOKED STICK. GAMING IS AN ART FORM, BUT A SPECIAL KIND, A KIND THAT CAN BE ALTERED. SO HURRY UP AND MAKE WITH THE MORE SATISFYING ENDING BIOWARE. We paid £40/$60 for this so we have a right to ask for an improvement. If I was whining about the Mona Lisa being too sad and demanding a happy one, you can tell me to fuck off. But if I commissioned it then it is my right to ask for an improvement.
AMEN
My biggest problems is that the developers flat out lied to us. They promised an ending that wouldn't be just 3 choices and that would everything would have a resolution. I can't forgive Bioware for lying to their fanbase.
I don't. Because an ambiguous conclusion for the sake of having one is not a good idea.Hal10k said:
They have essentially gotten themselves stuck in a timewarp back to 1999 when people still thought M. Night Shyamalan was clever for having ZOMG Tweeest! endings. (Well, people other than Shyamalan himself, of course. He still seems to be pretty on board with the idea).
Well that and if your going to look this hard to find a reason for it not to suck then I think your trying to hard. It was a nice read that I skimmed through after a while due to its length, and I have a book to read, so I really couldn't be bothered.Risingblade said:
And thank you for pointing this out.Neonsilver said:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, your trying to play this off for Bioware as something they meant to do when it obviously was just bad writing. Hell, they got a brand new writer so it obviously is the most narratively detached from the rest of the series. This wasn't some giant ass, well thought out ending, this was a rushed peace of work to where the rest is sold back to you later, nothing more or less.
Fans are trying to tie in several things that don't connect in the slightest so that they can try and fool themselves into liking the ending, sadly, the ending was just a rushed piece of work, no more or less.
Turns out you can check for indoctrination with a buttered piece of toast, and then use water to kill the indoctrinated. And all we needed to do to defeat the Reapers is show them that we belief in our beliefs as much as they believe in their beliefs.BloatedGuppy said:
I don't hate the ending because of the themes it included, I hate it because of the ones it left out.
Besides, execution is important. I fully expected Shepard to die in most if not all possible endings because that's the nature of heroic epics, but what we got was the equivalent of a stick figure labeled "Shepard" with a bunch of red crayon squiggles coming out and "entropy" spelled with a backwards "R." That's not dramatically engaging.
Besides, execution is important. I fully expected Shepard to die in most if not all possible endings because that's the nature of heroic epics, but what we got was the equivalent of a stick figure labeled "Shepard" with a bunch of red crayon squiggles coming out and "entropy" spelled with a backwards "R." That's not dramatically engaging.
I've been an escapist-lurker for years now. Just created this account to make an arse of myself (reply to something) 
...
I'm surprised that not more replies have mentioned the tone in which OP is addressing this. While the post starts of objectively, it trails of into a subjective rant about how we've got it all wrong only backed by the introductory statement "I have a degree in literature and I minored in film studies...". To be honest, like someone else was peaking at, I think this post is just a part of his studies and asserting his superiority (subtle though he might THINK he is doing it) is good for grading.
A lot of text goes into demanding as a fact that the most commonly accepted main themes, are not the main themes. I maintain that overcoming through cooperation, not sacrifice; challenging fate, not entropy ARE the main themes, and concerning the "forgiveness", wouldn't that only apply to a paragon character? Also, I fail to see how forgiveness ties into the ending, even if it was THE main theme of the series. The ending defaults to three endings no matter how you got there ERGO forgiveness? Now this isn't about Shepard biting the dust, that doesn't bother me. It's about how it all goes down. The choices I am presented with are no way coupled to forgiveness. If you choose to believe that Shepard sacrifices herself because of guilt/forgiveness/whatever, that's your interpretation of your play-through and your Shepard, suggesting that that view is somehow more "correct" than mine when the greatest aspect of the series is to have your own Shepard is... well it's just arrogant.
What also seriously bugs me is how OP just waves of the Normandy flying away loophole? Are you just telling us that what was important to us shouldn't be because.. well because you say so? "then you really need to stop it" doesn't contribute much, and is quite frankly insulting. Considering how much time is spent with the characters and the team building, how on Earth can you be so blasé about such a jump in continuity which implies a break of the characteristics of the entire team (i.e. them just running away).
Well.. I really have opinions on this, but since this is my first post evaaaah I feel slightly uncomfortable expressing them with the vigor and bluntness I feel they deserve.
TL;DR : OP is wrong and somewhat condescending.
...I'm surprised that not more replies have mentioned the tone in which OP is addressing this. While the post starts of objectively, it trails of into a subjective rant about how we've got it all wrong only backed by the introductory statement "I have a degree in literature and I minored in film studies...". To be honest, like someone else was peaking at, I think this post is just a part of his studies and asserting his superiority (subtle though he might THINK he is doing it) is good for grading.
A lot of text goes into demanding as a fact that the most commonly accepted main themes, are not the main themes. I maintain that overcoming through cooperation, not sacrifice; challenging fate, not entropy ARE the main themes, and concerning the "forgiveness", wouldn't that only apply to a paragon character? Also, I fail to see how forgiveness ties into the ending, even if it was THE main theme of the series. The ending defaults to three endings no matter how you got there ERGO forgiveness? Now this isn't about Shepard biting the dust, that doesn't bother me. It's about how it all goes down. The choices I am presented with are no way coupled to forgiveness. If you choose to believe that Shepard sacrifices herself because of guilt/forgiveness/whatever, that's your interpretation of your play-through and your Shepard, suggesting that that view is somehow more "correct" than mine when the greatest aspect of the series is to have your own Shepard is... well it's just arrogant.
