The colector ship? what did you see familiar?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mass Effect 3 Spoiler Thread |OT2| Taste the Rainbow
- Thread starter Patryn
- Start date
The colector ship? what did you see familiar?
They run up to it like they do at the end of ME3. There's a beam of light, then you see the ship look like the Citadel does.
The Citadel, like the ship, is used as a processing plant, possibly.
To be honest the running part/avoiding beam part of the game was kind of fun (Shepard's stupid running pose aside). I just didn't expect how linear it'd be afterward (ie. no matter how good you are at dodging the beam, you'd still get hit by it. What a BS way to linear the path). And of course, anything post beam attack is utter BS. Shitty control while having to fight 3 husks + 1 Marauder in blurry filter, the boring convo with TIM, and of course, the shitty RGB ending.
And I love that ME2 trailer. Better than that ME3 trailer with Michael Jackson Ashley not convincingly going to battle with Shepard against a bunch of husks.
heliosRAzi
Banned
PastorOfMuppets
Banned
This is a crosspost from the other ME3 thread here. Just posting it here for you with some extra explanation.
You are in the extreme minority of people who liked that ending IMO.
I suspect that the silent majority of Mass Effect 3 fans are people who thought the ending(s) sucked and then moved on.
I guess it depends on how emotionally invested you were in the ME universe. You know how Star Wars fans go overboard with their hatred of the prequel trilogy and always scream about how Lucas raped their childhood or whatever? I never understood that until I played Mass Effect because Mass Effect was the first thing I ever experienced where I got as invested in a piece of fiction - even with all it's glaring flaws, that I felt such nerdrage after it ended like that. I know it's just a video game and I'm not going to go so far as to suggest that Casey Hudson fucked me until I loved him (Mike Tyson reference) but I kinda do understand what it's like to follow a fictional series for years only to be horribly let down like that. Mass Effect 3 was supposed to be the game that capped off my Star Wars trilogy. Instead it shat all over it and I've taken to the NeoGaf spoiler thread for solace.
Jake Tower
Banned
Stage 1: Denial
heliosRAzi
Banned
The silent majority is silent and there is a lot of them.
How's that for an assumption?
The Mass Effect 3 Spoiler Support Group will help every newcomer along the way, even if they become Indoctrinated.
It's redundant, but you don't lean yourself too far out the window at least.
heliosRAzi
Banned
Just like the Catalyst
Metroidvania
People called Romanes they go the house?
Been following new developments cause I'm bored, and came to the realization that all I want is from a pro-ender standpoint is something that explains itself as well as this anti-ender's (a lit prof, no less) post.
Click for long text rant link
If a pro-ender could explain his points on liking the ending with such passion or in-depth reasoning, I could see myself understanding their point of view. But everyone I've seen who liked the ending has just said "didn't mind it" or "don't see what the big deal is". That's not an argument, that's a dismissal.
Click for long text rant link
If a pro-ender could explain his points on liking the ending with such passion or in-depth reasoning, I could see myself understanding their point of view. But everyone I've seen who liked the ending has just said "didn't mind it" or "don't see what the big deal is". That's not an argument, that's a dismissal.
My friend is one of those. When I saw him yesterday and asked if he's played ME3, he just said "Yeah, the ending is crap". So I said "Oh, they're going to come up with new ending" and he just said "Well, I don't care. I already sold the game".
I'm guessing for most people they just sold the game and move on instead of hoping for better ending like us.
heliosRAzi
Banned
Dr. Dray dropping some ill beats
Photolysis
Banned
Well, I disagree with Destroy being worse than Control.
The problem with Destroy - namely genociding the Geth / killing EDI - is quite contrived (space magic and bad writing for you), but it's collateral damage instead of intentional.
Control, even ignoring the question of how likely it is to work (which is a very big question), amounts to slavery and domination on a grand scale.
Synthesis is presented as the best option in-game due to all the effort required to obtain the option, but should be repellent to almost everyone. I'm sure I once read someone describe it as galactic-scale rape, and I think there's something true in that.
It's also enough to worry me that Walters & Hudson seem to consider forcibly changing everyone in a galaxy without any input or choice is 'best'. Unfortunate implications of shitty writing which they didn't consider because they're hacks, or does that say something very negative about them instead?
heliosRAzi
Banned
I feel that destroy is worse than control since it flies in the face of everything a paragon shepard would do and has worked for. Yeah, a paragon Shep wouldn't choose to subjugate an entire species either, but this species is entirely hostile. With destroy, you genocide your allies
But arguing about which choice is worse is like arguing if it's better to eat corny shit or diarrhea
Photolysis
Banned
You misunderstand. In Destroy, the Geth are not targets, they are collateral damage.
