Ordinaryundone: If they were really smart, why didn't Sovereign just go "BEEP BOOP I AM A SILLY VI" instead of spilling the beans about the whole Reaper invasion? Trickery just isn't their style.
The Reapers routinely indoctrinate in order to infiltrate and deceive. Legion also starts lying to you after he takes on the Reaper code.
If anything, there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that not only do the Reapers lie, but that trickery and deception is integral to their nature.
[ironic question] So what you and pure.wasted are saying is, not only is there a precedent for synthetics to lie,
but EVERY kind of true AI ever seen in the game lies at some point to benefit its interests?
Ordinaryundone: If they were really smart, why didn't Sovereign just go "BEEP BOOP I AM A SILLY VI" instead of spilling the beans about the whole Reaper invasion? Trickery just isn't their style.
The Reapers routinely indoctrinate in order to infiltrate and deceive. Legion also starts lying to you after he takes on the Reaper code.
If anything, there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that not only do the Reapers lie, but that trickery and deception is integral to their nature.
Indoctrination isn't trickery, it's mental domination. It's subtle, yes, but the Reapers don't have to lie and sweet talk you to indoctrinate you. It just happens. And there is no documented case of a Reaper bold face lying. Legion's lies were lies of omission, done to keep Shepard from jumping to conclusions and giving the Geth up for lost. If anything, they are implications of Legion growing into true sentience, not of him being a Reaper.
You know what? I'm going to cut off the argument of semantics right now. I enjoyed the ending. I'm glad I bought the game, it was worth every penny, and I feel it was a fine conclusion to the series. I have my own opinions on the ending, and on the nature of the reapers, and if you don't agree that's all well and good. Enjoy being unhappy with the ending if you want.
Ordinaryundone: Their whole experience, as far as we know, has been "Get rid of Organics every so often".
Bull shit. My apologies for bluntness
I'm sorry, but don't you remember what reapers are? No experience with organics??
They're MADE of organics. Living essence is pumped into their hearts and minds from their birth to adulthood. They are what you get when you throw an entire civilization into a blender, and you don't think they're sufficiently like organics to lie?!
Then, there's the whole genetic engineering thing. They physically dissect brains on a regular basis during a cycle's end times.
Not only that, even if they were purely synthetic (they're not), remember indoctrination. That doesn't happen by space magic, despite what the star child would want you to believe. It's done through sonic frequencies, energy pulses, and other sciency-things to intentionally and purposefully undermine the organic mind. It's not done by accident. It may be orchestrated to happen passively, yes, but it is at least premeditated; you hear whispers of the reapers when being indoctrinated.
If they know enough about not only organic brain chemistry, but also thought patterns to manipulate them into killing their friends without remorse, surely they have more knowledge of organic thinking than EDI, who couldn't fool a simple human ship engineer into thinking she was a VI.
Ordinaryundone: 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.
If somebody's holding a gun to my face (as Shepard is by being in the Reaper-destructo chamber), it doesn't matter how I see myself. I am going to tell him that I am a widower who is taking care of five children, have two parents who need my financial and emotional support for their daily survival, and send half of my every paycheck to a community in Africa.
You better believe I'm going to say whatever it takes to keep myself alive. And you better believe synthetics are just as fond of living - EDI's speech on Earth proves that plain as day.
You are right about EDI, but EDI is a special case due to her experiences with organics, Joker, and Shepard. The Reapers do not have this experience. Their whole experience, as far as we know, has been "Get rid of Organics every so often".
As far as we know. That's the problem. We don't know. What we do know is that their claim that "synthetics will always strive to kill organics," while possibly correct has ZERO evidence backing it up. Because we haven't been to the future, we don't know what the next synthetics will do, in what way they will be different. The Shepard who believes Star Child assumes they won't be different, but why? We have no reason to believe this, either. Quarians and Geth, EDI demonstrate potential to change. If they can change temporarily, why not permanently? No justifications are given.
Hmmm... would someone with an emotionally manipulative appearance lie to you?
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.