What also seriously bugs me is how OP just waves of the Normandy flying away loophole? Are you just telling us that what was important to us shouldn't be because.. well because you say so? "then you really need to stop it" doesn't contribute much, and is quite frankly insulting. Considering how much time is spent with the characters and the team building, how on Earth can you be so blasé about such a jump in continuity which implies a break of the characteristics of the entire team (i.e. them just running away).
Well.. I really have opinions on this, but since this is my first post evaaaah I feel slightly uncomfortable expressing them with the vigor and bluntness I feel they deserve.
TL;DR : OP is wrong and somewhat condescending.
I disagree with this being a plothole. The fighting on and around Palaven shows that the Reapers are not completely unstoppable and Javik references the overwhelm and surprise tactic which was used against his civilization and this is not the case during this cycle because Shepard stopped Sovereign and destroyed the relay in arrival.Revolutionaryloser said:
Also, I believe that it is stated that this is the first time the Reapers encounter a united galaxy, save for the Protheans (since they controlled most of the galaxy). But Javik notes that since they were one force, they only had one set of tactics and equipment which the Reapers quickly learnt how to deal with.
In addition to that, the Thanix cannons employed by the Normandy in ME2 are referenced at least a couple of times in the context of war assets. Considering how big an upgrade they were supposed to be, it's quite possible that an entire fleet fully equipped with these would manage to hold its own.
Actually, the in-game codex does make mention of a few fights were a careful strike by organics was able to take out reaper forces before having to retreat. With the entirety of the galaxy's fleet there, the combined firepower (if they bothered to show a shred of thought in the cut-scene, which they do not) could focus fire the reapers down. Casualties would still be extremely high, but the reaper barriers are not impervious and that many guns on a single target would make short enough work.Revolutionaryloser said:
Actually? No.Revolutionaryloser said:
1) Both Vigil and Javik make it clear that the Protheans couldn't win because their forces had been shattered by the Reapers' initial conquest of their capital (the Citadel), and that their forces were much too homogenized. Once the Reapers had defeated one splinter fleet, they knew exactly what to expect from the next. In Shepard's cycle, however, all the races in the galaxy were able to coordinate the largest and most diverse fleet in the history of the galaxy. At this point, the Reapers were the divided ones.
2) Thanix Cannons. The Thanix Cannon technology, which is basically the same as the Reapers' most powerful weaponry, has been in use since 11 months after Sovereign's defeat. There was a LOT of buzz about how the Quarians and many other races outfitted their ships with them, and they were powerful enough to take out a Collector ship in two shots. Since it is miniaturized, with no mention of decreased efficiency, even small fighter ships could be outfitted with them. Imagine how many the cruisers and dreadnoughts can carry.
3) Dozens upon dozens of Reapers were defeated by more primitive means elsewhere. They're clearly not invincible, but have simply had the upper hand because they've been fighting on their own terms. That ends with Shepard's allied fleet... assuming that it is big and well-equipped enough (see: War Assets and Galactic Readiness). What we should be seeing in that final space battle is a thousands upon thousands of Thanix Cannons basically cutting through the Reapers like hot knives through butter.
So anyone else notice that the OP made the post and then left? No replies, no defense of his stance? Kinda...odd isn't it? I think we need Travolta here.
http://oo-voodoochild-oo.deviantart.com/art/Indoctrination-293304794?q=favby%3Aseanfall%2F33587604&qo=6
(No I'm not saying we should do what's in the pic. I just thought it was funny.)
http://oo-voodoochild-oo.deviantart.com/art/Indoctrination-293304794?q=favby%3Aseanfall%2F33587604&qo=6
(No I'm not saying we should do what's in the pic. I just thought it was funny.)
thank you. this is exactly what i was thinking, not to mention how many times in the games they hint at this through the codex or through what you hear from anderson/hackett about how earth/other places are doing. not to mentionJediMB said:
when you pick up the reaper code to give to the asari commander on the citadel, it helps greatly on predicting reaper strategies/attack movements, therefore giving you a huge advantage before the ships even go to the battlefield.
honestly there are so many things in the game about how you COULD win, not to mention whats the point of building up your insane amount of war assets and bringing everyone together when all you do in the end is blow everything to hell essentially.
That was certainly the tonal impression from ME1 and ME3, but ME3 retconned that a bit. There's an entry in the codex about clever ways to kill Reapers, the Reapers are fought to a standstill in numerous areas, you're in on killing a couple of Reapers yourself, they introduce smaller Reapers, and on and on. As there's a finite number of Reapers, it does suddenly make one wonder WHY a conventional military approach is unfeasible, especially since their traditional blitz attack got foiled.Revolutionaryloser said:
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, and prefer the idea of the Reapers as being virtually unstoppable, but Bioware really took the edge off them in the third game. If the Catalyst had been a more conventional weapon instead of an echo chamber for circumlocutory ghosts, the concept of a Reaper defeat wasn't unthinkable.