In real life military scenarios, attacks are launched on targets even though there will inevitably be collateral damage from them. The difference morally between this and say ordering your men to go and shoot the civilians dead is that in the first they are not targets, they are caught in the crossfire. One is a war crime, one is not.
Also, unlike real life the game offers no option but to go along with this. You're given 3 options and told to pick your poison.
There is a massive difference between intentionally targeting somone, and collateral damage. Almost all law and ethical systems in the world take intent into account, which is why crimes such as manslaughter carry lesser punishments. Just because you take an action knowing an outcome will result from it does not make that outcome intentional.
Another example: medical triage.
A doctor has to choose between 2 patients, and picks the one with the best chance of survival, resulting in the death of the other. The choice was intentional, so clearly this makes the doctor guilty of murder, or willful neglect of his patient right? Of course not. No rational person would claim the doctor killed one of the patients, even though the choice was completely intentional and the doctor knew this would occur. It's an unintentional consequence.
R_thanatos
Member
i kinda agree with the social bioware link POST
Photolysis
Banned
Unless you can give any justification for this, ethically it's identical. It's just a question of scale.
Hah, true. It's the same great shitty taste either way.
I don't think its perfect, dont get me wrong. I think the utter butthurt over the ending is absolutely absurd though. Someone asked how invested I was -- very. After playing this, I'm completely comfortable with saying ME is my favorite series in a long time.
I'd like a few answers, mainly about the standoff with Illusive man and the interaction with the catalyst. It seems the big outcry is over the choice though. Are people simply mad because its "different colors"? Or are they mad because they thing their decisions don't matter outside of this ultimate choice? I don't really have an argument against the former, although it didn't bother me. The latter really gets me, as the final decision can exist separately from those before it. I chose to control the reaper (and become the catalyst?), but because I don't see it doesn't mean there isn't a universe there with the Geth and the Quarians getting along, the Krogan Cured of the Genophage, the Turians working along side them, etc.
Admittedly, blowing the relays painted them in a corner with all these stranded aliens, but I guess thats a story for another day.
I realize there are other things people have pointed out as plot-holes, some legitimate, some completely absurd.
All in all, I'm happy with what i got though. Everything up until the end was certainly fantastic.
Ethically, no. Among other things, there is the difference of intentionality. The crossfire example refers to an unintentional harm, while deliberately exterminating an entire sentient species is intentional.
Photolysis
Banned
Please excuse me while I go and bang my head against the wall.
You do not intentionally kill the Geth in the same way that the crossfire example does not intentionally kill civilians. In both cases you know this will occur, but they are not the target, and the intent is not to kill them. You're ascribing a fictional intent which is being dishonest and incorrect.
You don't deliberately do it, in the same way a commander is not deliberately trying to kill innocents when he orders a missile strike, knowing 10 or so will be caught in the blast. At no point does Shepard express any intent to kill the Geth to solve the problem, which would make it different ethically. The game itself even describes the death of the Geth as a side-effect of the option, rather than it being a means to an end.
RedRedSuit
Member
I wrote what I found to be a decent (certainly not all-encompassing) summary of what a lot of people don't like here: http://www.cpugamer.com/editorial/bioware-made-a-big-mistake-but-they-are-doing-the-right-thing-now, if you are curious.
Actually I can quote that part of the article:
When one brings a whole race's' existence into the equation, I find throwing the fat man in front of the train to stop it from killing the three school kids further down the tracks to not be a defensible position.
Kill Your Masters
Member
LTTP, finished the game last week. Avoided posting here while gathering thoughts, but I have probably read this complete thread by now.
Man, this ending just has left a huge emptiness inside me, I really don't know what to think about it, I feel a little from everything - anger,disappointment,confusion its all there and it wont go away. 98% of the game was just pure awesomeness (gameplay, music, atmosphere, just everything), then the last bits almost ruins all of it - including the first two games. Like a roller coaster ride where at the last turn some guy stands there and pisses in your face while slowly coming to a stop.
Don't know how this extended cut can fix this, since its just an extensions to something that feels completely alien to the series.
Can I buy a hug with spacebucks?
Man, this ending just has left a huge emptiness inside me, I really don't know what to think about it, I feel a little from everything - anger,disappointment,confusion its all there and it wont go away. 98% of the game was just pure awesomeness (gameplay, music, atmosphere, just everything), then the last bits almost ruins all of it - including the first two games. Like a roller coaster ride where at the last turn some guy stands there and pisses in your face while slowly coming to a stop.