I don't assume he's lying. That would presuppose that he is a coherent character who stands for coherent beliefs. And I don't believe any such thing. He's a Diabolus Ex Machina plain and simple, he's there to provide a bit of exposition and screw Shepard over for the sake of screwing Shepard over at the last second.
Ordinaryundone: Indoctrination isn't trickery, it's mental domination. It's subtle, yes, but the Reapers don't have to lie and sweet talk you to indoctrinate you. It just happens. And there is no documented case of a Reaper bold face lying. Legion's lies were lies of omission, done to keep Shepard from jumping to conclusions and giving the Geth up for lost. If anything, they are implications of Legion growing into true sentience, not of him being a Reaper.
They use indoctrinated agents to spy, mislead, and undermine resistance. If that isn't lying, I don't know what your concept of lying is. As for Legion, he as much as admits he's lying, and seems as surprised about it as you are. The fact he starts lying by omission after being introduced to Reaper code doesn't bode well for "trickery not being in their nature". It's completely in their nature.
Realistically though, I don't really understand why anyone pro-ending would argue for a legit Catalyst. Ghostly beings info-dumping clunky exposition at the climax of the piece is not a hallmark of good writing. Unreliable narrators, on the other hand, have been used to great effect numerous times. The Reapers lying to Shepard to mislead/incapacitate him/her at the pivotal moment is both interesting and entirely in keeping with their established character.
Look at it from Shepard's perspective, if you will. You've spent several years fighting against this monolithic threat from beyond the galaxy. A threat determined to wipe out organic life for reasons you scarcely comprehend. You've seen them slaughter hundreds and thousands of innocents without remorse. You've seen them corrupt and indoctrinate those who tried to resist them. You've seem them excrete bizarre and ghastly bio-mechanical monstrosities to terrorize and subdue opposition. So at the titular moment...the moment when you believe victory over them may finally be at hand, a ghostly child (a child you've been dreaming about, making it both an overt manipulation and stunning evidence that they're poking around in your mind) appears and announces it is the de-facto commander of the Reaper forces. It jabbers out a few lines of fatalistic exposition, and invites you to pull some levers/jump into some lights. And if you do, everything will work out exactly as it says. Honest injun! Would it lie? Its army of terrifying interstellar leviathans is only actively engaged in butchering your species as you speak.
So you're Shepard. What's your reaction to this?
1) Question whether the Catalyst might be lying. 2) Assume the Catalyst HAS NO REASON TO LIE and immediately set about doing what it suggests.
Ordinaryundone: You know what? I'm going to cut off the argument of semantics right now. I enjoyed the ending. I'm glad I bought the game, it was worth every penny, and I feel it was a fine conclusion to the series. I have my own opinions on the ending, and on the nature of the reapers, and if you don't agree that's all well and good. Enjoy being unhappy with the ending if you want.
I would have loved nothing more than to hail ME3 as my favourite game of all time. I really would have.
Unfortunately, having a taste palette that discerns between quality writing and nonsensical gibberish got in the way.
Why you imagine this brings me joy and happiness is anybody's guess.
I believe the Star Child because he's a several hundred thousand year old AI with no reason to lie to you.
he has every reason to lie to you, his solution the reapers are on the verge of being defeated possibly by a diverse yet united force of multiple cultures and peoples or by the crucible. he has been doing this for millions of years and now you have or are about to undue him.
maybe he offers synthesis as a way of recreating reapers small scale, maybe he wants you to make a choice between these bad choices so you fuck up the galaxy as his last spiteful act
On another hand, if he is so old and wise why would he not listen to evidence that his preconceived notion that synthetics will destroy all organics is wrong...and as organics exist he cannot be proven right.
and why does he have to be right? why would synthetic life be anymore pron to genocide than organics? HE is the best example of what he is allegedly trying to stop/prevent.
what if all those years ago he went rogue from his creators and destroyed them and the true reason for the cycle is to destroy advanced organic life before it can destroy him and thus the choices he gives you are the last acts of a terrified intelligence that does not want to be undone
Then of course there's the irritating fact that despite all his preaching about how terrible synthetics are and how they need to be destroyed, he appears to be purely synthetic himself, being a giant metal space starfish and all.
