"the story was never about..."

#218bitPunkPosted 2/6/2013 11:15:34 AM
LilyxLightning posted...

So it won, but it actually didn't, because BioWare made an Ending for Dummies so that the delusional trolls lying about the ending would shut up.

Unfortunately, given that idiot trolls like you didn't bother acknowledging anything in the original ending, it wasn't likely at all that idiot trolls would acknowledge anything in the Extended Cut.


Are you here to hurl insults or have meaningful discussion?
---
Xbox 360 GT: o 8bitPunk o
#22edgecrusher02(Topic Creator)Posted 2/6/2013 11:23:30 AM
im not saying differences of opinion in terms of "higher ups" didnt cause things to be changed. i am aware of all that stuff as i have read it.

personally im glad the AI in the series ended up being the way it was because it makes for a more interesting story and characters. how else were they supposed to make it so that atleast some people would come to like the geth or see them as more than just simple machines?

as for the dark energy thing, its irrelevant simply because the use of it in ME2 was so vague. unless it was also mentioned in ME3 in a way that seemed important and then never used, it doesnt mean anything.

the ending leak thing is always so crazy to me. i just dont get how so many people jumped to the conclusion that something they know so little about that never left the drawing board would be better. the dark energy thing was a leaked idea but not the thing that was set in stone yet. the actual leaked ending close to the games release was very close to what we have now. honestly i think the dark energy thing would have ended in a similar ending choice. its hard to tell exactly what really went down with all that so i feel like saying something is better is pointless considering what little info we really have.
---
religion is flawed because man is flawed
#23Drizzy_DrizakePosted 2/6/2013 11:23:51 AM
From what I've seen she is a big troll when it comes to any discussion about the ending. I never had an issue with why the Reapers do what they do. Like I said the reasoning all makes sense. The problem was how it was all delivered to you, the unanswered questions, the ABC endings etc. Of course now with Leviathan and EC it's really not too much of an issue anymore. I can actually watch the ending without it leaving a sour taste in my mouth at least. I would still like it if the crucible could get some more explanation though like how those options were built into it.
---
I guess I prefer spasms about my voice to spasms about my ass - Karu
#24edgecrusher02(Topic Creator)Posted 2/6/2013 11:25:52 AM
8bitPunk posted...
edgecrusher02 posted...


it may have invalidated our choices,


This was my main source of frustration.

Had the final battle included charging Krogan (I cured the Genophage), Geth Snipers (I sided with them over the Quarians), etc, etc, I would have been much more forgiving of the original ending.

Endings should FEEL good, like everything is resolved. Questions may still remain, but viewers/players should be given enough to think about without throwing everything out the window in the final act of the series.

Example: Why Saren?? The Star Child was in control of the Citadel, why rely on someone else to activate anything anywhere?


well on this we can agree. priority earth should have been an epic battle that reflected who we got to join the fight both character and full allied species wise and there should have been consequences based on that and how they were used. after all the DLC we got, that is my one main thing that i still want. if they want to appease fans and gain back some credibility they could easily do this and have it all take place before the conduit so the ending itself isnt changed.
---
religion is flawed because man is flawed
#25edgecrusher02(Topic Creator)Posted 2/6/2013 11:32:06 AM
Drizzy_Drizake posted...
From what I've seen she is a big troll when it comes to any discussion about the ending. I never had an issue with why the Reapers do what they do. Like I said the reasoning all makes sense. The problem was how it was all delivered to you, the unanswered questions, the ABC endings etc. Of course now with Leviathan and EC it's really not too much of an issue anymore. I can actually watch the ending without it leaving a sour taste in my mouth at least. I would still like it if the crucible could get some more explanation though like how those options were built into it.


the crucible is that one thing that if explained, could change a lot. its origins alone could mean a lot. as for how they options were built into it, i always wished they did it like this:

the alliance built it so they made it in a way that destroy was possible since that was their original goal. TIM wanted to control the reapers so his experimentation with indoctrination was implemented with the crucible to make control an option. i mean he was already on the citadel at the end, he could have done something then. and based on what the leviathan said it seems the catalyst was running the galaxy like an experiment until something like synthesis became possible so alters the crucible to make that happen.
---
religion is flawed because man is flawed
#26Wii0playerPosted 2/6/2013 12:21:17 PM
edgecrusher02 posted...
"organics vs synthetics" or "a technological singularity"... why do people say that. like they knew anything about the reapers going into the third game. the reapers are about control and we knew next to nothing about them going into the third game. in the end it could have been anything from they are evil "just because" to they are controlled by a magical unicorn that flies around the galaxy on rainbows. we knew that little about what we were fighting. considering the enemies are and always have been machines, what we got seems extremely plausible to me. the enemy being machines dictates a lot about how this came to be without it having to be told because machines get created with a purpose, by someone. im not sure why it was so surprising to so many people.


Because the series was about overcoming impossible odds, and the characters. True ME1 came in and introduced this conflict between orgnaics and synthetics, but it wasn't the main theme of the story, if anything it was a subplot. In ME1 do you recall anybody besides the Tali and the AI on the Citadel going into detail about how synthetics will always rise against organics? No, because it was a subplot.

ME2 goes into this subplot in more detail, restricts it to only the Geth vs Quarians, and shows that the conflict isn't just organic vs synthetic as the Geth are willing to find peace...even some Quarians want peace. However we can all agree that ME2 was surely not focused on organic vs synthetic, it was about gathering a crew to complete the suicide mission a.k.a overcoming impossible odds.