Don't know how this extended cut can fix this, since its just an extensions to something that feels completely alien to the series.
Can I buy a hug with spacebucks?
Photolysis
Banned
False equivalence because in that variant of the trolley problem the man is being used as a means to an end. The destruction of the Geth is not and so your analogy fails completely. Please look up the Trolley Problem further as well as what actually happens in the game because this suggests you lack understanding of both.
If you're going to compare if to the Trolley Problem, it's like switching the train track. All this talk of genocide is an attempt to muddy the waters.
PinkCrayon
Member
The great thing about control is that you can kill the reapers without killing anything else. As much as I hated the ending, I did crack a little smile while thinking about all the reapers heading into the nearest sun.
Right, genocide is just muddying the waters. Sorry I used the wrong variant of the trolley problem.
Photolysis
Banned
Scale of the collateral damage in response to the threat posed by the terrorists, not only in terms of their numbers but the damage they can inflict. Such a plan would kill far more than you would save, unless you give the terrorists say a weapon capable of destroying the entire world which for the purposes of this example I'm assuming you are not granting them such a weapon.
This example also ignores many other ways of stopping the terrorists which is certainly not the case in the game.
Why the inflammatory remark? It doesn't actually motivate any fruitful discussion, you know.
Anyway, we were misunderstanding each other. I was referring to the case of crossfire in an immediate event, not a calculated, intentional act (note that I'm using intentionality as aboutness). Just to clarify what I meant earlier: Where crossfire in an immediate event (e.g. misfiring and mistakenly kill civilians) and isn't intentional (i.e. the act was not intended), the Destroy choice Shepard is given is intentional, meaning Shepard is aware of the cost and has to deliberately make a choice with that cost in mind. Therefore, I postulated that the two situations were ethically different in terms of intentionality. So in that regard we were misunderstanding each other.
Nevertheless, I would still claim that there are ethical differences between killing 10-100 people in a calculated act of war, and exterminating an entire species. The upshot of the latter is far more complex and consequential than the former, even in an utilitarian context. Too many factors play into the whole genocide consequence to make it ethically similar to casualties of war/collateral damage.
I guess I don't disagree with that as an analysis; it's fairly standard consequentialist reasoning, and I made a bad analogy. But with the Geth, you're annihilating an entire race and turning on an ally. Perhaps a better analogy (even if analogies dilute the point) is to Batangas in Front Mission 3 - using a superweapon to destroy both half of a friendly city and enemy navy likely to take over your country.
Even on a smaller scale, there's a difference between civilians getting caught in the crossfire, which implies that they ran into the field of fire during an engagement, and blowing up an ally in the process of blowing up a bigger enemy. I sure disagreed when the Quarian admiral tried to justify attacking the defenseless Geth dreadnought with Shepard and Tali still inside, for instance.
The large text quotes earlier claims that Shepard surviving ala the breath is granted via the multiplayer and ios game. Isn't this wrong? Ive played a ton of multi and it just meant i had 100% going into the end on the war asset meter. Obviously I got the achievement for having enough but there was no "Shepards alive" tease with the control option despite their seeming claim as fact.
Wouldnt it also make sense that since earth is rubble-fied that it couldnt sustain life, so thats why we see joker and crew bailing out? Wouldn't others do the same? Just because we only see the Normandy crash doesn't mean others didnt go through a relay or crash somewhere else on the planet.
I also think its sorta silly to assume that a mass relay going out via the crucible automatically has to blow up like others have and take out a system. Isnt the crucible of a design of countless cycles? The Protheans alone were way more advanced, is it that hard to surmise they thought of a solution?
All in all, I just can't help at laugh at the irony of people simultaneously bitching that these gameplay choices didn't make their Shepard unique while unable to rub a couple brain cells together and spark a bit of imagination that would truly make your Shepard your own creation of a singular design.
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to convice anyone else I'm right or they can't question the ending; theres certainly room for more info.
Wouldnt it also make sense that since earth is rubble-fied that it couldnt sustain life, so thats why we see joker and crew bailing out? Wouldn't others do the same? Just because we only see the Normandy crash doesn't mean others didnt go through a relay or crash somewhere else on the planet.
I also think its sorta silly to assume that a mass relay going out via the crucible automatically has to blow up like others have and take out a system. Isnt the crucible of a design of countless cycles? The Protheans alone were way more advanced, is it that hard to surmise they thought of a solution?