HIS creators don't seem to be around any more. So much for the desire for welfare of the galaxy. He's part of the goddamn problem, and that's only assuming everything he says is true.
what if all those years ago he went rogue from his creators and destroyed them and the true reason for the cycle is to destroy advanced organic life before it can destroy him and thus the choices he gives you are the last acts of a terrified intelligence that does not want to be undone
Precisely. His very existence suggests he killed his makers and therefor would destroy ANYTHING that threatened him, regardless of their nature or actual intent. The little shit.
Ordinaryundone: You know what? I'm going to cut off the argument of semantics right now. I enjoyed the ending. I'm glad I bought the game, it was worth every penny, and I feel it was a fine conclusion to the series. I have my own opinions on the ending, and on the nature of the reapers, and if you don't agree that's all well and good. Enjoy being unhappy with the ending if you want.
I would have loved nothing more than to hail ME3 as my favourite game of all time. I really would have.
Unfortunately, having a taste palette that discerns between quality writing and nonsensical gibberish got in the way.
Why you imagine this brings me joy and happiness is anybody's guess.
As yes, thinly veiled insults. Lovely. Glad to see the internet bringing people together once again.
Ordinaryundone: You know what? I'm going to cut off the argument of semantics right now. I enjoyed the ending. I'm glad I bought the game, it was worth every penny, and I feel it was a fine conclusion to the series. I have my own opinions on the ending, and on the nature of the reapers, and if you don't agree that's all well and good. Enjoy being unhappy with the ending if you want.
I would have loved nothing more than to hail ME3 as my favourite game of all time. I really would have.
Unfortunately, having a taste palette that discerns between quality writing and nonsensical gibberish got in the way.
Why you imagine this brings me joy and happiness is anybody's guess.
As yes, thinly veiled insults. Lovely. Glad to see the internet bringing people together once again.
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."
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.
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.
pure.Wasted: He's a Diabolus Ex Machina plain and simple, he's there to provide a bit of exposition and screw Shepard over for the sake of screwing Shepard over at the last second.
And to force an arbitrary and blatantly tacked on choice.
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 do? I didn't see that in the rules. I'm pretty sure I can very well say "You're wrong." and leave it.
It's a key principle of civilized debate. Points and counterpoints require support. That is what prevents the argument from devolving into an endless repetition of "is not" "is so". Similarly, it's considered a debate faux pas to declare yourself the winner/right (And by correlation, declaring your opponent to be the loser/wrong). If your argument is sound, it should speak for itself without such a declaration.
EDIT: Went back to post 12. I stopped the second I read "you don't need to know the Reaper's motivations." Yeah, that's just wrong. Not an opinion. It's wrong. Any villain burning down the entire universe every set amount of millenniums clearly has a motivation. The player needed to hear it. It's dumb to suggest anything else. A dumb element makes me not want to read, so I don't. Case closed.
Considering that I explained the statement after that line, you might have wanted to read a bit further. The use of the inexplicable or unrelatable is far from an unusual, especially in those things meant to evoke fear. The very concept was a major source of inspiration for Lovecraft's work, from which the Reapers draw some inspiration and homage. The unknown is terrifying to us, which is why it works so well with horrific characters.
DigitalAtlas: I'm quite touched you want my approval so much.
At the risk of seeming snide, don't flatter yourself. Poor debate form is a pet peeve of mine and I get annoyed at people failing to elaborate on their positions.
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.
I'm not quite sure if you realize this or not, but you come off as extraordinarily condescending in most of your posts in this thread.
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.
Savagezion: So the post that supports your love of the end is fucking smart and the others aren't?
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.)
Also, who said I loved the ending? Who even said I played the game?
If Shepard wanted to quickly get to the Citadel, why not just high-tail it to Ilos and use the conduit again? Instant teleportation to the Presidium, without needing to fight.
... or did moving the Citadel to Earth somehow render the Ilos conduit unusable?
DigitalAtlas: I mean, G-Man did it in both Half-Life and Half-Life 2, the Anti-Spiral appeared out of nowhere at the end of Gurren Lagann as an omnipotent and rebellious presence as opposed to the giant fighting force we were led to believe the Anti-Spirals were, the end of Deus Ex comes to mind, and even the Moon Children at the end of Majora's Mask.