ME3 comes along and finally wraps this subplot up with the conclusion of Rannoch...yet for some reason the ending comes along and says the main theme isn't overcoming impossible odds, it's about organics vs synthetics...
---
"In Mass Effect 3, the path to victory is less clear at the outset. You wont just find some long-lost Reaper off button."-Casey ******* Hudson.
#27edgecrusher02(Topic Creator)Posted 2/6/2013 12:29:54 PM
Wii0player posted...
edgecrusher02 posted...
"organics vs synthetics" or "a technological singularity"... why do people say that. like they knew anything about the reapers going into the third game. the reapers are about control and we knew next to nothing about them going into the third game. in the end it could have been anything from they are evil "just because" to they are controlled by a magical unicorn that flies around the galaxy on rainbows. we knew that little about what we were fighting. considering the enemies are and always have been machines, what we got seems extremely plausible to me. the enemy being machines dictates a lot about how this came to be without it having to be told because machines get created with a purpose, by someone. im not sure why it was so surprising to so many people.


Because the series was about overcoming impossible odds, and the characters. True ME1 came in and introduced this conflict between orgnaics and synthetics, but it wasn't the main theme of the story, if anything it was a subplot. In ME1 do you recall anybody besides the Tali and the AI on the Citadel going into detail about how synthetics will always rise against organics? No, because it was a subplot.

ME2 goes into this subplot in more detail, restricts it to only the Geth vs Quarians, and shows that the conflict isn't just organic vs synthetic as the Geth are willing to find peace...even some Quarians want peace. However we can all agree that ME2 was surely not focused on organic vs synthetic, it was about gathering a crew to complete the suicide mission a.k.a overcoming impossible odds.

ME3 comes along and finally wraps this subplot up with the conclusion of Rannoch...yet for some reason the ending comes along and says the main theme isn't overcoming impossible odds, it's about organics vs synthetics...


i never understand why so many people say the "impossible odds" thing. i get that it seems to be a reoccurring theme in a way, but its acknowledging that its impossible, yet somehow still expecting to overcome them, lol. either way, when you look at the actual story and whats happened, ME1 took all we had to stop ONE reaper, ME2 had us not fighting any actual reapers. both games were only delays of the reapers full force. the reapers were established in ME1(vigil conversation) as WAY more advanced than us. they are hundred million year advanced technology, each cycle only advances 50K years. we are a caveman throwing a spear at a tank in comparison. in sheer terms of plausibility and common sense, needing something else to stop them is necessary.

EVERYTHING was a subplot considering how little we knew about the reapers. i just feel like so many people wanted to use "hope" to defeat the reapers... yet the crucible is "space magic?" i feel like it was spelled out from the beginning that this wasnt going to be a normal kind of victory yet somehow so many people missed it.
---
religion is flawed because man is flawed
#28The_404sPosted 2/6/2013 12:35:05 PM(edited)
But it was about Organics vs. Synthetics, since the very beginning.

The Geth vs. The humans
The humans vs. The Collectors (made synthetic by the Reapers)
And ultimately the entire galaxy vs. The Reapers.

I'll give you that the singularity nonsense was pulled out of a hat, but Organics vs. Synthetics has always been an indirect theme.
#29edgecrusher02(Topic Creator)Posted 2/6/2013 12:40:40 PM
The_404s posted...
But it was about Organics vs. Synthetics, since the very beginning.

The Geth vs. The humans
The humans vs. The Collectors (made synthetic by the Reapers)
And ultimate the entire galaxy vs. The Reapers.

I'll give you that the singularity nonsense was pulled out of a hat, but Organics vs. Synthetics has always been an indirect theme.


honestly, i think organics vs synthetics is just the result of a technological singularity. it seems to me that the advancement of technology and the very evolution of life hinges at the point of the creation of artificial intelligence. it seems to be an impasse, as of now at least. im inclined to believe that the conflicts that arise between organics and their synthetic creations has resulted in something that prevents technology and evolution from surpassing the creation of artificial intelligence. i mean why else would i, at the end of the game, be standing in front of and talking to an artificial intelligence that is in control of the galaxy and has been for who knows how long because of that very reason. the very act of creating artificial intelligence is creating the issue. especially considering the circumstances in which it is always created. i feel like at the end with catalyst, denying that is standing directly in front of the problem yet somehow not seeing it.
---
religion is flawed because man is flawed
#30Wii0playerPosted 2/6/2013 12:51:36 PM
edgecrusher02 posted...

i never understand why so many people say the "impossible odds" thing. i get that it seems to be a reoccurring theme in a way, but its acknowledging that its impossible, yet somehow still expecting to overcome them, lol. either way, when you look at the actual story and whats happened, ME1 took all we had to stop ONE reaper, ME2 had us not fighting any actual reapers. both games were only delays of the reapers full force. the reapers were established in ME1(vigil conversation) as WAY more advanced than us. they are hundred million year advanced technology, each cycle only advances 50K years. we are a caveman throwing a spear at a tank in comparison. in sheer terms of plausibility and common sense, needing something else to stop them is necessary.

EVERYTHING was a subplot considering how little we knew about the reapers. i just feel like so many people wanted to use "hope" to defeat the reapers... yet the crucible is "space magic?" i feel like it was spelled out from the beginning that this wasnt going to be a normal kind of victory yet somehow so many people missed it.


If you want to get technical it's about overcoming seemingly impossible odds. Yes except the way Bioware went about presenting the Crucible, the crucible could've been freaking anything, it could've made a conventional victory possible, or it could be an instant win button. Of course it was the latter.

No, everything was not a subplot. The two most important aspects of Mass Effect were overcoming seemingly impossible odds, and character focus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs

Because I don't really have time to go into detail, that video has a very good explanation of what Mass Effect is all about.
---
"In Mass Effect 3, the path to victory is less clear at the outset. You wont just find some long-lost Reaper off button."-Casey ******* Hudson.