All in all, I just can't help at laugh at the irony of people simultaneously bitching that these gameplay choices didn't make their Shepard unique while unable to rub a couple brain cells together and spark a bit of imagination that would truly make your Shepard your own creation of a singular design.
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to convice anyone else I'm right or they can't question the ending; theres certainly room for more info.
Only happens with the destruction ending.
Sure sounds like you're calling people stupid though.
You're starting the stages of grief.
Hugs DLC is $14.99.
The breath clip is only available with the destroy ending.
For the rest of your post: I DON'T WANT YOU FAN FICTION!
You're just telling us to extrapolate. The problem isn't that we can't do that. The problem is that we're introduced to a ridiculous amount of crazy, though the game is not supposed to be Lost.
Also, the Protheans and any other groups that had aggregated to the Crucible didn't know what it did. How would anyone prevent the thing from blowing up mass relays if they didn't even know it had anything to do with them?
Finally, you're being dickish.
How...am I being dickish? Having a dissenting opinion? I clearly wrote I'm not trying to convert anyone to my point of view. Someone asked me to explain why I liked the ending, so I did. I see I'm not welcome here after all.
As for the rest of your post, we'll have to simply disagree. If internal thought and imagination is fan fiction now then I guess I've truly lost touch.
As for the rest of your post, we'll have to simply disagree. If internal thought and imagination is fan fiction now then I guess I've truly lost touch.
heliosRAzi
Banned
This only happens in the destruction ending if you have high enough EMS.
No, it wouldn't make sense at all. Joker is not a coward. What he did was a cowardly act. It's out of character for him. There was no reason for him to do any of that.
I've said this many times but when you establish rules in your universe, you must adhere to those rules. We are shown what would happen if a relay is destroyed; an entire star system is destroyed. The Arrival shows this and the Codex supplements that. When the relays blow up in the end, we must assume that the same thing happens because we are going off of the rules Bioware established for this series. People can say that the relays were a "controlled" demolition and were safely destroyed, but we are not given any information that supports that. Patrick Weekes has come out and said that that is what actually happens, but I think that if they wanted to have the relays be useless, they would have simply said that the relays were deactivated in-game, because those relays are shown to be explicitly blowing the fuck up.
And keep in mind that the only information Shepard is given is that the relays would be destroyed. Given what she knows, she would not have chosen any ending because from her point of view, those relays would destroy every system they reside in.
Calling us stupid isn't going to help.
Additionally, there are more reasons why people hate the ending. It also doesn't have closure and the Reaper's motivations are pretty dumb.
Finally finished it. Ultimately, a really unsatisfying conclusion to a series I initially loved and invested so many hours into.
Besides the horrible endings, my main problem with this game was the dialogue and character interactions. It's hard to get invested in something when the writing is so poor. To repost my earlier thoughts from the other thread:
Bioware really needs to hire some better writers.
Final thoughts:
+Combat as a Sentinel was really fun
+Nice visuals
+Soundtrack was more synthy like ME1
-Lack of dialogue options ("up for good, down for bad")
-Character interactions and dialogue fell flat due to poor/generic writing
-Romance scenes still super awkward
-Only getting to see a tiny picture of Tali without her mask on (ugh)
-Sidequests system
-Ending "choices"
Probably a bunch more but I don't want to think about this game any more right now with Trials out.
Besides the horrible endings, my main problem with this game was the dialogue and character interactions. It's hard to get invested in something when the writing is so poor. To repost my earlier thoughts from the other thread:
Bioware really needs to hire some better writers.
Final thoughts:
+Combat as a Sentinel was really fun
+Nice visuals
+Soundtrack was more synthy like ME1
-Lack of dialogue options ("up for good, down for bad")
-Character interactions and dialogue fell flat due to poor/generic writing
-Romance scenes still super awkward
-Only getting to see a tiny picture of Tali without her mask on (ugh)
-Sidequests system
-Ending "choices"
Probably a bunch more but I don't want to think about this game any more right now with Trials out.
I called no one stupid. Not surmising info (whether we agree if its implied or not) does not equate to stupidity. Let's not get too defensive. I also previous said the ending isn't perfect, sure. But neither are many other series endings out there. You asked why I liked it, I explained. Apologies.
heliosRAzi
Banned
Come on, when you say that we can't rub two brain cells together implies that we are being dumb.
But that's just getting us distracted from the main arguments.