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.
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.
You're a fucking idiot and an asshole. You ask why people treat ME3's ending differently than HL or MM. We tell you why it was a steaming load, and why the other two aren't. Then you tell us that we are ignorant and wrong or that whatever we say doesn't matter because we aren't the writers. WHY EVEN ASK US ABOUT IT IF YOU'RE JUST GOING TO IGNORE EVERYTHING WE SAY?! You are a cesspool of ignorance and I wish for you to leave existence.
You're a fucking idiot and an asshole. You ask why people treat ME3's ending differently than HL or MM. We tell you why it was a steaming load, and why the other two aren't. Then you tell us that we are ignorant and wrong or that whatever we say doesn't matter because we aren't the writers. WHY EVEN ASK US ABOUT IT IF YOU'RE JUST GOING TO IGNORE EVERYTHING WE SAY?! You are a cesspool of ignorance and I wish for you to leave existence.
Thing of it is... Other people responded without opinions. They used citations and facts....
Nicolairigel: 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.
No, he literally says "organics and synthetics will always fight."
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.
You're a fucking idiot and an asshole. You ask why people treat ME3's ending differently than HL or MM. We tell you why it was a steaming load, and why the other two aren't. Then you tell us that we are ignorant and wrong or that whatever we say doesn't matter because we aren't the writers. WHY EVEN ASK US ABOUT IT IF YOU'RE JUST GOING TO IGNORE EVERYTHING WE SAY?! You are a cesspool of ignorance and I wish for you to leave existence.
Thing of it is... Other people responded without opinions. They used citations and facts....
#Reported.
Also, hi clearly alternate account.
The people also using citations and facts were the people you didn't agree with which you dismissed out of hand.
TopazFusion: Why did the whole London fight even take place?
If Shepard wanted to quickly get to the Citadel, why not just high-tail it to Ilos and use the conduit again? Instant teleportation to the Presidium, without needing to fight.
... or did moving the Citadel to Earth somehow render the Ilos conduit unusable?
The Ilos conduit burned out after Shepard used it, I remember Liara mentioning it at one point.
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.
You're a fucking idiot and an asshole. You ask why people treat ME3's ending differently than HL or MM. We tell you why it was a steaming load, and why the other two aren't. Then you tell us that we are ignorant and wrong or that whatever we say doesn't matter because we aren't the writers. WHY EVEN ASK US ABOUT IT IF YOU'RE JUST GOING TO IGNORE EVERYTHING WE SAY?! You are a cesspool of ignorance and I wish for you to leave existence.
Thing of it is... Other people responded without opinions. They used citations and facts....
#Reported.
Also, hi clearly alternate account.
The people also using citations and facts were the people you didn't agree with which you dismissed out of hand.
Lemme explain the process real quick for ya:
>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.
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.
Savagezion: So the post that supports your love of the end is fucking smart and the others aren't?
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.)
Also, who said I loved the ending? Who even said I played the game?
Okay, first you say you want only facts, not opinions, then you state an opinion that you prefer the ending. Really? 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.
>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?
You previously stated that you didn't read every post. In fact just now you said you didn't read every post. 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.
>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?
You previously stated that you didn't read every post. In fact just now you said you didn't read every post. 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.
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.
HemalJB: 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.
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.
Savagezion: So the post that supports your love of the end is fucking smart and the others aren't?
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.)
Also, who said I loved the ending? Who even said I played the game?
Okay, first you say you want only facts, not opinions, then you state an opinion that you prefer the ending. Really? 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.
>Saying I thought the ending was fitting.
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.
HemalJB: 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.
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.
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.)
Also, who said I loved the ending? Who even said I played the game?
Okay, first you say you want only facts, not opinions, then you state an opinion that you prefer the ending. Really? 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.
>Saying I thought the ending was fitting.
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.
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?
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?"
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.
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.
[ironic question]
So what you and pure.wasted are saying is, not only is there a precedent for synthetics to lie,
but EVERY kind of true AI ever seen in the game lies at some point to benefit its interests?
How whacky.
[/ironic question].