There were some nice scenes in the game, but those were only related to the main fan-fave characters in the game. Namely Liara and Garrus. Everyone else was almost sidelined, and the info that you get from all the characters is basically: "Well, there's a war going on, so I'm busy, we'll talk later. Oh we're at the Citadel? Let me tell you something about me, I guess."
I did like some of the interactions, but it didn't fulfill me at all.
You basically called people idiots for not being able to use their brains to create reasons why some of the things happen, in other words use their imaginations.
However, people have been using their brains to assert why the ending is disappointing and/or bad and why there are so many issues with it. You can read the post from the supposed professor if you'd like to see an example of that.
Ultimately, you (and everyone else) have your own opinion as to what happens (such as why the Normandy leaves). But opinions can't be given as fact, which is why I reiterated the fan fiction line.
So don't worry, you're not lost, it's just that I personally don't want to be told to imagine the possibilities when all I see are inconsistencies and idiocies.
Again, sorry. I don't think anyone here is dumb. Stubborn maybe
. But i can still love you guys for that!heliosRAzi
Banned
And we shouldn't have to think up something to fill in the plot holes or come up with something that makes the ending consistent.
RedRedSuit
Member
vvv--- It is my large quote to which you refer.
Yes, it only shows up if you do the MP/iOS stuff and choose the Red ending. I didn't find it necessary to specify that. It is fact: citadel blows up -- Shepard survives somehow.
The question was more about how Joker would be able to get your squad mate, who was just with you near the beam in the thick of everything, out of there. One can come up with explanations, but it should be shown. Otherwise there is a weird disconnect and a feeling of emptiness.
Also, in the "best" endings Earth does not appear rubbl'ified. It's war-torn, but that's all. In the endings with lower war assets, Earth is actually devastated/vaporized, but not in the "best" endings.
You can explain away anything like that. The games have explained to us that destroy relay = supernova. The kid then says "will destroy the relays." It is a plot hole. In the quote you quoted I fairly clearly say that I *assumed* that they didn't all go supernova, as that would be absurdly bleak. That's what makes it a plot hole; when I'm forced to come away with a conclusion that is contradictory to the canon that has been set up.
This makes no sense. It is a game -- an interactive experience. I can come up with lots of fan fiction on any number of topics. That does not mean those endings are good or reflect choices. They're vague and poorly written and a 180 over the entirety of the rest of the series. They offer no actual choice, a left-field explanation with no room for follow-up, and a host of plot holes. Worst of all, they tell instead of showing, which is lame.
Yes, it only shows up if you do the MP/iOS stuff and choose the Red ending. I didn't find it necessary to specify that. It is fact: citadel blows up -- Shepard survives somehow.
The question was more about how Joker would be able to get your squad mate, who was just with you near the beam in the thick of everything, out of there. One can come up with explanations, but it should be shown. Otherwise there is a weird disconnect and a feeling of emptiness.
Also, in the "best" endings Earth does not appear rubbl'ified. It's war-torn, but that's all. In the endings with lower war assets, Earth is actually devastated/vaporized, but not in the "best" endings.
You can explain away anything like that. The games have explained to us that destroy relay = supernova. The kid then says "will destroy the relays." It is a plot hole. In the quote you quoted I fairly clearly say that I *assumed* that they didn't all go supernova, as that would be absurdly bleak. That's what makes it a plot hole; when I'm forced to come away with a conclusion that is contradictory to the canon that has been set up.
This makes no sense. It is a game -- an interactive experience. I can come up with lots of fan fiction on any number of topics. That does not mean those endings are good or reflect choices. They're vague and poorly written and a 180 over the entirety of the rest of the series. They offer no actual choice, a left-field explanation with no room for follow-up, and a host of plot holes. Worst of all, they tell instead of showing, which is lame.
FutureZombie
Banned
Why do all the Reapers look the same when they are supposed to be made out of different alien species? Why didn't we see anything that looked like the human reaper in action?
RedRedSuit
Member
The core looks like that, I guess, while the shell is grown around the core.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
supposedly, the ending of ME2 would have demonstrated more of the reaper construct, with the human-type core and a 'reaper' shell around it. But then it was cut, and the ending was confusing as a result (imo).
(thematically however, the original intent would have made more sense, since it is basically a direct link to how the Alien (movie) forms from parasite to adult. With Alien and the reapers sharing characteristics - force of nature, parasite, unknowable, virtually indestructable- that would have worked for me. But time and money...)
still, the three second shot of the reapers at the galaxy's edge show different forms between Harbinger and other reapers, so the shells probably were supposed to differ from one another as well.